India-US Relations : News and Discussion

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 30 Sep 2014 05:16

A_Gupta wrote:
svinayak wrote:http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2 ... ous-cliche
Finally meet Pankaj Misra meet Economist and finally John Oliver
I remember Pankaj Misra as one who accused the Indian government of complicity in the Chattisinghpora massacre back around when POTUS Clinton was visiting India. I thought that extremely foul; and if Misra wanted some independent proof, we have from now from David Headley. As far as I have been able to check, Misra has never offered an apology for that.

Anyway, I have offered my own comments as Arun (my first name) on the article. I suspect it is time for our Scandinavian friends to add their wisdom as well.

To contact the editor responsible for this article: James Gibney at jgibney5@bloomberg.net.

member_22733 · Post by **member_22733** » 30 Sep 2014 05:23

Around 2008, I was struggling to understand what in the world caused Unkil to wade into eye-raq after 9/11. One reason I did know was that unkil never understood the ground reality of most of the world (except possibly oirope). I still believe its true.

The other reason was hidden to me until recently, and that reason is people like Pankaj Misra end up twisting stories and writing tales of horror about someone they claim to be yeeevil. These guys being house slaves have deep contacts in unkils media and thus their voices get through and distort perception. Unkil's folly in foreign relationships is that his messengers conniving bunch agenda pushers.

Hurts both unkil and the other side. No one is a winner in this game, other than the messenger and Halliburtons.

For ex: I used to like John Oliver until he started to cover Modi. He is just as fallible to distorted points of view, and he has no tools and no trusted source to give him any contrary info. According to John Oliver, Modi is a arm-twisting genocidal totalitarian dictator, exactly as how our newstraders portrayed him to be.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 30 Sep 2014 05:31

Shreeman wrote:To contact the editor responsible for this article: James Gibney at jgibney5@bloomberg.net.

I have previously done that - written to the editors of Bloomberg about Pankaj Mishra, (with more citations too), to no visible effect.

sivab · Post by **sivab** » 30 Sep 2014 05:46

Subramanian Swamy ‏@Swamy39 24m24 minutes ago
Happy that Modi committed to Obama that India would join the anti-ISIS war. Now Indo-US good relations will reach new unprecedented heights.

Subramanian Swamy @Swamy39 · 9m 9 minutes ago
@ASHOKGUPTADV : UN Security Council veto holding seat by 2019 and US backtracking on support to Pakistan will be the price.

Will be ground breaking if true ...

SandeepA · Post by **SandeepA** » 30 Sep 2014 05:51

sivab wrote:
Subramanian Swamy ‏@Swamy39 24m24 minutes ago
Happy that Modi committed to Obama that India would join the anti-ISIS war. Now Indo-US good relations will reach new unprecedented heights.

Subramanian Swamy @Swamy39 · 9m 9 minutes ago
@ASHOKGUPTADV : UN Security Council veto holding seat by 2019 and US backtracking on support to Pakistan will be the price.
Will be ground breaking if true ...

I dont like this if its true

member_22733 · Post by **member_22733** » 30 Sep 2014 05:53

That is not a positive news

. If possible Unkil would fight ISIS till the last Indian.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 30 Sep 2014 05:59

A_GuptaJi, good comments.

SandeepAJi, if ModiJi is agreeing to join get ISIS BS withut any quid pro quo on US taking on TSP, I say its a huge price to pay bordering on sell out. Why should India be like Aussie, and Oriepean pisquesks? India is not even on ISIS radar screen and with this decision, Indians will be red meat for ISIS. I hope ModiJi, good PR aside, does not take this "Terrorism is against humanity" BS seriously, its true no doubt, but does US share that view visa vi TSP terror against India?

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 30 Sep 2014 06:04

Not the topic of thread but obliquely related, here is Bibi equating Iran and Hamas to ISIS. To the best of my knowledge neither Hamas, nor ISIS have beheaded Israelis, but TSP has be-headed and tortured Indians. I wish an Indian leader were as forceful as this in projecting the evil abomination that TSP is.

http://www.nytimes.com/news/un-general- ... with-iran/

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 30 Sep 2014 06:06

I would hope no Indian leader ever sinks as low as Bbi.

vivek.rao · Post by **vivek.rao** » 30 Sep 2014 06:13

I really sometimes hope to see ba$tards like Pankaj Mishra in ISIS hands.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 30 Sep 2014 06:30

sanjaykumar wrote:I would hope no Indian leader ever sinks as low as Bbi.

