Bush

[rakeshmalik]

I am really pleased to watch that people in india opposing presedent Bush.
He should not be allowed to enter in india. as they do with Narender Modi. like Modi he is also responsible for the death of lot of people.
Here in UK most of people don't like Bush or Tony. but in india we are ready to dive in the feet of a war criminel.

 

[rkumar]

I am really pleased to watch that people in india opposing presedent Bush.
He should not be allowed to enter in india. as they do with Narender Modi. like Modi he is also responsible for the death of lot of people.
Here in UK most of people don't like Bush or Tony. but in india we are ready to dive in the feet of a war criminel.

Why did UK choose Tony as PM then second time if most people don't like him? Its UK who has been diving in the feet of Bush more than India. India delth with Bush as President of USA and not as an individual. High sounding moralistic lectures don't work in international politics. National intersts are above these narrow thoughts.

RK^2

 

[rakeshmalik]

people choose BUSH n TONY for second term for the same reason as people choose Atal Bihari Vajpayee after Kargil battel.
create fear in people psyche and let them believe that u r the only person who can save them n its guarnteed 100% they wud vote 4 u.

 

[rkumar]

people choose BUSH n TONY for second term for the same reason as people choose Atal Bihari Vajpayee after Kargil battel.
create fear in people psyche and let them believe that u r the only person who can save them n its guarnteed 100% they wud vote 4 u.

Very narrow interpretation indeed. If that was the case, why did Bush Sr lost the election in USA after first gulf war?

RK^2

 

[rakeshmalik]

Bush sr try one thing.
bt he don't know people are so week that there wudn't be any resistent if u take 1 country. but Bush jr know it. he did it. history books of future wud be writen like that if people nt think in narrow views.
status que is not narrow? it is indeed.
first tell me r u ok with d idea that one country can occupy other country.
british ruled indians, is it ok with u?
if nt than cant sir u c amarica is doing same thing.
british, french, dutch ruled for money. money from bussiness.
even indian kings rules in india initially, bt with british army.
USA have army in afganistan, iraqn lot of countries to save them. save them from whom? there people.
if USA send army in india to save us from khalisthan militants or kashmiri militants.
can't u c this battel is for oil reserve.
but now situation is worse. with money nw come religion. in past also british were there to teach us(animals they used to call).
if this is narrow than respecting for president of strongest country in wide might be big things for people.
sovergnity of a country wud never be a narrow thinking. its nt other people business who rule a country and hw unless that country attack it.

 

[vinodks]

Sorry to say but u sound confused. Keep up political analysis anyway.

vinod

Bush sr try one thing.
bt he don't know people are so week that there wudn't be any resistent if u take 1 country. but Bush jr know it. he did it. history books of future wud be writen like that if people nt think in narrow views.
status que is not narrow? it is indeed.
first tell me r u ok with d idea that one country can occupy other country.
british ruled indians, is it ok with u?
if nt than cant sir u c amarica is doing same thing.
british, french, dutch ruled for money. money from bussiness.
even indian kings rules in india initially, bt with british army.
USA have army in afganistan, iraqn lot of countries to save them. save them from whom? there people.
if USA send army in india to save us from khalisthan militants or kashmiri militants.
can't u c this battel is for oil reserve.
but now situation is worse. with money nw come religion. in past also british were there to teach us(animals they used to call).
if this is narrow than respecting for president of strongest country in wide might be big things for people.
sovergnity of a country wud never be a narrow thinking. its nt other people business who rule a country and hw unless that country attack it.

 

[rkumar]

Bush sr try one thing.
bt he don't know people are so week that there wudn't be any resistent if u take 1 country. but Bush jr know it. he did it. history books of future wud be writen like that if people nt think in narrow views.
status que is not narrow? it is indeed.
first tell me r u ok with d idea that one country can occupy other country.
british ruled indians, is it ok with u?
if nt than cant sir u c amarica is doing same thing.
british, french, dutch ruled for money. money from bussiness.
even indian kings rules in india initially, bt with british army.
USA have army in afganistan, iraqn lot of countries to save them. save them from whom? there people.
if USA send army in india to save us from khalisthan militants or kashmiri militants.
can't u c this battel is for oil reserve.
but now situation is worse. with money nw come religion. in past also british were there to teach us(animals they used to call).
if this is narrow than respecting for president of strongest country in wide might be big things for people.
sovergnity of a country wud never be a narrow thinking. its nt other people business who rule a country and hw unless that country attack it.

You seem totally confused. Do I have to remind you what all Taliban was doing in Afghanistan? Under the patronage of Pakistan they were doing all sorts of things openly. Thank USA that they invaded Afghanistan, else world would have been a very different place. Osama was launching attacks all over the world from his hide outs in Afghanistan. Some one has to catch the bull by horns..Talking idealism does not take things too far. India was attacked all through centuaries my muslim invadors. Do you know how many people were butured by Nadir Saha, Ahmad Sah Abdali and Taimur Lane in Delhi?

RK^2

 

[vinodks]

India was attacked all through centuaries
my muslim invadors.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Do you know how many people were butured by Nadir Saha, Ahmad Sah Abdali and Taimur Lane in Delhi?

RK^2

Yours? Sir aap to bahut badi top nikle!!)))

-vinod

 

[poonam]

Yours? Sir aap to bahut badi top nikle!!)))

-vinod

Smart catch Vinod!!

 

[ravichaudhary]

first tell me r u ok with d idea that one country can occupy other country.


even indian kings rules in india initially, bt with british army..

Is Mr Malik aware that the Muslims also invaded India? or did his history books in school not contain that information?

 

[ravichaudhary]

There are only a few, deliberate, demonstrations against Bush. There was no spontaneous life to this.

