PDA

View Full Version : What Shuold be Indian Stand on War against Iraq?



raj2rif
February 12th, 2003, 07:57 PM
The current political situation in the world is very fluid. The differences in NATO has given new dimension to the US war against terrorism. Saddam's belated cooperation with the weapons inspectors has once again proved that he is deceiving the world. Unfortunately, political and economic considerations rather than moral considerations lead to a nation's stand on the issues.
Many countries hav aligned together to give Saddam Hussain more time either for the religious, ethinic or due to the reason of an increased terror threat. But should these be the guide lines. Some may argue that if US, UK and other countries can have the nuclear weapons than why can't Iraq or North Korea have it? Yes, that is a good argument. But the question is as to who has the power to use these weapons and how safe these weapons are in those countries. Imagine some of these weapons falling in the hands of terrorists and used in a thickly populated area (in our country every area is thickly populated). Our dependency on foreign oil puts a lot of pressure on our government to take a fair stand on this issue. Further, the thinking of majority of the minority community in the country on religeous lines rather than the national lines aggrevates the political situation. Political parties want to cash on this sentiment of the minority community to get their votes and thus follow the policy of appeasment. In such a scenario, what should be our stand as a citizen of our great nation. I feel, we must take these terror threat rather seriously as we have already suffered from this evil for long.
Nuclear arms in the countries with dictators in power or with poor government stability records are dangrous to the world peace. Considering the internal situation in Pakistan and their past record, the nuclear weapons in that country are also not in safe hands and the world must take action against it. The supply of nuclear technology to North Korea by Pakistan should be taken seriously.

The sharp differences in NATO may result in India getting a permanent seat in the UN Security Counsil. I think we must read the situation very carefully and act accordingly.

rajiv7
February 12th, 2003, 10:10 PM
Col Virendra ji,

If America goes after Iraq, before taking care of Pakistan and Afghanistan, then it will not suit our interests.

There are many reasons for my thinking so. But if the Americans are serious about terrorism and WMDs then it better disarm countries like Pakistan, North Korea and most importantly Saudi Arabia.

The Saudis and the Chinese are playing the dirtiest game of all.

Rajiv

raj2rif
February 13th, 2003, 09:33 AM
Dear Mr. Lathar,

I will appreciate if you give more detailed views. It is a learning for all of us. I think we need to understand the geopolitical situation as it does help us in making our own analysis.

kharub
February 13th, 2003, 10:33 AM
Dear Colonel,

I have read a few books about Saddam Hussein and have come to a conclusion about the man.

Saddam Hussein is no doubt a ruthless dictator, who forgives no one who dares question him.
But one thing that is also true about him is, that he is not a terrorist and definately not a fundamentalist Islamist like the regiemes in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

Saddam was the person who declared that Iraq is a Secular Republic and everybody has a right to practise their own religion. In the 1980's Saddam Hussein did a lot of work on Iraqi infrastructure and Iraq at that time was the most prospereous of the Arab Countries.
The US itself gave him the nod to attack Kuwait and he had i believe a right to reclaim Kuwait.
As it used to be a part of Iraq and the British made it a seperate country as they did to us.

After getting US nod he attacked Kuwait and then was trapped in a situation of no return.

I believe that Saddam being the head of Iraqi State is in the best interest of India, because his Iron Fist rule is the only thing that can keep stability in Iraq.
If he is removed that the whole region will be lead into chaos.

I have just recently finished a book by former Head of CIA for Middle-East and he agrees with my views that removing Saddam means insability in the region, which will not serve the Indian interests.

India should watch her interests and not America's and oppose the war on Iraq.

VJ Kharub

rajiv7
February 13th, 2003, 12:21 PM
Dear Col Virendra,

Let us start with the motive, what is the motive for the US to go after Iraq, even in face of stiff opposition from countries like France, Germany, Russia and China. Four different motives have been talked about 1. Personal Vendetta 2. Terrorism 3. Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) 4. Oil

1. We can safely rule out the first one, as the political structure of the US is mature enough that it will not allow a president to take such risks. The people sitting in the Senate and Congress are neither fools nor pushovers.

