the trailboss abuses his CodeRanch power for his other stuff (power corrupts. absolute power corrupts absolutely is kinda neat!)
permaculture light bulbs permaculture electric heat permaculture cast iron permaculture wood burning stove permaculture solar food dehydrators
The moose likes Meaningless Drivel and the fly likes No indian troops to iraq Big Moose Saloon
  Search | Java FAQ | Recent Topics | Flagged Topics | Hot Topics | Zero Replies
Register / Login
JavaRanch » Java Forums » Other » Meaningless Drivel
Bookmark "No indian troops to iraq" Watch "No indian troops to iraq" New topic
Author

No indian troops to iraq

D Kumar
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 10, 2003
Posts: 93
http://www.ndtv.com/template/template.asp?template=Usiraqconfrontation&slug=CCS+decides+against+sending+troops+to+Iraq&id=12280&callid=0&category=National
R K Singh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 5371
I dont know how much will it affect India but it will definitely affect.
US chides India on Iraq decision
But still nice move by ABV.
Pradeep bhatt
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 27, 2002
Posts: 8919

Good decision be the govt.


Groovy
Arjun Shastry
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 13, 2003
Posts: 1874
Atlast Government came to know that people here are indifferent to Iraq or USA.


MH
Paul McKenna
Ugly Redneck
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jul 08, 2000
Posts: 1006
Bad move! India's approach is not pragmatic. While all of us know that India did not make this decision to mock America, but it definetly does not make any case to prove India deserves a permanent seat in the security council. If India truly wants a seat in the Security Council then it has to show itself worthy of that by beginning to take up responsibilities. No matter how it personally feels about them. :roll:
Secondly, India is going to lose out big time on the oil and business that can be gained from Iraq.


Commentary From the Sidelines of history
R K Singh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 5371
Originally posted by Sriraj Rajaram:
Bad move!

So India should lick..... like pak ,to get oil business and seat to security council.
Pandit ji made nice decision by starting NAM, I think its time to revive it again instead of doing something aginst public opinion or against moral.
AW India has just said what is correct, it needs UN agreement.
No way India can be said wrong.
What is the need of police/UN, why not everyone/nations are out with gun in the name of its own security and personal interest ??
But I am 100% sure that whatever you are thinking, people in resposible posts must have thought it before taking this decision, like they knew that sanctions would be there if they do nuclear test and still they did.
D Kumar
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 10, 2003
Posts: 93
I would rate this as the best decision that NDA govt has made.
Why should Indian soldiers die fighting Iraqis ?

The attack on Iraq was against the UN. Indian parliament has already opposed the invasion.

If India is going to get the UN perm seat by supporting the US, better not get the seat because US *does not* respect the UN. India is not begging for UN per seat.

Regarding the 2nd point made by Sriraj
US will take up all big projects and will give INDIA the left over small, crap and no good projects.
I still like the leader ship qualities of the US President.
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:
AW India has just said what is correct, it needs UN agreement.
No way India can be said wrong.

The Indian government apparently failed to read UN Security Council Resolution 1483.
Noting further that other States that are not occupying powers are working now or in the future may work under the Authority,
Welcoming further the willingness of Member States to contribute to stability and security in Iraq by contributing personnel, equipment, and other resources under the Authority,

There is more in the resolution about UN member states supplying resources (such as personnel) to meet the Iraqis needs (such as security).
Despite their error in saying that there is no UN authorization, India's refusal to commit to the effort is probably actually a good thing for all concerned, including the US, although India will still continue to have difficulty being taken seriously as an international power.
Paul McKenna
Ugly Redneck
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jul 08, 2000
Posts: 1006
Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:
So India should lick..... like pak ,to get oil business and seat to security council.

India should rather recognize who its friends are! Iraq is hardly a friend neither is Iran, Pakistan or most Islamic states. But the friendship with US is evolving and it would be naive at the least, if not stupid, for India to spoil this opportunity in the name of moral grounds. Speaking of moral grounds, I sincerely doubt they exist. I am more inclined to think that this was a move made by the NDA to appease muslim votes in India.

Pandit ji made nice decision by starting NAM, I think its time to revive it again instead of doing something aginst public opinion or against moral.

While the NAM idea was good, it remained just that.. an idea. India was in bed with the Soviet Union for the greater part of the cold war.

What is the need of police/UN, why not everyone/nations are out with gun in the name of its own security and personal interest ??

