Israel or Iran who is the strategic partner?

[Vladimir79]

What kind of sanctions? Can i get a link for that? As far as remember reading, the official statements coming out said they will not support any tough sanctions against Iran.

India will back UNSC sanctions against Iran: PM: Rediff.com India News

You didnt answer my question about what the Russians feel about Chechens.

Yes I did...

 

[Yusuf]

Better still what do you think of the Kashmiri terrorists or freedom fighters as our neighbor calls them.

 

[Yusuf]

Also Vlad, you are yet to tell me why did Russia vote for the resolution and so did China. China too has a lot of stake in Iran.

That is because the resolution itself does not have anything that threatens anything. its mearly urging Iran to abide by the laws of the NPT. Nothing more.

 

[Vladimir79]

Also Vlad, you are yet to tell me why did Russia vote for the resolution and so did China. China too has a lot of stake in Iran.

Only sanctions Russia and China passed on Iran was against the export of offensive weapons and nuklear materials. The sanctions India is supporting will cripple the Iranian economy.

That is because the resolution itself does not have anything that threatens anything. its mearly urging Iran to abide by the laws of the NPT. Nothing more.

It isn't about the resolution, it is about the sanctions.

 

[Yusuf]

We will talk about it when there are any sanctions. No one has talked about any sanctions and the scope of the sanctions. India is not a fool to impose sanctions on Iran.

But the question still remains why did Russia vote against Iran.

 

[Vladimir79]

Better still what do you think of the Kashmiri terrorists or freedom fighters as our neighbor calls them.

Do Kashmiris target innocent civilians? The attacks on Hindu temples say enough. There is your answer.

 

[Vladimir79]

We will talk about it when there are any sanctions. No one has talked about any sanctions and the scope of the sanctions. India is not a fool to impose sanctions on Iran.

But the question still remains why did Russia vote against Iran.

Because Russia doesn't want the world thinking we are exporting offencive weapons to Iran. We are having a hard enough time convincing them that S-300 is a defencive weapon.

 

[Yusuf]

Do Kashmiris target innocent civilians? The attacks on Hindu temples say enough. There is your answer.

Havent Hamas and Hezbollah done that? Kill innocent civilians? There have been no suicide attack in Israel have isnt it?
Seriously you have to get over the selective classification.

 

[Yusuf]

Because Russia doesn't want the world thinking we are exporting offencive weapons to Iran. We are having a hard enough time convincing them that S-300 is a defencive weapon.

Just today Iran is urging Russia to supply the S300s or else it will take it to court.

 

[Vladimir79]

Havent Hamas and Hezbollah done that? Kill innocent civilians? There have been no suicide attack in Israel have isnt it?
Seriously you have to get over the selective classification.

Has Hezbollah committed suicide bombings on civilians? I don't think so. I don't vouch for Hamas.

 

[Yusuf]

Has Hezbollah committed suicide bombings on civilians? I don't think so. I don't vouch for Hamas.

Thank you very much. You just said that Hamas is a terror organization by your own definition of those who commit suicide bombings. Iran is a known supporter of it. So that should rest my case regarding that.

 

[Vladimir79]

Thank you very much. You just said that Hamas is a terror organization by your own definition of those who commit suicide bombings. Iran is a known supporter of it. So that should rest my case regarding that.

Hamas recanted suicide bombers several years ago and IIRC there hasn't been an attack since.

 

[Yusuf]

Hamas recanted suicide bombers several years ago and IIRC there hasn't been an attack since.

Dont remember Chechens doing that either in the last few years. Doesnt absolve them of the wrong doing. Like i said before, stop the selective classification. You never know when the terror outfits change their strategy. The world has been hurt enough by this selective approach of the major powers. The very organization that was freedom fighters for the US against the Soviets turned into their number one enemy by bringing down the WTC.

 

[Vladimir79]

Dont remember Chechens doing that either in the last few years. Doesnt absolve them of the wrong doing. Like i said before, stop the selective classification. You never know when the terror outfits change their strategy. The world has been hurt enough by this selective approach of the major powers. The very organization that was freedom fighters for the US against the Soviets turned into their number one enemy by bringing down the WTC.

Chechens just killed 30 people in a train bombing a couple days ago. There goes that hypothesis for them.