2. If Bush is going after terrorism then this is a strange way of doing it. I would imagine the countries that need to be taken care of are Afghanistan, Pakistan, UAE and Saudi Arabia in that order. Afghanistan is the source of cheap and dumb soldiers, Pakistan is the factory where all the terrorists are trained and provided arms and equipment. Saudi Arabia and the UAE are the financiers of this whole religious terrorism bit. We should remember (as Mr Kharub rightly pointed out), whatever Saddam is, he is not a religious fanatic. One only needs to look at the freedom provided to women in Iraq to understand this point. Had terrorism been Americas target, we should have been the first to offer our full support. But quite obviously this is not the case here. Otherwise why would Bush, with the full Taliban and Al Quaida leadership still at large (hiding in Pakistan), rush to attack Iraq?

3. Now the motive of taking out WMDs is even more suspect. The world’s worst three proliferates are China, Pakistan and North Korea. We should also not forget the role of Saudi Arabia here. After Libya had stopped financing Pakistan’s nuclear program, SA stepped in and I would imagine it has at least a 40% share on the total number of nukes held by Pakistan. Twice in the recent past, just before 9/11, the crown prince of SA made thorough visits to all of Pakistan’s nuclear facilities and sites. Pakistan gets the fissile material from China, including help with the bomb design, which it transfers to North Korea. North Korea gets help from China for its missile program and transfers the technology to Pakistan. China sells M-11 missiles to Pakistan and even longer range missiles to Saudi Arabia. Here the nexus between these four countries is crystal clear. If the US wanted to go after the above countries, again we should have offered our full support to their effort. And yet, closing their eyes to this blatant proliferation, Americans want to go after Iraq.

4. That leaves us with the final and real motive – Oil. It is widely known that the Bush family holds considerable interest in the US oil companies. UNOCAL was the company which financed the initial training and emergence of the Taliban with CIA’s active help. Osama Bin Laden was CIA’s man and the present Afghan president Karzai is also a CIA operative. America wants to secure and manage most of the world’s known oil reserves and the supply routes. It wants to conquer Iraq, put in Gen Tommy Franks as its de facto ruler, and then thru’ spurious contracts hand over all the oil fields to American companies. Iraq is one of the biggest suppliers of oil to India. And the closest source, except for Iran. We would be badly affected by this war, not only in the short term, but also in the long term. And the Americans are greedy, they will not be satisfied with Iraq, then they will want to go after Iran, our ally in the region. Countries like France and Germany, their traditional allies have seen through this charade and that is why they are doing their best to avoid war. Japan is silent as probably it has been offered a significant portion of the war spoils. I don’t remember when and where I read it, but in an article on energy security, one of America’s analyst had suggested doing this so that America’s own oil fields can stop or reduce production to prepare for the time when the oil reserves begin to run out.

Our options and interests are quite clear, only question being, is our leadership capable enough to understand and see thru this latest version of the ‘Great Game’ and take appropriate measures.

Sorry for the long post.

Rajiv

amitdahiya
February 13th, 2003, 08:25 PM
Machiavelli the european 'Chanakya" once said " There are no permanent relationships there are only permanent interests"

Five countries have had a reason to explore and develop nuclear and missile capability since both imply a desire or need to project political force beyond their frontiers and regions.
The U.S. the only country with a proven ability to project and employ nuclear force in war justified it as a means of cutting short the 2nd world war in the pacific by atleast one year meaning the saving of at least half a million soldiers lives if the conventional war had been allowed to drag on to its natural conclusion.

Russia suffered the brunt of the Nazi war machines aggression and justified it to protect itself in the future. This need for self protection was allowed to become a national obsession fed by an artificial sense of insecurity and later an artificial sense of imperial grandeur.

China had been occupied and virtually raped in every conceivable way by the japanese and western history has done little to project the true extent of their suffering and the chinese party pursued nuclear power to the point where it ha sitself taken on imperialistic ambitions of its ancient dynasties which it promised to set out and replace.

Out of the other countries that posess nuclear weapons the brits own them out of a misplaced sence of empire. Initially they has ahuge empire and not much Goverment , Today they have a hug Govt but no empire and nuclear power allows them to pretend just a little longer.

The other European nations too come into this same league of Nuclear pretenders . Of all the others only India and Israel have any cause to pursue Nuclear power. Israel because her size demands it for sheer survival.

Paradoxically 'peace loving' India is the only country with a genuine reason to possess nuclear weapons in this day and age. After all we are the only country with ahostile nuclear power on our borders sitting in foceful occupation of about a quarter of a million sq kms(?) of our terriotory and shows no peaceful sign of vacating it.

