'Govt should abstain if no consensus on Iran' - Page 6

Gautam · 02-03-2006, 14:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sameer

I think that this was in the movie Border as well right? or is that a different incident?

It was 600 men

lemontree · 02-04-2006, 00:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sameer

I think that this was in the movie Border as well right? or is that a different incident?

Yes, it was the same incident as shown in the movie "Border" - as usual bollywood dramatised the real incident. I have had a drink with Lt.Col. D Singh - whose role was played by Akshay Khanna - and my coursemate was commissioned in 23 Punjab. I have heard the story from the guys who faught the battle.

hammer · 02-04-2006, 07:46 AM

Saturday, February 4, 2006 (Vienna):

India and 26 other countries have voted in favour of reporting Iran to the United Nations Security Council for its nuclear programme.

The 27 nations voted for the resolution, moved at the UN's nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

The resolution, backed by the United States, expressed concern that Tehran's nuclear programme may not be "exclusively for peaceful purposes."

Only three nations – Cuba, Syria and Venezuela – voted against while five others – Algeria, Belarus, Indonesia, Libya and South Africa abstained.

Sanctions likely?

The decision by the IAEA's 35-nation board sets the stage for future action by the top UN body, which could include economic and political sanctions against Iran.

Still, any such moves were weeks if not months away, with two permanent council members - Russia and China - agreeing to referral only on condition that no council action be taken until at least March.

The resolution expresses "serious concerns about Iran's nuclear program." It recalls "Iran's many failures and breaches of its obligations" to the nonproliferation treaty. And it expresses "the absence of confidence that Iran's nuclear program is exclusively for peaceful purposes."

It requests IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei to "report to the Security Council" steps Iran needs to take to dispel suspicions about its nuclear ambitions.

NDTV

indianguy4u · 02-04-2006, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Only three nations – Cuba, Syria and Venezuela – voted against while five others – Algeria, Belarus, Indonesia, Libya and South Africa abstained.

Now would vaman & monk like India to be counted with this lot of countries?

indianguy4u · 02-04-2006, 08:59 AM

Quote:

IAEA refers Iran to UN Security Council

If i heard right on CNN, iran is to be reported & not refered. This change in word has been brought by russians to save a$$e$ of iran. And meaning of the two words are diff. Acc to my understanding[from CNN ofcourse], iran has been reported to UNSC, but cant put sanction on it yet. While refferel would have been able to put sanctions straight away. It means mullahs still have time to mend their ways.

Vaman · 02-05-2006, 16:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by indianguy4u

Now would vaman & monk like India to be counted with this lot of countries?

"Here poochie, Look what I have got for you"
"Woof woof!! Ruf!! "
"Now roll over and play dead"

mich · 02-06-2006, 02:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gautam

About time we played the abstain game

the iran nuclear issue is non of indias concern. this is a problem between iran and the west.let the west and iran come to whatever conclusions they want to on this issue. let india abstain and just watch the situation. of course most normal indians would prefer that diplomacy triumph over calls for war. there is no need for India to follow after sentiments like...'either you are with us or you are against us..' emerging these days from the western world. also, india is in no position to give lectures on morality to the iranians, because we officially started the nuclear trend in the the third world with pokharan 1 back in 1974.

lemontree · 02-06-2006, 02:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mich

india is in no position to give lectures on morality to the iranians, because we officially started the nuclear trend in the the third world with pokharan 1 back in 1974.

You are quite wrong here.
India developed nuclear weapon capability to counter the Chinese threat - while Iran faces no such threat and neither have the faced any overwhelming invasion in the last hundred years that could'nt be countered with conventional forces.

India did not steal nuclear technology - Iran allegedly bought its nuke knowhow from Dr AQ Khan's "Nuke-Mart".

India did not threaten to wipeout and country with nukes (No 1st use Policy) - Iran has repeatedly threated and advocates the destruction of Israel.

bull · 02-06-2006, 02:45 AM

Lemintree, he is gota point there, he said India officially started it.
Officially no one else was doing it,they all where doing it unofficially

667medic · 02-06-2006, 06:42 AM

This shithead is saying that the vote is a betrayal of Indian muslims. So India is supposed to condone the acts of Moslem nations irrespective of their repercussion, simply to keep the moslems happy. He is a moslem and I understand his sentiments but he should realise that sometimes the nation's interests are paramount to other concerns......

