Iran regrets India’s launch of Israeli satellite - Page 9

Agnostic Muslim · 02-13-2008, 14:54 PM

S-2:
"I can construct a case that Khomeinists follow their own rather destructive doctrine."

Absolutely nothing wrong with "Mutaa" (temporary marriage)

.

I could deal much better spiritually with *ahem* if it was "religiously sanctioned". We should "import" some of that "doctrine" I say.....

S-2 · 02-13-2008, 15:07 PM

JAD, I understand and concur. I don't honestly have a clue to what deltacamelately is referring. Where I have a problem is the use of "vital nat'l interests" bandied about rather comfortably without full consideration of what that means.

As you indicated, those interests are remarkably small. They include SLOCs of some gravity. As a maritime nation AND as the engineer of the global trading/commerce system, America's good health stems directly from the good health of others. Therein lies our interest. If selfish, it's as altruistically self-motivated as one can be.

Iran's possession of nuclear weapons astride the straits of Hormuz is unacceptable. Any nation that dissembles that central point to their advantage is welcome to a point. After that, they'll need to stand and be counted or recognize the self-imposed limitations of their own credibility.

chankya · 02-13-2008, 15:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S-2

What's fascinating is the effort expended to do so at the expense of closer ties with Pakistan. At first glance, one would assume that the cost of shipping goods to CAR from India through Chadabar and then trucked north would far exceed goods trucked directly from India through Pakistan northward. Chadahbar represents a counter-weight to Gwadar, nothing more. It is not the preferred solution as it perpetuates the continuation of Afghanistan's manipulation by it's neighbors. The objective (access to Afghanistan and CAR) is desirable but hardly a market upon which a nation should squander it's moral capital.

Actually the Iran route is the only solution. Pakistani terms for transit of goods from India to Afghanistan are so restrictive that it makes news every time they let a couple of more trucks pass through.

Squander capital? What capital? With Whom? The Afghans dislike the Pakistanis as much as we do and for the same reason. They have terrorist training camps on Pakistani territory which launch attacks on both countries.

chankya · 02-13-2008, 15:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agnostic Muslim

Isn't all of this exactly why Indians label the kashmiri militants "terrorists"?

That's obfuscating. There are few kashmiri militants still around any more. The last true ones died with the JKLF. The ones now are foreign actors. Pakistanis and Arabs.

Cactus · 02-13-2008, 16:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S-2

What's fascinating is the effort expended to do so at the expense of closer ties with Pakistan. At first glance, one would assume that the cost of shipping goods to CAR from India through Chadabar and then trucked north would far exceed goods trucked directly from India through Pakistan northward. Chadahbar represents a counter-weight to Gwadar, nothing more. It is not the preferred solution as it perpetuates the continuation of Afghanistan's manipulation by it's neighbors. The objective (access to Afghanistan and CAR) is desirable but hardly a market upon which a nation should squander it's moral capital.

S-2,

The Central Asian Republics offer only one "goods" India is really interested in - natural gas. The greater part of India's refineries and industries lie in South-West, with easy access to the Arabian Sea. For them it is probably lot cheaper to ship the gas from Iran, rather than tackle building a pipline through Hindu Kush and NWFP... for one thing Iranian plateau is much more gentle than the Hindu Kush Mountains, and Iranians have already done the greater part of the work. Of course it would have been even cheaper to build a pipleine from Iran to India via Southern Pakistan... but business can't have it all.

S-2 · 02-13-2008, 18:13 PM

Resource competition in this region among the Russians, Iranians, Pakistanis, Indians, and the PRC will rip the world apart. Short of India, I'm nearly certain that all of the others mentioned appreciate and prefer brute power and intimidation as leverage. I've learned since that India is problematic as well. It bodes poorly for the little nations of the region (again) and for the rest of mankind.

S-2 · 02-13-2008, 18:16 PM

Good sense knows no bounds and one should never say never when faced with enriching possibilities.

chankya · 02-13-2008, 18:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S-2

Resource competition in this region among the Russians, Iranians, Pakistanis, Indians, and the PRC will rip the world apart. Short of India, I'm nearly certain that all of the others mentioned appreciate and prefer brute power and intimidation as leverage. I've learned since that India is problematic as well. It bodes poorly for the little nations of the region (again) and for the rest of mankind.