Where does Iraq fit into all this in the light of all these rumours of weapons of mass destruction. Every one conveniently forgets or does not realise that out of all the other nuclear powers Iraq has the longest experienc of projecting force beyond her borders. Iraq is the cradle of not one, not two, but at least three and probably as many as five powerful empires in its long history. It actually possesses the oil to fuel its ambitions and after the triumph of Saddams Baath party( Have I got that right) it has the political will to project force. But the ownership of Iraqs traditional lands have now changed hands thanks to the western discovery of oil and its ownership of the demand and supply chain never mind who owns the sand around the wells.

The western appetite for oil has crossed the point of need, about60 percent of U.S oil is required for home heating and luxury consumption by our perspective. But we who have been whining about the recent cold wave of 15 days duration in which about 500 people died without the mercury dropping even 1degree below zero should consider that The north Americans and indeed the North Europeans too live in cold that rarely rises above 15degrees below zero for several months. At this point oil ceases to be a mere fuel for a fancy car it means life.

The west discovered oil , they invented virtually all its uses and they are not going to let go of the process and delivery control system no matter what until it is depleted completely or they invent a way to convert water into hydrogen for a brand new technology which they will use to run the world pretty much the way theyre doing now but that will be in the name of Global Eco Security as opposed to global economic/energy security today. Terrorism, the environment, expansionism are all subjective verbal equipment used to perform mental calesthenics.

My advice to our people on Jatland. Interested in knowing whats going to happen to Iraq? Either Saddam will toe the line on adeal brokered by the big boys of oil or his successors will right after the fireworks either way we should invest in afew good books on history and keep an eye on 20 little characters on the business page which you have to struggle to find, they say crude oil--$ per barrel. Watch out for these twenty eye straining little letters folks and never mind the headlines cause thats where the real story begins and ends on Iraq.

Amit Dahiyabadshah
( Inventor of the 100 word unpunctuated sentence, now a major export item from haryana)

parul
February 13th, 2003, 08:37 PM
"Saddam Hussein is no doubt a ruthless dictator, who forgives no one who dares question him.
But one thing that is also true about him is, that he is not a terrorist and definately not a fundamentalist Islamist like the regiemes in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia."

so you want to say you don't mind a dictator but you would mind some terrorist..then i would say this is a problem of misuse of lanuage.both ways situation is same but seems like your are prefering a more fashionable word.


"The US itself gave him the nod to attack Kuwait and he had i believe a right to reclaim Kuwait."
who gave him a right to reclaim kuwait..??

"As it used to be a part of Iraq and the British made it a seperate country as they did to us."
Are you planning to reclaim pakistan or burma ?..I think whatever was the situation earlier, but now you have to respect soveriginity of a country..kuwait or pakistan for that matter..




"I believe that Saddam being the head of Iraqi State is in the best interest of India, because his Iron Fist rule is the only thing that can keep stability in Iraq."
I am no political analyst, but can certainly say onething for sure as far as civilians in Iraq are concerned, they have to die, either of hunger or a bullet.

ravichaudhary
February 13th, 2003, 10:17 PM
Very insightful replies from Rajiv, VJ , Ami and Parul.

Thay have all raised very valid points.

War is not in India's interest,and the threat is not Saddam but saudi arabia & Pakistan, where the silly mindset starts, and terror is state policy to achieve their goals.

But how you get to them to stop them, attacjk the weakest first. and only with the support of those will do something in this case - Bush and Blair.

They know where the Islamic fanantacism is coming from

Yet today Iraq, though more secular and free, is the easiest target and therefore Iraq will be broken.

After that, neither Pakistan, or Saudi is safe. they will be next

Politics is not fair. nor is war . Appeals to concience only work with those whose value systems include value for a conscience.

It is simply an extension of state policy as is terror.


This is a tough call

Ravi

urmiladuhan
February 14th, 2003, 02:12 AM
India has nothing to gain fron US war on Iraq in monetary terms. US has lot to gain fron this war- with Iraq under its wings, US have easy access to 40% of the worlds oil- which it badly needs to revive its economy. Also, a long term military presence in Iraq will strengthen US influence in the mideast -which it needs if it wants to control terrorist supporting states. Saudi Arabia is getting nervous about having so much US in its neighbourhood becuase then it will come under close monitoring of the US due to muslim fundamentalists haven in S.Arabia (just like Pakistani government is in a tight spot right now) which in turn will threaten the stability of government in the region. They are trying to wash their hands off America by now saying US needs to move out of their country after "dethroning" Saddam. Any move by US that is targeted towards muslim fundamentalists is in India's favour.

vivek
February 14th, 2003, 02:41 AM
Saddam is a ruthless meglomaniac, and just like the definition of meglomaniac, he wants more power via controlling Gulf Oil. He tried to invade Kuwait and Iran to achieve his goals despite incredible risks. US doesn't want to be blackmailed by Saddam...who could threaten to contaminate the entire Gulf oil, once he has nukes. The war is about oil and as a US citizen, I think a justified one if we are to insure safe supply of oil and our way of life.

If US were to topple Saddam, The Islamic fundamentalism will be surrounded by US or India. Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan will all have a foreign presence next to them, and the aim of terrorists and the greater nation of Islam or Umma (aim of Islamic fundamentalism will suffer a crushing blow). Peace in Israel could have a chance once Syria is surrounded by Western powers.

Quite a bit of terrorism suffered by India is financed by Saudi Arabia. It seems that most of the damage suffered to offshore equipment for oil drilling off Mumbai's coast had origins in Saudi Arabia. Pakistan's madrassas are financed by Saudi Arabia..which in turn are responsible for Kashmir terrorism. If Iraq falls and has a democratic government...a similar movement could shape up in Saudi Arabia and their dreams of an Umma may not be so easily feasible. In short funding for terrorism should have additional roadblocks, if Iraq is conquered, loss of muslim financial clout will undoubtedly help India.

rsdalal
February 14th, 2003, 02:57 AM
Urmila Duhan (Feb 13, 2003 03:42 p.m.):
Any move by US that is targeted towards muslim fundamentalists is in India's favour.

Very true....

parul
February 14th, 2003, 09:27 AM
what you mean by this..you don't mind killing a few million people, so that you can go on a long ride with a full supply of petrol..
This is SADISTIC..
As a US CITIZEN you are thinking about Iraq blackmailing US, well i think you have come up with an innovative phrase, call Collin Powell he might also need it..
don't mind, but just a request, do some homework before making a post..




Vivek Singh Tomar (Feb 13, 2003 04:11 p.m.):
Saddam is a ruthless meglomaniac, and just like the definition of meglomaniac, he wants more power via controlling Gulf Oil. He tried to invade Kuwait and Iran to achieve his goals despite incredible risks. US doesn't want to be blackmailed by Saddam...who could threaten to contaminate the entire Gulf oil, once he has nukes. The war is about oil and as a US citizen, I think a justified one if we are to insure safe supply of oil and our way of life.

If US were to topple Saddam, The Islamic fundamentalism will be surrounded by US or India. Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan will all have a foreign presence next to them, and the aim of terrorists and the greater nation of Islam or Umma (aim of Islamic fundamentalism will suffer a crushing blow). Peace in Israel could have a chance once Syria is surrounded by Western powers.

Quite a bit of terrorism suffered by India is financed by Saudi Arabia. It seems that most of the damage suffered to offshore equipment for oil drilling off Mumbai's coast had origins in Saudi Arabia. Pakistan's madrassas are financed by Saudi Arabia..which in turn are responsible for Kashmir terrorism. If Iraq falls and has a democratic government...a similar movement could shape up in Saudi Arabia and their dreams of an Umma may not be so easily feasible. In short funding for terrorism should have additional roadblocks, if Iraq is conquered, loss of muslim financial clout will undoubtedly help India.

vivek
February 14th, 2003, 09:48 AM
There was another meglomaniac who was allowed to break a treaty. The Treaty of Versailles was not enforced and Hitler was able to do his thing and almost annihilate 6 million Jews and countless other millions. Saddam has the same characterstics. He's not satisfied with just ruling Iraq, and has plans of controlling Gulf oil. He can easily hold the west hostage if he has nukes.

You learn from history, and prevent catastrophical situations. US is the only country that goes out of its way to minimize civilian damage. If Saddam wanted peace, he could comply with UN resolutions. But he goes out of his way and gives support to Al-Qaeda's al-Zawahiri, who promptly develops a plan to kill millions of Britons with Ricin. US has a lot more information on Saddam, but for obvious reasons they do not want to jeapordise their sources. If they were merely after oil, they could have taken over Kuwait or even Saudi Arabia for that matter.

French, Russians, have both about $4 billion worth of contracts with Iraq for which they have to be paid. Granted that UN is nothing more than a debating society (I lived in Geneva and have seen first hand the immense bureaucracy with foundatioons in nepotism, and zilch in actual accomplishments), but if you let the resolutions have no meaning, then whats the point of pretense anyways.

It is you who should learn from history. India has given in to terrorism for short term benefits (e.g. Mufti Daughter Kidnappers demmand...Indian Airline kidnappers demand) only to have long term hell. The situation is same here...you go through short term pain to have long term peace.

parul
February 14th, 2003, 12:25 PM
No opinions..just facts..
read my another post titiled (please......) in the same forum.You may also want to read another post of mine (Call to conscience), may be you will understand, US's concern..
Well I am a natural born INDIAN citizen, my point of view might be a bit biased(geographical loyalities).
Well I live in India, I know what does it mean dying of hunger, what does it mean when you see your own kins dying.If you think you can bring everlasting peace by starving people,you are just going to get a few more WTCs.
Parul


Vivek Singh Tomar (Feb 13, 2003 11:18 p.m.):
There was another meglomaniac who was allowed to break a treaty. The Treaty of Versailles was not enforced and Hitler was able to do his thing and almost annihilate 6 million Jews and countless other millions. Saddam has the same characterstics. He's not satisfied with just ruling Iraq, and has plans of controlling Gulf oil. He can easily hold the west hostage if he has nukes.

You learn from history, and prevent catastrophical situations. US is the only country that goes out of its way to minimize civilian damage. If Saddam wanted peace, he could comply with UN resolutions. But he goes out of his way and gives support to Al-Qaeda's al-Zawahiri, who promptly develops a plan to kill millions of Britons with Ricin. US has a lot more information on Saddam, but for obvious reasons they do not want to jeapordise their sources. If they were merely after oil, they could have taken over Kuwait or even Saudi Arabia for that matter.

French, Russians, have both about $4 billion worth of contracts with Iraq for which they have to be paid. Granted that UN is nothing more than a debating society (I lived in Geneva and have seen first hand the immense bureaucracy with foundatioons in nepotism, and zilch in actual accomplishments), but if you let the resolutions have no meaning, then whats the point of pretense anyways.

It is you who should learn from history. India has given in to terrorism for short term benefits (e.g. Mufti Daughter Kidnappers demmand...Indian Airline kidnappers demand) only to have long term hell. The situation is same here...you go through short term pain to have long term peace.

rajiv7
February 14th, 2003, 07:39 PM
Mr Tomar: Very un-Jat like views and very eager to prove himself more american than the americans.

It is only about OIL. If it was WMDs then the list would be Pakistan, North Korea, Saudi Arabia and China. If it was terrorism then the list would be Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Iraq does not come into this picture.

Why should we (Indians) and the rest of the world make sacrifices so that the americans can have their 'way of life'? Why should India have to buy oil at 50% to 100% premium just to satisfy America's greed? What is it in there for us?

Remember 9/11? Remember the towers falling down, Mr America? Who was involved? Were the Iraqis involved in any way? What happened to those who were actually involved? What happened to the Pakistani Lt Gen (then head of the ISI) who transferred $100,000 to the mastermind of 9/11? What happened to the entire leadership of Taleban and Al Quaida? What happened to the 3 Pakistani nuclear scientist who were sent to Burma and hidden there? There is a red alert in the past few days of a possible attack by a Dirty Bomb (a conventional bomb covered with radioacvtive material) - who provided this Bomb to the terrorists? You don't want to catch them and punish them anymore? More than 3,000 americans were murdered in one go and Bush has decided to go after Iraq, why?

O-Why? I-Why? L-Why?

ndahiya
February 14th, 2003, 08:34 PM
An old article on The Economist. :)

http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=1325264

Need I say more...

Nitin

vivek
February 15th, 2003, 05:03 AM
What is a 'Jat like' view? Should we be able to think for ourselves, or have 'sheep like' thinking and agree with someone else's view. If you would like to debate, then debate on merits of the arguments...rather than make 'jat like' comments

I am an American citizen, having lived in the United states for around 25 years (compared to first 14 years in India). I have also served in the US Army, when I was in my early twenties, so I do not understand your emphasis on my trying to be more american than americans... I am an american citizen who is a veteran having served honorably in the US Army for three years. I work for the US governmental agency, and I must say I owe a lot to the US. I identify myelf as an american, who is of Indian descent, and who happens to be a jat. Even though I frequent these board for entertainment and information, I find the concept of tribal superiority a dangerous one. Racism, casteism, jehad etc all have roots in the idea of tribal superiority and the exercise tends to be nothing, but an attempt to raise low self esteem.