So are you saying India should not deploy its forces anywhere in the world for peacekeeping purposes? India has already participated in several peacekeeping missions all over the world, why should this be any different?

But I am 100% sure that whatever you are thinking, people in resposible posts must have thought it before taking this decision, like they knew that sanctions would be there if they do nuclear test and still they did.

I am glad that you are optimistic about Indian government, for some reason I dont feel the same way though. I think it was India Today that carried an article about India's unrealistic approach. To gain a better understanding about this, lets juxtapose the Indian war to "liberate" Bangaldesh (then East Pakistan). When Indian troops successfully liberated East Pakistan, the then Sri Lankan Prime Minister raised senior Indian eyebrows by stating Indian action as unjustifiable and calling for the immediate withdrawal of Indian troops. Similarly, the Indian government has acted foolishly by
1. Calling for withdrawal of Allied forces from Iraq just as they were wiping the slate clean
2. Refusing to acknowledge the established superpower and acting with the mindset of 1984
Pradeep bhatt
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 27, 2002
Posts: 8919

Jason,
Does not matter if INDIA has mis read UN resolution.
USA does not respect UN at all. you have to agree with this one.

US will support INDIA for permanent seat only if they send troops. It is really bad way to gauge INDIA. INDIA has contibuted to peace keeping forces *UNDER UN* in the past and on that basis WE should get the permanent seat.
It is matter of shame some countries (Read China)want to keep a big country like INDIA out of permanent seat.
Pradeep bhatt
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 27, 2002
Posts: 8919

Facts are:
Iraq was only country that supported INDIA in OIC on Kashmir.
R K Singh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 5371

I am more inclined to think that this was a move made by the NDA to appease muslim votes in India.

First of all let me make this thing very clear that its not being done to please anyone.
Second India had good relation with Iraq for a long time.
So are you saying India should not deploy its forces anywhere in the world for peacekeeping purposes?
No I am saying it should be done with the consent of UN.
Calling for withdrawal of Allied forces from Iraq just as they were wiping the slate clean.
India has said that it will do it with the consent of UN.
Refusing to acknowledge the established superpower and acting with the mindset of 1984
I am quite not sure what are you trying to say ??
and again
What is the need of police/UN, why not everyone/nations are out with gun in the name of its own security and personal interest ??
It means, dont take law in your hand.
And who takes law in their hands are called rowdy.
And helping a rowdy, I dont think, even you will appreciate, without the consent of current established judicial system.
R K Singh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 5371
Originally posted by Jason Menard:

There is more in the resolution about UN member states supplying resources (such as personnel) to meet the Iraqis needs (such as security).

Fact Sheet: U.N. Security Council Resolution 1483
I dont think anywherer in this fact sheet its written that any country should send troops to Iraq.
Even its following the resolution 1483:

-- Ensures the UN plays a vital role in Iraq's reconstruction. The resolution establishes the position of a UN Special Representative of the Secretary General who will coordinate humanitarian and reconstruction assistance; assist in the development of representative government institutions; facilitate the reconstruction of key infrastructure; and promote economic, legal and judicial reform, and protection of human rights. The Special Representative will work with the Coalition and the people of Iraq to facilitate a process leading to an internationally recognized, representative government of Iraq.

-- Ensures the UN plays a vital role in Iraq's reconstruction.:
By saying that it will send the troop with the consent of UN, it is trying to make UN to play vital role in re-establishing Iraq.
There are other means by which India can help and will help.
although India will still continue to have difficulty being taken seriously as an international power.

Yes. Still long way to go for it.
But its a good sign.
[I am not very sure but it might happen that US, politically, will try to cut down India after this.
I hope all conditions have beed reviewed before this decision.]
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:
I dont think anywherer in this fact sheet its written that any country should send troops to Iraq. Even its following the resolution 1483:

Well, I did quote from and give you a link to the actual UN resolution. But if you'd rather go off of the fact sheet you linked to:
-- Encourages international support for Iraq's recovery. The resolution makes it possible for states and organizations to support the Iraqi people in building a free, prosperous and secure Iraq, including by responding to UN humanitarian appeals, providing resources for reconstruction, and contributing to stability and security in Iraq.

(Emphasis is mine)
R K Singh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 5371
Originally posted by Sriraj Rajaram:
India was in bed with the Soviet Union for the greater part of the cold war.

