'Govt should abstain if no consensus on Iran' - Page 3

Vaman · 01-31-2006, 17:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

The difference is that the US did not sign the Kyoto Protocals.

...and Iran signed the NPT under the Shah, an american controlled dictator, who has no standing in Iran.

Sameer · 01-31-2006, 17:23 PM

Thats a good legal argument verman, if Saddam can be put to trial when the former constitution and former regime made it impossible, then the same logic holds true for |Iran and the NPT. It was a different regime and one can argue an American supported regime that was overthrown in a REVOLUTION. (not a democratic process part of the system where subsequent parties have to honour past agreements).

However, I do not understand why India, a secular democracy has to support a wacko Islamic fundamentalist state such as Iran, it makes no sense to me especially considering the fact that we are Kafrs to them and that if they get nukes, oh God bless us all....

Jay · 01-31-2006, 17:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sameer

However, I do not understand why India, a secular democracy has to support a wacko Islamic fundamentalist state such as Iran, it makes no sense to me especially considering the fact that we are Kafrs to them and that if they get nukes, oh God bless us all....

In the short/medium and long term, they need us and vice versa. Remember they border Afghanistan and Pakistan and a host of other CAR nations

Vaman · 01-31-2006, 17:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sameer

However, I do not understand why India, a secular democracy has to support a wacko Islamic fundamentalist state such as Iran, it makes no sense to me especially considering the fact that we are Kafrs to them and that if they get nukes, oh God bless us all....

When has Iran threatened us with anything?
They pose us no threat and unlike a certain wacko islamic fundamentalist state in our backyard with whom some people dream of building Eu like ties, cementing relations with Iran would be far more fruitful for us, IMO.

Sameer · 01-31-2006, 17:34 PM

I think that much of the reason for Indian unease when it comes to sanctions involves the types of sanctions to be imposed on Iran. It appears that India has gotten guarantees from the west that the sanctions would not involve oil. If they did, high oil prices could affect the entire global economy including India's. I dont know how much wew can trust the west but certainly everyone has something to gain here so we must pick allies wisely.

Russia is an oil producer and would not mind supply shocks as prices would increase, good for them

China would mind and perhaps India should work closely with china on this one.

US and EU are devided because their economies are enjoying a slump but they want to be tough on Iran.

Everything will depend on the draft and its wording.

Jay · 01-31-2006, 17:38 PM

Think of it, we dont even have preferential oil prices like US gets from Gulf countries, we pay the market price. Iran and then Iraq are/wereflexible to India in oil pricing, much like then USSR.

Vaman · 01-31-2006, 17:53 PM

We were planning on building a massive pipeline between Iran and India.
THats gone now.. correct?

What do we have in return? zilch.

**Officer of Engineers** · 01-31-2006, 19:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vaman

...and Iran signed the NPT under the Shah, an american controlled dictator, who has no standing in Iran.

I was not aware that Iran officially has declared everything before the Revolution null and void.

lemontree · 02-01-2006, 00:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vaman

We were planning on building a massive pipeline between Iran and India.
THats gone now.. correct?

What do we have in return? zilch.

The Indian stance was swayed by the US "pledge" to cater to Indian energy needs if it supported the resolutions referring Iran to the UNSC. The energy needs were to be met by enhancing civlian nuclear sector. Like it or not India will go the US way, but the US needs to keep up its pledge.

Vaman · 02-01-2006, 01:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

I was not aware that Iran officially has declared everything before the Revolution null and void.

But if they did it even now, it would still be valid. After all, no-one expects Saddams promises and agreements to be kept in Iraqs new regime. The same standards apply,

Quote:

Originally Posted by lemontree

The Indian stance was swayed by the US "pledge" to cater to Indian energy needs if it supported the resolutions referring Iran to the UNSC. The energy needs were to be met by enhancing civlian nuclear sector. Like it or not India will go the US way, but the US needs to keep up its pledge.