Really? No America, no Europe? Does Kashagan sounds familiar?

Adux · 02-13-2008, 23:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S-2

Resource competition in this region among the Russians, Iranians, Pakistanis, Indians, and the PRC will rip the world apart. Short of India, I'm nearly certain that all of the others mentioned appreciate and prefer brute power and intimidation as leverage. I've learned since that India is problematic as well. It bodes poorly for the little nations of the region (again) and for the rest of mankind.

You gotta be kidding me Sir,
America and Europe isnt in this world for resource; as far as we know,none of those countries have made an move's towards ripping the world apart. Except maybe the Americans and Soviets.
"Iraqi Oil will pay for the war" speech by GWB.

Tronic · 02-13-2008, 23:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S-2

We are opposed, not hostile. Like any other nation, it's not about "needed to serve American interests". We do what we can, as example with NK to mitigate by coercion and diplomacy. We do what we must in the Persian gulf.

It's about, first, non-compliance of an agreed accord involving nuclear materials/processes by a regional hegemon in an area of our vital nat'l interests. America's economic health (vital nat'l interest)is utterly dependant upon the good economic health of others. That can't be assured with Iran controlling the oil-faucet through nuclear black-mail, proven by 1988. It's a war issue, bluntly.

Alright. Given the evidence, the world community including America can respond in their own ways. Iran has signed the NPT so the consequences will be justified.

Quote:

"India should sit out of this one..."

won't be appropriate for a nation of India's power and regional responsibility. Somewhere in that calculus comes a moment of truth that belies "fence-sitting".

I don't think that moment of truth may come just now. India acted upon ideals alones and was a peacenik nation throughout the 50s and even early 60s; all it did was attract more invaders and hostilities. Even after arming itself to the teeth, India still supported democratic forces over tin-pot dictators, Bangladesh and Burma are two examples. During the former issue, we nearly went to war with the US, who was trying to back up its dictator; and during the latter, we were completely isolated on the issue from the world community. It resulted in Burmese generals growing a big distrust of India, and giving Lefty guerillas a safe haven.

So, S-2, we have had our "moments of truth". India has acted upon its laid down morals and ideals, and it hasn't done us much good! That is why I think it is time we got a bit more selfish.

Quote:

Tronic, I understand that this is NOW the case. I'd like to see it change. Pakistan should benefit by Indian trade with Afghanistan and CAR. So too Pakistan's own trade with India.

You know, the nat'l alliance has never been India/Russia or PRC/Pakistan. It's been India/Pakistan. That's a regional alliance of note! Instead...

An India-Pakistan alliance is just a good dream. Have you taken a look at some of Pakistani "democratic forces"? They have criticised Musharaf heavily for building India-Pakistan ties; and have openly claimed and I paraphrase, "There can be no peace between India-Pakistan until Kashmir issue is resolved." And Kashmir issue has not been resolved in over 60 years; how can it resolve overnight? India wants to make current Kashmir border the international boundary. Pakistan will not settle for anything short of Kashmir partitioning from India.

Quote:

Tronic, you are from the region. You must know that it's not acceptable to link the N.A. with the gov't of Afghanistan. It's a political party-no more or less than any other political party in Afghanistan. As such, arming the "northern alliance" does no service to the legitimate gov't and perpetuates the argument that the ONLY LEGITIMATE gov't that India would accept is an N.A.-dominated one. Healthy institutions can no more arise in that mind-set than GoP support for the taliban and make impossible the work of the U.N. and NATO. I'm sorry but when you toss filth ( and I despise the Taliban) the N.A. is no better. Worse, your comments seem to confirm that India's role in Afghanistan can't be constructive when it's not played through the government of Afghanistan but, instead, the N.A.

S-2, when India supported the NA, there was no legitimate Afghan government. And India merely provided the NA with logistical and medical support; it was America which provided the NA with the punch.

Today, India provides weapons to the Afghan Army. India trains Afghan soldiers and officers in its defense academies. And the schools, hospitals, roads, water utilities and all other reconstruction efforts are to build Afghanistan, not the NA. You took my comments out of context, or maybe I should've been more clear.

Quote:

Are the Pakistanis correct about RAW meddling in Afghanistan with the Baluchis? Now I'm beginning to wonder...