Are you saying TSP is not as evil as ISIS?

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 30 Sep 2014 06:31

Don't worry. We won't sending troops to the Middle East. Chances are we may just vote favorably for the US and NATO in the UN and other multilateral forums.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 30 Sep 2014 06:34

RoyG wrote:Don't worry. We won't sending troops to the Middle East. Chances are we may just vote favorably for the US and NATO in the UN and other multilateral forums.

No body will ever make the mistake of putting Indian boots on the ground in the middle east or else where for that matter.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 30 Sep 2014 06:36

It would be an act of utter folly for Mr.Modi to lead India into a war with ISIS,joining the US stooges,when our greatest danger is right across our two borders with China aad Pak.If Indian troops are sent to fight in Iraq,Syria,etc.the costs will be catastrophic in both fiscal,human and political terms,once the bodybags start coming home.Mr.Modi would do well to remember the IPKF fiasco when Rajiv was seduced by JRJ into "peacekeeping" in a civil war where we ended up fighting one side with grievous losses.

India cannot under any circumstances become Uncle Sam's second "rent-boy" and catamite of the subcontinent,in a "menage a trois" with Pak!

US duplicity in fighting terrorism and waging war selectively across the globe is well illustrated in this piece.

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/ob ... 458593.ece
September 30, 2014
Obama, the serial interventionist

Barack Obama has been more at ease waging wars than in waging peace. He has proved to be one of America’s most militarily assertive Presidents since World War II

America’s Nobel Peace Prize laureate president, Barack Obama, who helped turn Libya into a failed state by toppling its ruler Muammar Qadhafi, has started a new war in Syria and Iraq even as the U.S. remains embroiled in the Afghanistan war. Mr. Obama’s air war in Syria — his presidency’s seventh military campaign in a Muslim nation and the one likely to consume his remaining term in office — raises troubling questions about its objectives and his own adherence to the rule of law.

While it has become imperative to contain the Islamic State (IS), a Sunni jihadist army that has imposed a despotic medieval order in the territories under its control, any fight against terrorism can be effectively waged only if it respects international law and reinforces global norms and does not become an instrument to pursue narrow, geopolitical interests.

Ever since America launched its “war on terror” in 2001 under Mr. Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush, the scourge of international terrorism, ominously, has spread deeper and wider in the world. Jihadist forces extolling terror as a sanctified tool of religion have gained ground in a number of countries. Once stable nations such as Iraq, Syria and Libya have become anarchic, crumbling states and new hubs of transnational terrorism, even as the Afghanistan-Pakistan belt remains “ground zero” for the terrorist threat the world confronts.
War on U.S. terms

Mr. Obama was supposed to be fundamentally different than Mr. Bush — an expectation that led the Nobel committee to award him the Peace Prize soon after he assumed office. Yet, underscoring the disconnect between his words and actions, Mr. Obama has been more at ease waging wars — that too in breach of international law — than in waging peace. He has proved to be one of America’s most militarily assertive Presidents since World War II, with his readiness to use force driven by a penchant to act as judge and executioner.

Mr. Obama in Cairo in 2009 sought “a new beginning” between the U.S. and Muslims “based upon mutual interest and mutual respect.” However, his reliance on U.S. hard power has been underlined by his serial bombing campaigns in Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Iraq and Syria. He also directed a threefold increase in the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, sharply escalated drone attacks in Pakistan, and initiated “targeted killing” of even U.S. citizens with suspected ties to terrorism. And now comes the news that this warrior-in-chief, having championed “a nuclear-free world,” has quietly pursued plans for an extensive expansion of the U.S. nuclear arsenal, already the world’s costliest and most-sophisticated.
Core of a coalition

What stopped Mr. Obama from seeking United Nations Security Council (UNSC) mandate before initiating a war in Syria against IS militants? The answer is obvious: Mr. Obama wants to wage his open-ended war on U.S. terms, like his earlier interventions.

Five repressive Arab autocracies form the core of his “coalition of the willing” on Syria. Paradoxically, four of the five — Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates — plus the U.S., aided IS’s rise, either openly or inadvertently. This is a coalition of sinners now dressed as knights in shining armour.

Such has been the tepid international response to what the White House admits will be a multiyear military offensive in the Syria-Iraq belt that only five of the 22 Arab states (or, to put it differently, five of the 57 members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation) have joined the coalition. And even though the U.S. is striking a terrorist group, its urge to test new weapons has led to the debut in war of the problem-plagued F-22 stealth bomber.

Mr. Obama displayed his disdain for international law by addressing the U.N. after presenting his bombing blitzkrieg in Syria as a fait accompli. To rationalise the unleashing of force in Syria by bypassing the U.N., his administration has meretriciously claimed the defence of a third country, Iraq, as a legal ground. Such a precedent could allow the sovereignty of any nation to be violated.

In reality, this is just the latest U.S. action mocking international law. Other such actions in the past 15 years include the bombing of Serbia, the separation of Kosovo from Serbia, the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq without UNSC authority, Qadhafi’s overthrow, the aiding of an insurrection in Syria, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) renditions of terror suspects, and the National Security Agency’s Orwellian surveillance programme. Yet, Mr. Obama has escalated a sanctions campaign against Russia in the name of upholding international law.
Creating, fighting the problem

Indeed, he has not sought even U.S. congressional authorisation before embroiling his country in yet another war. To justify his serial interventions and interminable war making, Mr. Obama has continued to speciously cite the congressional authority Mr. Bush secured to specifically go after those that “planned, authorized, committed or aided” the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. But given that linking IS to the 9/11 attacks would stretch plausibility, especially since al-Qaeda has publicly disavowed IS, his administration started the Syria war by claiming an “imminent” threat to U.S. homeland security from a previously unknown “Al Qaeda affiliate,” Khorasan.

The unpalatable truth that Mr. Obama seeks to obscure is that the main IS force was born in Syria out of the CIA-trained, petrodollar-funded rebels who were reared to help overthrow Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Mr. Obama turned a blind eye as IS made significant advances from mid-2013 onward. IS militants ceased to be “good” terrorists undermining Mr. Assad’s rule and Iranian interests after they threatened U.S. interests and beheaded two American journalists.

If President Ronald Reagan accidentally fathered al-Qaeda, Mr. Obama is IS’s unintended godfather turned self-declared slayer-in-chief. Having earlier tasked the CIA with aiding Syrian rebels to help oust Mr. Assad, Mr. Obama has now tasked the agency to create a proxy ground force against IS in Syria by training and arming thousands of more insurgents.
It affects India

Training and arming non-state combatants flies in the face of international law. The directive also ignores the lessons from past covert interventions. “We had helped to create the problem that we are now fighting,” Ms. Hillary Clinton candidly told Fox News as Secretary of State, saying “we had this brilliant idea we were going to come to Pakistan and create a force of mujahideen and equip them with Stinger missiles and everything else to go after the Soviets inside Afghanistan.” Mr. Obama’s own creation of “moderate” rebel forces in Libya has badly backfired.

The U.S. indeed has also contributed to India’s terrorism problem. After all, large portions of the CIA’s multibillion-dollar military aid for the Afghan rebels in the 1980s were siphoned off by the conduit, Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), to trigger insurgencies in India’s Kashmir and Punjab. India — and Pakistan — have paid a heavy price for America’s continued cosy ties with the Pakistani military and its ISI spies. Yet, paradoxically, the U.S. has used counterterrorism as a key instrument to build a strategic partnership with India.

Mr. Obama pledged in Cairo in 2009, “We do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We seek no military bases there.” But in a change of heart, he now wants bases there for a virtually unlimited period. The resolution of the political crisis in Kabul opens the way for Afghanistan to sign the bilateral security agreement that Mr. Obama has sought as the legal basis to keep U.S. bases. A residual U.S. force, however, will be more vulnerable to Taliban attacks, thus strengthening Washington’s imperative to mollycoddle Pakistani generals and cut a deal with the “Quetta Shura.”

As the longest war in its history in Afghanistan attests, the U.S. is better at starting wars than in ending them. What Mr. Obama has started as an offensive against IS is likely to evolve into something more geopolitical in nature, including to repair the damage to U.S. interests from America’s decade-long Iraq occupation, which made Iran the real winner.

