Thanks Husky.
<!--QuoteBegin-Husky+Apr 13 2007, 12:56 AM-->QUOTE(Husky @ Apr 13 2007, 12:56 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Although I didn't think the alternatives to the proposed canal configuration required (a great deal of) extra effort either.
[right][snapback]66891[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Quite to the opposite. This configuration which has been chosen costs a lot more in terms of both operating annual cost (>Rs 1000 Crore/yr) and initial cost(>Rs 24,000 Crore), plus :
- the added cost of ensuring the security to the passing ships since this configuration will make the shipping channel closer to the international waters and within striking influence of LTTE, as compared to the other alternatives which are mainly on the Indian shore.
- cost of lost livelihoods since the main water region which seafishermen and Shankha-collecors use, will no longer be available due to this configuraion. (before poster starts making noise on this one, I advise him/her to go through the NEERI report)
Thats the whole fun part! No one here is opposing the SSCP! We are supporting it. All we are opposing is this configuration. However 'progressives' make it sound as if the opposition is to the project itself.
Again the Neeri report which I mentioned, tries to highlight what could be the main 'cons' of or potential oppositions to the selected configuration. But not once does it recognize that dredging away part of a Heritage will be a 'con', nor does it recognize that Hindus will have problems with that. You really believe they were so ignorant and innocent, that they did not even "recognize" this fact in the assessment report? Are we completely blind to not be able to see their intention?
<!--QuoteBegin-Husky+Apr 13 2007, 12:56 AM-->QUOTE(Husky @ Apr 13 2007, 12:56 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Although I didn't think the alternatives to the proposed canal configuration required (a great deal of) extra effort either.
[right][snapback]66891[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Quite to the opposite. This configuration which has been chosen costs a lot more in terms of both operating annual cost (>Rs 1000 Crore/yr) and initial cost(>Rs 24,000 Crore), plus :
- the added cost of ensuring the security to the passing ships since this configuration will make the shipping channel closer to the international waters and within striking influence of LTTE, as compared to the other alternatives which are mainly on the Indian shore.
- cost of lost livelihoods since the main water region which seafishermen and Shankha-collecors use, will no longer be available due to this configuraion. (before poster starts making noise on this one, I advise him/her to go through the NEERI report)
Thats the whole fun part! No one here is opposing the SSCP! We are supporting it. All we are opposing is this configuration. However 'progressives' make it sound as if the opposition is to the project itself.
Again the Neeri report which I mentioned, tries to highlight what could be the main 'cons' of or potential oppositions to the selected configuration. But not once does it recognize that dredging away part of a Heritage will be a 'con', nor does it recognize that Hindus will have problems with that. You really believe they were so ignorant and innocent, that they did not even "recognize" this fact in the assessment report? Are we completely blind to not be able to see their intention?