Don't know if the Pakistanis are right. If RAW has camps there, then it must be with the acknowledgement of the Americans.

Adux · 02-13-2008, 23:27 PM

I have personally had enough being a peacenik, improvished nation.

JAD_333 · 02-14-2008, 01:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adux

You gotta be kidding me Sir,
America and Europe isnt in this world for resource; as far as we know,none of those countries have made an move's towards ripping the world apart. Except maybe the Americans and Soviets.
"Iraqi Oil will pay for the war" speech by GWB.

What speech? Do you mean the one where he said Iraqi oil should be used to help pay for reconstruction?

Do you actually think that world leaders sit around trying to find ways to rip the world apart?

How far can one go with this notion that a country should do nothing when threatened, lest it rock the boat?

The absolute best situation for countries like Iran is the pressure on the superpowers from their own political factions and publics to refrain from acting decisively to head off any serious threat they may pose.

I am for negotiation and diplomatic efforts, and any peaceful means that gets results. But these avenues are luxuries justified only when one has a pretty good idea where the point of no return is. There's the rub. We don't know. It's rather ironic that we are urged to negotiate for something that may no longer be negotiable.

Maybe we will just throw Barack Obama, the great conciliator, at them. That's a very real possibility.

JAD_333 · 02-14-2008, 01:50 AM

[quote=S-2;459058]JAD, I understand and concur. I don't honestly have a clue to what deltacamelately is referring. Where I have a problem is the use of "vital nat'l interests" bandied about rather comfortably without full consideration of what that means.

Glad we see eye to eye on that point. I find that people rarely explain a country's international moves in terms of its vital national interests. Usually they take a pro-con stance, which is ok, but no help in objectively understanding events.

Quote:

As you indicated, those interests are remarkably small. They include SLOCs of some gravity. As a maritime nation AND as the engineer of the global trading/commerce system, America's good health stems directly from the good health of others. Therein lies our interest. If selfish, it's as altruistically self-motivated as one can be.

I completely agree with you.

Quote:

Iran's possession of nuclear weapons astride the straits of Hormuz is unacceptable. Any nation that dissembles that central point to their advantage is welcome to a point. After that, they'll need to stand and be counted or recognize the self-imposed limitations of their own credibility.

I agree, but my concern is that we don't go beyond that point.

Adux · 02-14-2008, 02:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JAD_333

What speech? Do you mean the one where he said Iraqi oil should be used to help pay for reconstruction?

Reconstruction, and the war.

Quote:

Do you actually think that world leaders sit around trying to find ways to rip the world apart?

Do you think I am Micheal Moore?

Quote:

How far can one go with this notion that a country should do nothing when threatened, lest it rock the boat?

Does that only apply to the Americans?

Quote:

The absolute best situation for countries like Iran is the pressure on the superpowers from their own political factions and publics to refrain from acting decisively to head off any serious threat they may pose.

According to the Iranians, they are sure that they will not get justice or fairness from the Americans. Do they have valid reasons for that?

Deltacamelately · 02-14-2008, 03:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S-2

"Tell this to S-2..."

deltacamelately,

This phrase, vital nat'l interests, seems in vogue by those who wish license for their nation's behavior when exceeding the norms of freely entered agreement. I note a great deal of sympathy by Indians here to Iran. As such, the resentful comparisons to Pakistan are unusual.

No cookies for that. We share some common things going over centuries.
Orthodox views even go to the extent of saying that blood lines cross between Indian and Iranians through the Proto Indo Europeans.
However...Me and Tronic have been debating on a One Liner.
India should better sit out. If the US contemplates to do something...
Do It. It doesn't need India for that. We will be happy to see a non-nuclear Iran.

Quote:

I don't object to India's close relations with Iran.

You shouldn't.

Quote:

Chadahbar represents a counter-weight to Gwadar, nothing more. It is not the preferred solution as it perpetuates the continuation of Afghanistan's manipulation by it's neighbors. The objective (access to Afghanistan and CAR) is desirable but hardly a market upon which a nation should squander it's moral capital.

Should I consider it as your deliberate naivity?
India has hoge stakes apart from mere business in Afghanistan and CAR...
Chadahbhar offers us a Direct Solution as per access and prolonged access is concerned. You should see it transparent. Do we have alternatives...
Yes we can have...use your weight in convincing Pakistan to grant us access.
Will US do that? It will help us Not Sqandering our Moral Capital.

