India-US News and Discussion

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
a_kumar
BRFite
Posts: 481
Joined: 18 Jun 2008 23:53
Location: what about it?

Re: India-US News and Discussion

Postby a_kumar » 03 Aug 2009 01:32

Since Psyops thread is not available to non-members.. cross-posting from it.

Mid way in GPS program (CNN), Fareed Zakaria talks about US consumer spending and how it is equal to double of India+China
put together.

The indian map shown on the program, doesn't show J & K. Thank god, AP is still in tact.. but for how long?

Image

vera_k
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3126
Joined: 20 Nov 2006 13:45

Re: India-US News and Discussion

Postby vera_k » 03 Aug 2009 02:33

^^

It seems that this is because there are Pakistani groups that keep writing to CNN asking it to show the map this way. The solution to this merry-go-round will be for the GoI to suspend CNN and BBC's uplinking/downlinking or other business licenses from India so that the channels are forced to take a consistent position.

http://www.pakalert.net/alerts/alert008.pdf

Bade
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7212
Joined: 23 May 2002 11:31
Location: badenberg in US administered part of America

Re: India-US News and Discussion

Postby Bade » 03 Aug 2009 06:27

Before even GoI develops the steel to do that, indian media should start showing clipped maps of PRC(without tibet) , Pakistan(without POK & Northern territories) and USA(without Texas and Florida and show California separating away :twisted: ).

We are a democracy so the free private media can do it, if CNN can do it too.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: India-US News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 03 Aug 2009 06:52

vera_k wrote:^^

It seems that this is because there are Pakistani groups that keep writing to CNN asking it to show the map this way. The solution to this merry-go-round will be for the GoI to suspend CNN and BBC's uplinking/downlinking or other business licenses from India so that the channels are forced to take a consistent position.

http://www.pakalert.net/alerts/alert008.pdf


The :rotfl: part is:

Become a Peace Volunteer
Support this volunteer effort:
o Print, copy, and distribute this alert in your community
o Ask your friends to subscribe to our free alert.
o Call the media yourself.


Pakistan and peace?

ArmenT
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 4239
Joined: 10 Sep 2007 05:57
Location: Loud, Proud, Ugly American

Re: India-US News and Discussion

Postby ArmenT » 03 Aug 2009 10:24

On CNBC now (Pacific Standard Time): India Rising: The New Empire

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: India-US News and Discussion

Postby svinayak » 03 Aug 2009 10:52

ArmenT wrote:On CNBC now (Pacific Standard Time): India Rising: The New Empire

Disney - They are localizing their global production

Sesame st, too much americanizing

THey are removing Indian themes NOT GOOD

pgbhat
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4128
Joined: 16 Dec 2008 21:47
Location: Hayden's Ferry

Re: India-US News and Discussion

Postby pgbhat » 03 Aug 2009 11:10


pgbhat
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4128
Joined: 16 Dec 2008 21:47
Location: Hayden's Ferry

Re: India-US News and Discussion

Postby pgbhat » 03 Aug 2009 11:30

Acharya wrote:Disney - They are localizing their global production

Sesame st, too much americanizing

THey are removing Indian themes NOT GOOD


If Indians don't come up with alternative what can we expect?? Americanization (for better or worse) has already crept in.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20890
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: India-US News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 03 Aug 2009 17:54

Read this most incisive article about Indo-US relations in their proper perspective and a very interesting unknown fact about Pak's intentions in '71 to capture Amritsar to prevent E.Pak from falling ,a move that the US knew about.

Can India have a strategic partnership with the United States? (Re-issue(Article)
Monday, July 27, 2009

New Delhi: July 27 : A strategic relationship or better still a strategic partnership with the world's only super power-the United States-would help India and give a push to its growth and development.

It would be a partnership between two democracies of the world. China owes its dominant economic position in the world of today to the huge investments made by US companies in that country.

A desire for friendship with the United States has occupied the mind of countless Indians. India remembers the support given by the people of that country to the cause of Indian independence.

Many a freedom fighter, including the lion of Punjab, Lala Lajpat Rai, have recorded their appreciation when they were in the US during that period.

India's first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru visited the US soon after the country became free.

Truman was President then. Mrs. Indira Gandhi accompanied Nehru. That visit was a great success.

The ignorance about India in the US at the time was such that Truman is said to have recorded his surprise at the fact that this "Communist" sympathiser is speaking more about democracy and of the values that the US cherishes. There was standing applause for Nehru as he addressed the joint session of the US Congress. Nehru convincingly conveyed to the US that India is committed to democracy.

Despite all efforts, friendship with the US eluded India during the Cold War years. US policy makers continued to harbour the suspicion that India was a fellow traveller, if not a Communist nation in spite of the fact that Chester Bowles, a brilliant US Ambassador to India, wrote that Nehru perhaps had more Communists in jail than any other country.

US foreign policy has all along been guided by the objective of "what is in the best interests of America"? If Nehru's India was not going to join the US in its Cold War against the Soviet bloc, then clearly India was not a friend.

Nehru was the greatest Prime Minister that a new nation could have at the start of its long journey towards emancipation. Nehru was not going to get young India embroiled in the ill-conceived Cold War. He chose a path of independent foreign policy that had been enshrined during the country's fight for freedom.

To Nehru, India's strategic interests were paramount. To him, an independent foreign policy did not mean neutrality. He was, however, not able to convince a sceptical Washington. For them, Pakistan, which joined the defence pact, was more of a friend.

