eCharcha.Com   Support eCharcha.Com. Click on sponsor ad to shop online!

Advertise Here

Go Back   eCharcha.Com > Current Affairs > Defense

Notices

Defense Defense and national security...

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 7th, 2009, 02:17 PM
echarcha's Avatar
echarcha echarcha is offline
Sutradhar {admin}
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: CA, USA
Posts: 45,207
echarcha has a reputation beyond reputeecharcha has a reputation beyond reputeecharcha has a reputation beyond reputeecharcha has a reputation beyond reputeecharcha has a reputation beyond reputeecharcha has a reputation beyond reputeecharcha has a reputation beyond reputeecharcha has a reputation beyond reputeecharcha has a reputation beyond reputeecharcha has a reputation beyond reputeecharcha has a reputation beyond repute
Question Should India send troops to Afghanistan?

In the article reproduced below, Henry Kissinger makes, among other things, the following important points:

**Those in the chain of command in Afghanistan, each with outstanding qualifications, have all been recently appointed by the Obama administration. Rejecting their recommendations would be a triumph of domestic politics over strategic judgment. It would draw us into a numbers game without definable criteria.

**President Obama, as a candidate, proclaimed Afghanistan a necessary war. As president, he has shown considerable courage in implementing his promise to increase our forces in Afghanistan and to pursue the war more energetically. A sudden reversal of American policy would fundamentally affect domestic stability in Pakistan by freeing the Qaeda forces along the Afghan border for even deeper incursions into Pakistan, threatening domestic chaos.

**It would raise the most serious questions about American steadiness in India, the probable target should a collapse in Afghanistan give jihad an even greater impetus. In short, the reversal of a process introduced with sweeping visions by two administrations may lead to chaos, ultimately deeper American involvement, and loss of confidence in American reliability. The prospects of world order will be greatly affected by whether our strategy comes to be perceived as a retreat from the region, or a more effective way to sustain it.

**In a partly feudal, multiethnic society, fundamental social reform is a long process, perhaps unrelatable to the rhythm of our electoral processes. For the foreseeable future, the control from Kabul may be tenuous and its structure less than ideal. More emphasis needs to be given to regional efforts and regional militia. This would also enhance our political flexibility. A major effort is needed to encourage such an evolution.

**Concurrently, a serious diplomatic effort is needed to address the major anomaly of the Afghan war. In all previous American ground-combat efforts, once the decision was taken, there was no alternative to America’s leading the effort; no other country had the combination of resources or national interest required. The special aspect of Afghanistan is that it has powerful neighbors or near neighbors—Pakistan, India, China, Russia, Iran. Each is threatened in one way or another and, in many respects, more than we are by the emergence of a base for international terrorism: Pakistan by Al Qaeda; India by general jihadism and specific terror groups; China by fundamentalist Shiite jihadists in Xinjiang; Russia by unrest in the Muslim south; even Iran by the fundamentalist Sunni Taliban. Each has substantial capacities for defending its interests. Each has chosen, so far, to stand more or less aloof.

**The summit of neighboring (or near-neighboring) countries proposed by the secretary of state could, together with NATO allies, begin to deal with this anomaly. It should seek an international commitment to an enforced nonterrorist Afghanistan, much as countries were neutralized by international agreement when Europe dominated world affairs. This is a complex undertaking. But a -common effort could at least remove shortsighted temptations to benefit from the embarrassment of rivals. It would take advantage of the positive aspect that, unlike Vietnam or Iraq, the guerrillas do not enjoy significant support. It may finally be the route to an effective national government. If cooperation cannot be achieved, the United States may have no choice but to reconsider its options and to gear its role in Afghanistan to goals directly relevant to threats to American security. In that eventuality, it will do so not as an abdication but as a strategic judgment. But it is premature to reach such a conclusion on present evidence.

In reference to Kissinger’s essay, a friend Reggie Sinha writes:

QUOTE:
India must offer 100,000 Indian Army troops to help stabilize Afghanistan immediatley (200,000 - 250,000 would be ideal). This should not be seen as bailing out the Americans, but to ensure India’s own survival.