Yeah right. The ink isnt dry on the nuclear agreement yet, and Indias foriegn policy is already being coerced into a position that the US wants. Or does the very recent David Mulford row not ring a bell?
If the nuclear goodies is the price I need to pay for the right to have my own opinion and the ability to make my own decisions, I'd rather not have the nuclear deal at all.. thank you very much.

**Officer of Engineers** · 02-01-2006, 01:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vaman

But if they did it even now, it would still be valid. After all, no-one expects Saddams promises and agreements to be kept in Iraqs new regime. The same standards apply,

Until they officially declare those agreements invalid, your arguement is invalid. And btw, post-revolutionary Iran did sign the additional protocals to the NPT (though not ratified), making further your arguement that Iran not bound by the NPT invalid.

lemontree · 02-01-2006, 04:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vaman

The ink isnt dry on the nuclear agreement yet, and Indias foriegn policy is already being coerced into a position that the US wants. Or does the very recent David Mulford row not ring a bell?

Mulford's statements were an embaressment to India, and he should have kept his mouth shut. This has made the Left and the BJP cry foul...that the NPA is giving in to US demands, thereby making it more difficult for the govt to take a decision w.r.t Iran.

Quote:

If the nuclear goodies is the price I need to pay for the right to have my own opinion and the ability to make my own decisions, I'd rather not have the nuclear deal at all.. thank you very much.

Its very easy to say such things but difficult to follow through in a unipolar world. The US infuences other nations too that do business with India and could arm twist indirectly.

Take the case of the recent uproar over the 20 yr old Islander aircraft being sold to Myanmar. The UK does not have any 3rd party clause with us and yet they are threatening to put an embargo on spares for other Islanders used by us. Let us see how the govt handles this - either we tell the Brits to climb a tree and follow or policy or we squirm and agree. Do we have the capability and the resolve for tough talk?....

indianguy4u · 02-01-2006, 04:58 AM

Russians have a good proposal for uranian enrichments which they should avail. Just talking cheap wont get them anywhere.

Off topic: Do the commie bastards take their orders from russi or chini masters? They had to blacken their faces & drink pee when russian & chinese stand on referring to UNSC came

. Man how are ppl of kerala or bengal tolerate such dumbfounded idiots

.

Dreadnought · 02-01-2006, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sameer

Thats a good legal argument verman, if Saddam can be put to trial when the former constitution and former regime made it impossible, then the same logic holds true for |Iran and the NPT. It was a different regime and one can argue an American supported regime that was overthrown in a REVOLUTION. (not a democratic process part of the system where subsequent parties have to honour past agreements).

However, I do not understand why India, a secular democracy has to support a wacko Islamic fundamentalist state such as Iran, it makes no sense to me especially considering the fact that we are Kafrs to them and that if they get nukes, oh God bless us all....

Question Sameer what is a Kafr? A racial or religious slur?

Ray · 02-01-2006, 10:31 AM

As per the Islamic lexicon, a kaffir is a 'non believer' .

Take it for what it is worth.

To be honest, I am not offended since I am indeed a non Moslem and if they feel that one has to believe in their religion to be a good soul and that their religion alone is the passport to Heaven, then let them suffer the delusion.

Religion is basically a belief that ensure a social order in society through laws that cannot otherwise be ordained democratically eg must pray daily in the kneeling position or five times in a variety of successive positions in sequence or starving oneself for a period of time by order of the Almighty etc etc. Since I am not acquainted with the Almighty, I let the Almighty please himself the way He pleases with his flock or followers. It is the right of the Almighty as also that of his followers and I do not wish to come between them unless they force their ways on me or act in a way that upsets my lifestyle.

Having an aversion to being ordered around the deck, I leave being "religious" to others, while I prefer to do as I think is OK for my conscience and I appreciate what I experience and not being ordered to appreciate something that some wise man has experienced himself and passed it on as "religion".

But then each man to his views.

The bottomline remains - Be Happy.

