• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
India and US - III

And NOT ONE WORD ON DRAGON's PROLIFERATION TO MuNNA and NoKo and England's own assistance to Israel's Nuke Program.

This is a psy ops article to keep telling that there is only one proliferator.
I completely agree. There will be nothing for India in this Indo-US nuclear deal.

India is in a tough spot. Indians do not have it in them to become lackey of United Sates. That is the specialty of our Pakistani brothers.

US will not rest till entire world has become unopposed to US interests. There is nothing personal. They are not bad people. This is the way things are. Indians would love to see a day when all opposition to India has been taken care of. That does not make Indians bad. There is nothing personal. This is the way things are.

Currently wealth of nations is measured in dollars. Who makes the dollars? Answer is USA! Naturally, they will have the highest amount of dollars. As long as dollar is the standard measurement of nations' wealth, no country will have chance of bypassing US economically.

Therefore, a world order has to be created away from dollars. Not centered on USA. India has only two options. Either be part of creating that world order or suck it up and become lackey of USA. There is nothing else that is in store for India from USA.

There are some serious prejudices against India in USA. This will override everything else.
U.S. Sees India as Key Strategic Partner, State's Burns Says :


Crowley Calls for Continued US Support in Making India a Global Power :


In the present world situation, the United States feels that it should have closer interaction with India particularly in Defense and Nuclear matters. However, at the same time it is very cautious not to send any wrong signal to Pakistan. In keeping with this policy, it is trying to do a balancing act.

<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>Change your User-ID acconding to forum rule, Please send New User-ID to Admin.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->at the same time it is very cautious not to send any wrong signal to Pakistan.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, its a good idea to keep terrorist nation in good Humor.
The Nuclear Taboo
October 24, 2005; Page A14

The most spectacular event of the past half century is one that did not occur. We have enjoyed 60 years without nuclear weapons exploded in anger.

What a stunning achievement -- or, if not achievement, what stunning good fortune. In 1960, the British novelist C.P. Snow said on the front page of the New York Times that unless the nuclear powers drastically reduced their armaments, thermonuclear warfare within the decade was a "mathematical certainty." Nobody appeared to think Snow's statement extravagant.

We now have that "mathematical certainty" compounded more than four times, and no nuclear war. Can we make it through another half dozen decades?
* * *

The first time that nuclear weapons might have been used was in 1950. U.S. and South Korean forces had retreated to a perimeter at the southern town of Pusan, and it was not clear that they could either hold out or evacuate. The question of nuclear defense arose, and the British prime minister flew to Washington with the announced purpose of persuading President Truman not to let nuclear weapons be used. The successful landing at Inchon removed the danger, and we cannot know what might have happened if Inchon had failed. Nuclear weapons again went unused upon the disastrous assault by Chinese troops in the north of Korea.

Succeeding Truman, Eisenhower saw NATO facing a hugely superior military adversary and elevated nuclear weapons from last resort to first resort. Shortly after Eisenhower's inauguration, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles said, in the National Security Council, "Somehow or other we must manage to remove the taboo from the use of these weapons." A few weeks later the president approved the statement, "In the event of hostilities, the United States will consider nuclear weapons to be as available for use as other munitions." Six months later the U.S. position was that nuclear weapons "must now be treated as in fact having become conventional."

The Johnson administration shows a striking contrast. In September 1964, Johnson said publicly, "Make no mistake, there is no such thing as a conventional nuclear weapon. For 19 peril-filled years no nation has loosed the atom against another. To do so now is a political decision of the highest order." I interpret this as Johnson's belief that 19 years without nuclear war was an investment to be treasured.

Nixon did not use nuclear weapons in Vietnam. Golda Meir, Israeli prime minister in 1973, did not authorize using nuclear weapons against the Egyptian armies that had successfully crossed the Suez and were perfect targets for nuclear attack, there being no civilians in the vicinity. Margaret Thatcher did not consider nuclear weapons against naval vessels while defending the Falkland Islands against Argentina. And most astonishing, the Soviet Union fought a long, bloody and disastrous war in Afghanistan without recourse to nuclear weapons. Even the Russians were awed, apparently, by Johnson's 19 "peril-filled years," which by then had stretched to four decades.