IMO, sleeping with anyone with own agreement and with "give and take" relationship is better than selling/licking to get favors.
AW what was the name of country whom US offered help of so and so million $ only if he helps it in GW-2.
Do you call it war ??
I think it was hangover of money and power.
Trying to buy everyone by the use of money.
I am sure, out there in market not everyone was for sale OR as once Randell said, was much more expensive than US could buy.
Anyway to correct you, it was the right move of, again Pandit ji, to help and get help from USSR.
I hope you know the political and economical conditions of India and surrounding nations in late 50s and early 60s.
Amitabh Sharma
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 11, 2001
Posts: 126
Sriram makes a good point that if India had sent troops to Iraq then US would have possibly given India huge projects in rebuilding Iraq. Now India cannot hope to get a piece of that pie.

But on the other hand it would have alienated Iraqi people.
They would see India aligned with the US and UK and that is not good. At the same time lets not forget that Arab nations may say all the right things diplomatically but they are no friends of India. After all a lot of Mumbai dons find shelter in Dubai. There are bunch of jihadis fighting in Kashmir who come from Arab nations thanks to ISI and Osama.
Indian troops would have learned something from US forces and it would be a good chance to do some networking. Look at Pakistan. It does everything that US says and yet every year it gets mostly Arab Islamic Council to pass anti India resolutions.
Morally speaking India did the right thing.
Practically speaking it was wrong decision.
Paul McKenna
Ugly Redneck
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jul 08, 2000
Posts: 1006
Originally posted by Pradeep Bhat:
Looks like INDIAN in US are under pressure to sending troops to IRAQ.

I would rather state that some Indians understand the situation much better than their counterparts (irrespective of their location). Much like the frog of the ocean compared to the frog in the well.
Amitabh makes an excellent point by comparing Pakistan's actions that are overtly pro-US while it still garners support from other Islamic nations. We can all take the moral high-ground, but it wont help any of us in the long run. A better approach would be to take sides silently.
It is fine that we didnt sent troops to perform the actual combat, but we could definetly help out in the peacekeeping and thereby underline our commitment to Indo-US relations.
[ July 15, 2003: Message edited by: Sriraj Rajaram ]
Pradeep bhatt
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 27, 2002
Posts: 8919

It would have been shameful if INDIA had sent troops.

Originally posted by Amitabh Sharma:
Sriram makes a good point that if India had sent troops to Iraq then US would have possibly given India huge projects in rebuilding Iraq. Now India cannot hope to get a piece of that pie.

But on the other hand it would have alienated Iraqi people.
They would see India aligned with the US and UK and that is not good. At the same time lets not forget that Arab nations may say all the right things diplomatically but they are no friends of India. After all a lot of Mumbai dons find shelter in Dubai. There are bunch of jihadis fighting in Kashmir who come from Arab nations thanks to ISI and Osama.
Indian troops would have learned something from US forces and it would be a good chance to do some networking. Look at Pakistan. It does everything that US says and yet every year it gets mostly Arab Islamic Council to pass anti India resolutions.
Morally speaking India did the right thing.
Practically speaking it was wrong decision.
Pradeep bhatt
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 27, 2002
Posts: 8919

It is good that the dual citizenship did not include voting rights. Otherwise my country would have some crap govt working for USA voted by INDIANs in USA.
Why cannot USA handle peace keeping operation alone. They are responsible for the mess in IRAQ.
They create the mess then ask the UN to solve the problem. They ignored the UN and once war was over they said - "UN HAS a major role to play in iraq"
R K Singh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 5371
By JM:

contributing to stability and security in Iraq.

India is helping in his own way in stablising and providing security to Iraq:
India announces $20 mn in UN aid for Iraq.
India may help Iraq prepare census
'India ready to help Iraq with relief supplies'
India sends relief aid to Iraqi people
Now with this last link:
Washington should give the U.N. a bigger peacekeeping role. India and other nations hint that they will provide troops if this happens.
I really wonder, why US is not allowing UN to monitor peace keeping process in Iraq ?
Please correct me if I am wrong, the only reason which comes to my poor mind is that US wants to control the economy of Iraq by controling all major business operations by US firms.[though this has been done, while war was going on, through biding in which only US companies were allowed, for link search Yahoo news.]
And dont you think this move shows world that India does not change its statement. What it said before war, the same thing its saying after war.
Pradeep bhatt
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 27, 2002
Posts: 8919

How can you integrate with the US society without changing yourselves. (do you remember your previous posts)
Your environment has changed you. Thats the fact.
Nothing wrong in it, but it does not mean that you are right.

