Bombay Blasts: Should India send her troops to Iraq?

Hmmm....is this article suggesting that if India does not cooperate with USA in Iraq, she can expect some more terrorism?

Indirect threat? :mad:


From today's Wall Street Journal...

Only last week, a global terrorism index listed India as one of the 10 countries most vulnerable to an attack. Yesterday the latest -- and most deadly -- in a series of bombings in Bombay proved that prediction sadly correct.

At least 40 people were killed and more than 150 wounded when two bombs exploded in the heart of India's financial capital. The explosions came in the wake of several other blasts in the city in recent months, which have seen bombers target buses, trains and a McDonalds restaurant in a crowded railway station. Although other religious motives cannot be ruled out -- yesterday saw the release of a controversial report on a mosque that has triggered Hindu-Muslim violence -- Bombay police say they suspect the latest bombings were the work of the two Islamic extremist groups who have been linked to the earlier attacks....

...All of this once again shows how the fight against terrorism is global. That's a lesson that doesn't yet seem to have fully hit home in India, judging from New Delhi's recent rejection of a U.S. request to send 15,000 troops to help restore order and combat terrorism in Iraq. Washington reportedly offered to allow the Indians to serve under their own command, and decide which sector of Iraq they would be deployed in. But to no avail.

The U.S. has recognized that India has its own terror problem, and has pressured Pakistan to stop winking at terrorists in Kashmir. Yesterday Secretary of State Powell condemned the Bombay bombings and telephoned his Indian counterpart. No doubt the White House will also send another stiff message to Pakistan, or at least it should.

We think India could have helped build even closer U.S. ties had it decided to send troops to Iraq. The U.S. has driven a wedge into the center of Muslim terrorism with its occupation of Iraq, and it is looking to see who its friends really are. One good anti-terror turn will deserve another.

right into the fire?

Why does the Wall Street Journal even pretend to cover politics? These drooling tools only see the colon around their head as their collective head is firmly planted up the ass of Wall Street and the Republican Party.

It is tripe like this that stopped my subscription to the Journal. I enjoyed their economic and financial coverage but their pathetic forays into political coverage were just too maddeningly juvenile. Take this piece...

Whoever wrote this just doesn't quite get it. Hell, let's be honest: They don't have the foggiest clue. Iraq has SWEET F.A. to do with India's problems with Pakistan with the minor exception that thanks to our incompetent postwar planning some militants from Pakistan will get the opportunity to hone their Indian-killing skills on American troops. India's problems are with Pakistan about issues that are quite South Asian in origin, action, and solution. Iraq only comes into play in this equation when you are playing political reporter without the necessary understanding of your topic.

Our Straussian-crippled PNAC policy makers and whoever wrote this piece come from the same school of not being too informed of the world around them. Stick to finance and economics, WSJ; leave the political commentary to someone who understands and cares.

to get some help in Iraq. They still think the rest of
the world is dumber than they are. You gotta wonder when
the truth will dawn on them.

About the only way to get those high paying computer jobs back is for Pakistan to drop a nuclear bomb on India.

link please although I don't think we can read this
unless we subscribe.

from another board.

The URL is:
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB106184751319716000,00.html

however, you need a subscription to WSJ.

Sorry, I dont know the author's name.