After six decades, an immediate question is whether we can expect Indian and Pakistani leaders to be adequately in awe of the weapons they now both possess. There are two helpful possibilities. One is that they share the inhibition -- appreciate the taboo -- that I have been discussing. The other is that they will recognize, as the U.S. and the Soviet Union did, that the prospect of nuclear retaliation makes any initiation of nuclear war nearly unthinkable. The risk is that one or the other may confront the kind of military emergency that invites some limited experiment with the weapons. There is no history to tell us, or to tell them, what happens next.

The next possessors of nuclear weapons may be Iran, North Korea or possibly some terrorist bodies. Is there hope that they will have absorbed the near-universal inhibition against the use of nuclear weapons, or will at least be inhibited by the recognition that the taboo enjoys widespread acclaim? Part of the answer will depend on whether the U.S. recognizes that inhibition as an asset to be cherished, enhanced, and protected, or whether, like Dulles, it believes "somehow or other we must manage to remove the taboo from the use of these weapons."

There is much discussion these days of whether or not "deterrence" has had its day. There is no Soviet Union to deter; the Russians are more worried about Chechnya than about the U.S.; the Chinese seem no more interested in military risks over Taiwan than Khrushchev really was over Berlin; and terrorists can't be deterred anyway -- we don't know what they value that we might threaten, or who or where it is.

I expect that we may come to a new respect for "deterrence." If Iran should, despite every diplomatic effort to prevent it, acquire a few nuclear weapons, we may discover again what it is like to be the deterred one, not the one doing the deterring. (I consider us -- NATO -- as having been deterred from intervening in Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968.) I also consider it crucial that Iran learn to think, if it hasn't already learned to think, in terms of deterrence.

What else can Iran accomplish, except possibly the destruction of its own system, with a few nuclear warheads? Nuclear warheads should be too precious to give away or to sell, too precious to "waste" killing people when they could, held in reserve, make the U.S., or Russia, or any other nation, hesitant to consider military action. What nuclear weapons have been used for, effectively, for 60 years has not been on the battlefield nor on populations; they have been used for influence.
* * *

What about terrorists? Any organization that gets enough fissile material to make a bomb will require at least six, probably more, highly qualified scientists and numerous machinists and technologists, working in seclusion -- away from families and occupations for at least weeks, maybe months -- with nothing much to talk about except what the "bomb" might be used for, and by whom. They are likely to feel justified to have some claim in deciding the use of the nuclear device. (The British Parliament in 1950 considered itself, as a partner in the development of the atomic bomb, qualified to advise Truman on possible use of the bomb in Korea.)

They will discover, over weeks of arguing that the most effective use of the bomb, from a terrorist perspective, will be for influence. Possessing a nuclear device, if they can demonstrate possession -- and I believe they can, if they have it, without detonating it -- will give them something of the status of a nation. Threatening to use it against military targets, and keeping it intact if the threat is successful, may appeal to them more than expending it in a destructive act. Even terrorists may consider destroying large numbers of people and structures less satisfying than keeping a major nation at bay.

The U.S. was slow to learn, but eventually did learn, in 1961, that nuclear warheads demand exceptionally secure custody -- against accident, mischief, theft, sabotage or a "Strangelove-like" unauthorized attack. There is always the dilemma: reward violators of the Nonproliferation Treaty by offering them the technology to keep the warheads secure? At least we can try to educate the new members of the nuclear club to what we didn't appreciate for our first 15 years.

I know of no argument in favor of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which the U.S. Senate rejected in 1999, more powerful than the potential of that treaty to enhance the nearly universal revulsion against nuclear weapons (or its rejection to waste the opportunity). The symbolic effect of some 170 nations ratifying the Treaty, which is nominally only about testing, should add to the convention that nuclear weapons are not to be used and that any nation that does use nuclear weapons will be judged the violator of a hard-earned tradition of non-use. When the Treaty is again before the Senate, as I hope it will be, this major benefit should not go unrecognized.

