Europe takes bold step toward a ban on Iranian oil

[SADAKHUSH]

Granting the West wants to talk, which they declared many times, do you think Iran is prepared to bargain its dream for nuclear weapons? Personally I believe it will not primarily because Israel has some (and its unlikely to give them up in exchange for Iranian cessation of nuclear weapons development)? And since it's clear that Iran will not give up its desire to acquire the weapon do you think there's any point in India playing the hopeless role of a facilitator (mission impossible)?

As long as China and Russia are pledging support for Iran, the latter will not compromise on the crucial nuclear issue.

I am of the view that USA with her allies and Russia with China are on the same page where all of them are going to set Sunni Arab masses to fight against Shia faith follower in the region.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Why didn't it happen? can you give more details on that?

a nuclear explosion grows exponentially 2x2=4, 4x4=16, 16x16=256 etc... Theoretically how does something that grows exponentially end?? Luckily when the fissile material in the warhead was gone it ended and did not use material from the environment to keeping growing as once believed by scientists.

 

[HeinzGud]

Its one thing for soldiers to fight a war in the battlefield killing or dying for their respective countries, and quite another thing to willfully drop bombs on civilians. What is the difference between a terrorist and a soldier? What is the difference between a civil nation and a terrorist organisation? Soldiers fight war with other soldiers. They dont kill civilians. Sometimes, the collateral may happen but Hiroshima and Nagasaki were deliberate and not collateral.

US' actions were suitable to a terror organisation. Consider this: What would you do if you were in Osama's shoes? Would you send your men to certain death or would you carry out 9/11? By that logic: Is 9/11 justified?

US took the right decision! without A-bombs Japan wouldn't happen yielded referring to their extreme self respect and pride.

Those terrorist went to death expecting 72 whores in heaven!

 

[Param]

Its one thing for soldiers to fight a war in the battlefield killing or dying for their respective countries, and quite another thing to willfully drop bombs on civilians. What is the difference between a terrorist and a soldier? What is the difference between a civil nation and a terrorist organisation? Soldiers fight war with other soldiers. They dont kill civilians. Sometimes, the collateral may happen but Hiroshima and Nagasaki were deliberate and not collateral.

US' actions were suitable to a terror organisation. Consider this: What would you do if you were in Osama's shoes? Would you send your men to certain death or would you carry out 9/11? By that logic: Is 9/11 justified?

There is one thing common among many "nationalists" I have noticed, pure hate for the Yanks and the anglosphere. I wonder what all those westerners talking about strategic partnership etc think.
Maybe they know just don't say much in the open. They fear China today, tomorrow it could be us.

No wonder Leon Panetta made this statementhttp://articles.economictimes.india...tary-threat-defence-secretary-china-and-india

 

[johnee]

he killed milions of his own people, would not have given a **** for Japan.

For regimes and soldiers, it is easy to kill their own people then to go on an invasion of another country. An invasion has the risk factor. Victory is not guaranteed. Soldiers will have to fight and they have to live under the fear of being killed. While, killing own people is far more easier with minimum risks and fears.

Generally, an army(and regime) that has fought long wars needs to be restrained lest they forget the fundamental principle: Army(or regimes) are for Nations, not vice versa.

 

[asianobserve]

Its one thing for soldiers to fight a war in the battlefield killing or dying for their respective countries, and quite another thing to willfully drop bombs on civilians. What is the difference between a terrorist and a soldier? What is the difference between a civil nation and a terrorist organisation? Soldiers fight war with other soldiers. They dont kill civilians. Sometimes, the collateral may happen but Hiroshima and Nagasaki were deliberate and not collateral.

US' actions were suitable to a terror organisation. Consider this: What would you do if you were in Osama's shoes? Would you send your men to certain death or would you carry out 9/11? By that logic: Is 9/11 justified?