Pakistan used its membership to further its objectives in Jammu and Kashmir. The military rulers or "cold warriors" of Pakistan starting with Field Marshal Ayub Khan, ensured that India and Pakistan never came close. They were hopeful that Pakistan's closeness to Western countries would help in the annexation of Jammu and Kashmir.

A nation should never forget history and its past experiences. Those who forget history live to rue the day. At the height of Cold War in 1971, Pakistan was possibly going to take a turn toward democracy. Sheikh Mujibur Rahman's Awami League had won an outright majority in Parliament.

The Pakistan Army ensured that the Sheikh did not become Prime Minister. The US continued to support Pakistan's military rulers.

Following the military crackdown in East Pakistan, over ten million refugees took shelter in India. The US did not stop the Pakistan Army from what it was doing in the East. Washington's lofty commitment to democracy never supported Sheikh Mujibur Rehman to become the Prime Minister of Pakistan.

President Nixon and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger continued to support the military rulers of Pakistan during the crackdown in the eastern wing. When war broke out between Pakistan and India, Nixon ordered the US Seventh Fleet to confront India. Unfortunately, the Pakistan Army surrendered even before this fleet could enter Indian waters. This author was covering the war in East Pakistan when the Seventh Fleet was menacingly rushing towards the Bay of Bengal .

By a strange coincidence, some years later, I met Sidney Sobers who was number two at the US Mission in Pakistan in 1970 and later a Charge d'Affaire in that country. I asked him as to why the Pakistan Army did not put up a fight against the Indians in the difficult riverine delta terrain of East Pakistan? A candid response was given to my queries.

According to Sobers, the US military attaches in Islamabad visited several forward areas in Pakistan before the Indo-Pak war broke out. They realised that the terrain in East Pakistan was tough and, with a hostile local population, there was no way that the Pakistan Army could put up a fight.

The expectation of the Pakistani commanders in the East was that Pakistan would be able to capture Amritsar and some territories in the West. Pakistan could then bargain with India that it would not vacate Amritsar unless the Indians moved out of East Pakistan. This is what Sidney Sobers told me.

It was the failure of the Pakistan Army in the western sector that forced Nixon to move the Seventh Fleet, but it was too late. The Pakistan Army in the East had already surrendered.

From Sobers statement, it became clear to me that the US had been fully involved on the side of Pakistan in that war. There should be reports and information available in the archives of India's External Affairs Ministry to the goings on of that time. Let those not be forgotten.

The United States policy vis-à-vis South Asia has not changed. When questioned during her recent visit to New Delhi, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave credit to her husband (Bill Clinton) for developing good relations with India.

During Clinton's first term (1992-1996), this author carried a message of friendship from then Foreign Minister Inder Kumar Gujral to be conveyed through Robin Raphael, who was then Under Secretary of State for South Asia.

I had an hour-long interview with Robin Raphael and she gave a measured reply to Gujral's message of friendship. In the course of my TV interview, I was left aghast on learning the fact that the US was more than actively involved in supporting the activities of the Taliban in Afghanistan.

The Taliban could never have reached Kabul if the US had not given it tacit support. The Clinton administration failed to even decry the blowing up of the Baamiyan Buddhas by the Taliban.

Whatever Hillary Clinton may claim, the simple fact is that the Clinton administration during its first term was not friendly towards India. If anything, Robin Raphael was hostile towards India. The lady is today said to be working as a lobbyist for Pakistan.

We need to learn from China on how to exploit the US. The US may have won its Cold War against the Soviet Union, but as far as China is concerned, it has been protecting its own strategic interests and emerged as an economic power that might threaten US supremacy one day.


Even today, Pakistan hopes to use the United States and China in its quest to annex Kashmir. But China is wary in its response as it has trouble spots in Tibet and Sinkiang.

Can the US Secretary of State dare to tell the Chinese to talk with the Dalai Lama and settle the issue of Tibet? She, however, has patronisingly advised India that Kashmir should figure in Indo-Pak dialogue. Is this the kind of strategic relationship that we are seeking with the United States?

It is high time that those negotiating this strategic partnership with the United States inform us as to what President Obama means when he considers India as being important to his Afghan-Pakistan policy? India has its own strategic interests not just in Afghanistan, but also in Central Asia as well. These cannot be sacrificed at the altar of an Indo-US strategic partnership.

The desire of an articulate American-Indian community to achieve such a partnership between India and the US is understandable. We also have a political-bureaucratic nexus in New Delhi that is blind to India's interests. The objective of a strategic partnership is laudable, but its contours need to be clearly explained to the people of India.

India needs to guard itself from being sucked into a crisis not of its making. We have a fine defence force, our economy is growing, but we are still far from achieving the goals of a developed nation.

The US is seeking a strategic partnership with India but it has not yet supported India's right to be in the UN Security Council.

One may as well ask what is this 'Strategic Partnership' all about?
By Prem Prakash



http://www.india4u.com/india4unews/Can- ... 1419-4.htm

narmad
BRFite
Posts: 222
Joined: 10 May 2005 09:47
Location: Mumbai
Contact:

Re: India-US News and Discussion

Postby narmad » 04 Aug 2009 11:58

ROBIN RAPHEL: OLD ANTI-INDIA HAND TO JOIN HOLBROOKE'S TEAM ?

The “News”, the Pakistani daily, has reported on August 3,2009, that the Barack Obama Administration has decided to appoint Robin Raphel, who was a Counselor for Political Affairs in the US Embassy in New Delhi from 1991 to 1993 and subsequently became the Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs in the Bill Clinton Administration, as a member of the team of Richard Holbrooke, the Special Representative to the Af-Pak region.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: India-US News and Discussion

Postby Gerard » 04 Aug 2009 23:26


arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10248
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: India-US News and Discussion

Postby arun » 05 Aug 2009 07:47

X Post.