There is quite a lively debate in the US about pro's and cons about Bush's attempt to invade Iraq, as there should be in a healthy democracy. The liberals are against it, and most conservatives are for it. After carefully weighing the Pro's and Cons, I feel the argument for replacing Saddam is more logical one, as it relates to stability of United States' future.

My sister resides in India, and she happens to agree with your point of view. The question boils down to...is world a safer place if Saddam has the nukes, given his past and proximity to oil supply routes.

US is not concerned about controlling oil, but rather interruption free flow of oil from the gulf. If you have ever been stuck in a 16 lane highway in a traffic jam in the US, you will realise how critical flow of oil is to US economy. Alternative fuels are still about ten years away. India's IT Boom etc is all related to US well being as an economy.

France has a very suspect past. They surrendered to Germany in two weeks without a fight, and started rounding up jews for the Germans, even before they were asked to. If it were not for the Americans, they would be speaking German. They are more concerned about the 4 billion dollars Iraq owes them, and their 15 % muslim population than making UN relevant.....which it is not.

The war relates to oil. So what...look around you!! everything is powered by oil, or is a product of its derivatives. The buddist and hindus in afghanistan prior to Islamic Invasions were by definition quite idealistic and peace loving. Look...where are they now. Pragmatism and being realistic has its merits. If you do not learn from history, then the sacrifices made by your ancestors are in vain...(as it relates to Hitler and WW2). In the end, our thinking is all colored by our experience...and mine is that of an american citizen.




Rajiv Lather (Feb 14, 2003 09:19 a.m.):
Mr Tomar: Very un-Jat like views and very eager to prove himself more american than the americans.

It is only about OIL. If it was WMDs then the list would be Pakistan, North Korea, Saudi Arabia and China. If it was terrorism then the list would be Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Iraq does not come into this picture.

Why should we (Indians) and the rest of the world make sacrifices so that the americans can have their 'way of life'? Why should India have to buy oil at 50% to 100% premium just to satisfy America's greed? What is it in there for us?

Remember 9/11? Remember the towers falling down, Mr America? Who was involved? Were the Iraqis involved in any way? What happened to those who were actually involved? What happened to the Pakistani Lt Gen (then head of the ISI) who transferred $100,000 to the mastermind of 9/11? What happened to the entire leadership of Taleban and Al Quaida? What happened to the 3 Pakistani nuclear scientist who were sent to Burma and hidden there? There is a red alert in the past few days of a possible attack by a Dirty Bomb (a conventional bomb covered with radioacvtive material) - who provided this Bomb to the terrorists? You don't want to catch them and punish them anymore? More than 3,000 americans were murdered in one go and Bush has decided to go after Iraq, why?

O-Why? I-Why? L-Why?

urmiladuhan
February 15th, 2003, 06:07 AM
Patriotism, religious identity, tribal affinity can be a pretty strong feeling for many of us which may prevent us from seeing things as they are or as they should be seen. That's why neutral institutions like United Nations need to be respected on global scale. Just because i was born in Jat community, or am an Indian citizen, or American should not mean i should support them each and every time even if it means over riding my own conscience. Nobody is perfect.

lrburdak
February 15th, 2003, 08:01 AM
Hi
War is not a good thing for any country in the world. It should be opposed by India at all levels.American stand is pure dadagiri.Such a small country like Iraq can not do much harm to America.
L.R.Burdak

vivek
February 15th, 2003, 09:12 AM
Another argument posed is that US is fighting Iraq at the expense of Terrorism War. I seem to shar ethe view point that it is part of the same war. The war against terrorism has no boundaries. Saddam and his empire provide the weapons, and AL Qaeda provides the delivery means. Both should be eliminated. After Iraq....the only place where terrorism is running rampant is Pakistan....and US will probably tell Pakis to get their house in order, or they will get behind India in getting rid of the threat. Last high level meeting between Pakis and US official turned out to be quit bitter for Pakistanis....so much so that Musharraf ran to Russia to come up with a backup benefactor. US needs India to counter China, and they really do not have much use for Pakistanis anymore. That's an important reason why I feel Iraq war is good for India.