You don't understand the backdrop against which the decision to drop the nukes were made. The US losses in the Okinawa invasion alone was horrendous. How much more the main islands of Japan? And besides after 4 years of war and monumental loss of American lives (other lives were lost but I'm sure it was little or no consolation to the Americnas) the Americans were in no mood to send their young people to a death trap in Japan. Now, the question is, if you were the President of the US at that time, would you instead have sent ground troops to invade Japan?

 

[johnee]

US took the right decision! without A-bombs Japan wouldn't happen yielded referring to their extreme self respect and pride.

Those terrorist went to death expecting 72 whores in heaven!

US took the 'right decision' from US' perspective to protect US' interests. But, if that is the criteria, then: Osama took the 'right decision' from his perspective to protect his interests. Prabhakaran took the 'right decision' from his perspective to protect his interests.

The logic can be used to justify any action of anyone.

PS: I dont mean to say Osama==Prabhakaran, nor am I saying Osama =/= Prabhakaran. I just gave examples of that logic.

 

[HeinzGud]

US took the 'right decision' from US' perspective to protect US' interests. But, if that is the criteria, then: Osama took the 'right decision' from his perspective to protect his interests. Prabhakaran took the 'right decision' from his perspective to protect his interests.

The logic can be used to justify any action of anyone.

PS: I dont mean to say Osama==Prabhakaran, nor am I saying Osama =/= Prabhakaran. I just gave examples of that logic.

If we continue checking the perspectives like this everything will be OK...

 

[niharjhatn]

You don't understand the backdrop against which the decision to drop the nukes were made. The US losses in the Okinawa invasion alone was horrendous. How much more the main islands of Japan? And besides after 4 years of war and monumental loss of American lives (other lives were lost but I'm sure it was little or no consolation to the Americnas) the Americans were in no mood to send their young people to a death trap in Japan. Now, the question is, if you were the President of the US at that time, would you instead have sent ground troops to invade Japan?

The US had actually dropped leaflets warning the civilians of their impending doom, which I guess is a positive... Leaflets warning Japanese of Atomic Bomb, 1945 . Truman . WGBH American Experience | PBS

IMO this still does not justify what happened, and either way, dropping two bombs was just overkill. Atomic weapons have after-effects far prolonging their intended period of use, and I daresay the Japanese surrender could have been achieved in other ways. But the Americans wanted to showboat their new power, and I can only thank the world that people have not been subject to such an atrocity again...

It is interesting but I was reading somewhere that during the Korean War, the US were considering using Atomic weapons against NK given the desperation the US troops were facing, but it was withheld, largely because America didn't want to lose its ability to form friends in the E-Asia (Dropping successive bombs on Asian neighbours = not good for relations).

Interesting to also plot the huge 'Americanization' of both SK and Japan in the 60's and 70's that occurred later.

 

[SADAKHUSH]

No need to have troops in Islamic countries, just destroying nuke factories and introducing democracy would be enough to destroy Islamic countries.

Why have they not destroyed the nuke factories so far? Why do they still have troops on ground in Islamic countries? May be you should check the facts before firing off the lines on the forum?

What I am trying to state is that USA and her allies learned the costly lesson by sending her sons and daughters to battle the enemy in far away land and result is in front of us. The best approach will be to let them fight it out against the enemy with in, who was born out of their own womb to fight the Soviet Union. The historical fact is that these countries
have not lived and cannot live with each other peacefully so the only solution left is for them to send their own population to the battle ground till they come to senses that live and let live is the answer to all the challenges that they are facing.

 

[johnee]

You don't understand the backdrop against which the decision to drop the nukes were made. The US losses in the Okinawa invasion alone was horrendous. How much more the main islands of Japan? And besides after 4 years of war and monumental loss of American lives (other lives were lost but I'm sure it was little or no consolation to the Americnas) the Americans were in no mood to send their young people to a death trap in Japan. Now, the question is, if you were the President of the US at that time, would you instead have sent ground troops to invade Japan?

Why do you want me to imagine myself in US' president's position? Why not in Japanese ruler's position? Why not in Japanese civilians' position?

 

[The Messiah]

We shouldn't care if iran gets nukes or not....we already have pakis and chinis with nukes on either side!

