this signals deep coperation between us and india thoug it involves
lot of risks.
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_10-6-2003_pg7_2
I hope that means Pakistani troops aren't going to be sent after all as there has been an American soldier killed every day in the past week in Iraq. looks like a pretty thankless task to me.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Mr Xtreme: *
I hope that means Pakistani troops aren't going to be sent after all as there has been an American soldier killed every day in the past week in Iraq. looks like a pretty thankless task to me.
[/QUOTE]
pakistan will follow indians later.
There were talks about putting a Pakistani brigade there.. that signals to me that an Indian Division would be required in Iraq.. maybe two.. I suggest in light of recent cooperation between Israel and India, India should volunteer a division or two for Palestine too.. now with a couple of divisions busy in Kashmir fighting the separatist movement.. it would pretty much balance conventional strength on the ground.
I doubt anyone will want to send troops there. Americans and Brits started this mess - now they want to put other countries' troops there to die. Idiots.
A fairly good piece from Randeep Ramesh (he edited the book, The War We Could Not Stop: The Real Story of the Battle for Iraq):
Imperial history repeats itself, The Guardian, 3 July 2003
…] The birth of what would become modern-day Iraq was a painful one. Mesopotamia was Britain’s prize after the first world war - and like today, its peoples struggled against the occupying forces. Indian troops were used to suppress the country’s nationalist uprising in the summer of 1920. Like today’s American forces, the 60,000 British and Indian troops securing Mesopotamia were never engaged in battle, facing instead hit-and-run raids from the desert. More than 1,000 Indian soldiers and 8,000 Arab fighters were either killed or captured in a few weeks. Despite Britain’s military prowess, Iraq slowly slipped from its grasp.
…] Left to face the growing anger engendered by the chaos that has replaced the power vacuum brought about by the fall of Saddam, troops from India and Pakistan - countries that opposed the war - will be left to secure the peace in the face of guerrilla attacks and organised resistance. If it looks, sounds and feels like empire redux, that is because it is.
i heard from some indian media saying that US need indian forces in iraq cuz indian soldiers are more highly trained and other blah blah blah stuff about indian soldiers ....is that true ?? 101% no FROM ME
American soldiers being killed everyday is a price too high for the Americans to handle.
So they obviously want other nations to do there dirty work and rather a foriegn soldier being kiled than an american one and it looks as though india, pakistan and japan are taking the bate what fools 
Pakistan army is being abused by musharraff they are like a hired gun these days from ensuring the Diamond trade continues for Britain in Sierra Leone and doing the hard work in Afghanistan and its borders for the US :nono:
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by hello143: *
**i heard from some indian media saying that US need indian forces in iraq cuz indian soldiers are more highly trained and other blah blah blah stuff about indian soldiers ....is that true ?? 101% no FROM ME
[/QUOTE]
*
It could be true.
Either way, the Indian government is split regarding this issue - i think their parliament had passed a resolution, months ago, condemning any invasion of Iraq without a UN mandate. According to India, they have stated they will send troops only if the request comes from the United Nations. If India or Pakistan agree to send troops to Iraq, it will sort of serve as a retroactive condoning of the invasion. Besides which, it really makes them appear pathetic IMO - both countries can find, i am certain, better ways in which to spend their money rather than in installing an army of occupation in a sovereign country.
i think, Ak47 makes a valid point regarding the use of foreign soldiers. Too bad no one seems to learn from history.
After a long time I agree with India on this one.
I am almost agreeing with some of the international policiy decisions that India is making. Sad but true.
Excerpt :
“Were there to be an explicit U.N. mandate for the purpose, the government of India could consider the deployment of our troops in Iraq,” foreign minister Yashwant Sinha told reporters after a two-hour meeting of the cabinet’s security committee.
“Our longer-term national interest, our concern for the people of Iraq, our longstanding ties with the Gulf region, as well as our growing dialogue and strengthened ties with the U.S. have been key elements in this consideration,” Sinha said.
He said India was, however, ready to contribute to the rebuilding of infrastructure, health care, educational, communications and other civilians needs of the Iraqis.
Political parties, including some in the ruling coalition, had said any Indian troops sent to Iraq would become part of an “occupation force” if they were not covered by a U.N. mandate.
For the full story. :
They should send indian airforce pilots to Iraq… 
India claims herself to be a big player in the region and yet has done ZILCH to date in helping out bring peace to it's regional countries. It's all talk and no substance.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by funguy: *
India claims herself to be a big player in the region and yet has done ZILCH to date in helping out bring peace to it's regional countries. It's all talk and no substance.
[/QUOTE]
See problem with Indians is that their foreign policy is based on what they think is good for their country.Unlike other countries where decisions are made by a phone call from Washington.
Great decision by India.US and UK created the mess let them clean it.
India did not create the situation then why should it get into all this mess. India has already said had the US gone thru UN, India might have considered the option.
Good for the Indians
The latest I have heard is that Pakistan has also refused to send troops to Iraq, the prime reason appears to be the lack of UN mandate and prohibitive cost. This has yet to be confirmed.
This seems to confirm it:
US ARMY wives were in revolt yesterday after a promised withdrawal from Iraq for thousands of soldiers was postponed for a third time.
Wives at the US army base in Fort Stewart, Georgia, home of the US 3rd Infantry Division, which has been in the Gulf since September, said that they were planning to organise a protest march near the base and run a mass letter-writing campaign to Capitol Hill. The division has suffered 36 deaths in the war and its aftermath, more than any other unit.
The protest from the families, told only last week by Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary, that their husbands would be home by September, elicited a confused response from the Pentagon and added to the perception that continued attacks on US troops have left post-war plans in disarray.
The delayed withdrawal came as India, Pakistan and France refused to send troops to Iraq, despite requests from the Bush Administration for military support. The countries said that they balked at sending soldiers without a UN mandate, dealing a significant blow to US hopes of reducing its troop numbers in Iraq…
I read somewhere the American's are now asking the Saudi's, Egyptians, Jordanian's and other Arab states to send trrops to Iraq. Whom haven't they begged to send troops to Iraq yet?
koyi baath nahi! aur thoda paisa dhiya tho sub country ayega khelnay!
India’s NO to the US request to send troops to iraq may have impact on US/india relations the US has now resorted to the usual blackmail tactics it is famous for.
senior US officials have reportedly made American displeasure very clear in a closed-door meeting with Indian Ambassador Lalit Mansingh in Washington. One of India’s largest-circulated newspapers, the Hindustan Times, quoted diplomatic sources on Thursday to confirm that the US administration conveyed that it felt “let down” by India’s decision. More worrying for India, they said it could impact Indo-US ties in “critical areas”.
In a parallel development, senior Pentagon official Peter Rodman told the head of India’s Defense Intelligence Agency, Lt-Gen Kamal Davar, that India’s refusal to send troops may have a negative impact on Indo-US ties. This too contrasts with the official US position that “the transformation of US-India relations will continue as before”. Rodman, the assistant secretary of defense (international security affairs), had visited India recently to try and remove, apparently unsuccessfully, New Delhi’s doubts about troop deployment in Iraq.