The Communist (CPI-M) view of the Sharm El Sheikh joint declaration:

India-Pak joint statement made under US influence: Karat

Jalandhar (PTI): The CPI(M) on Tuesday alleged that the India-Pak joint statement at Sharm-el Sheikh in Egypt was made under US influence.

Party general secretary Prakash Karat also charged the UPA government of playing into the hands of America by signing the nuclear deal and claimed the country was now at the mercy of the west on strategic issues.

"We are also in favour of talks with Pakistan but direction of these should not be dictated by the US," Mr. Karat told reporters …………………

PTI via The Hindu

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10248
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: India-US News and Discussion

Postby arun » 05 Aug 2009 15:53

The US back-peddles on assurances given by their Secretary of State on the ENR issue to India:

Clinton goes off-script, 'clarifications' follow

Minor gaffes beset new role as envoy

By Nicholas Kralev

Originally published 04:45 a.m., August 3, 2009, updated 01:08 p.m., August 3, 2009

……………….. At a press conference in New Delhi on July 20, she was asked by an Indian reporter whether the United States opposed the transfer of sensitive reprocessing and enrichment nuclear technology from India to other countries.

"Well, clearly, we don't," she said. "We have just completed a civil nuclear deal with India. So if it's done within the appropriate channels and carefully safeguarded, as it is in the case of India, then that is appropriate."

The Indian reporter got excited, because what he heard was a policy change. Since the beginning of the U.S.-Indian negotiations on the civil nuclear deal in 2005, both the Bush and Obama administrations have refused to allow India to transfer sensitive technology, citing proliferation concerns. Now Mrs. Clinton was saying the opposite.

A diplomat at the U.S. Embassy in New Delhi immediately noticed the discrepancy and alerted the State Department, which speedily compiled "press guidance," anticipating questions from reporters about the secretary's remark.

"U.S. policy on restricting transfers of enrichment and reprocessing technology, equipment and facilities has not changed," the guidance said. "Efforts… to restrict transfers of [such] technology are not aimed at India, or any other country, but reflect our global nonproliferation efforts."

The department tried to explain the confusion by saying that Mrs. Clinton "was referring to the fact that the United States has granted India advance consent to reprocess U.S.-origin spent nuclear fuel." …………….......

Washington Times

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: India-US News and Discussion

Postby Singha » 05 Aug 2009 22:23

media is fawning 24x7 today how willian clinton's charm got the north koreans to free two journalists.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54696
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India-US News and Discussion

Postby ramana » 05 Aug 2009 23:07

Singha wrote:media is fawning 24x7 today how willian clinton's charm got the north koreans to free two journalists.


I think he was the wrong person to be sent. He and his deputy Gore (who I think was responsible for sending the two gulllible reporters to the shark's den) should be told there is only one Prseident of US: Obama.

Gore and his activism is what got the reporters into toruble. Gore is the president of the TV company: Current TV that those two work for. So he should get credit for getting them in trouble if he is getting the credit for freeing them.


Conservatives like Bolton, Gaffney etc argue that this is negotiating with hostage takers and I agree.

However once the deed is done the need is to get them freed. A lower profile not a foremr head of state should have been sent. After Jesse Jackson's eclipse its Bill Richardson who has the right credentials - former diplomat and already acquainted with the Noko folks would have made sense. Despite US opinons on status of former presidents its not the same in Noko which sees him as a former President and thus his visit legitimizes their despot regime. Now Kim II has one done one better than his father: set of nukes and has US President visiting even if its a former.

SwamyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16148
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 09:22

Re: India-US News and Discussion

Postby SwamyG » 05 Aug 2009 23:28

Apart from the obvious, what could have Clinton sahib discussed with NoKos? Why is Unkil using a nail gun, if a push pin would have done the same job?

VickersB
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 59
Joined: 28 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Dhalli

Re: India-US News and Discussion

Postby VickersB » 05 Aug 2009 23:52

It is said that Kim specifically asked for Mr. Clinton as a negotiator - maybe he looks upto him? :lol:

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10248
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: India-US News and Discussion

Postby arun » 06 Aug 2009 09:05

X Posted.

Sitaram Yechuri, CPI[M] Politburo and Rajya Sabha member, writing in the Hindustan Times about the Sharm El Sheikh joint declaration.

Predictably says that the joint declaration was an out come of our Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh succumbing to US pressure:

No more a puzzle

Sitaram Yechury

August 05, 2009

……………… The only explanation for such contradictory positions is that India is succumbing to US pressures. It is known that the US requires Pakistan in its fight against the Taliban in Afghanistan and it is not prepared to brook any diversion of Pakistan’s attention to its eastern border. Hence, the pressure’s on India to delink the dialogue process from the fight against terrorism. ………….

Hindustan Times

Satya_anveshi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3532
Joined: 08 Jan 2007 02:37

Re: India-US News and Discussion

Postby Satya_anveshi » 06 Aug 2009 09:57

I won't be surprised if there are groups in US celebrating the use of Atomic bombs on Hiroshima 64 years ago. Now, tie in Noko visit by B.Clinton at this opportune time to perhaps "assuage" Japanese.

Sometimes I wonder how these $hits sleep peacefully at night. If anything like that were to happen to these guys I am sure anyone with IQ>0 would be compelled to say..."How fitting?"


csharma
BRFite
Posts: 651
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31

Re: India-US News and Discussion

Postby csharma » 06 Aug 2009 10:25

Not sure of this was posted earlier. Harsh Pant accurately sums up the status of India-US relations.