Only europeans are scared shitless because they'll have nuke enemy nearby and then they'll understand what it feels like to have one close by.

 

[HeinzGud]

We shouldn't care if iran gets nukes or not....we already have pakis and chinis with nukes on either side!

Only europeans are scared shitless because they'll have nuke enemy nearby and then they'll understand what it feels like to have one close by.

Europeans are not scared shitless cuz they virtually lived in a nuclear battleground for 50 years!

 

[johnee]

If we continue checking the perspectives like this everything will be OK...

Exactly my point! Therefore, generally, people use some conventions to judge events.

Some conventions are: Soldiers(or nations) killing civilians deliberately on vast scale is pure evil. Terrorists do such things. Nations fighting other nations through soldiers on the battlefield is glorious.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki cannot be justified on the above basis. It may have been the need of the hour from US' perspective. But, that does not justify it for the rest of the world. Does every nation that is on the verge of losing large number of soldiers justified in doing what they have done? If so, then what is the essential difference between rogue nation and normal nation?

 

[niharjhatn]

Why do you want me to imagine myself in US' president's position? Why not in Japanese ruler's position? Why not in Japanese civilians' position?

The japanese military were needlessly prolonging the war, and their soldiers (think of kamikaze flights) and civilians really did not oppose the emperor and the military war machine which really turned into a beast with little restraint.

You can contrast it with today, where the emperor's role is far reduced, and the anti-war movement in Japan is huge. Even attempts to expand their "self-defence" forces met with criticism by some groups in Japan, citing the inability of the Japanese to "trust" keeping the peace with a large army.

 

[johnee]

We shouldn't care if iran gets nukes or not....we already have pakis and chinis with nukes on either side!

Only europeans are scared shitless because they'll have nuke enemy nearby and then they'll understand what it feels like to have one close by.

Threat to Israel may also be the motivation.

However, I dont think nuclear Iran is in India's long term interests.

 

[HeinzGud]

Exactly my point! Therefore, generally, people use some conventions to judge events.

Some conventions are: Soldiers(or nations) killing civilians deliberately on vast scale is pure evil. Terrorists do such things. Nations fighting other nations through soldiers on the battlefield is glorious.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki cannot be justified on the above basis. It may have been the need of the hour from US' perspective. But, that does not justify it for the rest of the world. Does every nation that is on the verge of losing large number of soldiers justified in doing what they have done? If so, then what is the essential difference between rogue nation and normal nation?

This is not about a single nation but whole world!]

US was to joined by Empire of Britain and Soviet Russia............ and the resources which would have wasted were to be so high!

 

[tiranga]

I wish US wouldve bombed britan too

 

[The Messiah]

Threat to Israel may also be the motivation.

However, I dont think nuclear Iran is in India's long term interests.

Europeans are parroting the israel line but they themselves are actually scared.

Mossad chief: Nuclear Iran not necessarily existential threat to Israel - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News

[h=1][/h]

 

[johnee]

The japanese military were needlessly prolonging the war, and their soldiers (think of kamikaze flights) and civilians really did not oppose the emperor and the military war machine which really turned into a beast with little restraint.

It is prerogative of Japan(and its army/rulers) to stop or prolong the war. The same applies to US, UK, or USSR. Any other nation in USSR position might have crumbled under the Nazi onslaught. But USSR did not give up and persisted at great casualities. USSR prolonged the war and that benefited the allies.

As for civilians/soldiers not opposing the rulers, that is most often the case. And those civilians/soldiers who do oppose would be targeted and vilified. That would be true of US also during that war.

I wonder what would be people's reactions if Hitler had dropped atomic bombs on US/UK...

You can contrast it with today, where the emperor's role is far reduced, and the anti-war movement in Japan is huge. Even attempts to expand their "self-defence" forces met with criticism by some groups in Japan, citing the inability of the Japanese to "trust" keeping the peace with a large army.

Personally, I think Japan has been made into a colony of US. Japan(and Japanese) are behaving just like India(or Indians) behaved when colonised by 'the great' Britain.