Quote:

'India’s Iran vote brought shame to nation'

Lucknow, February 6: Slamming the UPA government for India's vote on the Iran nuclear issue, the Shia community today said the decision was taken under US pressure and amounted to betrayal of Muslims in the country.

"The decision was taken under US pressure and has brought shame to the country," noted Shia cleric Maulana Kalbe Javaad told PTI here. "We will not keep silent as the move amounts to betrayal of Muslims in the country," he said.

A meeting of prominent Muslim clerics would be convened soon to discuss the matter and chalk out a future course of action, Javaad said. No government in the past took such a decision which was against the "popular sentiment" prevailing in the country, he said.

Warning Congress that it would have to pay dearly for this, the cleric said parties which consider themselves to be well wishers of Muslims should withdraw support to Congress.

He blamed Congress for the demolition of Babri mosque at Ayodhya saying the party was in power at the centre when the incident took place.

indianguy4u · 02-06-2006, 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 667medic

This shithead is saying that the vote is a betrayal of Indian muslims. So India is supposed to condone the acts of Moslem nations irrespective of their repercussion, simply to keep the moslems happy. He is a moslem and I understand his sentiments but he should realise that sometimes the nation's interests are paramount to other concerns......

What? Not sometimes, but all times. Those who cant understand this concept needs to be thrown out of the country.

667medic · 02-06-2006, 06:55 AM

Quote:

"Here poochie, Look what I have got for you"
"Woof woof!! Ruf!! "
"Now roll over and play dead"

You might have your reasons for opposing India's decision and I too agree that India's action was coerced. But there are both pros and cons to this decision. If we had sided with Iran and they still get sanctioned, we lose both Iran and USA. Atleast now we have USA on our side.
You are an Indian and please have the courtesy not to equate us with a dog.

667medic · 02-06-2006, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by indianguy4u

What? Not sometimes, but all times. Those who cant understand this concept needs to be thrown out of the country.

Agreed but come on man, we have people here who refuse to sing the national anthem, because of conflicts in loyalty.
Anyway if we can't even kick out the BDeshis, what can we even do to the other native undesirables....

indianguy4u · 02-06-2006, 07:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 667medic

Agreed but come on man, we have people here who refuse to sing the national anthem, because of conflicts in loyalty.
Anyway if we can't even kick out the BDeshis, what can we even do to the other native undesirables....

Kangress is responsible for such state we have found ourselves. I am fed of ppl primarily commies F*#kers & congress.

667medic · 02-06-2006, 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by indianguy4u

Kangress is responsible for such state we have found ourselves. I am fed of ppl primarily commies F*#kers & congress.

True but I am quite impressed with Manmohanji's leadership. He has kept the External Affairs portfolio, so that no one screws it. He has ditched Manishankar and brought in another guy who is more agreeable to current trends.
Anyway, this whole affair was aptly managed by the babus at MEA, just hope that the nuke deal is approved by US congress.

02-04-2006, 07:46 AM	#78 (permalink)
hammer *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 07-21-04 Location: Bangalore Posts: 1,371 Country:	IAEA refers Iran to UN Security Council Saturday, February 4, 2006 (Vienna): India and 26 other countries have voted in favour of reporting Iran to the United Nations Security Council for its nuclear programme. The 27 nations voted for the resolution, moved at the UN's nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The resolution, backed by the United States, expressed concern that Tehran's nuclear programme may not be "exclusively for peaceful purposes." Only three nations – Cuba, Syria and Venezuela – voted against while five others – Algeria, Belarus, Indonesia, Libya and South Africa abstained. Sanctions likely? The decision by the IAEA's 35-nation board sets the stage for future action by the top UN body, which could include economic and political sanctions against Iran. Still, any such moves were weeks if not months away, with two permanent council members - Russia and China - agreeing to referral only on condition that no council action be taken until at least March. The resolution expresses "serious concerns about Iran's nuclear program." It recalls "Iran's many failures and breaches of its obligations" to the nonproliferation treaty. And it expresses "the absence of confidence that Iran's nuclear program is exclusively for peaceful purposes." It requests IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei to "report to the Security Council" steps Iran needs to take to dispel suspicions about its nuclear ambitions. NDTV __________________ Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie!'...till you can find a rock. ;)

02-06-2006, 02:45 AM	#84 (permalink)
bull *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 01-17-05 Posts: 2,982	Lemintree, he is gota point there, he said India officially started it. Officially no one else was doing it,they all where doing it unofficially __________________ What's the difference between people who pray in church and those who pray in casinos? The ones in the casinos are serious.

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

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