Quote:

That would require, of course, suspension of Indian meddling in Afghanistan-a deep suspicion of Pakistanis that seems reinforced by Indian commenters here at WAB. Neither nation seems interested in the development of a truly independant Afghanistan at the expense of a more malleable, corrupt and compliant institution.

Visit Afghanistan...You will know. Pakistan has for decades been fingering Afghanistan in its quest for strategic depth. US has shoved its finger too in ensuring the Soviet's withdrawl. India on the other hand has always acted like a NGO...and still continuing. We send BRO...build roads..bridges...demolished by explosives with their gene pool tracing back to China...US and Russia. We send doctors...nurses to help heel wounds caused by these explosives.
Tell you S-2! As a child, I loved seeing Rambo demolishing the Soviet forces along side the Mujahideen. Post 9/11...Now when I see the same movie...I feel like laughing my heart out...finally getting sad to the brink.
What ever is there...good bad....You are BIG TIME RESPONSIBLE.
My earnest desire...let's sit out of Whatever you are planning for Iran. Its not our war.

Quote:

I re-iterate that maintenence of a global system of agreements is in my nation's vital security interests as is the prevention of a nuclear-armed regional hegemon perfectly willing to assert it's new-found muscle over a SLOC vital to the economic well-being of the entire world.

Let's sit out.

02-13-2008, 14:54 PM	#121 (permalink)
Agnostic Muslim Contributor Join Date: 12-12-07 Location: Auburn Hills Posts: 461 Country:	S-2: "I can construct a case that Khomeinists follow their own rather destructive doctrine." Absolutely nothing wrong with "Mutaa" (temporary marriage) . I could deal much better spiritually with ahem if it was "religiously sanctioned". We should "import" some of that "doctrine" I say..... __________________ Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission - Jinnah

02-13-2008, 15:07 PM	#122 (permalink)
S-2 *Military Professional* Join Date: 09-11-06 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 2,321 Country:	JAD 333 Reply JAD, I understand and concur. I don't honestly have a clue to what deltacamelately is referring. Where I have a problem is the use of "vital nat'l interests" bandied about rather comfortably without full consideration of what that means. As you indicated, those interests are remarkably small. They include SLOCs of some gravity. As a maritime nation AND as the engineer of the global trading/commerce system, America's good health stems directly from the good health of others. Therein lies our interest. If selfish, it's as altruistically self-motivated as one can be. Iran's possession of nuclear weapons astride the straits of Hormuz is unacceptable. Any nation that dissembles that central point to their advantage is welcome to a point. After that, they'll need to stand and be counted or recognize the self-imposed limitations of their own credibility. __________________ "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski

02-13-2008, 18:13 PM	#126 (permalink)
S-2 *Military Professional* Join Date: 09-11-06 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 2,321 Country:	Cactus Reply Resource competition in this region among the Russians, Iranians, Pakistanis, Indians, and the PRC will rip the world apart. Short of India, I'm nearly certain that all of the others mentioned appreciate and prefer brute power and intimidation as leverage. I've learned since that India is problematic as well. It bodes poorly for the little nations of the region (again) and for the rest of mankind.

02-13-2008, 18:16 PM	#127 (permalink)
S-2 *Military Professional* Join Date: 09-11-06 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 2,321 Country:	A.M. Reply Good sense knows no bounds and one should never say never when faced with enriching possibilities.

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:

02-13-2008, 23:27 PM	#131 (permalink)
Adux Banished Join Date: 07-29-05 Location: Cochin Posts: 2,931 Country:	I have personally had enough being a peacenik, improvished nation.

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

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Considering a war with Iran	Ray	The Iranian Question	521	04-01-2008 20:00 PM
BMPT - the new Russian class - Tank Assistance Combat Vehicle.	Garry	Land Forces	123	11-05-2007 18:39 PM
Why use force when talk works so well?	Leader	International Defense Topics	54	12-05-2005 04:29 AM
The EU, US, Israel and Iran	lulldapull	Israeli-Palestinian Conflict	24	01-03-2005 02:52 AM
A Preemptive Attack on Iran's Nuclear Facilities: Possible Consequences	lulldapull	International Defense Topics	14	11-20-2004 16:27 PM