Originally posted by Sriraj Rajaram:

I would rather state that some Indians understand the situation much better than their counterparts (irrespective of their location). Much like the frog of the ocean compared to the frog in the well.
Amitabh makes an excellent point by comparing Pakistan's actions that are overtly pro-US while it still garners support from other Islamic nations. We can all take the moral high-ground, but it wont help any of us in the long run. A better approach would be to take sides silently.
It is fine that we didnt sent troops to perform the actual combat, but we could definetly help out in the peacekeeping and thereby underline our commitment to Indo-US relations.
[ July 15, 2003: Message edited by: Sriraj Rajaram ]
R K Singh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 5371
Originally posted by Amitabh Sharma:
Now India cannot hope to get a piece of that pie.

I think pride is bigger than peice of cake.
One can live with dry Roti, if he does not get cake.
At the same time lets not forget that Arab nations may say all the right things diplomatically but they are no friends of India.
Very true, it was Iraq only who supported India all the time.
I hope this will help you to understand the India's position in GW-2
There are bunch of jihadis fighting in Kashmir who come from Arab nations thanks to ISI and Osama.
What US has done for it ??
US will keep supporting Pakistan even if you prove anything to the world because US knows its limitation over India and its power over Pakistan.
I would not like India to act like Pakistan for a piece of cake.
Indian troops would have learned something from US forces and it would be a good chance to do some networking.
There are other alternatives for this.
FYI recently[I read it 6-7 months back] US army came India to exchange their army skills with Indian army and as per them Indian army has better chances of survival in difficult conditions.
Look at Pakistan. It does everything that US says and yet every year it gets mostly Arab Islamic Council to pass anti India resolutions.
would you like India to be Pakistan ??
Morally speaking India did the right thing.
Practically speaking it was wrong decision.

Even practically, I see it to be right decision.
Now India has made its stand loud and clear.
Second Iraq knows that India did not support this war.
Third in future Iraq can be seen as friend of India as it was.
And further more, international politics does not depend on moral, its more practical oriented.
As I have said earlier, this decision must have been taken after considering all permutations and combinations.
D Kumar
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 10, 2003
Posts: 93
No matter what Pakistan and USA will be friends always. That is the truth.
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:
By JM:
India is helping in his own way in stablising and providing security to Iraq:

While none of those links seem to have anything to do directly with security, this is all beside the point. India has stated it would only send troops with UN authorization. As has been shown, that authorization was provided in UN 1483. Whether they should or shouldn't is besides the point as well. What is important is that the reason they gave for refusing this request to help the Iraq people is a bogus one. You would have thought they would have been aware of UN 1483 before issuing their statement, in which case they could have used a different excuse.
D Kumar
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 10, 2003
Posts: 93
Hello Jason,
I am Dilip here.
Dont you think that ONLY US AND UK SHOULD CLEAN THE DIRTY MESS.
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:
Second Iraq knows that India did not support this war.
Third in future Iraq can be seen as friend of India as it was.

And I'm sure 10 years from now that the Iraqi government and people will remember exactly which nations preferred to see the Iraqi people suffer under Saddam. I'm very sure that the Shiite majority and the Kurdish minority in particular will remember who supported them and who didn't. The Baathist Sunni minority though will doubtless remain thankful.
D Kumar
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 10, 2003
Posts: 93
Is that the reason why US Soldiers are killed every day?
Originally posted by Jason Menard:

And I'm sure 10 years from now that the Iraqi government and people will remember exactly which nations preferred to see the Iraqi people suffer under Saddam. I'm very sure that the Shiite majority and the Kurdish minority in particular will remember who supported them and who didn't. The Baathist Sunni minority though will doubtless remain thankful.
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by Dilip Kumar:
Hello Jason,
I am Dilip here.
Dont you think that ONLY US AND UK SHOULD CLEAN THE DIRTY MESS.

Sure, we are used to shouldering responsibility where others can't or won't. For my own reasons, I would prefer only the US, UK, and a few other select nations to have anything to do with the rebuilding of Iraq. However taking into account the needs of the Iraqi people, the more security forces on the ground, particularly from a variety of different countries, the quicker security may be able to be restored. The usual players, those who are truly interested in helping the Iraqi people, will step up to the plate and be a part of the solution.
D Kumar
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 10, 2003
Posts: 93
Why cant a super power control a small country?
Originally posted by Jason Menard:

Sure, we are used to shouldering responsibility where others can't or won't. For my own reasons, I would prefer only the US, UK, and a few other select nations to have anything to do with the rebuilding of Iraq. However taking into account the needs of the Iraqi people, the more security forces on the ground, particularly from a variety of different countries, the quicker security may be able to be restored. The usual players, those who are truly interested in helping the Iraqi people, will step up to the plate and be a part of the solution.
R K Singh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 5371
Originally posted by Jason Menard:

India has stated it would only send troops with UN authorization.

