'India Left Successfully Rejects US, Keeps India Sovereign'

[mike435]

A person disposed to take a favourable view of things is an optimist.





i still stick with my view the future doesn't look positive for humans.

couldnt agree more
were doomed

[zubin]

A person disposed to take a favourable view of things is an optimist.

You should get to know someone as well as reality before putting labels on them whether the label be good or bad. Your "optimism" theory about me is simplistic at best.

Unique means different. Not one second goes by where the world is the same as the second before. So you did not understand the word unique and a definition will help you.

If you mean to say that there are not material differences, that's different. But certainly, given that the world is different, you'd have to make an argument for that.

I seen a white ring above ur head.

That's your justification for the odd label, whether good or bad? I'm not flattered.

i still stick with my view the future doesn't look positive for humans.

These are your arguments:

you are horribly wrong. how come u can say that the current conditions are unique, i don't think so. Russian nuclear arms can destroy the face of earth for nearly 200 times. Do u think this existed hundred years before? Did Nuclear Holocust word existed in Alexander, Napolean period? surely past wars could inflicted big damage to the human population but in future big scale wars surely gonna "BOOM OUR EARTH".

Your argument is far too weak to warrant the conclusion that I am "horribly wrong" in any polite manner. At least make a sound or considerable argument then attack.

Nuclear arms are often argued to be a force of stability through mutual threat. Also, nuclear arms are physical things that are monitored and are sought to be defused. You would have to make an argument for why the conditions for peace and improvement do not exist. You can say X, and therefore Y. Human dignity and security of mind are conditions that bring about peace, stability and well-being. You would have to say why these are not possible or not likely in any attempt to warrant your conclusion.

yes due to space exhaustion people are forced to live together, just think different kind of people living in a house where food and energy resources in the verge of extinction...its going to be pathetic for them.

What's your scientific basis for this. Its well established in many circles that there is enough food and resources to go around for everyone to at least have residual happiness, dignity, and security of mind. The problem that is cited is how resources can be distributed fairly that allows people to survive, have dignity and have at least residual happiness and security of mind. But intuition provides many answers to this.

Another assumption you make is that the lack of resources always ends up in anger and war. But that's not true: its the way resources are distributed, such as through unfair means as in the topic of this thread, that brings about anger.

"The condition of man is already close to satiety and arrogance, and there is danger of destruction of everything in existence."

- a Brahmin to Onesicritus, 327 BC, reported in Strabo's Geography

What's the context of this discussion. In ancient times, death and destruction were more certain, and everything else much less certain, much less visible than now, with far less means of improvement.

The correct view of any religion is an "essential" view. The details in a religion, or stated by a religious person are to be judged by context in any religion, while the essentials are to be preserved no matter what as wisdom. You don't want to lose wisdom and the essentials of a religion you admire or adhere to due to adherence to its details, do you?

[zubin]

India Left Successfully Rejects US, Keeps India Sovereign

NEW DELHI (Reuters) - Indian communist parties, which shore up the government, rejected a landmark nuclear pact between New Delhi and Washington on Tuesday saying it compromised India's sovereignty and imposed U.S. influence.

In views that almost mirrored those of the right-wing Hindu nationalist opposition, the four main left parties called upon Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's coalition not to pursue the controversial deal, details of which were disclosed last week.

But the parties, whose support is key to the survival of the coalition, stopped short of spelling out their strategy if the government pressed ahead, as it is not required by law to seek parliamentary approval.

"The bilateral nuclear agreement must be seen as a crucial step to lock in India into the U.S. global strategic designs," the parties said in a joint statement.

"The flawed nuclear cooperation agreement cannot be justified on the debatable basis of augmenting our energy resources, or achieving energy security."

The comments by the communists came as the Indian Foreign Ministry said Singh had accepted an invitation to visit President George W. Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, but dates were yet to be fixed.

The nuclear agreement, when finally approved by the U.S. Congress, will end India's global nuclear isolation and allow it to buy nuclear fuel and equipment from the United States, and eventually other nations, to help meet its soaring energy needs.

Details of a bilateral pact that governs the deal were disclosed on Friday following several rounds of tortuous negotiations over New Delhi's objections to what it said were new conditions.

"PROMISES NOT FULFILLED"

Opponents of the deal in both countries have accused their governments of giving away too much to clinch a pact that has been hailed by Washington and New Delhi as a benchmark of their new strategic friendship.

While the opposition Hindu nationalists had accused the government of compromising on its nuclear weapons program and mortgaging its right to conduct nuclear tests, the communists charged it with accepting American hegemony through the deal.

However, after the pact was finalized last month, top government officials said all Indian concerns had been addressed satisfactorily, while nuclear scientists and analysts largely seemed to agree after the text was made public.

But the communist parties said they did not agree with those arguments.

The pact did not offer full civilian nuclear cooperation as promised, was unclear about permanent fuel supplies, had a broad termination clause and imposed curbs on India's right to conduct nuclear tests.

The left parties said the provisions of the agreement did not protect India from a tougher American law that mandates stringent penalties if India conducts a nuclear test and imposes other conditions.

"So which provision will reign supreme? Obviously the national law of the United States will reign supreme," Prakash Karat, general-secretary of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), told a news conference.

Asked what the left parties would do if the government did not bow to them, he said it would be discussed later and in the "broader context" of their ties with Singh's government.

[indian_blues]

Ramin I really love ur signature... simply awesome poem.


btw don't take serious notes on Indian communists they are not powerful as u think.