India to back UN on action against Syria

[Anubis]

What about our ties with the Gulf nations like Saudi Arabia? Qatar, UAE not to mention Turkey etc who all support the FSA. We have vast business ties with them too not to mention meeting our oil/gas needs. Plus if the UN weapons inspectors say that Assad 'did' use chemical weapons on his own people on a humanitarian level being a 'global power' how can we justify being a democratic country to back his regime? (my own view is that Assad should crush the FSA like the rats they are but that's another story)

So having such a neutral stance works well for India in my opinion in this instance because what other option do we really have? I see none

Nobody cares about Democratic India supporting Dictatorial Syria when the Beacon of Democracy USA supports Dictatorial Monarchy of Saudi Arabia.....The Saudis will sell you oil for money irrespective of whom you support.....You need an alliance with Russia....You have no allies in the world....You are not a part of Nato and will never be helped by the US when you are in need!Russia and China have close ties....if you have an alliance with Russia they will help you by keeping China in check!Russia already helped you(and us) in 1971...its time you return the favor!

 

[he-man]

Most worthless stance.If in future there is indo-china war ,russia will not intervene on behalf of India like how it did in 1971 threatening nuclear war against USA and China.



There is no point .Most indians on this forum are usa worshippers. If things came to war this time with China ,china will seriously conquer large parts of india.It won't be like the chola incident where we kicked China's rear as Russia was the Godfather of India then.

Even US economy is heading towards crisis and congress kisses the rear of USA buying large amounts of american weapons,while asking russia for advanced nuclear technology like Submarines.What a joke this nation is becoming.

India is making blunders after blunders

In this difficult times ONLY IRAN ACCEPTED OUR OFFER TO GET PAYMENT IN RUPEES

WHERE IS SAUDI??QATAR?? etc

AND TO THINK OF IT WE VOTED AGAINST THEM IN UN

Wow..........awesome strategy

What about our ties with the Gulf nations like Saudi Arabia? Qatar, UAE not to mention Turkey etc who all support the FSA. We have vast business ties with them too not to mention meeting our oil/gas needs. Plus if the UN weapons inspectors say that Assad 'did' use chemical weapons on his own people on a humanitarian level being a 'global power' how can we justify being a democratic country to back his regime? (my own view is that Assad should crush the FSA like the rats they are but that's another story)

So having such a neutral stance works well for India in my opinion in this instance because what other option do we really have? I see none

India is making blunders after blunders

In this difficult times ONLY IRAN ACCEPTED OUR OFFER TO GET PAYMENT IN RUPEES

WHERE IS SAUDI??QATAR?? etc

AND TO THINK OF IT WE VOTED AGAINST THEM IN UN

Wow..........awesome strategy

Who says india is neutral...............it voted against iran and will vote against syria(if need arises)

 

[SpArK]

actually it is silly u if u think UN has any role in this

abstain means we don't vote............comeon mate!!!

That is what the news is about too... no vote.. no interests... no sides....

Russia is not going to war against rest for Syria.

They said the same when same happened in IraQ and Afghan.

 

[he-man]

That is what the news is about too... no vote.. no interests... no sides....

Russia is not going to war against rest for Syria.

They said the same when same happened in IraQ and Afghan.

The report says we will back the UN and for the love of god as in case of iraq and afganistan ppl are gonna blindly vote for US................so in all practical terms we are gonna back action against syria...........maybe today or tomorrow

All am saying is that syria is an ally of iran and russia ........the same iran that agreed to take oil payment in rupees,now voting against syria will be a backstabbing move.

However i do understand that we cannot be seen going against the west,,,,so the solution is when the time comes to vote(if it does) just abstain from voting

 

[Yeti]

Nobody cares about Democratic India supporting Dictatorial Syria when the Beacon of Democracy USA supports Dictatorial Monarchy of Saudi Arabia.....The Saudis will sell you oil for money irrespective of whom you support.....You need an alliance with Russia....You have no allies in the world....You are not a part of Nato and will never be helped by the US when you are in need!Russia and China have close ties....if you have an alliance with Russia they will help you by keeping China in check!Russia already helped you(and us) in 1971...its time you return the favor!

Russia has a vital naval base in Syria which is their only naval base in the Mediterranean sea plus their ties go back a long long way. This is not even to mention the vast military ties between the two countries so is it that much of a shock or a surprise to see Putin back Assad? I do not think so

But being a 'global power' should not India decide on it's own merit and have a independent foreign policy in respect to Syria?

Yes the Soviets helped us out I agree in 1971 but this was the Soviet Union not Russia and times have changed now, we are living in a multipolar world. India needs the USA also which we have a strategic relationship with as we do with France and dare I say with Israel but this does not mean our relationship with Russia will suffer as a result of it.

India is making blunders after blunders

In this difficult times ONLY IRAN ACCEPTED OUR OFFER TO GET PAYMENT IN RUPEES

WHERE IS SAUDI??QATAR?? etc

AND TO THINK OF IT WE VOTED AGAINST THEM IN UN

Wow..........awesome strategy



India is making blunders after blunders

In this difficult times ONLY IRAN ACCEPTED OUR OFFER TO GET PAYMENT IN RUPEES

WHERE IS SAUDI??QATAR?? etc

AND TO THINK OF IT WE VOTED AGAINST THEM IN UN

Wow..........awesome strategy

Who says india is neutral...............it voted against iran and will vote against syria(if need arises)

Why you think that is? any clues

 

[he-man]

That is what the news is about too... no vote.. no interests... no sides....