India has to be careful about buying US weapons if the US does not deliver on the strategic front.

Indo-US ties: The thrill is gone

http://news.rediff.com/column/2009/jul/ ... s-gone.htm

The long-awaited visit by United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton [ Images ] to India provided the usual public affirmation of "India being a vital partner of the US in building a stable international order." But there was no mistaking that the thrill is gone.

The cooling of the strategic partnership built by the George W Bush [ Images ] administration, which conferred on India the de facto nuclear weapon state status, introduces new uncertainties in Asia. With the balance of power in Asia shifting amid talk of a G-2 between the economically hobbled US and the rising giant China, a loosening of the Indo-US bond could produce unpredictable consequences far beyond the Indian Ocean.

Of course, the Indo-US relationship losing some of its Bush-era sheen does not underestimate the value of the relationship to both sides. Economic and defence ties are on an upswing with the US and India finalising the End-User Verification Agreement that will allow US companies to sell sophisticated arms to India. Lockheed Martin and Boeing will be bidding for one of the largest arms deals in the world -- India's plan to buy 126 multi-role fighters.

Clinton also announced two sites where American firms would have the exclusive rights to build nuclear power plants. Space cooperation got a boost with the signing of an agreement that facilitates the launch of US satellites and satellites with US components on Indian launch vehicles. Bilateral trade is growing. And India will be an even bigger source of migration to the US in the coming decades. The Indian community in America is becoming ever more effective in leveraging their influence towards promoting bilateral ties.

But Washington and Delhi's [ Images ] malaise was not dispelled by Clinton's sweet words. The growing uneasiness is as much the result of administration change in Washington as it is of the economic crisis affecting the US.

George W Bush, deeply suspicious of communist China, was personally keen on building strong ties with India. Hence, he was willing to sacrifice long-held US non-proliferation concerns to embrace nuclear India and acknowledge it as the primary actor in South Asia, de-hyphenated from Pakistan.

The Barack Obama [ Images ] administration's concern with protecting the non-proliferation regime, dealing with the immediate challenge of the growing Taliban [ Images ] threat in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and solving the unprecedented economic challenge have led it to a very different set of priorities and an agenda in which India has a marginal role. The only context in which Obama has mentioned India thus far was the need to resolve Kashmir [ Images ] so as to find a way out of the West's troubles in Afghanistan. Talk of a strategic partnership between the two democracies has all but disappeared.

Still, the Obama administration has been trying to rectify some its earlier mistakes. It has since tried to clarify that the US was neither trying to 'negotiate' a dialogue between India and Pakistan nor pressure the two to resume bilateral talks.

As Clinton underlined in India, "Discussion between India and Pakistan is between India and Pakistan." But such rhetoric has not changed India's feeling that despite its great restraint in the aftermath of Mumbai terror attacks [ Images ] in dealing with Pakistan, the Obama administration seems intent on sidelining Indian concerns.

Nothing perhaps highlights the shift in the relationship more than Obama's deep concern about strengthening the non-proliferation regime. It is troubling for India that it was the Obama administration that effectively persuaded the G-8 countries to issue a declaration at the recent summit in L'Aquila, committing the advanced industrial world to implement on a 'national basis' the proposals to strengthen controls on enrichment and reprocessing (ENR) items and technology, contained in the Nuclear Supplier Group meeting.

This latest G-8 statement on banning the ENR items to countries that are not signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (which India is not) has raised questions about the future of the US-India nuclear pact that promised 'full civilian and nuclear cooperation' to India.

Although the US never promised ENR technology to India, its role in encouraging others to deny it strengthens those in India who have always claimed that the US can never be a reliable strategic partner of India.

When the new Obama administration toyed with the idea of G-2, a global condominium of the US and China whereby China looks after and 'manages' the Asia-Pacific, this elicited strong negative reactions from US allies in the region. Hence, the US decided to change course. Now the talk is of G-3 -- a forum that would bring the US, China and Japan [ Images ] together this month for the first time. This is primarily aimed at pacifying a Japan that felt marginalised by the growing cosiness between the US and China.

Given the heavy US economic dependence on Beijing [ Images ], a G-2 (or for that matter a G-3) makes perfect sense for the US, but it leaves India marginalised in the strategic scheme of things. From being viewed as a rising power and a balancer in the Asia-Pacific region, India is now back to being seen as a regional South Asian actor whose only relevance for the US is in making sure that Pakistan fights the Taliban with full vigour without getting preoccupied in Kashmir.

The smaller countries of East and Southeast Asia, not to mention India's immediate neighbours who are being wooed by China, cannot but note the shifting balance of power that Washington's manoeuvring signals and thus adjust their own policies. Would the countries be as willing to build stronger ties with India if they see it being marginalised by the US? How would it affect their attitude towards the Asian behemoth in the rising G-2?

These unfavourable shifts make it more than necessary for India to find ways to ameliorate the balance of power in the region. There is some irony in the fact that when the Bush administration wanted to woo India, domestic politics constrained India's options. Today, when there is a stronger government in New Delhi, Washington seems no longer interested.

At the regional level, India needs to establish certain guidelines that any Af-Pak strategy would need to address. Indian security concerns are genuine and they have been ignored for far too long by the West and the US in particular, despite the fact that India and the US share a common interest in the stabilisation of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

India cannot be expected to cooperate fully with Pakistan and thus help the US strategy in Afghanistan if Pakistan remains unwilling to dismantle the terror infrastructure in its territory targeted against India. American pressure to do more will only create a domestic backlash in New Delhi and further weaken the relations which were otherwise on a rising course.