The most critical question about nuclear weapons for the U.S. government under George W. Bush or under anyone else is whether the widespread taboo against nuclear weapons, and its inhibition on their use, is in our favor or not. If it is in our interest, as I believe obvious, advertising our continued dependence on nuclear weapons and our need for new nuclear capabilities and probably new nuclear tests -- let alone ever using them against an enemy -- has to be weighed against the corrosive effect on a nearly universal attitude that has been cultivated through universal abstinence over 60 years.

Mr. Schelling, professor emeritus at the University of Maryland, is a Nobel Laureate for economics for 2005
US Dalit hearing simply scandalous
Sandhya Jain
23 October 2005

Successive Indian governments have failed to protest America’s propensity to
misuse human rights issues for politically motivated calumny against nations it
seeks to undermine to serve its foreign policy objectives. Shamefully, large
sections of the Indian elite also betrays unseemly desperation to report
against the nation to US human rights committees, usually as quid pro quo for
funds for their agenda-driven NGOs.

Yet, even by the standards of its normally invasive diplomacy, the US Congress’
decision to appoint a sub-committee on “India's Unfinished Agenda: Equality and
Justice for 200 Million Victims of the Caste System,” is simply scandalous. Not
only does it construe a gross interference in our internal affairs, it is also
an attempt to influence the Indian Supreme Court hearing on reservation rights
for Dalit converts to religions like Christianity, which admit that they
discriminate against Dalit adherents!

In these circumstances, the silence of the Indian government, remote-controlled
by the Roman Catholic Italian-born Sonia Gandhi, is disturbing. So is the
silence of major political parties, especially those that claim a special
affinity for Dalits. In fact, the Indian political spectrum as a whole would do
well to evolve a consensus on the issue of external interest in India, if the
country is serious about being considered as a candidate for the Security
Council. In this regard, it would be instructive to see how the Chinese
government gives America tit-for-tat in the matter of its highly slanted human
rights reports.

Actually, America has much to hide regarding its human rights record,
particularly vis-à-vis the Native American population (what is left after the
genocide by White Settlers) and the former slaves imported from Africa. The
shocking delay in providing relief to Katrina hurricane victims hardly needs

China, however, does not stomach America’s supercilious ways. When the US
Congressional-Executive Commission on China recently released its annual
report, Beijing condemned it as “wanton interference” in its internal affairs
and presented its own report on the human rights situation in USA. The document
is voluminous (the Chinese are thorough), but even a few cursory examples
suffice to show how self-respecting nations protect their honour. The “Human
Rights Record of the United States in 2004,” released by China's State Council
on 3 March 2005, shows the dark side of the Statue of Liberty.

China points out that American society is notorious for rampant violent crimes,
and that there is little security of life and liberty in that country. It cites
a report of the US Department of Justice (29 November 2004) that in 2003,
citizens aged 12 years and above experienced about 24 million victimizations.
Giving statistics of several cities, China said America has the largest number
of gun owners and gun violence increasingly takes a toll of innocent lives.
About 31,000 Americans are killed and 75,000 wounded by firearms each year,
which means more than 80 people are shot dead each day. Police violence is an
equally serious problem.

China has made a fascinating observation! In the past decade America
spent US $ 7 billion annually to build new jails and prisons. California got
one college and 21 new prisons after 1984! This is because jails are a
lucrative business, with a combined staff of more than 530,000, they are the
second largest employer in America after General Motors. There are over 100
private prisons in 27 states and 18 private prison companies. As a result, the
value of goods and services created by inmates surged from $ 400 million in
1980 to $ 1.1 billion in 1994.

As for jail conditions, in many states inmates are routinely stripped
in front of others before being moved to a new prison. Male inmates are often
made to wear women's pink underwear as a form of humiliation. New inmates are
frequently beaten and sometimes made to crawl. The conditions of women
prisoners are naturally worse. Sexual harassment is common. New York Times
reported last October that at least 13% of inmates are sexually assaulted in
prison (12 October 2004).