If Americans withdraw (for whatever reasons), the Pakistan military/ISI/Taliban flushed with the fervor of defeating yet another superpower, convinced of their own invincibility, powered by the ideology of militant Islam, strait-jacketing India’s nuclear options, and rearming itself again with U.S. and Chinese weapons, will unleash untold horrendous terrorist atrocities in India hundred times more powerful than the 1989 Kashmir/Kargils. Worse, China may join in to "teach a lesson" again as well as internal subversives will also play a significant role in destabilizing the country (and if USA withdraws, Afghanistan will be ruled jointly by Pakistan-China with a strong Chinese military presence in Afghanistan). Frankly, India does not have a choice!

Instead of a sense of schandenfreude (meaning, taking pleasure in somebody else’s misery) many Indians feel about Americans in Af-Pak currently, it is actually for India’s own survival (and I am not even using terms like benefit, safety, security here) that it immediately positions a strong 100,000 Indian army force in Afghanistan. Operation Nalwa, commanded preferably by a Sikh general, would have such a salutary stabilizing effect in Afghanistan (and Pakistan) that will leave even the most "strategic" western experts confounded.

Of course, the U.S. administration will be reluctant to accept this Indian offer, given that the U.S. military/CIA is "embedded" and "tight" (to use a Bush term) with the Pakistan military/ISI, its relationship built over the last several decades fighing the Afghanistan war. Milt Bearden’s recent testimony case is in point!

However, at a time when the Obama administration is most vulnerable in the area of commiting more troops in Afghanistan, there is a historic opportunity for the GOI to play its cards adroitly effecting a transformative paradigm change in US’s role and subcontinental geopolitics in India’s favor for ever. The opportunity is in the form of the Indian Prime Minster dangling a USD 250 billion dollar military/economic/business purchase order during his November visit to the USA. It is as simple as ABC. Really!! All South Block needs is political will!
UNQUOTE.

Reggie has raised an important issue which needs to be thoroughly debated. As of now I do not think it would be wise for India to send troops to Afganistan, even if there is a request from the US to that effect, for two reasons:

1) It would lead to increased attacks on India by Pakistan-based terrorists actively encouraged by the Pakistan army and the ISI.

2) India’s large Muslim population of 150 million plus may not approve of such a move.

However, let’s look at Kissinger’s point that "Each [of Afghanistan’s powerful neighbors or near neighbors—Pakistan, India, China, Russia, Iran] has substantial capacities for defending its interests. Each has chosen, so far,to stand more or less aloof." and also his point that "Each is threatened in one way or another and, in many respects, more than we are by the emergence of a base for international terrorism: Pakistan by Al Qaeda; India by general jihadism and specific terror groups; China by fundamentalist Shiite jihadists in Xinjiang; Russia by unrest in the Muslim south; even Iran by the fundamentalist Sunni Taliban."

If it’s possible to get all of Afghanistan’s neighbours -- Pakistan, India, Iran. Russia and China -- to contribute troops to help stabilize Afghanistan, that looks to me like a win-win situation.

The issue needs to be discussed threadbare.

Quote:
Deployments and Diplomacy
More troops is a start. But to win in Afghanistan, we’ll need help from its powerful neighbors.

By Henry Kissinger | NEWSWEEK
Published Oct 3, 2009

From the magazine issue dated Oct 12, 2009

The request for additional forces by the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, poses cruel dilemmas for President Obama. If he refuses the recommendation and General McChrystal’s argument that his forces are inadequate for the mission, Obama will be blamed for the dramatic consequences. If he accepts the recommendation, his opponents may come to describe it, at least in part, as Obama’s war. If he compromises, he may fall between all stools—too little to make progress, too much to still controversy. And he must make the choice on the basis of assessments he cannot prove when he makes them.

This is the inextricable anguish of the presidency, for which Obama is entitled to respect from every side of the debate. Full disclosure compels me to state at the beginning that I favor fulfilling the commander’s request and a modification of the strategy. But I also hope that the debate ahead of us avoids the demoralizing trajectory that characterized the previous controversies in wars against adversaries using guerrilla tactics, especially Vietnam and Iraq.

Each of those wars began with widespread public support. Each developed into a stalemate, in part because the strategy of guerrillas generally aims at psychological exhaustion. Stalemate triggered a debate about the winnability of the war. A significant segment of the public grew disenchanted and started questioning the moral basis of the conflict. Inexorably, the demand arose for an exit strategy with an emphasis on exit and not strategy.