It will also be short-sighted of the Obama administration to downgrade India's status. On almost all the priority issues on the global agenda -- climate change, non-proliferation, trade negotiations -- India remains a pivotal player and a India-US partnership is the best route to achieve favourable outcomes.

The Obama administration will have to do more than merely suggest that it understands Indian concerns. As Clinton discovered in her talks on the environment, a rising India is also a more assertive India and US foreign policy will not be able to achieve its objectives by ignoring Indian interests.

pgbhat
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4128
Joined: 16 Dec 2008 21:47
Location: Hayden's Ferry

Re: India-US News and Discussion

Postby pgbhat » 06 Aug 2009 10:31

Special Contacts Aided Release
The article is about the release of US journalists from NoKo... but had this info about Hillary Clinton visit to India.
Bill Clinton's Rolodex is so vast that Hillary Clinton cannot help but bump into members of his network.

On her trip to India last month, she sat next to another one of her husband's donors, Mukesh Ambani, during a meeting in Mumbai with a group of Indian business tycoons. The European subsidiary of Ambani's Reliance Holdings contributed as much as $250,000 to the Clinton Foundation.

During the meeting, Ambani called for the establishment of joint institutions between the United States and India to develop "clean technology." As it happens, the Clinton Foundation is in talks in India with the provincial government of Gujarat to create the world's largest single solar-power project -- and Reliance is also lining up solar projects in the state. Complicating matters further, Reliance is one of the biggest suppliers of refined gasoline to Iran and could be targeted under congressional efforts to cut off Iran's supply of gasoline.

shravan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2201
Joined: 03 Apr 2009 00:08

Re: India-US News and Discussion

Postby shravan » 06 Aug 2009 11:59

http://www.nyccan.org/

NY Supreme Court Appoints Referee to Oversee Revalidation of
Rejected Signatures

August 4, 2009

New York City–On Monday, August 3, 2009, the New York Supreme Court appointed an independent referee to oversee a line-by-line review of the NYC CAN petition signatures that were declared invalid by the New York City Clerk and Board of Elections. Dennis P. McMahon, a volunteer attorney assisting the petitioners and NYC CAN at this stage of the process, appeared before Supreme Court Justice Edward H. Lehner who issued the ruling in accordance with the petitioners' request.

----

Unanswered Questions

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15995
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: India-US News and Discussion

Postby RajeshA » 06 Aug 2009 13:28

There is a very real difference between Republican and Democratic Administrations.

The Republicans value friendship and 'loyalty'. The Democrats value sulk and antagonism. It is not to say that India should give unconditional friendship and loyalty to the Republicans, but it does say that the Democrats should be taken to town for their policies.

The best outcome for 2012 would be if the Republicans come back to power. They are much more suspicious of China than the Democrats. They also care much less about disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation, something at the time, unfavorable to India, as that what Obama has in mind would be awarding China and punishing India.

In the election of 2012, Obama needs to be attacked on Foreign Policy, left, right and center, and India should start going into this attack mode, of course, as a Friend of USA, mid 2011. We should criticize all Obama policies regarding South Asia, AfPak. Secondly it is important that India gives no victories to Obama all these years - no victory on Climate Change, no victory on nuclear Non-Proliferation, no victory on Trade Talks.

In 2011, the GWoT would have moved on to Pakistan. Here is the place to fry Obama's butt. He should be getting brickbats from all neighbors of Pakistan, from Pakistan itself, from India, from Iran. Pakistan should be Obama's graveyard.

In the mean time, India should build upon bilateral Indo-US trade relations, military relations, scientific cooperation, US Congress lobbying and State Dept. relations.

Obama should not get more than a few tactical concessions from India.

Can India tolerate Obama for another 7 and a half years?

Hari Seldon
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9255
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 12:47
Location: University of Trantor

Re: India-US News and Discussion

Postby Hari Seldon » 06 Aug 2009 14:18

Can India tolerate Obama for another 7 and a half years?


India has tolerated Papistan for 60 years. Can there be a more lofty tribute to the tolerance fetish?

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15995
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: India-US News and Discussion

Postby RajeshA » 06 Aug 2009 14:21

Hari Seldon wrote:
Can India tolerate Obama for another 7 and a half years?


India has tolerated Papistan for 60 years. Can there be a more lofty tribute to the tolerance fetish?

I meant 'should'. :mrgreen:

Bade
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7212
Joined: 23 May 2002 11:31
Location: badenberg in US administered part of America

Re: India-US News and Discussion

Postby Bade » 06 Aug 2009 20:22

Petitions for US worker green cards down sharply

This maybe good news for India. We should not be exporting our engineers and scientists and other highly qualified people for free. OTOH, we should encourage more of other less skilled workers to emigrate. We need more gas station owners, motel owners, restaurants and other soft power creation in this part of the world. Entire Bollywood nut cases should be exported to US to create a soft power base. Maybe, locals here are tired of the usual Hollywood crap that is doled out with slick cinematography. And if we can export our poor that would be give them some immediate relief perhaps.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21166
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: India-US News and Discussion

Postby Prem » 06 Aug 2009 23:06

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Family ... ganization)

A reporter on Bill Maher Show was explaining their role and seemed darn dirty world out there .