The Chinese government has made a detailed analysis of the political
manipulation by the rich in the electoral process, the astronomical costs of
elections, and the resultant favours to corporations as a result of election
funding. Most poignant among the flaws in the US election system is the newly
adopted Help America Vote Act of 2004, which requires voters to produce a
series of documents such as a stable residence and thus effectively
disenfranchises thousands of homeless people. America refuses to ratify the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural rights and is home to
poverty, hunger and homelessness, in spite of being the world’s richest
country. From 1970 to 2000 (adjusted for inflation), average incomes of the
bottom 90% stagnated but those of the top 10% experienced an increase of nearly
90% (The Baltimore Sun, 6 July 2004).

Racial discrimination is of course very deeply ingrained and Black murder
victims are five times White victims; Blacks affected by AIDS are ten times
Whites (National Urban League, 24 March 2004). The number of Black people
living in poverty is three times that of the Whites. Apartheid is still rampant
in schools (Schools and Lives Are Still Separate, The Washington Post, May 17,

The situation of American women and children is hardly reassuring.
FBI Crime Statistics show that in 2003, there were 93,233 rape cases; virtually
63.2 in every 100,000 women are victims of assault. The number of abused women
treated at First Aid Centers exceeds one million every year. More than 1,500
women in the US are killed every year by their husbands, lovers or roommates;
nearly 78% American women are physically victimized at least once in their
lifetime. Sex crimes are on the rise in military as well. Women soldiers have
been raped or sexually harassed in Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain, Afghanistan, and
other military bases.

As for children, every year nearly 400,000 children in the US are forced to
engage in prostitution or other sexual dealings on the streets (The USA Today,
27 February 2004). Then, there are scandals about clergymen molesting children.
Actually, the list is endless.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->India shifts stand on Iran

New Delhi, Oct. 27: India will now work with China and Russia, as well as the European Union, to reach a “mutually acceptable solution” on Iran before the November meeting of the IAEA board of governors in Vienna. Under domestic flak for voting in favour of the EU 3 resolution at the last meeting, the government has stated that it would like to avoid any reference of Iran to the UN Security Council, and would try to ensure that the issue is settled “amicably” within the IAEA itself.

Judging from reports in the Russian and Iranian press, external affairs minister Natwar Singh has had a highly successful visit to Moscow where he attended the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation meeting. He held a half-hour bilateral meeting with Iranian vice-president Perviz Davoodi after which the MEA spokesperson here announced that India would work actively with Russia, China and the European Union to reach a mutually acceptable solution for Iran when the IAEA board of governors meets again in Vienna.

The slight shift in position comes on the eve of the national campaign being launched by the Left Front and regional parties against the government’s decision to vote for the EU 3 resolution at the last IAEA meeting. The Left parties submitted a note at the UPA-Left coordination committee meeting on Thursday urging India to abstain if it finds consensus to be lacking. The Left parties have demanded that if the issue comes up for voting on November 24, India should insist that the issue is resolved through negotiations, that Iran has the right to have a peaceful nuclear programme, that it must abide by its treaty obligations, and that possibilities exist for settling the issue within the IAEA.

Russia and China both abstained from voting on the EU 3 resolution. Russian President Vladimir Putin has been working actively to bring Iran to the negotiating table with the European Union even while he supports its sovereign right to develop nuclear power. Russia has succeeded in persuading Iran to recycle spent nuclear fuel back to it to ensure that supply and usage are strictly monitored. This is to offset US claims that the spent nuclear fuel is being diverted by Tehran for the manufacture of weapons of mass destruction. Moscow has refused to back off from the Bushehr nuclear plant it is setting up in Iran.

Mr Natwar Singh has also taken the strategic alliance between Russia, the US and India forward during this visit to Moscow. A meeting  of the foreign ministers of the three countries will be held in New Delhi next March. This announcement comes at a time when South Block officials were quietly hinting at the demise of this particular Russian initiative, particularly after Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s highly successful visit to the US.