As has been shown, that authorization was provided in UN 1483.

I think its your interpretation of the 1843 that security can be provided by only troops.
What would troops be doing there?
If I am not wrong then still war is going on, but not very much in Media.[yesterday only one US soldier was killed]
So now US wants other nations to fight his bogus war.

What is important is that the reason they gave for refusing this request to help the Iraq people is a bogus one.
Thanks God, US govt has not said this
As per you all nations should have supported this war. But you see there are more nations with their bogus reasons not to support than nations who are ready to do any bogus thing in excahnge of aid/money.
You would have thought they would have been aware of UN 1483 before issuing their statement, in which case they could have used a different excuse.
What are you trying to say ? I am not able to get it.
Are you trying to say that they were not aware of this 1843??
What do you think Yaar, who are running this nations are not aware of international politics and they do things just like that.
Just to correct your fact, this is a news of 26th May. Today is 15 July.
link is this :
http://quickstart.clari.net/qs_se/webnews/wed/bd/Qindia-iraq-troops.R7Fu_DyQ.html
From the page:
========
"India welcomes the fact that the UN Security Council has reached an agreement on the way forward in Iraq as expressed in UN Security Council resolution 1483," Sibal told reporters after the meeting.
========
Sibal is Foreign Secretary of India.
I hope I have not misinterpreted your statement.
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by Dilip Kumar:
Is that the reason why US Soldiers are killed every day?

You may not be aware of the situation in Iraq, so let me help you out. There are three primary groups over there: the Shia, the Sunni, and the Kurds. There are also several other smaller minorities, such as Assyrian Christians and Turkmen, but those are the main ones. The majority of the country, about 60% I believe, is Shia.
Saddam Hussein and his ruling Baath party were Sunni. These people generally prospered under Hussein's rule, at the expense of everybody else, particularly the Kurds and the Shia. The military commanders and most of the ruling classes of Iraq were Sunni. To hold any position of power you had to be a member of the Baath party. Suddenly, all the poewr and privledge these people enjoyed has been stripped from them by the US, UK, and coalition partners.
They Sunni are quite unhappy about this. They are so unhappy, that some of them are trying their best to damage the rebuilding process and the installation of a new government. This also includes attacks against the US. During the war, Islamic extremists and terrorists made entry into the country. They are reportedly working with the old elements of Hussein's forces to conduct attacks on the US. If you pay attention to where these attacks are occuring, they are all occuring in Sunni portions of the country.
I would humbly suggest that a little research might be a good thing before intimating that the whole of the Iraqi people was up in arms over our presence. :roll:
R K Singh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 5371
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
And I'm sure 10 years from now that the Iraqi government and people will remember exactly which nations preferred to see the Iraqi people suffer under Saddam.

I cant be sure while predicting future
Paul McKenna
Ugly Redneck
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jul 08, 2000
Posts: 1006
Originally posted by Pradeep Bhat:
How can you integrate with the US society without changing yourselves. (do you remember your previous posts)Your environment has changed you. Thats the fact.
Nothing wrong in it, but it does not mean that you are right.

I dont quite understand where you are going with this, please explain!

Anyway to correct you, it was the right move of, again Pandit ji, to help and get help from USSR.
I hope you know the political and economical conditions of India and surrounding nations in late 50s and early 60s

Who said it was wrong to get help from the USSR. I was only trying to correct your idea of reviving NAM. NAM was a farce and reviving a farce isnt a good idea in my opinion. Furthermore, the cold war ended in 1990s, India had plenty of time between 1962 and 1992 to kiss and make up with the west.
Lets not forget that during the Indo-Sino war, it was JFK who came to India's assistance, not Soviet Union.

It would have been shameful if INDIA had sent troops.

If only I could make blanket statements like and people accepted them without any explanation :roll:

It is good that the dual citizenship did not include voting rights. Otherwise my country would have some crap govt working for USA voted by INDIANs in USA

Your concern is justifiable, my concern however is that I think India is soon going to have some crap government working for Arab nations voted by Indians in India

One can live with dry Roti, if he does not get cake

I think millions of Indians have been living with a dry roti for long enough. Its high time we did something to allow ourselves a fair share of the cake.