The demand for an exit strategy is, of course, a metaphor for withdrawal, and withdrawal that is not accompanied by a willingness to sustain the outcome amounts to abandonment. In Vietnam, Congress terminated an American role even after all our troops had, in fact, been withdrawn for two years. It remains to be seen to what extent the achievements of the surge in Iraq will be sustained there politically.

The most unambiguous form of exit strategy is victory, though as we have seen in Korea, where American troops have remained since 1953, even that may not permit troop withdrawals. A seemingly unavoidable paradox emerges. The domestic debate generates the pressure for diplomatic compromise. Yet the fanaticism that motivates guerrillas—not to speak of suicide bombers—does not allow for compromise unless they face defeat or exhaustion. That, in turn, implies a surge testing the patience of the American public. Is that paradox soluble?

The prevailing strategy in Afghanistan is based on the classic anti-insurrection doctrine: to build a central government, commit it to the improvement of the lives of its people, and then protect the population until that government’s own forces are able, with our training, to take over. The request for more forces by General McChrystal states explicitly that his existing forces are inadequate for this mission, implying three options: to continue the present deployment and abandon the McChrystal strategy; to decrease the present deployment with a new strategy; or to increase the existing deployment with a strategy focused on the security of the population. A decision not to increase current force levels involves, at a minimum, abandoning the strategy proposed by General McChrystal and endorsed by Gen. David Petraeus; it would be widely interpreted as the first step toward withdrawal. The second option—offered as an alternative—would shrink the current mission by focusing on counter-terrorism rather than counter-insurgency. The argument would be that the overriding American strategic objective in Afghanistan is to prevent the country from turning once again into a base for international terrorism. Hence the defeat of Al Qaeda and radical Islamic jihad should be the dominant priority. Since the Taliban, according to this view, is a local, not a global, threat, it can be relegated to being a secondary target. A negotiation with the group might isolate Al Qaeda and lead to its defeat, in return for not challenging the Taliban in the governance of Afghanistan. After all, it was the Taliban which provided bases for Al Qaeda in the first place.

This theory seems to me to be too clever by half. Al Qaeda and the Taliban are unlikely to be able to be separated so neatly geographically. It would also imply the partition of Afghanistan along functional lines, for it is highly improbable that the civic actions on which our policies are based could be carried out in areas controlled by the Taliban. Even so-called realists—like me—would gag at a tacit U.S. cooperation with the Taliban in the governance of Afghanistan.

This is not to exclude the possibility of defections from the Taliban as occurred from Al Qaeda in Iraq’s Anbar province. But those occurred after the surge, not as a way to avoid it. To adopt such a course is a disguised way of retreating from Afghanistan altogether.

Those in the chain of command in Afghanistan, each with outstanding qualifications, have all been recently appointed by the Obama administration. Rejecting their recommendations would be a triumph of domestic politics over strategic judgment. It would draw us into a numbers game without definable criteria.

President Obama, as a candidate, proclaimed Afghanistan a necessary war. As president, he has shown considerable courage in implementing his promise to increase our forces in Afghanistan and to pursue the war more energetically. A sudden reversal of American policy would fundamentally affect domestic stability in Pakistan by freeing the Qaeda forces along the Afghan border for even deeper incursions into Pakistan, threatening domestic chaos. It would raise the most serious questions about American steadiness in India, the probable target should a collapse in Afghanistan give jihad an even greater impetus. In short, the reversal of a process introduced with sweeping visions by two administrations may lead to chaos, ultimately deeper American involvement, and loss of confidence in American reliability. The prospects of world order will be greatly affected by whether our strategy comes to be perceived as a retreat from the region, or a more effective way to sustain it.

The military strategy proposed by Generals McChrystal and Petraeus needs, however, to be given a broader context with particular emphasis on the political environment. Every guerrilla war raises the challenge of how to define military objectives. Military strategy is traditionally defined by control of the maximum amount of territory. But the strategy of the guerrilla—described by Mao—is to draw the adversary into a morass of popular resistance in which, after a while, extrication becomes his principal objective. In Vietnam, the guerrillas often ceded control of the territory during the day and returned at night to prevent political stabilization. Therefore, in guerrilla war, control of 75 percent of the territory 100 percent of the time is more important than controlling 100 percent of the territory 75 percent of the time. A key strategic issue, therefore, will be which part of Afghan territory can be effectively controlled in terms of these criteria.