The emerging alliance has been taken very seriously by Washington with media reports suggesting unhappiness with the initiative. The decision to work with China and Russia is clearly a move to counter the criticism that New Delhi was under pressure from the US to take a position against Iran.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is no real domestic compulsion for India on the Iran issue. Now that Iran has given a call for all to wipe out Israel from the map of the world, it becomes increasingly difficult for India to take a very pro Iranian stance. In the face of world wide condemnation of the Iranian stand , it will be next to impossible for India to take any pro Iranian stand in the near future. The noise that was made by the Left parties need not be taken seriously, as they are in no mood to pull down this Government.
I agree with you, recent speech by Iranian PM is a act of terrorism (promotion of terrorism) and Iran should be punished by UN and condemn by every civilized nation. With same spirit Pakistan and Bangladesh should be treated.
For future and long term development of India, India need energy, India should not rely on one source of energy, no harm in using Iran. India should not close that option. India should look for its own security first, Iran is not against India. Israel always towed US view of world. When India was attacked/occupied by Pakistan during Kargil, along with US, Israel was second nation to announce travel warning to its citizen. So we know where everyone stands.
Its good to have business and political relationship but own interest is also important.
When Taliban along with Pakistan was busy terrorsing India, US was doing business with them along with other so called civilized world.
I did not read the speech of the Iranian President which caused so much furor among Indians. I have following questions:

1) Did he make a call to wipe out India from the face of the earth?

2) Was his speech anti Indian by any means?

Israel or America they have to fight their own battle just like India is doing.

Israel sells India weapons for hard cash not for free. India is for friendship with both Israel and Iran. Just like Israelis and Americans are friends with both India and Pakistan.

Interest of India are not same as the interest of Israel or America. They are two different things.
Iraq’s about oil, not food
Sandhya Jain

Good old-fashioned nationalism compels me to write about the duplicitous UN Oil for Food scam at a time when I am deeply anguished over the tragedy which has effectively ended all festivities in the capital. Most of us will go through the motions of observing Hindu dharma’s greatest annual event, but Saturday’s bloodstains have left an indelible impact on us all. Delhi Police’s sustained efforts over the past few years had revived confidence in the battle against terrorism, making the sudden catastrophe difficult to digest. The Prime Minister’s studied silence on his open border policy has been noticed by all, and so long as South Block substitutes American pressure for an independent foreign policy, we can expect such incidents to be repeated ad nauseum.

The UN Oil for Food programme stinks to high heaven of the oil piracy with which America is virtually synonymous, while Secretary General Kofi Annan reinforces the public impression of himself as a White Man’s stooge. It is no secret that the UN imposed sanctions on Iraq from 1990 under American pressure, causing untold misery to the Iraqi people, who literally began to die of starvation for want of food, medicines, and other urgent necessities (remember the man-made Bengal famine, ushered in by the “benevolent” British Raj?). When the deaths assumed scandalous proportions, the Oil for Food programme was created in 1996, which permitted the Saddam regime to export crude oil and deposit the funds in a special bank account (Escrow Account), which UN would run to buy food, medicines and other articles for the Iraqi people. UN officials would determine the prices at which goods would be purchased and the firms from which purchases would be made (you get the drift).

The UN was always a bloated bureaucracy of over-paid mediocrities from around the world. Still, under Mr. Boutros Boutrous-Ghali, it was not a pet poodle of the White House, which it what Mr. Annan has reduced it to. Even a nodding acquaintance with the manner in which Mr. Annan has conducted his office, from sleeping over the genocide in Rwanda to nodding over the food-for-sex horror in Sudan, would indicate the direction in which the Oil for Food would go. Not surprisingly, one of pockets into which it went is alleged to be that of Mr. Annan’s son!

