Skip to comments.
We'll bomb you to Stone Age, US told Pakistan
The Times ^
| September 22, 2006
| Tim Reid
Posted on 09/22/2006 12:11:59 AM PDT by MadIvan
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-73 next last
To: ferri
21
posted on
09/22/2006 12:45:29 AM PDT
by
taxesareforever
(Never forget Matt Maupin)
To: beaversmom
It was because of a lot of talk and no action that terrorism was allowed to grow in the 1990s. I remember reading a report where Uday Hussein said in March of 2003 that this President doesn't mess around he says what he means. This is what we need all these nations assume they can pay us lip service and get away with anything.
22
posted on
09/22/2006 12:49:34 AM PDT
by
LukeL
(Never let the enemy pick the battle site. (Gen. George S. Patton))
To: BIGLOOK
Of course the US needed to give a threat. A great diplomatic maneuver considering that Mushie could have allied with the Taliban and have the support. One scenario is World War 3. Mushie mane the right choice.
BTW, Mushie did make a second speech to the country. One that went against America.
23
posted on
09/22/2006 12:50:08 AM PDT
by
endthematrix
(“Anyone who describes Islam as a religion as intolerant encourages violence.”)
To: All
"# February 2002. On a visit to the White House Musharraf says: We reject terrorism . . . we will continue to fulfill our responsibilities
Approximately a month after Rockefeller went to warn the neighborhood about mean President Bush and the same month that Joe Wilson went on his tea sipping venture to tag 'yellowcake'.
To: MadIvan
One of my childhood Heros said that,,What-A-Guy,,From what
I had heard,,He was 12ft. Tall ! I saw Him on the Flight-Line at BAFB in 1955 or so,,All Farts-N-Darts and See-gar,
Looked just like anybodys ol' fat PaPaw,,,
HEY,PERV,,,His Bombers Are Rite Down The Road !
Wanna Be LAOS ?
ARC-Light,ARC-Brite !
25
posted on
09/22/2006 12:58:14 AM PDT
by
1COUNTER-MORTER-68
(THROWING ANOTHER BULLET-RIDDLED TV IN THE PILE OUT BACK~~~~~)
To: MadIvan
And? I mean, are we supposed to say that was evil? I am personally loving this! Fred Flintstone here they come as far as I am concerned. Of course I just finished watching UNITED 93 for the first time tonight and I am so angry all over again!
To: MadIvan
In hind sight, it would of been wise if we had went ahead and occupied the border and locked it down. Even if it put President Musharraf in a bad spot. Its obvious he doesn't trust his Army and Intelligence Agencies;and so far what military action the Pakis have taken on has been somewhat inept and amateurish. But I don't blame Musharraf, he did the coup because of what his country had become and inherited a country that parts of it thought themselves pretty much self ruled instead of being beholden to Islamabad.
27
posted on
09/22/2006 1:02:20 AM PDT
by
neb52
To: ladyinred
Coincidence? I just watched United 93 tonight. Bought the DVD a week ago.......and waited.
28
posted on
09/22/2006 1:03:30 AM PDT
by
BIGLOOK
(Keelhauling is a sensible solution to mutiny.)
To: MadIvan; Saberwielder
The recent deal between Pakistan and the Deobandis in Waziristan has caused a lot of pressure on Musharraf from the civilized word, now he is trying to get more accolade from the Deobandis by blaming Armitage for his earlier decisions. ("I had no alternative.") The question is; why is Musharraf doing this now?
We have to give him another suggestion he can't refuse...
29
posted on
09/22/2006 1:05:47 AM PDT
by
AdmSmith
To: endthematrix
Of course the US needed to give a threat. A great diplomatic maneuver considering that Mushie could have allied with the Taliban and have the support. One scenario is World War 3. Mushie mane the right choice.
Musharraf would have been fine with WWIII. He flew to Beijing to enlist Chinese support against the US, and got the back of their hand. What he feared was to go up against the US alone. Meanwhile the administration position was that "all options are on the table", which may have been directed towards Pakistan and China as much as it was against the Taliban. Pakistan was in no position to survive a nuclear war against India, let alone the US.
To: AdmSmith
We have to give him another suggestion he can't refuse...
Too late now to threaten Pakistan with nuclear annihilation. Al Qaeda hasn't pulled off another successful attack against the continental US, let alone one on the scale of 9/11. Five years have passed since 9/11, dimming the rage that the average American (including many liberals) felt against terror sponsors. These kinds of threats are one-off deals occurring typically after major outrages. Unless another 9/11 happens on American soil, I don't see it being issued again.
To: Zhang Fei
But it was up to Mushie to escalate the situation and chose not to. IMO, one pivotal moment in history. It would of set us back moderately without logistical help. But if he helped the Taliban...I don't know what the next play for Washington would have been? I doubt airstrikes any any population center. Mushie was our best man at the helm there, and had good recommendations from DoD.
32
posted on
09/22/2006 1:33:05 AM PDT
by
endthematrix
(“Anyone who describes Islam as a religion as intolerant encourages violence.”)
To: endthematrix
But it was up to Mushie to escalate the situation and chose not to. IMO, one pivotal moment in history. It would of set us back moderately without logistical help. But if he helped the Taliban...I don't know what the next play for Washington would have been? I doubt airstrikes any any population center. Mushie was our best man at the helm there, and had good recommendations from DoD.
I don't think he was threatened with conventional airstrikes. I believe he was threatened with nuclear annihilation. This is why he showed up ashen-faced at a press conference and said that Pakistan would have to change course - because its very existence was at stake.