More broadly, America’s long-standing alliance with the Gulf’s jihad-bankrolling Islamist monarchs does not augur well for its “war on terror,” which has spawned more militants than it has eliminated. With U.S. support, the oil monarchies, even the most tyrannical, have been able to ride out the Arab Spring. Paradoxically, the U.S. practice of propping up malleable Islamist rulers in the Middle East not just spurs strong anti-U.S. sentiment, but also fosters grassroots support for more independent and “authentically” Islamist forces.

A rolling, self-sustaining war targeting terrorist enemies that America’s own policies and interventions continue to spawn is not good news even for the U.S., whose military adventures since 2001 have cost $4.4 trillion, making its rich military contractors richer but destabilising security in several regions. At a time when America faces a pressing need for comprehensive domestic renewal to arrest the erosion in its relative global power, it can ill-afford self-debilitating wars. Unfortunately for it, one eternal warrior in the White House was succeeded by another serial interventionist.

(Brahma Chellaney is a geostrategist and author.)

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 30 Sep 2014 06:36

Modi ji's CFR session was brilliant almost one of a kind on certain things. That type of original, independent, and comprehensive thinking will be brutally hurting for many of the mofos in the audience and their wheeler/dealers.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 30 Sep 2014 06:41

You never know how things will work to defeat a common enemy.. if it is all on books, why not? let us make it open! by being open does not mean we would accept chela-giri and poodledom to be foot soldiers. will fly and bomb the rascals out as they do. wtf we should be on foot! what in the world are we thinking about ourselves?

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 30 Sep 2014 06:48

If there is any one thinking Isis is not a long term danger to us if living in fools paradise. But khan is idiotic and can not be trusted. So we need to have a long term strategy to deal with peaceful independent of gora stupidity. I am sure Duggal and others are already working on it.

Any way we can alway provide "moral and diplomatic support" to khan in it's war on khan. Things like intelligence support etc was always there at least from our side.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 30 Sep 2014 06:58

Uncle wants cheap Indian boots on the ground. Lets be clear on that.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 30 Sep 2014 07:11

arrey.. shock n awe is when Indian jets flies and not the khan walas! especially when it crosses the pakiland!
just imagine the pissk!

uncle may want all cheap indian boots, and modi has clearly said: nothing will be done to disturb our poor and meeks.
we will do bijnej - jiro defect, jiro effect (on env).. rest is all scratch back. provide us the funds, we will take it from there.. we will decide if it is foot, tanks or jets.

deal ya no deal? jaldi bhato.. hamko time waste mat karo.

Anantha · Post by **Anantha** » 30 Sep 2014 07:25

MEA spokesman from whitehouse is confirming "no ISIS related discussion took place" this evening on the working dinner (9 person /side). Any ISIS related discussion will be tomorrow.
Also, a joint vision editorial bi Modi-Obama will appear in a national rag tomorrow morning and will be available in MEA website.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 30 Sep 2014 07:30

Modi committed to Obama that India would join the anti-ISIS war?
I guess that can be started by deleting all ISI's recruiting in India, and all centers of training.
General cleanup of training camps etc in Gujarat and Hyderabad and Kerala?
Sink Art 370. Delete ISI's centers in J&K.
Seal borders with BD except to start reverse flow?
How is BO going to fight ISIS w/o explicit Saudi endorsement and support? Like Bin Laden, ISIS is also Saudi-funded.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 30 Sep 2014 07:39

what modi should not agree is scrapping the liability legislation after the nuke deal. we have to have them accountable and not run away after spoiling the env like union carbide. deal ya no deal? we will open up many other tax benefits.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 30 Sep 2014 07:41

SaiK wrote:arrey.. shock n awe is when Indian jets flies and not the khan walas! especially when it crosses the pakiland!just imagine the pissk!uncle may want all cheap indian boots, and modi has clearly said: nothing will be done to disturb our poor and meeks.we will do bijnej - jiro defect, jiro effect (on env).. rest is all scratch back. provide us the funds, we will take it from there.. we will decide if it is foot, tanks or jets.deal ya no deal? jaldi bhato.. hamko time waste mat karo.