This is of particular relevance to Afghanistan. No outside force has, since the Mongol invasion, ever pacified the entire country. Even Alexander the Great only passed through. Afghanistan has been governed, if at all, by a coalition of local feudal or semifeudal rulers. In the past, any attempt to endow the central government with overriding authority has been resisted by some established local rulers. That is likely to be the fate of any central government in Kabul, regardless of its ideological coloration and perhaps even its efficiency. It would be ironic if, by following the received counterinsurgency playbook too literally, we produced another motive for civil war. Can a civil society be built on a national basis in a country which is neither a nation nor a state?

In a partly feudal, multiethnic society, fundamental social reform is a long process, perhaps unrelatable to the rhythm of our electoral processes. For the foreseeable future, the control from Kabul may be tenuous and its structure less than ideal. More emphasis needs to be given to regional efforts and regional militia. This would also enhance our political flexibility. A major effort is needed to encourage such an evolution.

Concurrently, a serious diplomatic effort is needed to address the major anomaly of the Afghan war. In all previous American ground-combat efforts, once the decision was taken, there was no alternative to America’s leading the effort; no other country had the combination of resources or national interest required. The special aspect of Afghanistan is that it has powerful neighbors or near neighbors—Pakistan, India, China, Russia, Iran. Each is threatened in one way or another and, in many respects, more than we are by the emergence of a base for international terrorism: Pakistan by Al Qaeda; India by general jihadism and specific terror groups; China by fundamentalist Shiite jihadists in Xinjiang; Russia by unrest in the Muslim south; even Iran by the fundamentalist Sunni Taliban. Each has substantial capacities for defending its interests. Each has chosen, so far, to stand more or less aloof.

The summit of neighboring (or near-neighboring) countries proposed by the secretary of state could, together with NATO allies, begin to deal with this anomaly. It should seek an international commitment to an enforced nonterrorist Afghanistan, much as countries were neutralized by international agreement when Europe dominated world affairs. This is a complex undertaking. But a -common effort could at least remove shortsighted temptations to benefit from the embarrassment of rivals. It would take advantage of the positive aspect that, unlike Vietnam or Iraq, the guerrillas do not enjoy significant support. It may finally be the route to an effective national government. If cooperation cannot be achieved, the United States may have no choice but to reconsider its options and to gear its role in Afghanistan to goals directly relevant to threats to American security. In that eventuality, it will do so not as an abdication but as a strategic judgment. But it is premature to reach such a conclusion on present evidence.

For the immediate future, it is essential to avoid another wrenching domestic division and to conduct the inevitable debate with respect for its complexity and the stark choices confronting our country.

LINK
__________________
eCharcha.com
-Loud and Proud Desi Opinions
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old October 7th, 2009, 04:12 PM
JaiSpeaks's Avatar
JaiSpeaks JaiSpeaks is offline
The NEo of Echarcha
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 6,830
JaiSpeaks has a reputation beyond reputeJaiSpeaks has a reputation beyond reputeJaiSpeaks has a reputation beyond reputeJaiSpeaks has a reputation beyond reputeJaiSpeaks has a reputation beyond reputeJaiSpeaks has a reputation beyond reputeJaiSpeaks has a reputation beyond reputeJaiSpeaks has a reputation beyond reputeJaiSpeaks has a reputation beyond reputeJaiSpeaks has a reputation beyond reputeJaiSpeaks has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Should India send troops to Afghanistan?

India should play the same aid game ... Pakistan is there we need aid to make reinforcements to send 100000 Indian army battalions to Afganistan ..

Match the aid given to Pakistan ... no less ....
__________________
If you win you need not explain.. But if you lose you should not be there to explain
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old October 7th, 2009, 08:27 PM
mammu mammu is offline
Junior eCharchan
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Pune
Posts: 145
mammu has much to be proud ofmammu has much to be proud ofmammu has much to be proud ofmammu has much to be proud ofmammu has much to be proud ofmammu has much to be proud ofmammu has much to be proud ofmammu has much to be proud ofmammu has much to be proud of
Re: Should India send troops to Afghanistan?

