Musharraf: U.S. threatened to bomb Pakistan unless it helped war on terror

[RedHot25]

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/nation...b.html?ref=rss

The U.S. threatened to bomb Pakistan "back to the Stone Age" after the Sept. 11 attacks if the country refused to help America with its war on terrorism, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf says.

......

Musharraf also said the U.S. made some demands that were "ludicrous," including one to suppress vocal support in his country for terrorism in the U.S. "If somebody's expressing views, we cannot curb the expression of views," Musharraf said.

[RedHot25]

More from CTV: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...hub=TopStories

The threat was delivered by Richard Armitage, then the deputy secretary of state, to Musharraf's intelligence director, the Pakistani leader told CBS-TV's "60 Minutes.''
"The intelligence director told me that (Armitage) said, 'Be prepared to be bombed. Be prepared to go back to the Stone Age,''' Musharraf said in the interview to be shown Sunday on CBS.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

I guess the coalition of the willing maybe wasn't so willing after all? Amazing what a few threats will accomplish? Support us or we nuke you into submission. No, the United States is not the bully suggested by many other countries in the world!

[Bertuzzied]

If he just let it go a few weeks, the US would have gave up anyways and then go on to attack Iraq.

[Thunderball]

Funny how Pakistan is still harboring a good amount of Al-Qaeda, and most likely Osama as well... guess the threat wasn't taken to heart that much... not that I support the threat the US made, but lets be realistic, they had just been attacked, I'd be right ****ed if countries that claim to be friendly were refusing to help.

[ikaris]

I don't see how anyone would be surprised by this. I mean, this is what America does.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

I guess the coalition of the willing maybe wasn't so willing after all? Amazing what a few threats will accomplish? Support us or we nuke you into submission. No, the United States is not the bully suggested by many other countries in the world!

I heard today that Nukes don't work. If they did, September 11th wouldn't have happened.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

I guess the coalition of the willing maybe wasn't so willing after all? Amazing what a few threats will accomplish? Support us or we nuke you into submission. No, the United States is not the bully suggested by many other countries in the world!

Well, just because the morons chose this route to get the cooperation they desired doesn't mean Pakistan wouldn't have been willing to cooperate otherwise.

It's going to be interesting to watch the change in the world view once Bush leaves office. I hope its as positive as I think it could be.

[Igottago]

The thing that gets to me is the US insistance that Pakistan is some great ally...there are major problems with fundamentalists in Pakistan..and guess where Osama is likely living? If they really want to fight th war on terror, they should be bullying Musharraf to clean up his backyard.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Igottago

The thing that gets to me is the US insistance that Pakistan is some great ally...there are major problems with fundamentalists in Pakistan..and guess where Osama is likely living? If they really want to fight th war on terror, they should be bullying Musharraf to clean up his backyard.

But how do you bully a military dictatorship with fundamentalist Islam support and an arsenal of nuclear weapons? You can't really follow through on any military threats: you'll have a hard time building any support in neighbouring countries, and the Pakistani army is much more advanced and better-equipped than Afghanistan. I don't think Musharraf feels threatened by the US, and I doubt he ever really did. He's a great politian as far as making the deals that are necessary at any given moment to preserve his power.

[RedHot25]

Ok, an update now. Bush says he didn't know about it, and the top US official that supposedly made the remarks is denying ever saying it:

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/nation...f.html?ref=rss

A former top Washington intelligence official has denied telling Pakistan that the U.S. would bomb it back into the Stone Age unless it co-operated with the American "war on terror" in the days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington.

...

But Armitage told CNN that was wrong. "I didn't say it," he said, but he did make it clear that "Pakistan was either with us or it was not."

...

After meeting Musharraf on Friday, U.S. President George W. Bush said he was not aware of Armitage's conversation at the time, and first became aware of it when he read a newspaper story on Friday. "I don't know about it," he said.

[Azure]

Of course he will deny it.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Igottago

The thing that gets to me is the US insistance that Pakistan is some great ally...there are major problems with fundamentalists in Pakistan..and guess where Osama is likely living? If they really want to fight th war on terror, they should be bullying Musharraf to clean up his backyard.

Also if Musharraf pushes to hard into the border regions he is risking a revlot from within his own country and he is not willing to do that. I think he barely has control of the government as it is. If he went in and started arresting Taliban and Pakistani extremists in the border regions it would spark a revolution.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

It's going to be interesting to watch the change in the world view once Bush leaves office. I hope its as positive as I think it could be.

I hate to see you disappointed Dis, but I think it's going to take generations before the rest of the world trusts America again. Bush ****ed in the pool and its going to take some time for that mess to be cleaned up. No one is going to be the first to jump in and see if its okay for a swim.

[Bingo]

let me get this straight ...

in the wake of a shocking September 11th a US official may or may not have been jocular in his dealings.

Well blow me away ... who'd a thunk emotion would play a role in the week after a city getting torn up.

[Lurch]

let me get this straight ...

in the wake of a shocking September 11th a US official may or may not have been jocular in his dealings.

Well blow me away ... who'd a thunk emotion would play a role in the week after a city getting torn up.

Jocular? How do jocular and watching 9/11 go together?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Lurch

Jocular? How do jocular and watching 9/11 go together?

why don't you knock my house down this weekend and see if I don't go a little John Wayne in my reponse.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Bingo

let me get this straight ...

in the wake of a shocking September 11th a US official may or may not have been jocular in his dealings.

Well blow me away ... who'd a thunk emotion would play a role in the week after a city getting torn up.

You think he was joking? If you had said "intense" or something like that, i would have bought it, but lighthearted jesting? Wrong word perhaps?

Originally Posted by Mirriam-Webster

1 : given to jesting : habitually jolly or jocund
2 : characterized by jesting : PLAYFUL
synonym see WITTY

[Lurch]

I may be off, but my understanding of jocular is more Jim Carrey than John Wayne. Not really important in that I agree with you it's just blowhard words from someone who's angry, but still, it shows about the same amount of diplomacy and good judgement as a certain Iranian and his Venezuelan buddy.

[Bingo]

agreed ... probably not the best use of words (interesting I'd never actually looked that up ... assumed macho and exagerated, not jesting and playful).

but yes we agree ...

it's not great diplomacy at all, but far from a shock to me given the situation.