What you are advocating is that all resistance fighters should stop throughout the world and accept their conditions. If South Ossetians had done so a decade ago my Alan brothers wouldn't be free today from Georgian oppression. If Tibet never rises up they will never be free. Is that what Indians want? There has to come a point when justice is served and what the will of the people is stays as international law. The Palestinian people want the end of occupation 100%, why isn't that justice? The people of Chechnya voted to remain is Russia, justice is served and fighters are terrorists. This is the proper concept to apply.

 

[Yusuf]

Kashmiris want freedom at least the ones that are terrorizing the people. So by that count are they justified?
Let us go back to the Soviet days in Astan. The ones resisting soviet occupation were terrorists for the soviets and freedom fighters for the west.

Lets go back to the Palestine, why is that the west recognize the PLO and Arafat as a good guy to talk to while the Hamas is treated as a terror outfit? I think we can go on with this and end up nowhere. I will rest my case here as this is DFI HQ and discussing strategic ties between India and Israel/Iran. We have had enough of this 2-3 lines exchanges which has got us to no conclusion.

Going back to the topic, once again, the whole Iran issue cannot be viewed from the prism of the vote in the IAEA. I think an escalation would be if India votes for punitive economic sanctions which i dont think it will. A limited sanctions in terms of arms embargo or something is that India might consider, but not cripling economic sanctions.

 

[x11]

Israel is the partner.

They have openly voiced support for India in the Kashmir issue....this inspite of India supporting the Palistinian cause.

They give us technology...which noone else can give.

And most important of it all....Israel has the X-factor.

 

[Vladimir79]

Kashmiris want freedom at least the ones that are terrorizing the people. So by that count are they justified?

They target innocent people so they cannot be justified. It is not a hard concept.

Let us go back to the Soviet days in Astan. The ones resisting soviet occupation were terrorists for the soviets and freedom fighters for the west.

Mujihadeen in Astan were freedom fighters defending their homeland. It is not a hard concept.

Lets go back to the Palestine, why is that the west recognize the PLO and Arafat as a good guy to talk to while the Hamas is treated as a terror outfit?

What the West recogonises as terrorist organisations is of no concern. They classify IRGC as terrorist organisation and sanction Russia for providing defencive weapons (TOR-M1). Their policies on this matter are retarded so they carry no weight for the rational.

I think we can go on with this and end up nowhere. I will rest my case here as this is DFI HQ and discussing strategic ties between India and Israel/Iran. We have had enough of this 2-3 lines exchanges which has got us to no conclusion.

Think of this, if India supports a Tibetan coup and they go after Chinese military targets with only marginal Han losses, are you going to call them terrorists and India a state sponser of terrorism? I think not...

Going back to the topic, once again, the whole Iran issue cannot be viewed from the prism of the vote in the IAEA. I think an escalation would be if India votes for punitive economic sanctions which i dont think it will. A limited sanctions in terms of arms embargo or something is that India might consider, but not cripling economic sanctions.

Just wait and see, if India votes for the sanctions, which Dr. Singh said he would support, you will be speaking in a different tone. The UN isn't going for half assed sanctions this time, they are going to cut petrol which will cripple their economy.

 

[K Factor]

Nothing can be done now, it is too late to stop them. Once Iran has nukes they will still be dependent on outside help to develop their economy, which India is an important partner. If you withdraw that relationship, you are condemning Iranians to poverty and starvation by the millions. Russia can't support Iran alone, we just don't have the capacity.

World with non-nuclear Iran is a little better than a world with a nuclear Iran. Why is it too late? You seem to be comfortable with the idea of a nuclear Iran and seem to have made up your mind that it is inevitable. I do not believe so, I beleive that Iran can still be convinced to withdraw from its nuclear weapons program, how remains a question.

If Saddam had nukes he would do the same thing he did in the Gulf War, nothing but launching CONVENTIONAL Scuds. When US said if you use WMD you will cease to exist, that was it. The same will apply to Iran.

If Saddam had nukes, there would have been no Desert Shield, Desert Storm or Iraqi Freedom. The deterrant of a madman with nukes would have been enough for Americans not to risk an adventure. Saddam didn't care if his entire populace died, but if 100,000 Americans died, America and its citizen cared.

Iran is not housing all these Sunni terrorist leaders. IRI hates Sunnis. Haven't you figured that out yet?

Terrorists cannot be distinguished. They are terrorists, period. Doesn't matter if it was the IRA or the KKK or the FARC or Al Qaeda. Iran supplies Hamas and Hezbollah with military and monetary assistance, which are both considered to be militant organizations (I prefer the word terrorist - Hezbollah has engaged in terrorist activities earlier in the 80's upto early 90's.

