Europe takes bold step toward a ban on Iranian oil

[Param]

The simple fact is that countries always act according to their interests. The US flipped flop on certain issues because different situations demanded different approaches. This is true for all countries even India. Indians like to promote India's alleged fundamental distaste for intervention of other countries affairs (non-interventionist policy) but has intervened herself in other countries when her interest demanded it. The only reason why India has limited history of intervention is not because it does not like to intervene, the reason is that it's interests do not yet cover the World or half of it. Just wait when you become the absolute master of South Asia or Asia... and pigmies like Sri Lanka wants to assert their autonomy to the distaste of the leaders in Delhi...

Our Jingos won't be able to swallow that.

If not for Pakistan we are already masters of S. Asia. SE Asia and West Asia are next in line.

 

[asianobserve]

Our Jingos won't be able to swallow that.

If not for Pakistan we are already masters of S. Asia. SE Asia and West Asia are next in line.

Is the last sentence a sarcasm...? Anyway, focus on economy and "correct alliances" then India will be a master in her own turf. It certainly has the population.

 

[johnee]

The simple fact is that countries always act according to their interests. The US flipped flop on certain issues because different situations demanded different approaches. This is true for all countries even India. Indians like to promote India's alleged fundamental distaste for intervention of other countries affairs (non-interventionist policy) but has intervened herself in other countries when her interest demanded it. The only reason why India has limited history of intervention is not because it does not like to intervene, the reason is that it's interests do not yet cover the World or half of it. Just wait when you become the absolute master of South Asia or Asia... and pigmies like Sri Lanka wants to assert their autonomy to the distaste of the leaders in Delhi...

Sure. All countries act in their interests. Some countries may be more brutal than others. Some countries may be more gentler than others. But, at the end of the day, all countries act in their interests. Ideally, the brutal countries(generally, referred as rogues) most be curbed. Also, there are certain accepted ways and some unaccepatable ways. Dropping atom bombs comes under the second category for most people. Do you want all us to make exception in US' case?

Anyway, I dont object when you say that US did whatever it did in its interests. I object when you say that everyone must accept it as the right thing to do. There is a difference between the two stands.

BTW, you're still avoiding the issue of what if you were in his shoes?

Its a hypothetical question. And I replied by giving you another hypothetical situation: Imagine yourself as Japanese Ruler or Japanese citizen.

If you insist on you hypothetical question, then my answer is: I dont know what I would have done if I were in Truman's position. Maybe I would have done the same. Maybe I would have avoided such a dastardly act and tried to find other ways. Perhaps, I would have considered losing the battle more honourable than killing so many civilians in deliberate and potentially unstoppable destruction. I dont know.

But I do know that I am not in Truman's position. So, there is no need for me to imagine myself in Truman's position just as I dont need to imagine myself in Osama's position and justify his actions based on his needs and aims.

I think the unsaid point is that you like to blame US for the ills happening now in that region. You'd even throw out the window the clarity of the decision made by them in A-bombing Japan just to ram the point that the US is the A-hole of the World: "just let Iran get those nukes (however morbid is the idea) because US is the one leading the effort to stop it..."

You are making many conclusions in a mistaken manner.

Is Iran going nuclear good for India? No.
Is Iran going nuclear good for US? No.
Is Iran going nuclear good for Iran? Yes.
Is it the worst thing to happen in the world? No.

Pakistan is already a rogue nation with nukes. And the best part is that it is kept afloat by US funds because they claim that nukes will fall into the hands of terrorists if they dont keep them afloat. Remember, US turned a blind eye when Chinese transferred the nukes to Pakis.

India's threat from paki nukes is far greater than any potential nukes of Iran.

Should the US try to stop Iran from acquiring Nukes? Yes.
Should India support the effort? Yes, but without antagonizing Iran too much.
Is US the conscience keeper of the world? No.
Is the US protector of righteous countries and punisher of wicked regimes? No.

 

[asianobserve]

All countries act in their interests.

Thank you. Then why label them double-standards when they are only pursuing their own interests. Why can't India orient its long term interests with the West so that they don't constantly end up on opposite ends?

Also, would it be in India's long term interest to protect Iran? (You do realise that by not joining in the embargo India is indirectly helping Iran beat it?)

Should the US try to stop Iran from acquiring Nukes? Yes.
Should India support the effort? Yes, but without antagonizing Iran too much.

Well mate to break to you the bad news, you cannot make everybody happy all the time.

 

[johnee]

Well mate to break to you the bad news, you cannot make everybody happy all the time.

The good news is one does not need to make everybody happy all the time. One needs to prioritize...

 

[mayfair]

This is hardly a bold step. The bold step would have been Europe telling the Americans to stick two up theirs and practice what they preach. Especially on Pakistan, the source for most terror threats facing the world today.

This is a meek submission of a group of people who've gone soft and submissive and have no balls to stand up for what they claim to stand for.

 

[ejazr]

I personally think the American-led WOT has helped India more than any other country. More than any other Indian initiative the WOT has done more to bring Pakistan to the brink of collapse. The supply of arms by the West to Pakistan is nothing more than an empty token. Those weapons can easily be negated if a war explodes between India and Pakistan by a supply of info on these weapons/systems.

India can do more however by upping the economic and military aid to Afghanistan (directly or indirectly). (But I'm not exactly sure on this one, it seems that Indian politicians are more worried about agitating Pakistan than serving their own interests.)

Actually if Bush Senior had focussed on Af-Pak since day one and stayed there, it would have benefited India. However, the diversion to Iraq directly affected India because Musharraf was given a free hand to prop up the Taliban on one side and the destruction of the Saddam regime (which was friendly to India) directly affected our crude oil imports and given the long sanctions regime undermined a strong security partner for India in West Asia. Iraq used to have the largest army in the Arab world and Indian pilots and army personnel used to go to Iraq on deputations and advisory and training roles.

So the Bush war years had some initial benefit but negative consequences in later years. Obama's focus back to AfPak and the subsequent pressure on Pakistan has probably benefited India more than the Bush years cosying up with Musharraf IMO.

And I don't even have to mention what a mess the REagan administration created by allowing Paksitanis to continue with their nuke program and fund their so -called "Jihad" against USSR. The backlash of which India had to suffer directly in Kashmir. But that's a different topic altogether.

 

[nrj]

Can we get back to topic ?

 

[asianobserve]

UAE is constructing a Hormuz bypass oil pipeline although it is experiencing delays due to construction problems. Hormuz Bypass Oil Pipeline Is Delayed - Bloomberg

 

[Param]

Is the last sentence a sarcasm...? Anyway, focus on economy and "correct alliances" then India will be a master in her own turf. It certainly has the population.

No it is not Sarcasm.

It only depends on capability and the time period to attain that capability.