This ISIS wisisi talk is cover for India's access to Kurdish oil . Please remember MEA 's statement few days ago that they no longer consider Iraq as one country because of Iraqi domestic mess and Kurdistan is on Modi's agenda after Doval ji paid short visit to Erbil . India is the only neutral country having good relation with most of the conflicting parties there. Kurds, Syria,Israeli, WEST will all welcome it. Any genuine deal will go long way to cover certain long term strategic objectives for Indiskas.

krithivas · Post by **krithivas** » 30 Sep 2014 07:48

During the tail end of CFR when the audience had a chance to ask questions - The clown prince of Ethan Allen Inc., Farooq Kathawari born in Srinagar, Kashmir

meekly posed if foreign relief agencies be allowed to provide assistance to flood victims. PM's response was brilliant as he completely owned the Thief executive Kathawari and his father and uncle and brother. He gave him the answer and a gentle new york salute.

Kashi · Post by **Kashi** » 30 Sep 2014 07:49

Jhujar wrote:This ISIS wisisi talk is cover for India's access to Kurdish oil . Please remember MEA 's statement few days ago that they no longer consider Iraq as one country because of Iraqi domestic mess and Kurdistan is on Modi's agenda after Doval ji paid short visit to Erbil . India is the only neutral country having good relation with most of the conflicting parties there. Kurds, Syria,Israeli, WEST will all welcome it. Any genuine deal will go long way to cover certain long term strategic objectives for Indiskas.

But how do we get access to Kurdish oil. I recall sometime back Iraqi government had taken a negative view of Reliance (I think) dealing with Kurdish for oil and the deal had to be called off. Plus, we'll need to transit Iraq, Iran, Turkey or Syria to get to Kurdish oil.

Not sure if any of these countries will allow us transit facilities through their trouble spots. After all they are facing Kurdish separatism in their own lands.

KJo · Post by **KJo** » 30 Sep 2014 08:06

https://www.facebook.com/rajdeepsardesai

Desis de-panting Turdesai and having their way with him.

habal · Post by **habal** » 30 Sep 2014 08:20

Who is advising Modi. Do they know that ISIS is covertly backed by Israel, Saudis, Turkey, Quettar and all the Sunnis in gulf arab states. All of ISIS heavy armour is shipped openly in trucks and rail through turkey. Israel provides air cover at border and other disruptive activities to prevent SAA from finishing their job at Golan and border areas.

So now Modi is going to take on Bibi, the Saudi rat royalty in their conspiratorial double-games in ME ?

I hope all this is well thought out.

Recently I was seeing Kurds 'repelling' ISIS somewhere near Irbil and ISIS has tanks, heavy armour and everything while Kurds have just some LMGs. So if Kurds have a 155 mm or MBRL then they can pretty much defend their territory easily. Why are they not being provided with these and why this spectacle is being staged for whose benefit is something that is dubious because the west do back Kurds.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 30 Sep 2014 08:27

I have my gripes with Arnab, but he is doing yomen service to India by driving home the point to all his US guests that unless US pressure to tackle TSP abomination is on the table, US India relations are not going to blossom.

Kanwal SibalJi is one of the most sharpest Indian diplomats. He offer his keen insight

http://www.hindustantimes.com/comment/a ... 69914.aspx

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 30 Sep 2014 08:28

Syed AkbaruddinVerified account ‏@MEAIndia

The first meeting. Prez @BarackObama escorts PM @narendramodi to the dinner at their 1st meeting in the White House.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 30 Sep 2014 08:32

Narendra ModiVerified account ‏@narendramodi

With President @BarackObama. We had a wonderful meeting and talked about a wide range of issues.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 30 Sep 2014 08:49

http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 097_1.html

India & US issue vision statement as Modi, Obama meet

As Prime Minister Narendra Modi reached the White House for the private dinner hosted by President Barack Obama, India and the US today issued a vision statement 'Chalein Saath Saath: Forward Together We Go' that called for a joint endeavour for prosperity and peace.

"As leaders of two great democratic nations with diverse traditions and faiths, we share a vision for a partnership in which the United States and India work together, not just for the benefit of both our nations, but for the benefit of the world," the White House said in a statement.

The vision statement said that the US-India strategic partnership is a joint endeavour for prosperity and peace, and through intense consultations, joint exercises and shared technology, their security cooperation will make the region and world safe and secure.

"Together, we will combat terrorist threats and keep our homelands and citizens safe from attacks, while we respond expeditiously to humanitarian disasters and crises.

"We will prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction, and remain committed to reducing the salience of nuclear weapons, while promoting universal, verifiable, and non-discriminatory nuclear disarmament," it said.

