India loses maximum lives to terror except Iraq
Jump to Page:
< Previous [ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] Next >
Posted on: 28-08-07 10:28:48
Quote:
Originally posted by puttoo
Well when Jaswant singh went to Afgahanistan ... it was a country that India had no control over.... right now afghanistan has troops from all over the western world, what difference has that made. The Koreans had to make a deal with the Taliban under the very nose of a super power and whole of NATO. Some way of dealing with terrorists.
dont want to sound sarcastic; but I feel India has no control over it self looking at the on going mockery - from choosing head of state to foreign policy to nuke deal to neighbours to state administration. Read a quote some where - India has 3 PM's; PM M Singh, Super PM Sonia Maino & CPM - Chinese PM aka Bardhan, Karat & Co.
Quote:
Originally posted by coolcola
dont want to sound sarcastic; but I feel India has no control over it self looking at the on going mockery - from choosing head of state to foreign policy to nuke deal to neighbours to state administration. Read a quote some where - India has 3 PM's; PM M Singh, Super PM Sonia Maino & CPM - Chinese PM aka Bardhan, Karat & Co.
Debate is always healthy .... i might not agree with what left is doing , but they also represent a section of society. So in all fairness what is happening in India is that demoracy is at work .... voices of different sections of India are being heard....
Look at US ..... the democrats and even some republicans are openly going against the foreign policy of the president .... so in what way is India's position different?
Quote:
Originally posted by puttoo
Quote:
Originally posted by coolcola
dont want to sound sarcastic; but I feel India has no control over it self looking at the on going mockery - from choosing head of state to foreign policy to nuke deal to neighbours to state administration. Read a quote some where - India has 3 PM's; PM M Singh, Super PM Sonia Maino & CPM - Chinese PM aka Bardhan, Karat & Co.
Debate is always healthy .... i might not agree with what left is doing , but they also represent a section of society. So in all fairness what is happening in India is that demoracy is at work .... voices of different sections of India are being heard....
Look at US ..... the democrats and even some republicans are openly going against the foreign policy of the president .... so in what way is India's position different?
The difference is when so called Indian's promote the foreign policy at the behest of non-Indian's (am not referring to Sonia G's origins).
CPM deplored the Indian government at world stage for conducting nuke test in '98 & now are objecting to the deal with US saying it prohibits India from performing nuke tests along with others.
In another instance, CPM forced the Central gov to grant not just the project but also visa to 1000 chinese engineers to work on a gas project in Andhra Pradesh despite the objections of RAW due to national secrecy & security.
US Dem's & Rep's do use & take advantage what ever suits US interest, but certainly not at the behest of a foreign country.
BTW, this has totally digressed from the OP's topic & would sure not intend to continue on it.
Quote:
Originally posted by coolcola
The difference is when so called Indian's promote the foreign policy at the behest of non-Indian's (am not referring to Sonia G's origins).
US Dem's & Rep's do use & take advantage what ever suits US interest, but certainly not at the behest of a foreign country.
BTW, this has totally digressed from the OP's topic & would sure not intend to continue on it.
Sonia's foreign origins.... think we passed this debate in the last century so let us move on ...... even Barack Obama is called by some Republican commentators as B Hussain Obama ..... as for the senators taking care for US foreign policy .... when US state department was calling for action against Syria .... Senator Palosi was in Syria trying to start a "dialogue"with them .....
dont know on whose behest she was working on .......
My post was loud thinking on my part. Just wondering why such terrible poverty, killings and many other ills I stated in my post do not become hot spots for discussion and debate. Democracy is about rewarding public good and punishing bad policies. However, Indians have been so divided and perhaps money oriented that miseries of others do not affect them. I believe that if citizens are not tolerant of violence, corruption or shameless vote bank politics, then no political party would indulge or dare to take measures which are against the interest of the nation or citizens. In this sense I commented that Indians have perhaps become desensitized. Reason for such complacency and self centeredness may be due to the fact that they do not have options. So called leaders in ALL the parties are senile and without morals. In my college days I was admirer of communism but after coming in to contact with couple of local leaders and watching them closely, I was soon disillusioned. Later on Jaiprakash Narayan was my idol but seems India has bad luck and he died too soon like Sardar Vallabhbhai. Have leaders failed Indians? Or as is said, we deserve such leaders. I have been born and brought up in India for 40 years and I have had luck to be friend with some excellent and very nice people. In fact I believe that a great majority of Indians are very honest and nice people but was just wondering loudly that why then India has so many problems? Lord Krishna has promised that He will take birth when Bharat has problems. Perhaps we have not reached nadir.