Sending Indian trrops to Afghanistan would be overload in budget for India just to satisfy US. Once India land its trrops there, US will slowly leave everything on India and escape some day completely.
US are always untrustworthy.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old October 7th, 2009, 09:47 PM
sarv_shaktimaan's Avatar
sarv_shaktimaan sarv_shaktimaan is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: satva aasmaan
Posts: 15,729
sarv_shaktimaan has a reputation beyond reputesarv_shaktimaan has a reputation beyond reputesarv_shaktimaan has a reputation beyond reputesarv_shaktimaan has a reputation beyond reputesarv_shaktimaan has a reputation beyond reputesarv_shaktimaan has a reputation beyond reputesarv_shaktimaan has a reputation beyond reputesarv_shaktimaan has a reputation beyond reputesarv_shaktimaan has a reputation beyond reputesarv_shaktimaan has a reputation beyond reputesarv_shaktimaan has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Should India send troops to Afghanistan?

i feel its a double edged sword...

Indian troops in Afghanistan could mean more hostility towards Indians.

Indian troops in Afghanistan could develop into a good relationship with Afghans depending on the role Indian troops play.

If Indian troops die in attacks and skirmishes then Indian public will blame Govt's decision to send troops and get involved unnecessarily.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old October 7th, 2009, 11:27 PM
echarcha's Avatar
echarcha echarcha is offline
Sutradhar {admin}
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: CA, USA
Posts: 45,207
echarcha has a reputation beyond reputeecharcha has a reputation beyond reputeecharcha has a reputation beyond reputeecharcha has a reputation beyond reputeecharcha has a reputation beyond reputeecharcha has a reputation beyond reputeecharcha has a reputation beyond reputeecharcha has a reputation beyond reputeecharcha has a reputation beyond reputeecharcha has a reputation beyond reputeecharcha has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Should India send troops to Afghanistan?

See what's happening ...

Quote:
Blast near Indian embassy in Kabul; 5 dead

By: PTI Date: 2009-10-08 Place: Kabul



A suicide bombing near the Indian embassy in the Afghan capital Thursday morning leaving five people dead and several others injured.

According to Indian Ambassador to Afghanistan Jayant Prasad, no Indians have been killed in the blast but some have been injured.He said the blast occurred at 0827 local time (0927 IST), as a result of which doors and windows of the Chancery were blown off.

"It is confirmed that it was vehicle borne IED (Improvised Explosive Device) attack," said the ambassador.

The blast, which police believed was the work of a suicide bomber, occurred around 0930 IST. "There has been damage to our watch tower and some of the security personnel deployed in the outer perimeter sustained injuries but these are not serious. So there was a suicide attacker involved in it," he said.

Witnesses said they saw a plume of smoke rising from the site of blast outside the embassy, which is situated close to Afghan Interior Ministry office and other major government buildings and a busy shopping district.

The blast had the same intensity as the explosion that rocked the premises on July 7 last year, Prasad said.

A suicide car bomber had last year rammed the front wall of the Indian Embassy, killing 41 people and wounding 147 in one of the deadliest attacks in the Afghan capital.

Prasad said protective measures have been intensified since the last year's attack. This could have helped minimise the damage.

The whole area was sealed off and a headcount was taken of all Embassy personnel. Some vehicles, including one with a United Nations label, were badly damaged in the blast.

LINK
__________________
eCharcha.com
-Loud and Proud Desi Opinions
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old October 8th, 2009, 12:15 AM
raniraja's Avatar
raniraja raniraja is offline
The Y A W N E S T zzzz
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Surat
Posts: 9,845
raniraja has a reputation beyond reputeraniraja has a reputation beyond reputeraniraja has a reputation beyond reputeraniraja has a reputation beyond reputeraniraja has a reputation beyond reputeraniraja has a reputation beyond reputeraniraja has a reputation beyond reputeraniraja has a reputation beyond reputeraniraja has a reputation beyond reputeraniraja has a reputation beyond reputeraniraja has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Should India send troops to Afghanistan?

It will be a good excuse to hike our defence budget.
__________________
Nietzsche (1887) : God is dead
God (1900) : Nietzsche is dead
-----------------------------------------
I will not be hurried and I will not be bullied

Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old October 8th, 2009, 12:17 AM
mammu mammu is offline
Junior eCharchan
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Pune
Posts: 145
mammu has much to be proud ofmammu has much to be proud ofmammu has much to be proud ofmammu has much to be proud ofmammu has much to be proud ofmammu has much to be proud ofmammu has much to be proud ofmammu has much to be proud ofmammu has much to be proud of
Re: Should India send troops to Afghanistan?

