It was a big folly ofthe PM to first agree with US for the deal, without taking nod from the parteners Or the people as such. If the deal is really that useful for the country and clean,then Congress could have first taken the house/nation into confidence, rather than showing this poor image now.
RE:RE:Why congress could not take people in confidence first?
by Sriram R on Oct 25, 2007 03:56 PM Permalink
If the PM had waited for the nod from all partners we wold not even have progresed to this stage. Like communists everywhere (with the exception of China) Indian communists are the greatest internal threat to the country and deserve to be wiped out soon. We have seen their hypocrisy in Nandigram.
first the author should tell that can indian security forces secure more number of nuke plants from growing terrorism in india?.......can nuke plants avoid leaks due to earth quakes?......can an chernobyl be avoided with setting up of more number of nuke plants and also present one?.......this is an country where bhopal gas tragedy can occur due to negigence.....imagine if it is an nuclear plant, the destruction will be enormous forever and generations to come........
RE:nuked
by My Reminiscence on Oct 25, 2007 03:46 PM Permalink
India is already operating 5 nuclear plants and keeping them away from terrorists. We never refrained from sending rokets because of naxalites or terrorists. Development should never stop because of panic due to terrorism.
Did anyone ever avoided travelling on road because of accidents. Did anyone ever stop flying because of plane crashes. So is the case with Nuclear Energy.
If we are not prepared for the extintion of fossil fuels, all will remain will be utter darkness. Then nobody will terrorise us. Who will trouble a country which is already in deep crisis.
RE:Whats the treaty
by rajesh kannan on Oct 25, 2007 03:28 PM Permalink
Very Simple: India will get Uranium to use for eelctricity production, LEFT funded by China and IRAN do not want the Deal thats all
RE:Whats the treaty
by ashish g on Oct 25, 2007 04:21 PM Permalink
I am not clear about what china and Iran have in Mind. Also, If left are paid for then why do they worry about China and Iran funding.
RE:RE:Whats the treaty
by ashish g on Oct 25, 2007 03:39 PM Permalink
Does left had had any clear reasons to justify their stand other than they being ignored in taking decision.
1. Involve every party member (Intellectuals) before starting any such major discussions and take collective decisions. 2. Share the success and failures both. 3. And don't try to hang-on US, they are the ones who are trying to de-stabilize the whole world.
RE:Learn from Mistakes
by gautam shah on Oct 25, 2007 03:27 PM Permalink
IT IS NOT OR BIZ WHETHER USA IS CRAFTY. WE HAVE TO SEE OUR ADVANTAGE AND SIGN THE DEAL. FURTHER, LEFT PARTY IS NOT EXPERIENCED ENOUGH TO DISCUSS ON SUCH GLOBAL MATTERS. WE HAVE TO RESPECT THE CHANGING TIMES & NEEDS. NO COUNTRY CAN BUY INDIA. THE SAME THING WAS SAID BY LEFT WHEN THE COUNTRY WAS OPNEDD UP ECONOMICALLY. WE HAVE THE RESULT IN FRONT OF US. IF LEFT WAS BELEIVED, WE WOULD HAVE BEEN STILL A BACKWARD COUNTRY
I dont know why these politicians are crying about this Treaty. Left front please read the article and take decision in the interest of Nations pride, don't see your own political milestone. Please give a thought and do something in nations interest. Otherwise you also know that this is domecratic country and people of India will throw you out of scenario.
The communist leaders do not want tie with the US but their sons and daughters are educated in the US and most are even doing jobs there. Just an example: Son of CPI's general secy. A B Bardhan is a professor of Economics at University of California, Berkeley. These commies want their sons and daughters to go to US and settle there, while opposing everything related to the US. Hypocrites. Sons of b*itches. Morons.
RE:Communists are hypocrites
by mahesh soni on Oct 25, 2007 03:30 PM Permalink
I can tell one thing for sure Communists are chinese agents and they are much harmful then pakistan.