Russia is not going to war against rest for Syria.

They said the same when same happened in IraQ and Afghan.

who said russia is gonna go for war??

the news is not what u are saying.......pls read again,,,,we are gonna back UN and in turn USA which is poised to get max votes in UN.

cAN U DENY THAT??

 

[SpArK]

The report says we will back the UN and for the love of god as in case of iraq and afganistan ppl are gonna blindly vote for US................so in all practical terms we are gonna back action against syria...........maybe today or tomorrow

All am saying is that syria is an ally of iran and russia ........the same iran that agreed to take oil payment in rupees,now voting against syria will be a backstabbing move.

However i do understand that we cannot be seen going against the west,,,,so the solution is when the time comes to vote(if it does) just abstain from voting

Ok... i will convey this to MMS.

 

[he-man]

Russia has a vital naval base in Syria which is their only naval base in the Mediterranean sea plus their ties go back a long long way. This is not even to mention the vast military ties between the two countries so is it that much of a shock or a surprise to see Putin back Assad? I do not think so

But being a 'global power' should not India decide on it's own merit and have a independent foreign policy in respect to Syria?

Yes the Soviets helped us out I agree in 1971 but this was the Soviet Union not Russia and times have changed now, we are living in a multipolar world. India needs the USA also which we have a strategic relationship with as we do with France and dare I say with Israel but this does not mean our relationship with Russia will suffer as a result of it.




Why you think that is? any clues

Its not about why(i know they have no option)...........but that they are atleast obliging,,,and we need to reciprocate by at least abstaining and not taking any side by backing un

Even iraq is in a bad shape and could use payment in rupee but it won't as america controls it now

 

[SpArK]

who said russia is gonna go for war??

the news is not what u are saying.......pls read again,,,,we are gonna back UN and in turn USA which is poised to get max votes in UN.

cAN U DENY THAT??

Its a safer bet... we agree to what the world nations agree based on votes inside the UN..

You dont need to sound " OMG.. US will win votes, what will we do, we are doomed etc etc".

 

[he-man]

Ok... i will convey this to MMS.

as if he will listen

we will botch this up like iran and sri lanka

 

[JohnyBoy]

actually bangladesh is a superpower as it makes the best lungis

Hey Common Stop it...This is uncalled for...

 

[EMERCOM]

That is what the news is about too... no vote.. no interests... no sides....

Russia is not going to war against rest for Syria.

They said the same when same happened in IraQ and Afghan.

they did not support iraq or afghan like how they are doing for syria.What they are saying and doing are different.Russia has put a number of vessels from the pacific fleet near syria. Their diplomatic statements are meant to defuse tensions.If push to shove and they sense danger to their own nation they will fight a massive nuclear war as they have requisite civil defence and underground cities for population survival.

There are 12,000 underground nuclear bunkers under EMERCOM in Moscow itself for civilians and each capable of 1000-1500 people .Does the West or India have something similiar?Nope. Only Switzerland and Israel.

I have not spoken about the bunkers in other cities or the ones under the ministry of defence.

 

[he-man]

Its a safer bet... we agree to what the world nations agree based on votes inside the UN..

You dont need to sound " OMG.. US will win votes, what will we do, we are doomed etc etc".

I speak of the fact whats gonna happen..............just look at the previous cases of phoney wmd in iraq

this time its the chemical weapons(who knows??)

they did not support iraq or afghan like how they are doing for syria.What they are saying and doing are different.Russia has put a number of vessels from the pacific fleet near syria. Their diplomatic statements are meant to defuse tensions.If push to shove and they sense danger to their own nation they will fight a massive nuclear war as they have requisite civil defence and underground cities for population survival.

There are 12,000 underground nuclear bunkers under EMERCOM in Moscow itself for civilians and each capable of 1000-1500 people .Does the West or India have something similiar?Nope. Only Switzerland and Israel.

I have not spoken about the bunkers in other cities or the ones under the ministry of defence.

there will be no war...........but this spineless diplomacy is making us the laughing stock of the world

u cannot keep on enjoying benefits from both the sides,,,,its just not possible and there will be a fallout if we don't correct ourselves

After voting against sri lanka we have already pushed sri lanka into china's lap..........do u need more proof that we have a shitty policy

 

[SpArK]

as if he will listen

we will botch this up like iran and sri lanka

Kid, we have got nothing to do with Syria or issues between US and Russia.. we stay neutral and abide by what UN says.

Issuing a statement saying "we support somebody" doesnt make much difference.

 

[EMERCOM]

Yes the Soviets helped us out I agree in 1971 but this was the Soviet Union not Russia and times have changed now, we are living in a multipolar world. India needs the USA also which we have a strategic relationship with as we do with France and dare I say with Israel but this does not mean our relationship with Russia will suffer as a result of it.

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/indian...-un-action-against-syria-6.html#ixzz2dd97HFDz

it already has suffered.Mark my words ,what the west is doing is to instigate WW3 and Russia is well prepared to fight and assure survival of large number of its populous.