Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Iran regrets India’s launch of Israeli satellite

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Cant we go around 'P' for the pipeline? i.e a Iran-Afghan-Tajikistan-China-India pipeline?

    Or even a underwater pipeline?
    God is a cruise missile.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by FullTank View Post
      Cant we go around 'P' for the pipeline? i.e a Iran-Afghan-Tajikistan-China-India pipeline?
      China - Pakistan; what difference? It would put us in a weaker position then one going through Pakistan. If Pakistan gets our oil lifeline in their hands then we also have their water pipeline in our hands. But with China, it would just be one way blackmail.

      Or even a underwater pipeline?
      Underwater pipeline would be far too expensive but IMO it would be worth the money.
      Cow is the only animal that not only inhales oxygen, but also exhales it.
      -Rekha Arya, Former Minister of Animal Husbandry

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Adux View Post
        DCM,

        US hasnt been able to arm twist us, Iranian vote is not because of arm-twisting of the US. It is in our interest to make sure Iran doesnt have a bomb.
        The point is, even if we abstained from voting against Iran, they would've still be referred to the UNSC as their were enough others voting against them. Tell me, how do we reach our ally Afghanistan? The traditional route to Afghanistan for India would be through Iran; but by being hostile to them, you will shut off that route also. So the only other route we have left is Pakistan. So do realize that being Iran's friend is in India's interests. As for Iran having ICBMs, why should we have to worry? That is the worry of Israel and the West; we already have 2 other states pointing nuclear armed missiles and even ICBMs at us, i.e. China and Pakistan. The latter being a friend of the US.
        Cow is the only animal that not only inhales oxygen, but also exhales it.
        -Rekha Arya, Former Minister of Animal Husbandry

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Tronic View Post
          The point is, even if we abstained from voting against Iran, they would've still be referred to the UNSC as their were enough others voting against them. Tell me, how do we reach our ally Afghanistan? The traditional route to Afghanistan for India would be through Iran; but by being hostile to them, you will shut off that route also. So the only other route we have left is Pakistan.
          We cant have land through to Iran from there to Afghanistan. So hell with Iran, lets go through the Central Asian republics. They are friendly to us.

          Iran has to change their stance and tone down their rhetoric. We cannot support nutjobs. Listen to what the Russian Foriegn Ministry, their staunch ally and supplier of Nuke Fuel stated There might be connection between their Space Program and Nuke Program.


          So do realize that being Iran's friend is in India's interests. As for Iran having ICBMs, why should we have to worry?
          That is the worry of Israel and the West;
          More countries having nuclear weapons, negates the importance and influence of the one's already having them. The unwritten idea behind NPT..lol


          we already have 2 other states pointing nuclear armed missiles and even ICBMs at us, i.e. China and Pakistan. The latter being a friend of the US.
          Yes, It is not in the interest of either of Pakistan (Balchusitan) and China (Central Asia) also

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Adux View Post
            We cant have land through to Iran from there to Afghanistan. So hell with Iran, lets go through the Central Asian republics. They are friendly to us.
            Whiskey Tango Foxtrot??? (did I get that right :P). You want to bypass a traditional Indian friendly nation, go through the Suez, through Turkey, through Russia, through atleast 2 CA Republics, and THEN reach Afghanistan? All for what? To kiss one power's behind? and then going through that proposed route, you'll have to be kissing many more behinds, including Russia's and do some major bending over. Now thats a plan; too bad its very unrealistic.

            Iran has to change their stance and tone down their rhetoric. We cannot support nutjobs. Listen to what the Russian Foriegn Ministry, their staunch ally and supplier of Nuke Fuel stated There might be connection between their Space Program and Nuke Program.
            Oh wait; is that the same Russia which only last year was selling Iran weapons and anti-aircraft missiles? The Russians know how to play the game, even after this whole affair, they will still be in bed with the Iranians. Indian gov on the other hand needs to develop some brains!


            More countries having nuclear weapons, negates the importance and influence of the one's already having them. The unwritten idea behind NPT..lol
            Alright, then answer my second point; that if one is powerless to do anything about it, then one should "shut-up", no? I mean look at the US and Pakistan in the 80s. Everyone knew Pakistan was building nukes but US still used the Pakistanis against the Soviets; even gave them F-16s; and dumped them only after the fight had been won. Why cannot Indian administration grow 2 braincells and borrow a leaf from the big powers?