raj2rif
February 15th, 2003, 06:03 PM
Dear All,
It is nice to go through your views, and I am happy that most of you have done your home work. I would like to draw your attention to few points here:
1. As Vice President of Iraq, Saddam Hussain himself signed a treaty with Iran to share the waters of Shet Al Arab. As per the international laws when the water is the border between the two countries the center of the stream/water is to be international boundry. On becoming President, he argued that Iran can not use Shet Al Arab waters as it is the extension of the two rivers (Tigris and Euphretis) both belonging to Iraq. He attacked Iran and made the region unstable.
2. On the day of Security Counsil meeting (14th Feb 2003) he issues the decree not to import any thing that can be used to produce WMDs.
3. His hatered for Israel is well known. During the Gulf War, he fired missiles on Israel, who was not the active ally of US in War against Iraq. Why?
4. Suicide bombers whether in the Indian Parliament or in Israeli markets are dangerous to civilization. It is a known fact that he provides funds to them.
With all this back ground, do you still trust Saddam Hussain? Further, muslim fundamentalism needs to be brought to an end what ever be the cost of it.
Now purely from the Indian point of view. We are suffering from the Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism, thus morally we need to take a stand on this basis.
I am pretty convinced that the US presence in Afghanistan,Iraq and Pakistan will be beneficial to us. US Presence in Iraq would also be useful in monitoring the terrorist activities under taken from the soils of Syria, Saudi Arabia and UAE.
If the US coilation succeds in Iraq, which it will, then we would still be needing the badly needed oil from that country. And if we are with the government in that country, we will be that much better off.
Further, by supporting US in this war, we must also bargain with them for their support to us against Pakistan. Imagine, with a friendly government in Afghanistan, and no US support to Pakistan, how much advantage we will have while negotiating any thing with Pakistan?
Surely, no one can guarantee any thing in International relations, but one can foresee. US would need Indian support for a long time in the region and we must make best use of this situation.

urmiladuhan
February 15th, 2003, 09:19 PM
The other day i watched Pakistan's foreign ministers interviwe by Charlie Rose on PBS.

The defence minister was having a hard time defending his country for its nuclear dealings with N.Korea. America knows Pakistan is a rouge state but his hands are tied because of Afganistan happenings. China

is no less opportunistic than anyone else (gave N.weapons to Pakistan to get even with India). It is indeed a little unfortunate for India to have 2 notorious countries surrounding a long stretch of its international border.

rajiv7
February 15th, 2003, 09:41 PM
notorious Ms Duhan? Can countries acting in self interest be notorious? It is people and the rulers who are notorious

Rajiv

urmiladuhan
February 16th, 2003, 03:19 AM
These 2 countries are notorious for breaking agreements that they sign, repressing their people, subjugating and persecuting minority cultures, unlimited territorial ambitions, and a militaristic attitude towards their neighbours.

You could also say that a mafia acts in its own interest but a mafia acts in the interest of its leader and it is always notorious for keeping itself above the law.

rajiv7
February 16th, 2003, 08:46 AM
Here is the answer:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030216/ap_on_re_eu/world_war_protests_23

Eventually everyone will see thru' this game

arjun
February 16th, 2003, 07:53 PM
India always says it wants to be a super power... let us show some guts ans stop America in its tracks... India should do this..
1) enter into an understanding with China and wins it support.
2) Ask Saddam to step down in return for sending Indian troops in Iraq..
INDIA SOULD SEND ITS ARMY INTO IRAQ TO STOP US AGGRESSION !
to become a world power, one has to act like one... india's soft and ambivalent stand will get it nowhere.
Shocking ? but this is a golden chance for India to make a mark in the international forum.

parul
February 16th, 2003, 08:12 PM
Years back during kuwait war,( i was a kid at that time;))) i remember kuwait doing some sort of slant drilling in Iraq, which was supposedly the immediate reason for war.
Can soemone confirm..?
Parul

kharub
February 16th, 2003, 09:33 PM
Before Saddam Hussein there has not been a government in Iraq that lasted more than three years.
He is the man who brought stability to the region, every other regieme was overthrown by coups. He has done it by being ruthless, as there was no other way it could have been done.

Ok he is ruthless but that very personal trait is responsible for the stability of Iraq. He is the man who built a modern state of Iraq and for sure is no terrorist.

The N-Korean crisis is much bigger than the Iraqi state of affairs. Nobody has yet established that Iraq has any WMD'S but N-Korea for sure does have nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles.

So why Iraq why not N.Korea?
The reason is simple there is nothing for USA in korea except hunger and poverty.
If they go for N.Korea they will have to pay from their pocket to feed the people.
Whereas Iraq is a diamond mine, a big treasure waiting to be looted and exploited, and that's exactly what the Americans are doing.

