I wasn't quoting you, I was dealing with the meaning of the arguments your making not your exact words, and I've never maintained that they where the words you used.
What you describe is proxy war even if you don't use the term. Its simpler to just say proxy war than to have to put in a whole sentence describing it again and again.
And, as far as "unproven allegations", I'm not sure at all what LEVEL of 'proof' you routinely REQUIRE in your foreign relations there, Tim. :-)
There is very little in the level of proof that goes as far as your opinion. Any analogy of a possible proxy war that hasn't actually been shown to be happening, to massive tank formations rumbling through the country and overrunning your armies, is going to be weak. Not only are the two things different but one is certain, and the other is just your opinion that hasn't bee seriously substantiated.
All I said that could be reasonably marked-up into the category of 'verification' for these Intelligence and Military matters... was that the C.I.A., British Intelligence, Indian Intelligence, private Intelligence outfits such as Stratfor, and the government of Afghanistan have *ALL* spoken (some quite recently) to the truthfulness of - what did you call it? Oh: these 'allegations'.
With the possible exceptions of Stratfor and Indian intelligence, and maybe the Afghan government they have not. You take the vaguest hint in that direction and treat it as proof of a much stronger move in that direction. You take evidence of some support, and change it in to a official but secret policy where the government is in concert behind supporting the effort against us. The CIA and British intelligence have made not public statements supporting your conclusion. |
