[postingawayonhn]

The US isn't interested in picking sides. Historically it has tried to be friendly with both (though that hasn't always been easy).

[kumarvvr]

> Historically it has tried to be friendly with both

By funding a known miliary dictator (Pervez Musharraf), for decades, helping strengthen the military rule in Pakistan.

So much for "spreading democracy"

[hackandthink]

"However, Pakistan was a valuable diplomatic partner, and its government helped the United States achieve a rapprochement with the People’s Republic of China in the early 1970s."

"U.S. prestige was damaged in both nations, in Pakistan for failing to help prevent the loss of East Pakistan and in India for supporting the brutality of the Pakistani regime’s actions"

https://history.state.gov/milestones/1969-1976/south-asia

[ivell]

In context: The Blood Telegram

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blood_Telegram:_Nixon,_K...

It was an active decision by the US.

[Jtsummers]

Historic policies don't apply to the current administration. It's really anybody's guess at this point what the US would do if this conflict ratchets up significantly.

[JumpCrisscross]

> US isn't interested in picking sides. Historically it has tried to be friendly with both

Sure, but one side offers clear benefits over the "ally from hell." (Islamabad, at the very least, has clearly picked a side.)

Also, I'm not arguing what I think will happen. I'm arguing how this could escalate. And the only way I see it doing so is (a) someone bombs the wrong thing or (b) Beijing or Washington see an opportunity to win chips.

[tonyhart7]

"US isn't interested in picking sides"

but you dont want any of them to ally with russia or chinnese, ignoring problem also "problematic"

[smt88]

Nothing about historical US foreign policy can tell us what the current regime wants or will do.

[happyopossum]

Good. HN is full of posts about stupid crap the US govt has done in the past.