To: MadIvan
Every interview with musharraf i have read, i have noted he has made all kinds of apparently candid comments, in some cases quite open about problems he has had or things he has done or not done. this guy is next to death's door (not from the US so much as islamic elements in his own country) and apparently has done quite a bit despite multiple attempts to kill him.
i have no doubt the stone age language might well have been used. pakistan would not be allowed to be neutral in september 2001.
To: WoofDog123
in case my previous comment gave an erroneous impression, i know full and well that realpolitik rules any country's and presumably any dictators underlying motives (barring the megalomaniacs), but in spite of this musharraf has made a number of interesting comments that almost couldn't be made up (or at least had no apparent motive for such).
To: MadIvan
has this appeared on the BBC yet? Would have thought they would be onto it like a shot.
36
posted on
09/22/2006 1:44:59 AM PDT
by
Mac1
To: Zhang Fei; Saberwielder
The suggestion should be:
"If you do not deliver we will assist the Balochis to establish an independent country with Western support under a nuclear umbrella"
http://www.paktribune.com/news/index.shtml?154951
Balochistan grand jirga calls for restoration of pre-partition status of the province
Friday September 22, 2006 (0326 PST)
KALAT: The ever grand jirga in the history of Balochistan has been held under Khan of Kalat after 130 years calling upon people of Balochistan to unite on one platform to seek restoration of pre-partition status of Balochistan besides condemning the killing of Nawab Akbar Bugti.
The jirga was held in Shahi Jirga Hall here Thursday. Over 95 tribal chiefs from Balochistan, Punjab and Sindh, tribal elders and Nawabs besides people in large number attended the jirga. Nawab of Kalat Mir Suleman Khan presided over jirga.
Chief of Chalawan, Sardar Sana Ullah Zehri, Chief of Sarwan, Nawab Aslam Raeesani, Mir Balakh Sher Mazari, Sardar Yar Muhammad Jamali, Sardar Akhtar Jan Mengal, Nawab Zulfiqar Ali Magsi, former chief minister Sardar Taj Muhammad Jamali, Sardar Aziz Ahmad Lehri and others participated in the jirga.
The speakers while addressing the jirga said there is no room left for Baloch nation to live in Pakistan now. Balochistan was an independent state and it was not part of united India. It was forcibly annexed to Pakistan and Baloch nation was divided in three provinces of Punjab, Sindh and Balochistan under a conspiracy. The border line of the province be abolished.
They underlined that the need is there that all the political parties and people of Balochistan are united under one flag to achieve this objective.
The speakers alleged the blood carnage is raging in Balochistan. The rulers are meeting out step motherly treatment to the province. Our political parties should get untied on one platform and work out strategy to challenge Pakistan-Balochistan annexation accord in international court of justice.
They demanded the people of Balochistan be give access to the resources of their province.
An interview of Nawab Akbar Bugti recorded by a Balochi radio was also relayed at the conclusion of jirga. This saddened the environment. Bugti said in interview that his war is for protection of sovereignty of Baloch nation and their rights. We are not anti development. The development is that which is in accordance with the requirement of Baloch nation. On the other hand government dubs establishment of garrisons and air fields as development, he added.
37
posted on
09/22/2006 1:51:19 AM PDT
by
AdmSmith
To: taxesareforever
By my observation no bombing was necessary to put them back into the Stone Age.I think he meant bomb the UP to the stone age.
38
posted on
09/22/2006 2:04:43 AM PDT
by
Jeff Chandler
(Peace begins in the womb.)
To: AdmSmith
Armitage interview conducted on April 19, 2002:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline////shows/campaign/interviews/armitage.html
"The evening of Sept. 11, and the following morning, you had emergency meetings. Was the president very clear that you were going to Afghanistan?
The president set the stage very early on. We had a good indication that it looked like things pointed to Osama bin Laden. It wasn't 100 percent, but as the president said the next day or the day after, the noose was tightening. He made it very clear that we would respond, and respond robustly to this. We hadn't determined the nature of our response. He gave us -- the different secretaries, secretary of state, et cetera -- word to go forth and to form a mighty coalition. We started the next morning.
The most important part of that diplomatic jigsaw was presumably Pakistan. Can you remember the moment when Pakistan was mentioned?
I don't remember it in that meeting. But we knew that [General Mahmood], the director of intelligence for Pakistan, was here as a guest of, as we say around here, "another agency of government," and we knew Pakistan was key.
I spoke to Secretary Powell and said I'd like to call this fellow in. I called him in at noon on Sept. 12. He was a visitor to the CIA, of course. I called him in and had a very short and, I think, hard-hitting conversation with him.
Can we go into that conversation?
He was immediately willing to cooperate. I explained to him that what I was going to be asking him, [what] we were formulating, and [that] it would, at a minimum, cause deep introspection for Pakistan. This would not be something that was negotiable; it was a black or white situation. The president had said, "You're with us or against us." The president was speaking out forcefully, not only against those who conducted operations of terror, but those who supported terrorism or allowed terrorists to exist, and to think carefully.
He pushed back a bit, saying that he wanted to talk about the history of U.S.- Pakistan relations. I interjected that I knew very well the history of Pakistan, General, but we're talking about the future, and for you and for us history starts today. That was the end of the meeting.
39
posted on
09/22/2006 2:20:07 AM PDT
by
endthematrix
(“Anyone who describes Islam as a religion as intolerant encourages violence.”)
To: MadIvan
Armitage.
Colin Powell's mouthpiece, or so it would seem.
I've always been dubious of statements regarding why he wouldn't consider running for President.It seemed a smokescreen to prevent more thorough questioning.
It's time to ask, "What's he up to?"
40
posted on
09/22/2006 2:24:07 AM PDT
by
airborne
(Fecal matter is en route to fan! Contact is imminent!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-73 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson