Shame on Left parties and BJP as well for asking the vote of confidence immediately. All are lustful for power and nobody cares about India. As long manmohan is there as PM I will vote for congress.
these bloody muslims....till yesterday they were opposing the nuclear deal and bush.....but today since BJP, RSS is against the nuclear deal then these muslims have done a 360 degree turn to support the nuclear deal??????/
why muslims fear BJP so much????????? can any muslim answer???????
RE:why muslims
by Guest on Jul 08, 2008 12:38 AM Permalink
Why you are asking from Muslim? This type of statement make difference among us. So, please don't do this. For your information, foriegn policy of Congress and BJP are same. BJP is opposing because this deal will make the India's progress very fast but all the credit will goes to Congress now.
RE:why muslims
by RB on Jul 08, 2008 12:33 AM Permalink
because BJP and RSS are the real enemies of our nation who helped British during freedom struggle. These fanatics were working as spies to British and now for other nations. They are the killer of Gandhi so we will never forgive them......
RE:why muslims
by indianpatriot on Jul 08, 2008 12:38 AM Permalink
katlu whole world knows who supported the british......BRITISH used the DIVIDE AND RULE POLICY since katlus lost their power after 1600 AD.
Katlus were ruling india for 600 years and katlus wanted to rule india again in 1947...so BRISTISH cleverly used DIVIDE AND RULE to Divide India.
Gandhi was a KATLU lover who created 2 KATLU countries and asked the katlus to stay back in India.
RE:why muslims
by Raj on Jul 08, 2008 12:46 AM Permalink
indianpatriot - read the history- Siraj ud daulah, haider Ali, Tipu Sultan, Bahdurshah zafar and his two sons, One million muslim during 1857 give thier lives for country-
Name any RSS/BJP leader who gave is life for country- you bloody slaves of british.....
RE:why muslims
by chowdhary faheem raza on Jul 08, 2008 12:53 AM Permalink
Mr Indian Patriot actually you are BJP & RSS patriot. Idiot BJP is not against Nuclear deal at all they just wants some amendment only in this deal. If we can get some benifits from pakistan then we should go for it. pakistan is our enemy no. one is different thing. We need power on any cost. I think u you dont know that still thousands of villages in our country is without power. Still we are opposing the US and Dog Bush. There is no problem in nuclear deal it will help out India form power crisis. until and unless out currupt politians and officers do there work honestly. "THINK AGAIN BEFORE USING THIS SORT OF LANGUAGE" what ever language u have used for us.
Mr Karat and company wanted to visit Beijing during Olympics at any cost. China had promised to send an aircraft to Purulia in West Bengal since they knew the geography of the area well. Now that Mr Singh will be inking the deal China may say no for the Trip. So all the Left comrades are up in arms and are planning to withdraw support. What a Joke.
This para clearly tells how Pranav Mukherjee is telling lies to our country....
The Hyde Act The Hyde Act contains several restrictive clauses. For instance, if India tests a nuclear weapon, the United States will cease all civilian nuclear cooperation. There are restrictions on the reprocessing of spent fuel. The Hyde Act also provides for a multilayered system of monitoring of reactors. The United States insists that India agree to these conditions before getting a waiver from the NSG. But India has said that it will accept only an “unconditional” waiver from the NSG, “We want a clean exemption for India without any condition,” reiterated Anil Kakodkar, chairman of India’s Atomic Energy Commission, when the U.S. senators were in New Delhi.
Rice’s statement exposes the Indian government’s claim that the Hyde Act has no bearing on India. “Whatever is said in the Hyde Act is not binding on us,” Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherji told the Indian parliament in August 2007. “How they deal with this is their problem.”
RE:This is from FPIF(US's Foreign policy Doc.)
by Ian on Jul 08, 2008 12:45 AM Permalink
With the UPA government poised to move forward on the nuclear deal, concerns have resurfaced in the US about how President George W Bush has given away ``too much and got far too little’’ from India.
The New York Times editorial, entitled ``No Rush Please’’, said that Mr Bush, who is “eager for any foreign policy win” before the end of his term, is pushing Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to move forward on the nuclear deal.
“As far as we’re concerned, there is no reason at all to rush. President Bush gave away far too much and got far too little for this deal,” the editorial said, and added, ``No promise from India to stop producing bomb-making material. No promise not to expand its arsenal. And no promise not to resume nuclear testing.’’
The editorial further suggested that the IAEA and NSG should impose certain conditions on India. The minimum conditions suggested by the editorial include cessation of international nuclear commerce if India tests a nuclear weapon as it did in 1998 and “fullest possible monitoring’’ of India’s civilian nuclear facilities by IAEA inspectors.
``The United States must ensure that any rule the suppliers’ group adopts for selling technology to India is not weaker than anything already in American law. Otherwise, New Delhi will be able to end run Washington and buy technology and fuel from states — like Russia and France — that are even more eager for the b
RE:This is from FPIF(US's Foreign policy Doc.)
by All Right on Jul 08, 2008 12:27 AM Permalink
nickerwallahs point out that 1-2-3 Agreement is over-ridden by the Hyde Act. For one thing, an international treaty over-rides national laws. Even for argument sake the reverse holds true, what does the 1-2-3 Agreement say:
Article 2, Para 1 of the 123 agreement text released on August 3, 2007 clearly states:
"The Parties shall cooperate in the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. Each Party shall implement this Agreement "in accordance with its respective applicable treaties, national laws," regulations, and license requirements concerning the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes."
So there is no mention of Hyde Act specifically. Only indirectly through "national laws". But this mention of "national laws" is mutual. This means if Hyde Act is a domestic law of the US, we can have a law exactly reverse of the Hyde Act. In a dispute, we are bound by our national laws while the US is to theirs creating a gridlock.
So the argument of Hyde Act is only a bogey used by commies and Knickerwallahs to confuse the public
Of our 22 reactors, 14 will be placed under IAEA supervision, and 8 can be used for military puposes. but more importantly India has retained the right to develop future breeder reactors for its military program. This is a major concession as it means that Russia can build a few more reactors for us and these will not be monitored.
RE:This is from FPIF(US's Foreign policy Doc.)
by IT Coolie from Infosys on Jul 08, 2008 12:44 AM Permalink
The fact of the matter is that that USA is the most powerfull nation on the earth where as India is virtually nothing so USA can act whatever the way it wants. If India refuses to toe USA's line USA will kick INDIA at its back. So far as Hyde Act is concerned, USA is bound by that law so whatever 123 agreement says, Hyde Act can overrule that. If India does not agree with Hyde Act in future, then USA wont loose anything because by that time INDIA would have spent billions of dollars on reactors. Have some comman sense dear.
I was surprised to see Left parties getting so many seats...thanks for Bengal, Kerela, and Tripura rigged polls. Guys, don't let them come to power if you want to see a improved India. Left parties need to be Left-Aside. They are not upto the generation. Anyway, the party will die soon, as young generations anywhere in the country don't support them, and hence no youth joins them.
My dear left comrades.......stop this damki and go for it.....face election and see what number you guys return with... i wish there was a way by which party resposible for mid term election has to foot election expenses of government if they dont get as many seats they had before.