02-01-2006, 04:58 AM	#43 (permalink)
indianguy4u Real Madrid CF *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 03-07-05 Location: Mumbai Posts: 3,213 Country:	Russians have a good proposal for uranian enrichments which they should avail. Just talking cheap wont get them anywhere. Off topic: Do the commie bastards take their orders from russi or chini masters? They had to blacken their faces & drink pee when russian & chinese stand on referring to UNSC came . Man how are ppl of kerala or bengal tolerate such dumbfounded idiots . __________________ Hala Madrid!!

02-01-2006, 10:31 AM	#45 (permalink)
Ray Postmaster General *Military Professional* Join Date: 08-20-03 Posts: 26,149 Country:	As per the Islamic lexicon, a kaffir is a 'non believer' . Take it for what it is worth. To be honest, I am not offended since I am indeed a non Moslem and if they feel that one has to believe in their religion to be a good soul and that their religion alone is the passport to Heaven, then let them suffer the delusion. Religion is basically a belief that ensure a social order in society through laws that cannot otherwise be ordained democratically eg must pray daily in the kneeling position or five times in a variety of successive positions in sequence or starving oneself for a period of time by order of the Almighty etc etc. Since I am not acquainted with the Almighty, I let the Almighty please himself the way He pleases with his flock or followers. It is the right of the Almighty as also that of his followers and I do not wish to come between them unless they force their ways on me or act in a way that upsets my lifestyle. Having an aversion to being ordered around the deck, I leave being "religious" to others, while I prefer to do as I think is OK for my conscience and I appreciate what I experience and not being ordered to appreciate something that some wise man has experienced himself and passed it on as "religion". But then each man to his views. The bottomline remains - Be Happy. __________________ "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination." I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to. HAKUNA MATATA

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Iran Is Playing a Growing Role in Iraq Economy	xerxes	Current Affairs	0	03-21-2007 13:00 PM
What War With Iran Would Look Like	astralis	Political Discussions	0	09-17-2006 16:52 PM
Iran And Possible Developments	Gazi	The Iranian Question	2	02-26-2006 12:02 PM
Why use force when talk works so well?	Leader	International Defense Topics	54	12-05-2005 04:29 AM
A Preemptive Attack on Iran's Nuclear Facilities: Possible Consequences	lulldapull	International Defense Topics	14	11-20-2004 16:27 PM

01-31-2006, 17:23 PM	#32 (permalink)
Sameer Banished *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 07-12-05 Posts: 2,541	Thats a good legal argument verman, if Saddam can be put to trial when the former constitution and former regime made it impossible, then the same logic holds true for \|Iran and the NPT. It was a different regime and one can argue an American supported regime that was overthrown in a REVOLUTION. (not a democratic process part of the system where subsequent parties have to honour past agreements). However, I do not understand why India, a secular democracy has to support a wacko Islamic fundamentalist state such as Iran, it makes no sense to me especially considering the fact that we are Kafrs to them and that if they get nukes, oh God bless us all....

01-31-2006, 17:34 PM	#35 (permalink)
Sameer Banished *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 07-12-05 Posts: 2,541	I think that much of the reason for Indian unease when it comes to sanctions involves the types of sanctions to be imposed on Iran. It appears that India has gotten guarantees from the west that the sanctions would not involve oil. If they did, high oil prices could affect the entire global economy including India's. I dont know how much wew can trust the west but certainly everyone has something to gain here so we must pick allies wisely. Russia is an oil producer and would not mind supply shocks as prices would increase, good for them China would mind and perhaps India should work closely with china on this one. US and EU are devided because their economies are enjoying a slump but they want to be tough on Iran. Everything will depend on the draft and its wording.

01-31-2006, 17:38 PM	#36 (permalink)
Jay Tamizhanban *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 08-06-03 Location: Edison, NJ Posts: 6,191 Country:	Think of it, we dont even have preferential oil prices like US gets from Gulf countries, we pay the market price. Iran and then Iraq are/wereflexible to India in oil pricing, much like then USSR.

01-31-2006, 17:53 PM	#37 (permalink)
Vaman Banished Join Date: 11-06-03 Posts: 1,043	We were planning on building a massive pipeline between Iran and India. THats gone now.. correct? What do we have in return? zilch.

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