            Yes, It is not in the interest of either of Pakistan (Balchusitan) and China (Central Asia) also
            And yet Pakistan has stayed out of the issue and China has continued its relations with Iran; even bypassing trade sanctions; and then formally inviting the Ahmednijad (<did I get the name right?) to the Beijing Olympics.
            Cow is the only animal that not only inhales oxygen, but also exhales it.
            -Rekha Arya, Former Minister of Animal Husbandry

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Adux View Post
              Deltacamelately,

              Why should India support Iran, when it doesnt suit our national interest. USA and Israel are important to us. The notions of Iran are far from noble, Wipe Israel and jews of the map. We cannot support that. And it is also in our interest to limit the number of people having nuclear weapons.

              Iran's nuclear program and their Space program closely linked. If the Americans and West dont do anything, they will have an Iranian ICBM flying soon.


              Added Later: Russia, China and India all voted against Iran. They were all supposed to be their friends. Russia this week announced they believe Space program of Iran is a cover up for ICBM.
              For once Adux, I agree with you!

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Tronic View Post
                Whiskey Tango Foxtrot??? (did I get that right :P). You want to bypass a traditional Indian friendly nation, go through the Suez, through Turkey, through Russia, through atleast 2 CA Republics, and THEN reach Afghanistan? All for what? To kiss one power's behind? and then going through that proposed route, you'll have to be kissing many more behinds, including Russia's and do some major bending over. Now thats a plan; too bad its very unrealistic.
                Guess what tronic it seems you were prescient Turkey offers alternative to Iran pipeline-India-The Times of India

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Dreadnought View Post
                  You have to keep in mind that any country that works along with Israel is considered bad in Irans views and opinions although Israel has threatened no country and Iran continues to threaten them every chance the media gives. Iran is also keen to the fact that Pakistan works along with the U.S. and so does Israel and if India were to as well Irans influence and power in the region although they have oil is quickly shrinking.


                  “I hope that countries in the region would not let Israel make such an attack. It will impact and be devastative for countries of the region.”

                  The above is nothing more then "fearmongering" as Iran could not threaten any countries beside Israel. If Iran attacked Israel with a nuclear threat the fallout would reach the other countires and they would intern attack Iran under the preface of the fallout from the explosion.

                  Made a good point. The only thing IRAN can do is threatening the Anti-Iran ppl. :) just have a look at their history, they never went to the next step (war).

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Tronic View Post
                    China - Pakistan; what difference? It would put us in a weaker position then one going through Pakistan. If Pakistan gets our oil lifeline in their hands then we also have their water pipeline in our hands. But with China, it would just be one way blackmail.



                    Underwater pipeline would be far too expensive but IMO it would be worth the money.
                    not the all water. Just 3 rivers. and we get full of them during the floods in india. otherwise not

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by thelex View Post
                      not the all water. Just 3 rivers. and we get full of them during the floods in india. otherwise not
                      Really? I guess its time for another Baghligar
                      A grain of wheat eclipsed the sun of Adam !!

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by physicsmonk View Post
                        Guess what tronic it seems you were prescient Turkey offers alternative to Iran pipeline-India-The Times of India
                        I swear they must be reading straight from WAB! :P

                        But sir, my point was really for trade relations with Afghanistan, not the oil. Goods and the like. It will cement our ties and those trade relations are what Pakistan does not want India to have with Afghanistan. That is why they limit the trade. Hence, the only practical route is through Iran.
                        Cow is the only animal that not only inhales oxygen, but also exhales it.
                        -Rekha Arya, Former Minister of Animal Husbandry

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by thelex View Post
                          not the all water. Just 3 rivers. and we get full of them during the floods in india. otherwise not
                          Yes, India has all the major rivers of Pakistan in its hands; and among them the most important which feeds most of Pakistan, the Indus, also lies in India's hands. It is Pakistan's good fortune that we are not into breaking treaties and even during war, the Indus treaty was still respected by India and the rivers were never blocked.
                          Cow is the only animal that not only inhales oxygen, but also exhales it.
                          -Rekha Arya, Former Minister of Animal Husbandry

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            While it is true that it would not be in the interest of the world if Iran had a nuke bomb, it is also true that India, purely from a strategic point of view, should have the best of relationship with Iran.

                            Iran opens up the oil route to Chabahar port that India is developing. And this port also opens up the route to the Afghanistan markets and also to the markets of CAR. All this is essential for India industrial and economic growth, while at the same time, cement friendship.

                            By being closer to Afghanistan, India would negate Pakistan's search for her strategic depth.

                            By having a good relationship with Iran, it would neutralise the growing Chinese influence and this is very essential in the interest of both the US and India, since China has practically entrenched itself in Gwadar, where they have demanded quasi sovereign interest.

                            Therefore, India has to tread very cautiously and without haste and ensure that the situation remains on even keel.


                            "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

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Ray Reply

                              "China has practically entrenched itself in Gwadar, where they have demanded quasi sovereign interest."