World Vision (Tried Tsunami Victims Conversion Attmepts In Chennai) is identified as a sister organization in the Fellowship Foundation's IRS Form 990 for 2001.[75]

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: India-US News and Discussion

Postby svinayak » 06 Aug 2009 23:26

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Family ... ganization)

By 1957, ICL had established 125 groups in 100 cities, with 16 groups in Washington, D.C. alone. Around the world, it had set up another 125 groups in Canada, Britain, Germany, France, Northern Ireland, Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Switzerland, Italy, Greece, Turkey, Lebanon, Ethiopia (where Emperor Haile Selassie gave ICL property in Addis Ababa to build its African headquarters), India, South Vietnam, Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, Philippines, Australia, New Zealand, Guatemala, Cuba, Costa Rica, Mexico, and Bermuda. ICL’s international activities coincided with activities in countries where the CIA was particularly active – an obvious by-product of the close cooperation between Vereide and the CIA’s Allen Dulles and James Jesus Angleton. Angleton and his close associate, Miles Copeland, favored using private businessmen to conduct operations that the CIA was barred from conducting statutorily. The ICL fit the bill very nicely.


As reported by Andrea Mitchell and Jim Popkin for NBC News, Fellowship leader Doug Coe repeatedly urges a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that he compares to the blind devotion that Adolf Hitler demanded from his followers.[18] Coe has stated "Hitler, Goebbels and Himmler were three men. Think of the immense power these three men had, these nobodies from nowhere," and later in the same sermon: "Jesus said, ‘You have to put me before other people. And you have to put me before yourself.' Hitler, that was the demand to be in the Nazi party. You have to put the Nazi party and its objectives ahead of your own life and ahead of other people."[18]

Doug Coe also refers to the Fellowship as the "Christian Mafia" and is on record saying that he tries to make the group act like the Mafia because the more invisible you can make your organization, the more influence it will have.[19]

In its emphasis on secrecy and its attempts to influence government policies and extensive links to America's leading politicians, the operation of the Family raises questions regarding the separation of church and state. At least one influential Family member, Senator Mark Pryor, stated that through the Family he had learned that the separation of church and state was a sort of secular exaggeration and that “Jesus did not come to bring peace. Jesus came to take over.”[19]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Coe

In 2000, Coe met with top economic officials of Pakistan as a "special envoy" of Fellowship member Representative Joe Pitts. Coe and President George H.W. Bush hosted luncheon with Iraq's ambassador to the United States in the mid-1980s.

Coe was a member of the United States delegation which accompanied First Lady Hillary Clinton to the 1997 funeral of Mother Theresa.[14]

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: India-US News and Discussion

Postby Gerard » 07 Aug 2009 01:29


ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54696
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India-US News and Discussion

Postby ramana » 07 Aug 2009 02:53

So GOAT is over after becoming Bhakra?

AnimeshP
BRFite
Posts: 514
Joined: 01 Dec 2008 07:39

Re: India-US News and Discussion

Postby AnimeshP » 07 Aug 2009 04:08



Hmmm ... now are the Taliban officially considered Al-Qaeda's violent allies by the US? Is the US reducing the scope of its mission in Af-Pak and planning on getting out ?

tripathi
BRFite
Posts: 168
Joined: 11 Dec 2008 12:35

Re: India-US News and Discussion

Postby tripathi » 07 Aug 2009 06:02

earlier the US get out of Afghanistan better for india

John Snow
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 00:44

Re: India-US News and Discussion

Postby John Snow » 07 Aug 2009 06:40

No no US must vanquish the Taliban and stay in Afghanistan for ever...

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10248
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: India-US News and Discussion

Postby arun » 08 Aug 2009 22:49

John Bolton recognises the all consuming obsession of the Pakistan Military with India and the concomitant need to keep control of nuclear weapons as the “ultimate defense against India”.

He therefore fears that an Islamist takeover in Pakistan will dilute this US comfort in control of nuclear weapons being vested in the Pakistan military as the Islamists would undoubtedly point some of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons away from India.

Recognising that compared to the Pakistan Military, the Pakistan Islamist’s are for India a less malignant force simply because unlike the Pakistani Military the malevolence of the Pakistani Islamist is less focussed on India, time I think for the Indian Foreign Policy establishment to take a similar unsentimental stand setting aside any regard for "notional allies" :wink: and act to protect our national interests by promoting any group in Pakistan that will undercut the military:

Child Soldiers: Kidnapped by the Taliban, Trained for Terror

Friday, August 07, 2009 Fox News ..................

VAN SUSTEREN: All right, so now you have the Pakistani army, which is the best that's going on there for us, and you've got them fighting the Taliban in the northern part of the country, and if they are ineffective to keep even children from being taken from their homes, even protecting the children, why in the world should we think that they're so effective in protecting their nuclear arsenal? It sounds like an infiltrated or an overwhelmed military, at best.

BOLTON: Increasingly at risk of being fragmented. Obviously, the nuclear weapons are Pakistan's ultimate defense against India. So the military's done its best to keep them under control.

But that was even before the Islamists began working their way through the military hierarchy. That's one reason we're at risk. We haven't paid enough attention to this problem over the years, so we're down in a pretty difficult situation.

VAN SUSTEREN: So what do we do?

BOLTON: Well, I think you've got to try and use the pro-western, pro- American parts of the Pakistani military to work with us. I think we made a mistake in effectively forcing President Musharraf out of office, and I think a lot of people in Pakistan understand that now.

This is a divided country. It's not entirely against us. But we are in a desperate and really end-game struggle here.......................