Asserting that the US and India will have a transformative relationship as trusted partners in the 21st century, the White House said, "Our partnership will be a model for the rest of the world."

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 30 Sep 2014 09:25

Philip First time India is getting a chance to carry the fight into Araby. After Qasim's razza in Sind here is a chance to settle account. Fighting ISIS India can support Iran and Syria.

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 30 Sep 2014 09:43

CRamS wrote:Uncle wants cheap Indian boots on the ground. Lets be clear on that.

We are getting ahead of ourselves. Let the official announcement come if it is true. I see no reason to take Subbu Swamy's word for it. He is brilliant but also a little ...

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 30 Sep 2014 09:49

ramana wrote:Philip First time India is getting a chance to carry the fight into Araby. After Qasim's razza in Sind here is a chance to settle account. Fighting ISIS India can support Iran and Syria.

Let us not have wet dreams about that ramana. Why should Indian lives be lost for what is essentially a US created mess? Let them expend their blood for it. All the US wants is free Indian boots on the ground while they safely bomb a few ISIS thugs from the air.

If we are stupid enough to allow Indian soldiers to fight abroad, Afghanistan should be the first country where that should happen.

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 30 Sep 2014 09:55

merlin wrote:
ramana wrote:Philip First time India is getting a chance to carry the fight into Araby. After Qasim's razza in Sind here is a chance to settle account. Fighting ISIS India can support Iran and Syria.
Let us not have wet dreams about that ramana. Why should Indian lives be lost for what is essentially a US created mess? Let them expend their blood for it. All the US wants is free Indian boots on the ground while they safely bomb a few ISIS thugs from the air.

If we are stupid enough to allow Indian soldiers to fight abroad, Afghanistan should be the first country where that should happen.

India has a consistent policy of fighting abroad only under UN command and never under any other country's command. (If we join the US it will be de facto under US command). Since US didn't get UN authorization (and it won't, thanks to the mess-up with Russia), there is no chance of Indian boots on the ground anywhere outside India. Subbu Swamy can say whatever he wants.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 30 Sep 2014 09:56

I think Ramana is right. Here is a chance. We take it with very clear entry/exit terms, and very clear command terms. Blood our soldiers there. This will be the first of many such necessary engagements to come.

We have the army for, the soldiers for it, and the capability for it - depending on what exactly we are going to do of course. I'm sure a full-on permanent large scale occupation is not what is being discussed.

Will this happen? Not sure, but wouldn't rule it out, not with Modi at the helm.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 30 Sep 2014 10:02

>> Why should Indian lives be lost for what is essentially a US created mess? Let them expend their blood for it. All the US wants is free Indian boots on the ground while they safely bomb a few ISIS thugs from the air.

+1.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 30 Sep 2014 10:12

JE Menon wrote:I think Ramana is right. Here is a chance. We take it with very clear entry/exit terms, and very clear command terms. Blood our soldiers there. This will be the first of many such necessary engagements to come.We have the army for, the soldiers for it, and the capability for it - depending on what exactly we are going to do of course. I'm sure a full-on permanent large scale occupation is not what is being discussed.Will this happen? Not sure, but wouldn't rule it out, not with Modi at the helm.

There is nothing in afghanistan to extract, Previous Iraqi Entity= PIE have oil. we can reduce the import bill and spend that money on defense and other projects. Instead of Tiger, go there like Anaconda. Save the Kurd, help them to survive by staying there . Bill will be paid in Oil plus captive market. this will be getting them by the Balls/ neck,they will try to negotiate. Have a big smile but carry Motti Stick. A victory there will initiate the removal of green Paki-Stain from South Asia. How i wish India should have increase the Army to Tees lakhs for this kind of prospects.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 30 Sep 2014 10:19

abhishek_sharma wrote:>> Why should Indian lives be lost for what is essentially a US created mess? Let them expend their blood for it. All the US wants is free Indian boots on the ground while they safely bomb a few ISIS thugs from the air.

No no said free, Its about time to take risk and initiative and let them come under the protection of Mother India. Like Amrika, Become Warrior Vaish.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 30 Sep 2014 10:22

And remember, this will not jeopardise our $160 bn trade with the GCC - they are participating too. On the contrary, this may be a chance for them to get a taste of things to come. Plus IS has explicitly threatened our interests, via references to "Kashmir" etc. Fools probably can't even spell it, but that's another story.