But there is more to the deal than mere money. Hence Mr. Annan must explain why the UN, having imposed unjustified sanctions against Iraq under American pressure, chose a member of Washington’s political elite (former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker) to conduct a so-called ‘independent’ inquiry into the Oil for Food scam. Many aspects of the Volcker report are fishy. But the worst, from the standpoint of Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence, is its impact upon the on-going trial of Mr. Saddam Hussain. A US-managed court, with US-appointed and trained judges is conducting a trial, the outcome of which is foretold. Despite this, the deposed dictators’ legal team is harassed, and international opinion against the continuing occupation of Iraq is sought to be silenced through the Volcker report. Somehow America can never rise above the self-righteous rapacity of its White Settler occupants.

Essentially, what does Volcker have to say? That Saddam used UN’s endemic corruption to beat the sanctions by using the Oil for Food programme to earn $ 1.8 billion for his country; and that he used oil to buy influence with politicians in several countries to condemn the sanctions. <b>In India, there is a frisson of excitement over claims that Foreign Minister Natwar Singh (incidentally an old-fashioned nationalist) received peanuts worth Rs. 3.37 crores at today’s exchange rate</b>.

<b>Mr. Natwar Singh, then an opposition MP, played a leading role in getting the Indian Parliament to adopt a unanimous resolution condemning the US military invasion of Iraq in 2003. Since it is nobody’s case that Mr. Natwar Singh shared his booty with fellow Parliamentarians, we must assume that the resolution reflected the Indian national position on war against a friendly country.</b> By mindlessly seeking Mr. Singh’s resignation, the BJP, which was then the ruling party, must explain if it now endorses American occupation of Iraq. Moreover, since the then Deputy Prime Minister actively canvassed for sending Indian troops to assist the Americans in Iraq, while on an official visit to Washington, the BJP should spell out its Iraq policy to end public confusion in the matter. Former prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee would do well to issue a detailed statement in this regard.

Even civilians like me, with no stakes in the global oil market, knew that UN officials were making money in Iraqi oil. Nations imposing sanctions bought Iraqi oil through channels that Mr. Volcker is now pretending to uncover. As a so-called expert on money laundering and an expert criminal prosecutor, he should use his talents to unearth the post-invasion oil rape by US oil firms.

A cursory look at the Volcker report suggests that US angst flows from the fact that upto August 2000, Iraq sold oil through global (read Western) oil companies. But from September 2000, Saddam began to select oil buyers with a view to buy goodwill for his country (a wholesome foreign policy objective by any standard). He particularly favoured permanent members of the Security Council, to get the sanctions eased. Thus, Russia and France benefitted, and US oil companies did business with the Russians.

But this did not go down well with America. After all, the arbitrary and irrational post-Second World War map of the Gulf was drawn up by the Allies only to serve their commercial-strategic interests (read oil needs). As the sole global superpower, America could hardly digest deployment of troops to protect the rulers of friendly Gulf regimes, while Russians ran the oil trade! Volcker gives the game away by protesting that Iraqi crude was being sold to persons who were not “regular players in the oil market.” In other words, the Oil Cartel is a Closed Circle and the Free Market is for the birds. As for the business activities of the Foreign Minister’s son, what is relevant is whether he settled his dues with the income tax department.

Volcker says there were “layers of individuals and companies” between the oil quotas and the ultimate buyers; hence UN could not determine who was actually benefiting from and controlling the oil purchases. Frankly, UN is so utterly complicit in financial scandals and human rights abuses all over the world that there is a strong case for it winding up altogether, especially in view of its inability to correct itself and its propensity to act as an arm of the White House. Further, it is none of America’s business how a sovereign nation sells its natural resources to keep its people alive. Contempt for UN-US complicity in ravaging Iraq made the 101 oil companies and traders that did business with Baghdad shun Volcker’s queries.

It is said that most of the Iraqi oil sold between 1996 and 2002 had an illegal surcharge that UN had declared illegal; but the oil companies and traders paid no heed. Volcker has mentioned politicians in Russia, France, Britain and Italy, who benefitted from Saddam’s largesse. He should now identity the American oil majors and politicians swimming in Iraqi oil after the de facto colonization of that country.
The military cooperation between India and the United States of America is very much on the increase. So far there has not been any major impoert of defense equipment from India although several systems are under the active consideration of the Indian authorities. However, one significant aspect where cosiderable interest has been noticed is in holding of joint exercises. Recently, one US aircraft carrier and several vessels of the US Pacific fleet participated in a naval exercise off the West Coast of India.
This month their will be a joint air exercise off the east coast of India near Kalaidunda in West Bengal. Several, Indian Aircrafts will be participating with USAF aircrafts and this will give the opportunity to both the forces to overate together on some future date.
On one hand US is increasing military cooperation which is happening due to multiple reasons and on other hand its using different methods to derail India as and when required by popping up/supporting anti-India groups.

US is trying to reduce its Army size and limit its defense budget. But its long term interest to control or protect its interest around the world need resources from other country. Nato is good for Europe and its utility is over after end of cold war. Asia is a place for any future action. Whoever will control sea passage will have upper hand, US and India marriage will serve that interest only, but US current support to sister-in-law Pakistan who is inspiring to be Caliphate and mother-in-law China who is controlling supplies to US and US having record deficit with China, I am not sure how long this crowded marriage will last.
<b>Congress angered over talks with India </b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->WASHINGTON Senior Republicans in the U.S. Congress are angry with the Bush administration for proceeding with a deal to help India build civilian nuclear power plants without involving Congress so far, especially given that Congress will have to change one or more laws to make the deal viable.
Republican aides said several members of Congress were outraged.
R. Nicholas Burns, the U.S. under secretary of state for political affairs, is negotiating the deal with India. In an interview, he said he had taken pains in recent days to explain to senior members of Congress that, <b>on a recent trip to India, all he did was explain to the Indians their specific obligations and try to work out a timetable for fulfilling them.</b>
<b>"There may be a myriad of laws that have some relevance," </b>said Andy Fisher, spokesman for Senator Richard Lugar, Republican of Indiana, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee.

Burns said he would tell Congress that the administration would propose legislation next year to address all the problems raised by the agreement with India.

Even with the concerns, some in Congress have offered conditional support for the nuclear-power deal, part of a larger "strategic partnership" agreement signed by Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of India in July.

"India has, in effect, agreed to an international commitment not to test"  <!--emo&:o--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ohmy.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ohmy.gif' /><!--endemo--> nuclear weapons again, said Representative Tom Lantos, of California, the senior Democrat on the International Relations Committee.

Still, administration officials acknowledge they may face an uphill battle convincing Congress. If that proves true, <b>India may find that it is the biggest loser in the debate over Iran's nuclear program.</b>

Shortly after India voted in a Sept. 24 meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency in favor of referring Iran to the UN Security Council because of its nuclear program, <b>Iranian officials threatened to cancel a $21 billion deal to build a natural-gas pipeline to India</b>.
<b>Bush administration officials, who had opposed the Iran-India pipeline deal, countered that if Iran did cancel it, the U.S. offer to help India build nuclear power plants would fill that energy gap. But the support needed from Congress is far from certain.</b>
"We're not talking about a perfect world here," Burns said. "We can continue to isolate India and have no impact. Or, we can do what we're doing: engage India, work to bring it into compliance with international nonproliferation standards and know that all the civilian facilities are inspected." That, he said, "is a good deal for the U.S."
<b>Each nation has its own Foreign Policy priorities. The Unites States may feel that it needs to cultivate India militarily, so that it can have a powerful associate in Asia. However, it cannot just break up with Pakistan as it has fostered and developed close military relationship with Pakistan since the early 1950s.It is true that with the end of the cold war, the US no longer needs Pakistan as a close ally as it needed it in the past to counter possible eastward expansion by USSR.

The recent actions on the part of the United States to engage India through military cooperation is part of its new policy in Asia, which is in keeping with the present day ground realities in the region. It does not mean that USA will abandon Pakistan overnight, as it still needs Pakistan not only to contain Islamic terrorists but also to act as a counter balance to India, It’s possible tilt towards Pakistan , it feels may influence India’s foreign policy in the future uni-poler world.
If we closely analyze the development of the US foreign policy in South Asia over the last fifty years, it will be seen that the USA has always tried to ensure the growth of India. It did not provide any direct military aid but provided various other types of assistance for the economic and infrastructural development of India. This assistance, although not much publicized is worth much higher and is much permanent in nature than what military aid it has given to Pakistan during the same period. It is true that this policy of the USA in providing massive military aid to Pakistan has resulted in many cool periods in Indo-US bilateral relations, at no point of time USA has pushed India to the wall. It has always ensured that the Indians are fed with sufficient quantity of Californian wheat that they survive. The same is the case in respect of human resource development. The setting up of the IITs and subsequent assistance that has been received from the United States is establishing the laboratories of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, the exchange of academics and other intellectual exchanges have very significantly contributed to where India stands today.
In the years to come it appears the United States may try to engage India in military co-operation in addition to the existing areas of co-operation. One of the immediate requirements of India is new sources of energy to meet the increasing demand from the Industry and other consumers. To counter the Indian move to have closer interaction with Iran particularly in matters relating to energy, the United States has made the current move to ensure the supply of advanced nuclear power generation technology to India.
As all of us know, it will not be an easy task for the US Administration to convince the Congress to change the rules for India. Let us see how it develops but in the interim we Indians should be ready to listen to the critical assessment of India by the US Congressmen., some of whom by tradition are hostile to India. In conclusion, I would like to mention that India also has quite a few friends in the US Congress and it is also a big market for US consumer and industrial goods. These factors will definitely play a role at the end.</b>
<!--QuoteBegin-Mudy+Nov 1 2005, 02:00 AM-->QUOTE(Mudy @ Nov 1 2005, 02:00 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->US is trying to reduce its Army size and limit its defense budget. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Mudy ji,

Was that a Typo?

Fully 48% of the current US Budget of $2,130 Billion is indirectly + directly spent on Military related expenditures.

(a) $420 billion for the Department of Defense <b>(equal to ROW combined)</b>
(b) $10.3 billion to develop missile defenses
(c ) $1.895 billion for Department of Homeland Security
(d) $2.6 billion for Department of Justice counterterrorism operations
(e) $13 billion to help state and local governments prepare to respond to potential terrorist threats
(f) The amount spent on overseas Military Bases and maintenance of Military Nuclear Deterrent are not so obvious. Expenditure on 'other departments' related to defence is roughly $100 billion+

And while I am at it, the top pentagon defence contractors: Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, Raytheon, Halliburton, United Technologies, Science Applications Int.,Computer Sciences Corp. and Humana
got $88 Billion+ in contracts in 2004 alone.

Watch what they are doing for last 8-9 years. Rumi want to reduce Army size, they want to use defence budget for lean mean army.
Think about British colonial period, In place of having large army and feed them have small army and use other nation's army to protect East India company interest. On same line, now see what's going on. Why India is so important?
China is a major exporter and India is budding star, whoever will control and protect sea line will have upper hand in world economy. What is WTO and its purpose? What is patent and copyright?

Before 9/11 and after cold war, why resources were used to enhance Unkil business interest worldwide and they missed OBL.
<!--emo&Big Grin--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
US had contributed lot in India's development.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->it cannot just break up with Pakistan <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Its a continuation of British colonial policy.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->USA has always tried to ensure the growth of India.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Couple of reasons behind this-
India is a democracy.
They were under impression it will break into small pieces, so keep it manageable. You will laugh on this, but after listening to very well read Billy’s lecture, where he presumed that in case Kashmir joins Pakistan India will break into pieces and that is why India is refusing to let go Kashmir. This is common understanding in upper layer.
Nullify NAM.
Both players of cold war were manipulating India.
Difficult to manage failed state.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->US Congressmen., some of whom by tradition are hostile to India<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They have no clue about India and very well cultivated by Pakis and middle east. Indian dispora is working very hard on this issue, but lack of interest to cultivate them is a major problem.
<b>Left to protest Indo-US air exercise </b>
They are faithfull to master China.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)