Fox News

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Re: India-US News and Discussion

Postby Arun_S » 10 Aug 2009 02:53

Not sure if posted erlier
She's Back : B. Raman
Indo-US-Pak

Robin Raphel, notorious in India in the 1990s for her role in getting J&K declared as a “disputed territory”, is now reported to be joining the team of Richard Holbrooke for the Af-Pak region

The News, the Pakistani daily, has reported on August 3, 2009, that the Barack Obama Administration has decided to appoint Robin Raphel, who was a Counselor for Political Affairs in the US Embassy in New Delhi from 1991 to 1993 and subsequently became the Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs in the Bill Clinton Administration, as a member of the team of Richard Holbrooke, the Special Representative to the Af-Pak region.

According to the paper, she will be based in Pakistan and will co-ordinate the implementation of the plan for non-military assistance to Pakistan. She is expected to arrive in Pakistan on August 14, 2009.

During her posting in the US Embassy in New Delhi, she was actively interacting with the various anti-India groups in Jammu & Kashmir and it was reportedly on her advice that the Hurriyat, as an umbrella organization of these groups, became very active.

After Bill Clinton assumed office as the President in January,1993, she joined the State Department as the Assistant Secretary of State in charge of South Asian Affairs under Warren Christopher, who was the Secretary of State. It used to be said that she knew the Clintons from her younger days and this gave her easy access to the President despite her junior position in the State Department. She exploited this to prevent Pakistan being declared as a state sponsor of terrorism after the Mumbai blasts of March,1993.

It was during her tenure as the Assistant Secretary of State that the Clinton Administration declared Jammu & Kashmir as a “disputed territory” and started calling for the resolution of the dispute between India and Pakistan over the Kashmir issue in accordance with the wishes of the Kashmiri people. This refrain has once again been taken up by the Obama Administration.

Towards the end of 1993, during a non-attributable discussion with some Indian journalists in Washington DC she reportedly defended this formulation and contended that the US considered the Kashmiri territory transferred by Pakistan to China in 1963 when Ayub Khan was the President also as disputed territory, whose future was yet to be decided. The Times of India prominently carried this story on the front page without identifying the official of the State Department who had talked to the Indian journalists on the Kashmir issue. Enquiries made by the government of India identified the official as Robin Raphel.

It was during her stewardship of the South Asian Affairs portfolio in the State Department that the Taliban under Mulla Mohammad Omar came into existence in 1994 with the joint support of the Pakistan and US Governments. The Taliban was prepared to support the construction of an oil and gas pipeline by UNOCAL, an American oil company, from Turkmenistan to Pakistan via Afghanistan and she had met Mulla Mohammad Omar in this connection. This period also saw Osama bin Laden shift from Khartoum to Jalalabad in 1996 without any objection from the US. The Taliban later shifted him to Kandahar.

Even after she left the State Department and joined the faculty of the National Defence University, she reportedly maintained active contacts with anti-India elements in J&K.

The News has correctly described her as “one known to be Pakistan’s friend”. She is.

B. Raman is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai.

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Re: India-US News and Discussion

Postby Arun_S » 10 Aug 2009 03:14

nuclear energy: compensation: Writing Out An Anticipatory Bail: The Spill Bill Is Here. The nuclear liability bill rests only on a clear bias towards foreign suppliers

Pranay Sharma

What’s the proposed Civilian Nuclear Liability Bill about?

It seeks to cap the level of compensation (likely at $450 million) in the event of an accident and makes the operator, not the supplier, liable for it.

Are the operator and the supplier different?

Yes, the Nuclear Power Corporation of India will be the operator; the suppliers are big foreign companies like America’s GE and Westinghouse and France’s Areva.

Is the supplier liable to pay compensation?

No, it’s exclusively the operator’s liability, though it can enter into an agreement with the supplier to share the burden of compensation.

Why a cap on compensation?

Insurance companies don’t provide cover for unlimited liability



“A nuclear accident could occur due to faulty equipment or design, so the supplier should be made liable.”



. Compensation over and above the fixed amount will be the Indian government’s responsibility.

Why do critics feel the bill favours American companies?

Unlike the French and Russian firms, which are either fully or partly owned by the government, the US companies are all privately owned. Had the supplier been made liable, these companies would have found it difficult to get an insurance cover—even for a compensation of $450 million. In contrast, French and Russian companies have their governments to bail them out. Without this legislation, American companies would have been muscled out.

What is the government’s stand?

Unless there’s a domestic liability regime, no foreign company will invest in the civil nuclear field. Without it, India is unlikely to be eligible for other funds from foreign bodies if a nuclear meltdown or a major accident takes place.

Is a compensation of $450 million adequate?
Certainly not. For instance, the compensation paid by Union Carbide to the
victims of the 1984 Bhopal Gas Tragedy was just $470 million, according to one estimate, it amounted to nine cents per day per person over the 19 years since the incident occurred. Initial official death toll was 3,000; subsequent deaths were nearly 15,000; people disabled permanently totalled 50,000. A nuclear disaster will have much wider and far-reaching negative consequences than what happened in Bhopal.

The worst nuclear accident:

Chernobyl disaster, Ukraine, 1986. Over 50 people died at the plant. An estimated 65,000 died from Chernobyl over the years; 400,000 people from neighbouring areas of Ukraine, Belarus and Russia were evacuated and an “exclusion zone” of 3,000 sq km was created and deemed off limits for human habitation for an indefinite period.

***

The Indo-US nuclear deal simply refuses to go away, goading activists to engage in a furious debate over a contemplated legislation. Called the Civil Nuclear Liability Bill, it’s considered imperative to lure foreign players into the lucrative civil nuclear energy sector. But its provisions have raised serious questions over the government providing access to foreign nuclear companies, particularly those of the United States, to the Indian market without holding them responsible for the severe repercussions of any accident. This debate also has the echo of that familiar question: is nuclear energy a viable option for India?

