Was the US right to threaten to bomb Pakistan back into the stone age if it did not help fight Al-Qaeda?

Question

Is it right for any country to go round bullying and threatening other countries like this?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_a…
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/…
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,2151…

Answer 1

Best Answer - Chosen by Voters

First lets agree that this is an assertion, sort of like he said, she said, not a fact.

Second, if we have an ally who is not performing to a level we would then we of course should lean on them. I highly doubt that bombing pakistan was in the statement if it were actually made, and would have been more likely something along the lines of leveling the mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

When you think of it, if we could flatten the mountains it would accomplish many goals, get rid of terrorists, create more arable acreage for food production which could of course reduce the amount of opium coming from that region.

Answer 2

You either support terrorism or you fight it....there's no middle ground. If the Pakistani's refuse to denounce terrorism and take steps to stop it, then they are just as guilty as the terrorists.

Answer 3

no

Answer 4

Yes. If a government does not work to remove the terrorists from their borders and gives them a place to train and live, then the US and other members of the international community have a right to go in there an make it not hospitable for the terrorists to stay there.

Unfortunately, we are fighting an enemy that has no borders and has no one homeland. Countries that give them safe haven will become the battlefields.

Answer 5

The statement was attributed to Armitage who also stood by as Rove and Libby were investigated for his outing of Valery Plame.

Answer 6

The US Is Never Right But That Never Stopped Them Before And I Guess It Never Will. Don't They Realise They Have Enough Home Grown Terrorists Right On Their Doorstep Without Dragging The Rest Of The World Into Their Quarrels And Making Us Targets Too!?

Answer 7

Bush needs another war if he doesnt want the republican party to lose the November election by staggering proportions.
However, Bin Laden is neither in Pakistan nor in Afghanistan, he actually lives from Mondays to Fridays in the white house and spends the weekend in camp David with his best friend Georgie

Answer 8

What I find most interesting about this, Is that this comment was uttered by Richard Armirage (the then dep. sec. of state) whose 1st day of work was 3/29/01 and his last day of work was 2/22/05.
The 9/11/01 attacks occured more than 5 years ago, Mr. Armitage's last day of public service more than 11/2 years ago.
Did the Pakistani president general just remember his entire nation was threatened? Quite frankly, I believe that if this was ever said, there is no way Pakistan would not have said something the minute it flew out of one of our government representative's mouths. I believe, this discovery is a bit too contrived and way too belated to be treated as anything but bullsh*t..

Answer 9

First of all the US needs to stop funding AlQaeda through ISI. Then they can make demands.

Answer 10

Dear abc,

Absolutely not. The principle of our international society of nations is that every sovereign state has the right to security inside its own borders. Intimidation and threats by any foreign country are completely unacceptable, whatever the motive. The US itself stood up to the bullies of this planet during World War II, and then helped found the United Nations to make sure that no other bullies would surface. It would be a supreme irony if the US turned out to be the same as those it so nobly fought to defeat.

"Harbouring terrorists" is an especially poor reason for this sort of intimidation. No government can know for certain that all their citizens are not terrorists, and if some are, their existence by no means constitutes an endorsement of them by the government of that country. And even if the government did happen to secretly abet terrorists, this is still no reason for threatening to shower death and destruction upon the millions of innocent citizens of the country in question. This is the logic of psychopaths, and the methods of butchers.

Timothy McVeigh and his happy gang fit every definition of a terrorist, and as we all know they were also violently anti-Semitic... Does that then necessarily mean the US government was responsible for them, or deliberately protected them? What would have been the reaction in the US if the Israeli government threatened the Americans with bombing unless it "helped in the fight against anti-Semitism"?

Regards,