VJ Kharub

vivek
February 16th, 2003, 10:15 PM
Oh Lordy.

Why would Saddam listen to India and step down and not do same for the US? Indian Army has its hands full with Kashmir Agression, and trouble in the Northeast...what makes you think that Indian army has spare capital and troops to send to Iraq and take on the US. Why would you want to support a dictator who has helped the cause of Jehadis in Kashmir and blow one chance of alliance with US to contain terrorist in Pakistan. Indian Army suffered humiliating defeat in an alien territory in Sri Lanka...what makes you think they will have success against state of the art weapon that US posesses.

Guts and intelligence together wins war. I hope for India's sake that you are in low level management somwhere...All guts no glory...like the Taliban. Seriously dude...what are you smoking?





Arjun Rana (Feb 16, 2003 09:23 a.m.):
India always says it wants to be a super power... let us show some guts ans stop America in its tracks... India should do this..
1) enter into an understanding with China and wins it support.
2) Ask Saddam to step down in return for sending Indian troops in Iraq..
INDIA SOULD SEND ITS ARMY INTO IRAQ TO STOP US AGGRESSION !
to become a world power, one has to act like one... india's soft and ambivalent stand will get it nowhere.
Shocking ? but this is a golden chance for India to make a mark in the international forum.

urmiladuhan
February 17th, 2003, 04:59 AM
Indian Army suffered humiliating defeat in an alien territory in Sri Lanka...
***************
alien territory in Sri Lanka...
Oh! so you do know this!!

***************

OMG- Which N.paper gave you such "gems of knowledge"!!!! It is obvious you have not taken any interest in Indian politics in a long time. Here is some Indian Politics 101:

It was because of India's timely intervention that the SriLankan's Tamil Gorrilas
had to back off from taking over SriLankan Territory and hence India won (and not "humiliating defeat in an alien SriLankan territory as you put it). The reason India interviened in Srilankan affairs was because India knew situation was getting out of S.Lankan governments hands and American forces would be
invited soon for help by the S.Lankans. To avoid an American presence in its neighbourhood, Indian
forces stormed the terrorista out for Sri Lanka and temporarily disintegrated their organization. The
Tamilians were very mad with India and for this reason they assasinated Rajiv Gandhi.
You would save a lot of time of the readers if only you check your facts before you post.

raj2rif
February 17th, 2003, 11:02 AM
Dear All,
I think this forum is for all of us to express our views, however meaning less they may be. I would say, that we must maintain a decorum while addressing other contributors.
Mr. Rana's idea of sending Indian troops to Iraq to contest US is obviously not very well thought off. You don't commit force to attain the status of super power. To become super power we need to have a very strong economy backed up by a technologically advanced strong military. I think we have a long way to go in this field. It is not in our interest to use our troops on foreign soil except with the UN. If the war against Iraq is approved by UN and Indian help is needed, then off course there is no harm in committing some force as part of UN against Iraq and not for Iraq.

Now the question about debate on Indian Army's involvement in Sri Lanka. Well, we didn't do well there. There were two main reasons for that. Firstly we were committed prematurely by our leaders and thus were not prepared. The leadership under estimated the enemy strength.
Secondly, we had no cause to fight for. This is an important factor. It was purely this reason that inspite of superior technology and strength, US army didn't do well in Vietnam. There are numerous examples of this nature in the history. Unfortunately our policies towards Sri Lanka are greatly influenced by our domestic politics in Tamil Nadu.

We have no business to fight for Iraq specially when it is violating the UN resolutions.

Regarding Parul's questions about Kuwait carrying out slant drilling, I have not heard if that was the reason for war against Kuwait. I believe that the main reason was that Saddam asked Kuwait to pay a huge amount of money to Iraq as compensation for its war against Iran.

In my opinion Mr. Saddam Hussain is a danger to the world peace. WMD's in any country ruled by a dictator are dangerous for the world peace. Imagine some of these weapons landing in Kashmir or in any other Indian City. We are running out of time and in my opinion India should support the war against Iraq even though Mr. George Fernandes feels otherwise. Obviously he might be having his voters in mind as elections are fast approaching. After Iraq, we must impress upon US to take on Pakistan. We need to root out islamic fundamentalism and we as a country must support all actions against it. After all we have suffered a lot and will continue to suffer if we don't take a correct stand. As far as the economic repercussions are involved, I think the link given by Mr. Nitin Dahiya explains it well.