There are two contentious aspects of the proposed bill. One, it proposes to cap the level of compensation at $450 million in the event of an accident at a nuclear facility. Two, the responsibility for paying this compensation will rest on the operator (likely to be the Nuclear Power Corporation) and not the supplier or foreign companies building and installing reactors in India. “Even from the free market point of view, such a proposal is totally flawed,” says writer-activist Nityanand Jairaman. His argument: since an accident in a nuclear plant could take place because of faulty design or substandard equipment, the supplier too should be held liable.

But the Indian industry thinks otherwise. A recent FICCI working group report on civil nuclear energy, chaired by Nuclear Power Corporation chairman S.K. Jain said, “It’s advisable that the liability for nuclear damages in India be solely attached to the operator of the nuclear installation. The rationale is further augmented by the fact that any activity, whether in respect of supply or services, is being utilised for the operator and not otherwise.”

In a nutshell, this means the supplier—foreign companies like France’s Areva SA, Russia’s Rosatom Corp and US giants GE and Westinghouse—will reap huge profits by setting up nuclear reactors and selling their technologies, but will not be required to pay compensation in case of a nuclear accident at their plants. It will also be the operator’s liability to seek insurance cover for a maximum limit of $450 million. Compensation over and above this amount would be borne by the Indian government. The FICCI report, however, adds a caveat—the operator and supplier could enter into a private contract to share the compensation burden.

Says Praful Bidwai, writer and a member of the Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace, told Outlook, “This is being done under the combined pressure of the US and Indian industry, both of which are keen to get a share of the Indian civil nuclear energy pie.” However, the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE), responsible for formulating the proposed legislation, says putting a cap on compensation is an international practice. The reason, say DAE officials, is simple—a nuclear accident can cause colossal damages and raise demands for inconceivable compensation amounts. Typically, insurance companies are not willing to underwrite unlimited compensation. Consequently the cap.

But why absolve the supplier from liability? Activists allege this proviso has been introduced to enable the American companies to enter the Indian market. It’s easy for the French and Russian companies, which are either completely or partially owned by their governments, to buy an insurance cover for the earmarked $450-million. Since the two US companies are privately owned (though Japanese firms now have major stakes in them), finding an insurance cover would have been a gargantuan task. Without the bill absolving the supplier of liability, the Americans run the risk of being edged out of the Indian market, estimated to be worth over $200 billion.

“We’re only trying to create a level playing field,” justifies a South Block official, saying the legislation will help attract investment in the civil nuclear energy sector. Critics, however, accuse the UPA government of favouring the Americans who, during US secretary of state Hillary Clinton’s recent visit, managed to secure a site each in Andhra and Gujarat for nuclear plants (worth $10 billion) based on US technology.

Interestingly, three international conventions—the Paris Convention (1960), the Vienna Convention (revised in 1997) and the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage (CSC)—also attempt to provide such indemnity to the global nuclear industry. The CSC, however, hasn’t yet come to force as it has been ratified by only three countries. Arguing that it is essential to have a CNL (Civil Nuclear Liability) framework to attract foreign investment and technologies in the civil nuclear energy field, DAE officials also hold out the imminent possibility of India signing and ratifying the Vienna Convention and the CSC. They feel this could help India access larger and “multi-layered” compensation from international sources.

But critics say the funds generated through these measures would hardly suffice, pointing to the scale of damage wrought by the Chernobyl nuclear disaster to bolster their point. Closer home, activists point to the experience of the 1984 Bhopal gas tragedy and say the $470 million as compensation was grossly insufficient (see infographic). “It’s unfortunate that a negative lesson is being learnt from the Bhopal gas tragedy,” says Satinath Sarangi of the International Campaign for Justice in Bhopal. He feels the $450-million cap and transfer of liability to the operator has been done because American companies, after their experience in Bhopal, are wary of entering the Indian civil nuclear market unless they receive guarantees of not being held culpable in an accident.

The resistance to the bill, the draft of which is ready, has set the stage for the Opposition to accuse the UPA of succumbing to “US pressure” yet again.

http://outlookindia.com/article.aspx?261236

Virupaksha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 3110
Joined: 28 Jun 2007 06:36

Re: India-US News and Discussion

Postby Virupaksha » 10 Aug 2009 03:25


a sad day for India :(

When 14000 dead are not enough for a country to learn ANY lessons, what can I say to this new US lapdog? :evil:

Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Re: India-US News and Discussion

Postby Sanjay M » 10 Aug 2009 04:27

As I've been saying, to the consternation of our foreign-loyalist moderators, Kaangress needs a foreign patron to keep them in power, so that they can retain their perks and privileges. This means Kaangress has sold out our national interest without even the slightest hesitation.

We really are just a 3rd world African-style country. Not only do we have politicians of that level and calibre, but we have a public who would vote for them like sheep. The big powers have gone this route with us, because they see us for what we really are, and not as we would like to see ourselves.

The Kaangress are the weakest link in our political fabric. Their motto is "Party First, Country Last"

Now let's wait for our foreign-loyalist moderators to delete my post, since that's part of earning their paycheque.

Chinmayanand
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2585
Joined: 05 Oct 2008 16:01
Location: Mansarovar
Contact:

Re: India-US News and Discussion

Postby Chinmayanand » 10 Aug 2009 05:15

In contrast, French and Russian companies have their governments to bail them out. Without this legislation, American companies would have been muscled out.

:evil: :twisted: :evil: :twisted: :evil: :twisted: :evil: :twisted: :evil: :twisted:
India Today = India sold out to the devil :cry:


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests