U.S. thanks India for its support in IAEA vote on Iran

Reuters ^ | Sun Sep 25, 2005 1:02 AM IST

[M. Espinola]

"Your above post seems to say that only Venezuela voted with the mad mullahs against this Resolution. Bear in mind that China or Russia voting against it would have killed it (they have UN veto power)."

Venezuela obviously stands out being the only one to publicly side with Tehran on this vote. While on the other hand China & Russia killing it would have been such obvious support for the Iranian terrorist crowd.

Why be up front on a vote when one is hard at work on the ground enabling Iran to become the world's most ominous threat to global security since Hitler's Germany. (Not that is much difference with today's Iran.)

[indianrightwinger]

I am against a permanent UNSC seat for India.

I favor disbanding the UNSC long before that.

[M. Espinola]

"The beauty of France and Germany siding with the US position is clearly a result of Iran humiliating them in front of the world."

Iran's 7th century minded thugs are so diplomatically barbaric. France & Germany discovered that fact.

[Gengis Khan]

"I am against a permanent UNSC seat for India."

I would like to know your reason.


"I favor disbanding the UNSC long before that."

Thats not likely to happen.

[M. Espinola]

"I am against a permanent UNSC seat for India."

Do you feel India's vote was the correct decision on Iran?

[indianrightwinger]

The reason I oppose India being on the UNSC as a permanent member is very simple when you boil it down.

India has the second largest muslim population in the world (nothing wrong with muslims in general), which will force them to either veto or abstain from a large number of important issues on the UNSC. Especially, issues that have to deal with Arab thugs and terrorist regimes. This will further dilute the UNSC from what little influence they now have on the world issues.

[indianrightwinger]

See my post #8.

[Gengis Khan]

"India has the second largest muslim population in the world (nothing wrong with muslims in general), which will force them to either veto or abstain from a large number of important issues on the UNSC. Especially, issues that have to deal with Arab thugs and terrorist regimes. This will further dilute the UNSC from what little influence they now have on the world issues."

Not a very well thoughtout reasoning.

India's "muslim population" does not dictate India's foreign policy. You seem to forget......we vote according to our interests..... not for or against US interests.

We get the bulk of our oil from the Gulf, moreover we have about 2 million expats working there. This alone makes the Arabs inevitable. And why, even US has friendly relation with even worse than "thugs and terrorist regimes" like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

[indianrightwinger]

At the end of it, the seat won't help more quick resolution to world problems (pro or anti US). It will result in more deadlock and debate, which is the real problem of the current UNSC.

Abolish it. Then, re-create it under a different/clearer charter. Make India, UK, US, Australia, Japan, South Korea, Germany, Turkey, Canada, and Iraq be new members of this "Democratic World Alliance".

[F14 Pilot]

unseat France & China...

Bring Australia in

[indianrightwinger]

France is easy to unseat.

China will be impossible given their position as a world power.

To get around this, an alternative organization of democratic countries should be formed. China will naturally be left out of that list.

[M. Espinola]

See my post #8.

Perfect!

I have some thoughts on how the Iranian dictatorship can be brought to its knees economically, which in turn would hopefully led to an toppling of the régime, with outside assistance. Naturally there is a potentially high global economic price tag attached if the mullahs go berserk when confronted. However, inaction (appeasement) will only invite the inevitable nuclear unthinkable launched from Iran targeting Israel, our forces in Iraq, Afghanistan, other 'tragets' including the vast oil fields of Saudi Arabia in a back-door attack to cripple the Western economy.

Considering Iran is surrounded on all sides with the exception of the actual Caspian Sea what course(s) of action do feel most workable, keeping in mind we control the old Soviet air bases in Herat (Afghanistan) close to Iran's Khorasani province in the northeastern area, plus the fact Allied navies patrol the Persian Gulf, bases on the Arabian peninsula, and more important, Coalition forces based in Iraq are and can be positioned closer to the Iraq/Iranian oil rich Khuzestan province & the key city of Ahvaz, as well as one of the main energy refining cities of Abadan, directly in the southern Iraqi-Iranian Shatt al-arab borderline.

Iran builds powerplant in Armenia

Iraqi oil infrastucture

[voletti]

Its heartening to see even a lame-duck coalition government in Delhi, with a brilliantly helpless PM, a nutcase Foriegn minister, a bevy full of traitorous communist-marxist "allies" etc can still know where its nose is.

The vote in favor of the civilized world and against jihadi Iran is the right thing to do.

[Soul Seeker]

Untold foreign policy achievements with India, media only likes pictures of suicide bombers. But this deepening relationship is strategically important and so far a success of the Administration.

Not expecting much from the U.N., certainly do not expect them to enforce their resolutions. Russia/Germany & France have too much money tied up in the oil fields.

[voletti]

Forgot to add the customary ZOT, didya? Disappointing that Freepers aren't quite as exciteble or censor-eager as the DUmmies, eh?

Tks for the laughs, anyway. (:-D)

[dervish]

"And why, even US has friendly relation with even worse than "thugs and terrorist regimes" like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.'

What makes them "worse" than Iran, the #1 exporter of terror in the world, and the state sponsor of Hezbollah which was involved in two major attacks on the US military (Lebanon Marine Barracks, Khobar Towers)?

[Gengis Khan]

"What makes them "worse" than Iran, the #1 exporter of terror in the world, and the state sponsor of Hezbollah which was

involved in two major attacks on the US military (Lebanon Marine Barracks, Khobar Towers)?"

Pakistan and Saudi Arabia (and even Iran) are not your usual (and petty) "thugs and terrorist regimes". Although I would rate

Pakistan and Saudi Arabia a few rungs higher than Iran for several reasons, the fact is these countries (and by extension

with NK and China) fall in a seperate catagory.

You can call countries like Libya, Sryia, Nigeria, Sudan, Uganda, Venezuela, Cuba (and the list goes on) as "thugs and

terrorist regimes".

Pakistan, Saudi Arabia ....(and to some extent Iran) are the powerhouses of global Pan-Islamic jihad. These countries have invested a significant amount of their human capital, financial, military, technological, industrial rescources to build and globally maintain an efficient network of terrorist syndicates to be used as a weapon for limited and low intensity warfare against their perceived enemies. This is no mean feat achieveable by some petty "thugs and terrorist regimes". The global terror network run Pakistan, Saudi Arabia do not just systematically and efficiently destabilises the entire region but also (as demonstrated on 9/11) has in its reserve the capacity to strike at the heartland the "sole-superpower" on the other side of the world. They choose their target, their timeing and place and they do so from hiding inside remote mountains. One can only marvel at their efficient human (civilian), military and intelligence network (and coordination amongst them) that have

penetrated most of the civilised world. All this requires enormous funding, training, human capital, intelligence and an

efficient command and control structure, and to top it all an....... effective strategy to keep the whole terror industry

invisible. The one reason why Pakistan and Saudi Arabia remains unscathed even after so much, is because these countries have

diplomatically invested heavily on creating a deception that their governments are cooperating on GWOT. There governments

are in effect a front to deceive the world and conseal/incubate there their "fourth arsenal" (and one of the most effective

arsenal). Add to that, Pakistan's nuclear missile is not just a weapon to demonstrate military/technological prowess but also

a part of that effect strategy to threaten/blackmail countries (contemplating pre-emptive action or retribution) into

adopting a more accomodating and non-confrontational approach in dealing with Pakistan. In other words what you can think of doing to Iraq or Iran, you cannot think of doing the same to Pakistan. In the absence of Pakistani nukes, what do you think US or India would have done with Pakistan?


Iran carrying out attacks on US allies or overseas US assets does not make it #1.
Although Iran happens to be in the same catagory as Pak, the reason why I rate Pakistan several places higher than Iran is because:

1. Iran is militarily(nuclear or conventional)/economically/technologically no match for Pakistan. Pakistani scientists are helping Iran with its nuke tech and not the other way round. Compare the size of Pakistani army and Pakistan's defense budget with that of Iran.

2. Pakistan backed Mujahideens beat back (and that ultimately resulted in the disintegration of ) the Soviet Union. This is an enormous accomplishment. In contrast Iran got beaten by a much smaller Iraq.

3. Pakistan gave birth to the Taliban and harbours the worlds most dreaded terror org "Al Quaida". The Iran backed Hizbolla (also active in Kashmir) would look like kids in front of Taliban and Al Quaida.

4. Pakistan has the world's highest number of Madrassas. According to one newspaper, half of the worlds terrorist organisations originate in Pakistan. 70% of the worlds terrorists are trained in Pakistan or are Pakistanis or Saudis. Almost all the worlds most dreaded Islamic terrorists have some link with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

Even if Iran falls in the same catagory, it comes nowhere near Pakistan or Saudi Arabia.