That blast was carried out by ISI and hakkani group and even US yelled about this at Pakistan.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old October 8th, 2009, 07:06 AM
sprite's Avatar
sprite sprite is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,578
sprite has a reputation beyond reputesprite has a reputation beyond reputesprite has a reputation beyond reputesprite has a reputation beyond reputesprite has a reputation beyond reputesprite has a reputation beyond reputesprite has a reputation beyond reputesprite has a reputation beyond reputesprite has a reputation beyond reputesprite has a reputation beyond reputesprite has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Should India send troops to Afghanistan?

send the soldiers to afghanistan. Atleast they will do some target practice. Sitting in barracks and earning fat pays is certainly not done

and before ramesh and gang jumps on me..I am referring to major chunk of army personnel who are sitting in barracks in 'peaceful' locations

duhhh...why did I even write this post...dont feel liked eleting it after writing so much...please dont quote...
__________________
"Poorna swaraaaj...total Independence!! Common civil code!!!"- bhagat Sprite singh

Last edited by sprite; October 8th, 2009 at 07:17 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old October 8th, 2009, 07:10 AM
raniraja's Avatar
raniraja raniraja is offline
The Y A W N E S T zzzz
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Surat
Posts: 9,845
raniraja has a reputation beyond reputeraniraja has a reputation beyond reputeraniraja has a reputation beyond reputeraniraja has a reputation beyond reputeraniraja has a reputation beyond reputeraniraja has a reputation beyond reputeraniraja has a reputation beyond reputeraniraja has a reputation beyond reputeraniraja has a reputation beyond reputeraniraja has a reputation beyond reputeraniraja has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Should India send troops to Afghanistan?

Quote:
Originally Posted by sprite View Post
duhhh...why did I even wrote this post...dont feel liked eleting it after writing so much.....
You wrote it to satisfy your itch to post something. It is a side effect of the HIV in your blood stream.. next time, try pocket pool
__________________
Nietzsche (1887) : God is dead
God (1900) : Nietzsche is dead
-----------------------------------------
I will not be hurried and I will not be bullied

Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old October 8th, 2009, 07:22 AM
sprite's Avatar
sprite sprite is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,578
sprite has a reputation beyond reputesprite has a reputation beyond reputesprite has a reputation beyond reputesprite has a reputation beyond reputesprite has a reputation beyond reputesprite has a reputation beyond reputesprite has a reputation beyond reputesprite has a reputation beyond reputesprite has a reputation beyond reputesprite has a reputation beyond reputesprite has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Should India send troops to Afghanistan?

Quote:
Originally Posted by raniraja View Post
You wrote it to satisfy your itch to post something.
next time they announce nobel prize on echarcha...you will get one for your outstanding research on psychology of posters....spending 3.004293/4th time of day on echarcha always have its advantages.

yuckkks@pockets pool....

kya-kya dimaag mein aata hain...
__________________
"Poorna swaraaaj...total Independence!! Common civil code!!!"- bhagat Sprite singh
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old October 8th, 2009, 07:32 AM
raniraja's Avatar
raniraja raniraja is offline
The Y A W N E S T zzzz
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Surat
Posts: 9,845
raniraja has a reputation beyond reputeraniraja has a reputation beyond reputeraniraja has a reputation beyond reputeraniraja has a reputation beyond reputeraniraja has a reputation beyond reputeraniraja has a reputation beyond reputeraniraja has a reputation beyond reputeraniraja has a reputation beyond reputeraniraja has a reputation beyond reputeraniraja has a reputation beyond reputeraniraja has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Should India send troops to Afghanistan?

