Quote:
|
Originally Posted by highsea
Let's see, there are what 500,000 Indian troops in Kashmir? Local curfews, restricted travel....But that's not an occupation.
|
Its the technicalities, coz Maharaja Hair singh signed the accession in favor of India, so its not an occupation. More over J&K is an Indian state and Kashmiris are constituitionally Indian citizens. Indian army is there to protect
its citizens, so it cannot be termed as occupation.
Quote:
|
140,000 US troops in Iraq are there under UN mandate, at the request of the elected government of Iraq, working very hard to turn over security to Iraqis so that we can bring our troops home. But that's an occupation.
|
Ive wondered about it too. I mean American forces are there to help out Iraq, they helped in conducting elections and form a government, but they still are called as occupation forces, not just in Aljazeera media but also in BBC. There is no UN mandate which asks US forces to be stationed in Iraq, per se.
Quote:
Where is your UN mandate for Kashmir?
No doubt.
|
Actually there is a UN resolution, passed in the 50's which asks India to maintain its forces untill a pleblicite is conducted. The same non binding resolution also asks Pakistan to withdraw its forces and prohibits altering the demographics. Much water has flown thro it, so its not worthwhile to even discuss those UN resolutions anymore.
I agree to the point that terrorists ought to be neutralized, but the double standards followed by the State dept irks me the most.
Its fine to use airstrikes/artillery attacks in Iraq but if we do a major operation in India, then State dept would croon over it in its annual review.
I hope this will not be flame fest, but the same thing with Pakistan. Everytime there is a major operation, they will drum up against India in almost every international forums, while they used air and mortar strikes in Wana. Hypocrits! I guess thats how the world is, we will keep moving on.