[Arnab]

Originally Posted by imtiaz82
Yup, just the same way America's "war of liberation"in IRaq is also on the "right side of things".

Ridiculous analogy that bear NO real resemblance to what led to and what happened during the 1971 Bangladeshi War of Independence.

Saddam Hossain was killing thousand of armless civilains in Kurdistan and shias in order to silence an entire society. So how could the generous Americans stop themselves from helping the poor people? They had to go there to liberate the people from the grasp of cruel dictator Saddam right?

Did 10 million Iraqis suddenly swamp all American ports of entry overnight and got rehabilitated as refugees in, say, upstate New York?

Because in 1971, that's the number of Bengali refugees (1/7 th of the East Pakistani population) who ran for their lives from their home and took shelter in West Bengal, India.

So your analogy is wrong.

Did Saddam Hussain attack the US militarily by sinking an American warship in the Persian Gulf?

Because in 1971, Pakistan attacked India militarily on the western borders. Only then did India choose to directly intervene inside Bangladesh, after nine months of waiting.

Bengali's fight for independence was justified based on the treatment they received at all level in the society. But in no circumstance am I going to believe the theory that India was helping us for "altruistic" reason.

I wasn't talking about India's ulterior motives borne out of political realism. Whatever they did, it was the right thing from a Bangladeshi AND from an overall "right" point of view. That's all I am saying.

All they cared about was splitting their arch rival into 2. Indians till today take pride in defeating Pakistan, no one cares about Bangladesh's independence.

Over-generalizations. Last time I checked, the Indian government considers Bangladesh a sovereign country. As does the congressional and senate representatives of the people of Montana, most of whom cannot even locate Bangladesh on a map.

It's the same thing as someone saying that US army went to Iraq for the sole purpose of liberating the Iraqis and not for OIL.

Wrong analogy. The US went inside Iraq using entirely false pretexts (i.e., WMD, ties with Al Qaeda, etc). India didn't need such a pretext to enter East Pakistan, because

1. It was Pakistan that attacked India militarily in 1971 first, on its Western border.
2. It was being well-documented all around the world the atrocities Pak Army was causing inside Bangladesh. This should be obviuos to you if you are a Bangladeshi. Would you rather India not help us out militarily in 1971? Is that what you are suggesting?

But just as it has happened in IRaq, the civilians were happy in getting rid of Saddam but they could not accept living under the shadow of a foreign power. The countless bombing in Iraq is a direct response to America's action. Similarly, the Bengalis could not stand living their entire life under the umbrella of India, their "liberator".

Ridiculous parallels.

That India borders Bangladesh is a geographically unalterable fact. It's Bangaldesh's destiny to be under the shadow of a regional superpower with a much bigger population. Both countries lie in the same subcontinental plain, share innumerous cultural, regional, geographical, etc ties.

America, however, is thousands of miles away from Iraq.

A closer analogy would be Canada=Bangladesh, US=India. Although it's better not to take these analogies too literally, your attempt at drawing a parallel with Iraq was totally ludicrous.