Between 1982 and 1986, there were 36 suicide attacks in Lebanon directed against American, French and Israelis forces by 41 individuals with predominantly leftist political beliefs and of both major religions,killing 659. Hezbollah has been accused of some or all of these attacks, but denies involvement in any. These attacks included the April 1983 U.S. Embassy bombing (by the Islamic Jihad Organization), the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing (by the Islamic Jihad Organization), and a spate of attacks on IDF troops and SLA militiamen in southern Lebanon. The period also saw the hijacking of TWA Flight 847 in 1985,and the Lebanon hostage crisis from 1982 to 1992. More recently, Hezbollah has been accused of the January 15, 2008, bombing of a U.S. Embassy vehicle in Beirut.
Outside of Lebanon, Hezbollah has been accused of the 1992 Israeli Embassy attack in Buenos Aires, and the 1994 AMIA bombing of a Jewish cultural centre, both in Argentina. According to Nasrallah, however, Hezbollah refused any participation in operations outside Lebanese and Israeli lands before 2008.

. Hamas regularly fires unguided rockets into Israel, and have no qualms whether it lands on a military base, a hospital, a school or a synangogue.)

Pak-ISI is run by a bunch of Sunnis. They are the terrorists, not Shias.

See my above point. Its not about religion. Even if the Kashmir problem would have been a Shia problem, the result would have likely been the same.

What do you gain by supporting Iran, how about saving the world from an economic depression. If Iran shuts down their energy exports for even a week, any nation that doesn't have energy independence will suffer. If you piss them off they will start firing ASMs at tankers making it even worse. India will lose out on $30 billlion in trade, that is no small number and it only grows with time. India will lose an important piece of its independent foreign policy by sacrificing Iran to become a US stooge. Does India really want to join the coalition of the foreign policy challenged?

See what I mean about blackmail. And this is without nukes.

 

[Vladimir79]

World with non-nuclear Iran is a little better than a world with a nuclear Iran. Why is it too late? You seem to be comfortable with the idea of a nuclear Iran and seem to have made up your mind that it is inevitable. I do not believe so, I beleive that Iran can still be convinced to withdraw from its nuclear weapons program, how remains a question.

A world with a collapsed Iranian economy is not better than an economically viable Iran with a couple useless nukes. Iran cannot be convinced to stop their programme unless they have a guarantee no one will screw with the Mullah's power and no one can give them that. It is all about survival.

If Saddam had nukes, there would have been no Desert Shield, Desert Storm or Iraqi Freedom. The deterrant of a madman with nukes would have been enough for Americans not to risk an adventure. Saddam didn't care if his entire populace died, but if 100,000 Americans died, America and its citizen cared.

Saddam had bio/chem weapons, more than enough to kill 100,000 Israelis or Saudis. He gased that many Kurds and Iranians. He relented because of the threat of nuklear weapons. There was no other reason for him not to have put them on the Scuds.

Terrorists cannot be distinguished. They are terrorists, period. Doesn't matter if it was the IRA or the KKK or the FARC or Al Qaeda. Iran supplies Hamas and Hezbollah with military and monetary assistance, which are both considered to be militant organizations (I prefer the word terrorist - Hezbollah has engaged in terrorist activities earlier in the 80's upto early 90's. . Hamas regularly fires unguided rockets into Israel, and have no qualms whether it lands on a military base, a hospital, a school or a synangogue.)

That black and white attitude by GW Bush is what got Iran started on their weaponisation programme. Once they saw themselves surrounded by US troops, what did you expect them to do when they are being called the Axis-of-Evil? It is an ignorant attitude to the world that has proven to cause more problems than it solves.

See my above point. Its not about religion. Even if the Kashmir problem would have been a Shia problem, the result would have likely been the same.

If you do not understand the difference between Shias and Wahhabis then this conversation will go nowhere. They are not the same, Shias are not suicide bombers.

See what I mean about blackmail. And this is without nukes.

The nukes aren't about blackmail, the threat of closing Hormuz is far more dangerous to the world than a few tactical nukes. Nukes are a status symbol and a deterrent to invasion. Not a real weapon to threaten nations. There is such a thing as MAD and IRI is well aware of it.

 

[pankaj nema]

the USA and western powers , Russia and china all are opposed to a nuclear Iran .

so if Iran moves ahead with its nuclear weapon programme crippling economic sanctions
are certain and a naval blocade too.

war will happen later.

Iran must not be allowed nukes

look at pakistan .