USA has asked Indian support in Iraq(because of present condition) under UNO banner but India refused because 63 lakh Indians are working in Arab countries and it don t want to hurt Iran.
2007-01-11 02:29:26 · 16 answers · asked by Bond "James Bond" 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Free and peace-loving countries are best suited for the fight, and I think India qualifies.
The next best quality for a nation is political will. India has been suffering from muslim extremists lately, so I would think India would want to join the cause. As a victim of terrorism, again, India qualifies.
All you need now is a plane to fly them in.
(The problem with the UN handling the situation is that they are extremely corrupt. The UN made Iraq leak like a sieve during their own period of sanctions from 1991 to 2003. The UN check points at the borders were manned by third-world nations and volunteers who could easily be bribed because they had poor families at home. The UN does NOT qualify.)
2007-01-11 02:38:38 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
I think it would not change the situation much but the U.S deathtoll would bereduced.India has lots of experiences in fighting terrorists.Especially with Kashmir.I think despite it being technologically inferior to the U.S they would be somewhat effective.The Indian soldiers in Kashmir have experiences in dodging road side bombs (which the 60% of U.S soldiers dead killed by roadside bombs).They know how to escape roadside bombs and that would halp a lot.If you look at Indian soldeirs in Kashmir they ar not as formal as the U.S.As in they don't all carry the same gun and same color armour.They carry different armour and different bullet proof vests.Different weapons each as well.So they are a more rugged force and fight guerrilla style.For every one Indian soldier killed in Kashmir about 8 insurgents die.And I like their motto.Lately in Assam there was a killing spree that resulted in 67 dead.It happened because 90% of Assam wanted to be a part of india.So the Assam liberation force committed the murders.The Indian forces have killed a few dozen insurgents and only a handful of Indian soldiers even got injured.What I meant by motto was when a commander in a armoured car said 'they went on a killing spree and we have no choice but to go on a killing spree".But India will not get in Iraq without a reward.infact Indian government officials are so picky that they have began droppingthe U.S-India nuke deal.Since it does not fullfil interests.So to go to Iraq the U.S would have to do some huge favour.Like 10 F22 Raptorsor something.
2007-01-11 23:06:28 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hi dude.. Let me express my views on this.. I believe that no army of any country can control the situation of Iraq.. that can be controlled by their own army..
Look.. the point is any battle or such condition cannot be win by arms and amunations.. they need emotions there.. soldiers should feel their motive into that.. they should have their own passion involved into that.. and No army can do that for some other nation..
Let me give you an example.. Imagine a riot affected area.. any other country's army will take life of their soldiers at more priority than riot affected people.. so to tackle.. they might came up to decision to fire bullets.. innocent people will die.. may be that riot is controlled.. but another riot will trigger at some other place as native will always feel that they have been killed from alien armies.. Do you still say that army controlled that riot?? definately not...
My point is.. Iraq has to fight for his own for good.. USA should have helped Iraq making his own army by providing them arms and trainings instead of filling the whole country with his soldiers.. but they will never do that as it will loose their hold on Iraq.. alll that international politics.. so it will be completely stupid to send Indian soldiers on Iraq front to die for no reason..USA has its reason to be there.. what for india.. we cannot afford to loose a single soldier just for helping USA achieving his high selfish ambitions..
I think I made my point.. Hope you agree with that.. Bye..
Abhi
2007-01-12 20:01:20 · answer #3 · answered by Abhi 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We have enough of our own problems in Kashmir and The North East-now an added burden?
NO!
Incidentally, do you remember what happened when we "helped" another nation with it's problems?(Sri Lanka-IPKF anyone?)
That's right-lots of our soldiers died, the Sri Lankan government went behind our backs to do a deal with the LTTE, and the LTTE killed our PM.
Haven't had your fill yet?
2007-01-11 12:35:06 · answer #4 · answered by Seven 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Army doesn't have to do anything. Its the dictator who send the army. No army can do anything. They just follow their commander, commander follow the dictator. The best dictator can control the situation in Iraq.
2007-01-11 11:08:53 · answer #5 · answered by EggsarefromChicken 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
well the indian army buys its stuff from the USA, thats like saying the student is better than the master
2007-01-11 16:33:57 · answer #6 · answered by Indio 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
India should not meddle in Iraq and should remain away from shia, suni conflict.
2007-01-12 02:07:45 · answer #7 · answered by Khimji M 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why in the world do we have to fight when they are no harm to us. I believe we need to really check the cause of waging wars. Did US finally achieve when they wanted?... meaning did they get the nuclear bombs....
2007-01-11 10:51:25 · answer #8 · answered by Rejoy G 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Before army, there will be peace talking with leaders.
2007-01-13 05:30:51 · answer #9 · answered by snnaaps g 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The situation is uncontrollable,
The only solution is genocide, depopulate the zone now.....
2007-01-11 10:43:20 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