2007-10-20 10:39:03 · 13 answers · asked by Crazzzzzy 2 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
I think the phrase "bomb Pakistan into the stone age" reflects a blending of two different news stories years apart.
After 9/11, and after it was determined that Al Qaeda was responsible, the US offered an ultimatum to the Afghanistan government (then ruled by the Taliban). We said "hand over Bin Laden, or else there will be consequences." Yes, the phrase "we'll bomb them into the stone age" was used in Washington. But it was in reference to Afghanistan.
More recently, there has been concern that Pakistani President Musharruf has been lukewarm in supporting the effort to go after Al Qaeda in the part of Pakistan which borders Afghanistan, where pro-Taliban sentiments are strong. So some in Washington advocate that the US launch attacks in that region on our own. Others in Washington think this is foolhardy, in that it violates the sovereignty of a country we are trying to think of as an ally. But regardless of what you think of such a proposed policy, the suggestion is to attack that one targetted region in order to ferret out Al Qaeda forces. It hardly constitutes an all out attack on the nation, or an attempt to bomb it into the stone age.
And I don't recall ever reading anything suggesting that Bush himself was the source of that expression. I think it came from either the State department or the Department of Defense.
2007-10-22 07:45:31 · answer #1 · answered by Michael M 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
regrettably, actual or no longer it has the ring of certainty approximately it besides the certainty that cynics might sense that understanding issues as technical as evolution and the stone age have been somewhat previous the President. although the politics do instruct the muddled US questioning in that's relatives with the east. Pakistan, India and off course Israel all gained a nuclear potential, in defiance of non proliferation. Pakistan became initially 'punished' for doing so by potential of the U. S. yet then 'forgiven' while the U. S. mandatory to overfly Pakistan air area to have a bash at others. American international affairs do look ruled by potential of the expediency of the 2d, that's probably additionally actual of many different international places.
2016-10-13 08:43:43 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Isn't Pakistan still in the stone age? They're so behind as it is. So that wouldn't be too bright to say, but then again, this is Bush we're talking about. His tendency to put his foot in his mouth and to contradict what he says is expected, it almost reads like a rap sheet. I don't think he said that, It would've been picked apart by everyone except "faux" news and I haven't heard anything anywhere, so you need to lay off the sauce or stop talking to idiots.
2007-10-20 10:52:49 · answer #3 · answered by Randy C 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He sure did! Iran, Pakistan and other Muslim countries are his other likely targets after Iraq.
2007-10-20 20:17:45 · answer #4 · answered by yakkydoc 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would not be surprised. Surely not. If so, would he mind looking for osama bin laden while he is up there!
2007-10-20 19:48:34 · answer #5 · answered by NJ 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Please. Whoever told you that is pulling your leg. We Americans are suppose to be the "perfect" example of democracy so it's ludricrous to think that those words came from the president himself.
2007-10-20 10:45:45 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
N O, PRESIDENT George W. Bush NEVER made that statement, which, BTW, IS FALSE!!
2007-10-20 10:44:09 · answer #7 · answered by Vagabond5879 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I don't think so. What is the use of looking for more trouble?
2007-10-20 10:44:48 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
amazing...you whould be suprised with all the other things hes kept going...
2007-10-20 10:42:53 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Naw. But man, would I love to see it! Those little s.o.b.'s harbor more terrorists than Iran & Syria combined.
2007-10-20 10:44:16 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