                              Brigadier,

                              Can you provide support (not evidence, mind you) that the PRC has, indeed, already "practically entrenched itself..."? My understanding is that Gwadar will be a commercial facility available for everybody.

                              When did the PRC demand "quasi sovereign interest" and in what form shall this take?

                              I ask as I've some interest there, believing NATO's supply might be shipped through Gwadar rather than Karachi or, at least, augmented by that facility.

                              "All this is essential for India industrial and economic growth..."

                              Sir I believe that ultimately Iran's possession of nuclear weapons puts them in a position to control the economic health of the modern world. An unassailed primacy of the Hormuz Straits by Iran, coupled with the demonstrated willingness to engage neutral vessels traversing the area (1988 tanker war) is sufficient to endanger the economies of many nations. This isn't a selfish interest of America designed to achieve "strategic advantage" unless securing the single-most important SLOC in the world for safe use by all nations would be a dubious nat'l objective. Under the circumstances, this is the primary underlying tenet to our concern.

                              Brigadier, it should be India's concern as well. Unless you believe that Indian can sell to a global economy that's burdened by rising energy prices and the ogre of absolute abdication to Iranian hands on the oil-faucet knob, you'd realize that CAR won't, by itself, remotely assuage India's commercial ambitions.

                              You're still not yet a signatory to the NPT, thus have no formal role to play in development of IAEA assessments. From that India is safe from blowback regarding their judgements, etc. At some point, however, India may be called upon in the U.N. to declare it's willingness to accede hegemony of the Gulf to Persia or defend the rights of all to safe transit.

                              Brigadier, we're continue to take the heat for the rest of the globe including, evidently, India. I don't oppose the development of Indian-Iranian relations. That is, up to the point where it impedes the interests of the rest of mankind. At that point, sir, India needs to understand the implications of interrupting the status quo as a nuclear-armed Iran will do, particularly in the gulf and among key sunni arab nations such as Egypt.

                              India walks a tightrope of sorts between what's right and what's convenient. Clearly any Chinese/Pakistani argument would argue Gwadar's presence in light of your development at Chabahar. Two sides of the same coin.

                              "While it is true that it would not be in the interest of the world if Iran had a nuke bomb, it is also true that India, purely from a strategic point of view, should have the best of relationship with Iran."

                              I hope for India's sake it's an operational POV, not strategic. Generally I believe that strategic interests demand defense. Operational considerations may not. I'd hate for India to be on the wrong side of this issue when it goes down. Your "close" relationship with Iran can be best served by counseling your Persian friends on the dangerous folly of the current path before matters occur.

                              At some point India will need to decide what's most important, maintenence of a globally-based economy or a secure route to CAR. I think that it's a no-brainer myself but we'll see.
                              "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
                              "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Tronic View Post
                                ... why must we choose one over the other? Why does it have to be US over Iran; or Iran over US? Pakistan has even a worse record then Iran of nuclear proliferation and breeding terrorism but does the US choose India over Pakistan, or Pakistan over India? No. Because it is in America's interest to be friendly to Pakistan and the same way it is in India's interest to stay on good terms with Iran. I'm not saying support Iran, i'm just saying that we should stay out of the Iran affair altogether. Indian government should stop making useless ranting about being against anymore nuclear states and such; because unless you can do something about it, it is better to just shut up rather then raise tensions between another nation. Staying on good terms with Iran will mean that we can have a stable link with another Indian ally in the region; Afghanistan.
                                The United States made some choices with very long-term implications viz Pakistan a long time ago, so it does not really have a ready choice today about being friendly or unfriendly with Pakistan. (Boy, would it like to have a real and ready choice today, though!) India, on the other hand, continually presents the US with a list of short-term pro-active choices* the US can choose from. On a regular basis it is quite annoying... but when major policy changes are being made it sure is good sometimes to not be shackled to previous policies.

                                Not all long-term foreign policy choices are necessarily bad, but one must have extraordinary intelligence, wisdom and moral integrity to make them. Sadly not all choices made regarding Pakistan were founded on wise and moral principles (ref Cowles in 1947 and Blood in 1971 for example). Later what appeared to be choices regarding Pakistan were hardly real choices. Anyway, whats done is done; it doesn't do too much good to bode upon it, trust Yankee ingenuity to figure a way out of it.

                                Now what lesson should you really learn from this? (Answer this correctly and I fly back to my tree, answer this incorrectly and you know the consequences... Sorry, couldn't resist a random Vikram Aur Betaal reference)

                                * By pro-active choices, I mean choices the United States makes with India directly and solely kept in mind. As opposed to reactive or chain-reactive choices made with India being affected in a round-about fashion or in conjunction with other countries (common in Cold War geo-politics).

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X