>Why would you have chosen that moment to officially "kill"
>him? And why would you do it in such a way that puts our
>already volatile alliance with Pakistan in jeopardy?
>
>I mean, you said that's the way you would have done it. I'm
>curious why you wouldn't have chosen to kill him in the
>country that we were already at war in.


The exact moment, I suppose, doesn't really have much weight. It does provide yet another nice distraction from the collapse of national sovereignty in the United States and the end of many civil rights, though. As for Pakistan... they've been a nice project in which we use our old M.O. of playing both sides off one another. The U.S. has openly dumped billions in money, resources, technical advising, and diplomatic representation to allow India to join the nuclear club. The U.S. during the Reagan years (which you may be too young to remember) covertly dumped billions into establishing schools of Islamic fundamentalism and training camps in Pakistan the same as we did in Afghanistan, for the training of mujaheddin to fight the Soviets. We opened the door for nuclear proliferation in India, so we must like them considerably better than Pakistan. Pakistan we didn't open any doors for- simply the metaphorical equivalent of shipping them a box of AK-47s and saying "Good Luck".