What US has done for it ??
US will keep supporting Pakistan even if you prove anything to the world because US knows its limitation over India and its power over Pakistan.

Let me ask you this, what has India done to deserve US support? Inspite of all the antagonistic tactics employed by Indian government. US backed us during the Kashmir crisis. US has repeatedly asked Pakistan to end sponsored terrorism. US has provided more aid and trade to India than our deeds deserve. Therefore, I am more keen to rephrase your statement as "Indian government will still be antagnostic towards US even if US proves its commitment to India"
P.S-
PLEASE! Avoid quoting posts in full unless you intend to make a point by point analysis.
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:
I hope I have not misinterpreted your statement.

After reading this post, I'm afraid it seems you may have misinterpreted everything I have said since my first post in this thread.
D Kumar
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 10, 2003
Posts: 93
You are completely wrong.
US has always supported Pakistan by supplying AID, which in turn is used to for terror. Ask the people who have lost their dear one.
I know the pain personally. I dont want to talk more on this.
USA is indirectly responsible for this.
Originally posted by Sriraj Rajaram:

Let me ask you this, what has India done to deserve US support? Inspite of all the antagonistic tactics employed by Indian government. US backed us during the Kashmir crisis. US has repeatedly asked Pakistan to end sponsored terrorism. US has provided more aid and trade to India than our deeds deserve. Therefore, I am more keen to rephrase your statement as "Indian government will still be antagnostic towards US even if US proves its commitment to India"
P.S-
PLEASE! Avoid quoting posts in full unless you intend to make a point by point analysis.
D Kumar
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 10, 2003
Posts: 93
US has provided more aid and trade to India than our deeds deserve.

Show me facts dude!

D Kumar
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 10, 2003
Posts: 93
Sriraj,
Dont forget that INDIA had offered help to US after 9/11 but US thought "How can poor INDIA help us." ?
They did not accept it.
Also dont forget (may be ex)US ambassdor Blackwill had differences with US policy on Pak.
D Kumar
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 10, 2003
Posts: 93
Was USA able to make Pakistan stop terrorism?
nope.
It was said that Pak promised US no more terror.
It was a joke.
R K Singh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 5371
First thing first:

Who said it was wrong to get help from the USSR.

Yes very true. Saying getting help is different thing than saying that sleeping with someone.

I think more appropriate words could have been used to convey the same thing rather than using a cheap words.
US has repeatedly asked Pakistan to end sponsored terrorism.
And it will keep on saying it ... [want to put smiley]
it was JFK who came to India's assistance
The reason was very much clear at that time also if you read some indo-china war real stories.
AW in short US did not want China to be super power in south asia as it would have been against the interest of US.
I think India is soon going to have some crap government working for Arab nations voted by Indians in India
Why "soon going to" ?? Today itself Indian Govt is working with/for Arab nations.
BTW what did you mean by that statement

I think millions of Indians have been living with a dry roti for long enough.

So you want them to lick for cake ?
Most of the people of India wont agree with your statement. [again want to put smiley]

Its high time we did something to allow ourselves a fair share of the cake.

What is that something by doing which one should allow himself to get share of cake ??
what has India done to deserve US support
May I ask you this, why India should do anything to get US support ?
Let me tell this, everything in international politics is done by keeping its interest in the mind.
Problem starts when your interest becomes someone else's headache.
Indian government will still be antagnostic towards US even if US proves its commitment to India
Here you are wrong.
If you see India's foreign policies then it does almost all the things to get US favour but in dignified way.
Even there was article in The Week, why US will come closer to India.
US has provided more aid and trade to India than our deeds deserve.
May I know the meaning of this statement ?
1) US backed us during the Kashmir crisis.
2) US has repeatedly asked Pakistan to end sponsored terrorism.
you have written two contradictory statements together.[want to put smiley]
Paul Stevens
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 17, 2001
Posts: 2823
Originally posted by Dilip Kumar:
Was USA able to make Pakistan stop terrorism?
nope.
It was said that Pak promised US no more terror.
It was a joke.

I thought you said we could control Pakistan?
The US provides aid to India as well. Are we responsible for everything that the Indian government does?
 
I agree. Here's the link: http://aspose.com/file-tools
 
subject: No indian troops to iraq