Singapore PM backs India for Permanent UN seat

[AADHAAR]

[Why would we give Aksai up ? Our troops fought and bleed and for our land

Because it was never a part of your land. It's part of Ladakh.

Leave alone China (which never had anything to do with Ladakh, anyways) ..... the reference is against Tibet.

Read about Tibetan invasions on Ladakh.

Anway, I am not keen to get into fruitless discussions on this. Negotiations are not going to be held with PDK as a forum.

Let them happen peacefully, forgetting about the border violence of 1962

 

[Ryan]

India should donate the permanent seat again to some other country just like we donated the permanent seat for China in 1955.

Donate? You must be joking. To donate, you must posses something first. Since when has India owned a UNSC seat?

India might have supported the PRC to replace the ROC as the member of UN. For that, I should be thankful for India government and India people.

 

[Nelson]

It is, you'll not see an non-Indian historian make such a claim.

But this ego stroking piece of myth still lives on in the Indian mind. Delusional tbh.

You're busted. That claim is made in Washington post by non Indian. You don't have to fool yourself all the time.

Obama supports adding India as a permanent member of U.N. Security Council

Kindly read the entire article to avoid more humiliation.

 

[CardSharp]

You're busted. That claim is made in Washington post by non Indian. You don't have to fool yourself all the time.

Obama supports adding India as a permanent member of U.N. Security Council

Kindly read the entire article to avoid more humiliation.

I know about that article which is why I said non-Indian historian, not non-Indian article.


By Emily Wax and Rama Lakshmi
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, November 8, 2010; 11:49 AM


obviously this Indian tool brought the misinformation with her to the WaPo.

 

[Nelson]

Donate? You must be joking. To donate, you must posses something first. Since when has India owned a UNSC seat?

India might have supported the PRC to replace the ROC as the member of UN. For that, I should be thankful for India government and India people.

You're welcome sir. Yes, donate is the wrong word but it was offered to us in 1955 but we urged to give it to China instead. I've provided the link in my previous post.

 

[CardSharp]

You're welcome sir. Yes, donate is the wrong word but it was offered to us in 1955 but we urged to give it to China instead. I've provided the link in my previous post.

Honestly funny how many Indian think this is true along with 1/3 of NASA scientists being Indian.

 

[Nelson]

I know about that article which is why I said non-Indian historian, not non-Indian article.


By Emily Wax and Rama Lakshmi
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, November 8, 2010; 11:49 AM


obviously this Indian tool brought the misinformation with her to the WaPo.

Did you forget to read Emily wax? Or she's also an Indian?

 

[CardSharp]

Did you forget to read Emily wax? Or she's also an Indian?

Do both authors need to be Indian for an Indian lie to make its way on to an article?

 

[Ryan]

You're welcome sir. Yes, donate is the wrong word but it was offered to us in 1955 but we urged to give it to China instead. I've provided the link in my previous post.

Once again, you are either misinformed, or you are spinning and twisting the fact. China(ROC) was one of five creators of UN because of the five nations' contribution to the victory of WWII. What did India do during World War II?

 

[Nelson]

Do both authors need to be Indian for an Indian lie to make its way on to an article?

Now you're changing your own statement. First you said its written by only and only by non Indians. Then when I got Emily Wax, you came up with this BS.

You're busted dear.

 

[CardSharp]

Your lucky day.

The Hindu's archives reveal


Dated September 28, 1955: UN seat: Nehru clarifies

Prime Minister Nehru has categorically denied any offer, formal or informal, having been received about a seat for India in the UN Security Council. He made this statement in reply to a short notice question in the Lok Sabha on September 27 by Dr. J.N. Parekh whether India had refused a seat informally offered to her in the Security Council. The Prime Minister said: "There has been no offer, formal or informal, of this kind. Some vague references have appeared in the press about it which have no foundation in fact. The composition of the Security Council is prescribed by the UN Charter, according to which certain specified nations have permanent seats. No change or addition can be made to this without an amendment of the Charter. There is, therefore, no question of a seat being offered and India declining it. Our declared policy is to support the admission of all nations qualified for UN membership.''

The Hindu : Miscellaneous / This Day That Age : dated September 28, 1955: UN seat: Nehru clarifies


Now before you ask why I believe the Hindu, also an Indian newspaper, I'd point the fact that this was a direct quotation from a newspaper of the period where it gives the time, place, person asking the question. All information about an offer today is hearsay and gives no specifics and likely has its roots in what Nehru described at the time as "some vague references have appeared in the press about it"

And I suspect this is one big campaign scam. The BJP are keen on portraying congress as not being assertive or nationalistic enough, afterall they rejected a UNSC council seat... so they keep this bullsht lie alive, to fool an uneducated and gullible Indian public.

 

[CardSharp]

I suggest Chinese members bookmark the above newspaper article, in case this stupid lie gets brought up again.

 

[Nelson]

LOL,

First you doubt the Indian author and the Indian source, and now you came up with the Indian source to support your claim?

Man, have some self respect. Why you're keep on contradicting yourself?

 

[CardSharp]

LOL,

First you doubt the Indian author and the Indian source, and now you came up with the Indian source to support your claim?

Man, have some self respect. Why you're keep on contradicting yourself?

Since I already answered your question in my post, I am going assume that reading the whole thing through for an explanation was too painful and was causing too much cognitive dissonance.

 

[Nelson]

Since I already answered your question in my post, I am going assume that reading the whole thing through for an explanation was too painful and was causing too much cognitive dissonance.

You did not answer but you made a lot of contradictions in some of your previous posts.
1. You asked if there's any non Indian who wrote it.
2. When I got Emily Wax, you are trying to prove it with the Indian source which you yourself questioned at the beginning of our conversation.

Just contradictions and nothing else. If you believe the Indian source then why question them in the first place? You are so busted.