Quote:
Originally Posted by sprite View Post
next time they announce nobel prize on echarcha...you will get one for your outstanding research on psychology of posters....spending 3.004293/4th time of day on echarcha always have its advantages.

neeche ki image dekh le.. Sab klear hai?

yuckkks@pockets pool....
saala.. Pocket pool khelta hai, to moo se kaise nikalta hai?

kya-kya dimaag mein aata hain...
moo se aage dimag pe bhi pahonch gaya??
sab kiliar hai
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Clipboard01.jpg (32.6 KB, 26 views)
__________________
Nietzsche (1887) : God is dead
God (1900) : Nietzsche is dead
-----------------------------------------
I will not be hurried and I will not be bullied

Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old October 8th, 2009, 07:37 AM
sprite's Avatar
sprite sprite is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,578
sprite has a reputation beyond reputesprite has a reputation beyond reputesprite has a reputation beyond reputesprite has a reputation beyond reputesprite has a reputation beyond reputesprite has a reputation beyond reputesprite has a reputation beyond reputesprite has a reputation beyond reputesprite has a reputation beyond reputesprite has a reputation beyond reputesprite has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Should India send troops to Afghanistan?

Quote:
Originally Posted by raniraja View Post
sab kiliar hai
sighhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh..........................
__________________
"Poorna swaraaaj...total Independence!! Common civil code!!!"- bhagat Sprite singh
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old October 8th, 2009, 07:40 AM
aragorn's Avatar
aragorn aragorn is offline
Senior eCharchan
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,018
aragorn has a reputation beyond reputearagorn has a reputation beyond reputearagorn has a reputation beyond reputearagorn has a reputation beyond reputearagorn has a reputation beyond reputearagorn has a reputation beyond reputearagorn has a reputation beyond reputearagorn has a reputation beyond reputearagorn has a reputation beyond reputearagorn has a reputation beyond reputearagorn has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Should India send troops to Afghanistan?

abe tum dono ke liye yogiji ek aur dhaaga khol denge....
__________________
- Spending your life waiting for the messiah to come save the world is like waiting around for the straight piece to come in Tetris.
Even if it comes, by that time you've accumulated a mountain of shit so high that you're fucked no matter what you do.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old October 8th, 2009, 10:50 AM
zyzzva's Avatar
zyzzva zyzzva is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: (X, Y, Z)
Posts: 2,002
zyzzva has a reputation beyond reputezyzzva has a reputation beyond reputezyzzva has a reputation beyond reputezyzzva has a reputation beyond reputezyzzva has a reputation beyond reputezyzzva has a reputation beyond reputezyzzva has a reputation beyond reputezyzzva has a reputation beyond reputezyzzva has a reputation beyond reputezyzzva has a reputation beyond reputezyzzva has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Should India send troops to Afghanistan?

RaniRaja ek baar Daaktar ka bhee speed of posting( number of posts per day ) check kar lay , sprite say zyaadaa hai .

Mera tere say bhee kum hai , 0.13 only
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old October 8th, 2009, 10:58 AM
aragorn's Avatar
aragorn aragorn is offline
Senior eCharchan
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,018
aragorn has a reputation beyond reputearagorn has a reputation beyond reputearagorn has a reputation beyond reputearagorn has a reputation beyond reputearagorn has a reputation beyond reputearagorn has a reputation beyond reputearagorn has a reputation beyond reputearagorn has a reputation beyond reputearagorn has a reputation beyond reputearagorn has a reputation beyond reputearagorn has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Should India send troops to Afghanistan?

yaar RR ek baat bata spending time on EC and post on EC in dono mein kya fark hai?

vyomi bol raha hai ki tu ek din ka 3/4 time EC par hi rehta hai....aur tu posting statistics bata raha hai

chada li hai kya
__________________
- Spending your life waiting for the messiah to come save the world is like waiting around for the straight piece to come in Tetris.
Even if it comes, by that time you've accumulated a mountain of shit so high that you're fucked no matter what you do.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
afghanistan, henry kissinger, india, indo-us, usa


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
30000 “US” troops into Afghanistan=30000 Indian troops out of Kashmir shruthi_ks International Politics 9 January 7th, 2010 12:07 AM
Now Bush will send troops inside Pakistan to catch bin Laden max de Indiana International Politics 6 September 28th, 2006 11:53 PM
Don’t send troops to Afghanistan, PM "urged" rameshp Indian Politics 1 July 6th, 2006 05:27 PM
How to send gift to India GunsNRoses SoapBox 2 July 1st, 2004 11:41 AM
Will Pakistan send its troops to Iraq? aalia Taaza Khabar - Current news 5 July 29th, 2003 01:00 AM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Site Copyright © eCharcha.Com 2000-2012.