1) by some muslims
2) by some communist parties.

The general public is perfectly happy to welcome President Bush and increase the relationship between the two democratic countries, which will only improve the standard of living in India, by providing more opportunity.

Why would the muslims, and the communists be opposed to that?

 

[arunshamli]

Bush received a grand welcome in India and he was very impressed about it. kuch tucche log oppose kar rahe the...but who cares anyway????

 

[rkumar]

Yours? Sir aap to bahut badi top nikle!!)))

-vinod

hahahaa... arrey bhai budhaape me nazren hi nahi balki ungliyaan bhi fisal jati hain kabhi kabhi....hahaha...

RK^2

 

[rkumar]

Bush received a grand welcome in India and he was very impressed about it. kuch tucche log oppose kar rahe the...but who cares anyway????

Exactly. 90% indians supported Bush visit. This single visit has done so much good and brough so much respect for India from world over.

RK^2

 

[sansanwalamit]

Although, I can be called a staunch Bush hater, but I do find his visit to India a positive move (Here I see him as a representative of USA and ignore his personality). A strong tie with US will lead India to a much better future, and in my opinion India needs it very much.

 

[ramksehrawat]

Poor demonstrators, barring their leaders, were not even aware whether Bush is President of America or Prime Minister of England ? Yeah it is true as majority of them were rikshaw pullers or beggers collected from Hanuman Mandir. The very leaders who were opposing Bush can go to any length to get a US visa for their wards. I know at least two such leaders whose children are studying in California. Privately they praise USA and when they visit to US, even a call on a city mayor is termed as achievement. This opposition is nothing but a political gimmik, their eyes fixed on WB and Kerala. After all elections only a couple of months away. Others, i.e. non-commos ? As usual, going all lengths to please muslims. What if, Congress were not in power ? They would have been in Lucknow !!! Missed a chance. Or was it that they pre-empted by that census nonsense.

 

[vinodkaliramna]

Hi Everyone,

I am pleased to see that though our community is called so orthodox, we still have such matured thoughts coming from all jaat members about Bush's visit to India.

I am in complete favor of Bush's Visit to India and about the flexibility that he has shown in the nuclear agreement and the assurances he has given to India. Times change and we need to change accordingly. There is no more the great USSR that we could back on. We need to realize what is going to take us forward in the coming times. India is struggling in its energy needs and we have to ensure that for us to become a successful nation we will have to ensure we take adequate steps in time.

The US has agreed to provide uninterrupted supply of nuclear fuel to India's civilian reactors, an assurance that will be incorporated in the US laws as part of the deal. I would also like to add that Bush has clearly said that he is willing to get laws changed in the US congress for the sake of this deal and this was EXCLUSIVLY for India.

Fourteen of India's 22 nuclear reactors will be open to international inspection which will, however, not cover the Fast Breeder Reactor (FBR) programme as insisted by the country's nuclear establishment. We should appreciate that Bush has not been very stringent and been flexible in this regard. This will also help brand India as a sizeable power in the coming times

It is not just Nuclear deal, Bush has ensured that there will be other areas in which he will promote India. He has wished to increase the cap on H1-B Visas. They have also assured that they will continue to support Indian agriculture.

I am not sure if I was capable of putting all the points of his visit in this post, but let me consolidate that it would be fruit full to India in the long run.

Yes he was also opposed by many people in the country, but all that was either to take some political mileage by the parties like the left and the Samajwadi Party or by some Muslim community opposing Iraq. It is all politically motivated and as said earlier, let me tell you that it did not comprise of even 5 % of the nation and it was over hyped by the media. Yes there are concerns about our independence in making decisions and I don’t find that we have compromised on them. It is in the national interest for us to have a nuclear deal with the US.

PAKISTAN, as a very old friend if the US and see the way they have been treated. Bush was very clear in telling to Mushraff that elections need to be held ASAP and democracy to be restored. Though it could be a political stunt, but we need to be happy about its stand on Pakistan now. He has also virtually denied having any kind of nuclear deal with Pakistan because of its past record. On Pakistans request to interfere in solving the Kashmir issue between both the countries, Bush has again denied it, I think he now realizes that it is not a very good idea to annoy India anymore. He has also told Pakistan about its pace in tackling the situation on Osama-bin laden. He has all in all screwed Pakistan royally.

SO my friend, Rakesh Malik, realize all this and be happy if things are going good for our country. Lets be positive and analyze things on our own, rather than just going by these politicians. Also remember that even the BJP has not opposed this issue. This makes it even stronger, because they are just waiting for anything wrong by the govt. and they should get a chance to screw them up.

All in all lets wait and watch.

Everyone, please debate on anything that I have written in here and I would be happy to read a second opinion on it.

Thank you all

Regards
Vinod

 

[rkumar]

Another most important development has been that USA is no more against Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline.. What else India can expect now... Cheers. I agree with Sehrawat Sahab about the composition of protesters...Let us hope the deal goes through US congress as well as there are some NPT Ayatullahs sitting there..

RK^2

 

[vijay]

Politics ! Politics ! Politics !

Nothing else in these protests. I agree with Sharawat Sir that most of the protesters were buyed ones to show the strength and a i am sure these people even don't know why they are protesting.

Some people seems too upset about the welcome of President Bush. Don't they know that its our thousand years old culture "Atithi Devo Bhava" We just welcomed our guest with respect what is wrong in that ?

 

[rakeshmalik]

its gud 2 c that we have sm expert psychologist who can read other people mind n even describe it.
hw can people think that india's nuclear progress depends on USA. indeed feel happy that USA giving sm liberties to india. are we a state of USA. a sovergien country don't need permission from other country for its personel activities.
Indira Gandi was quite rightly understood this n carry indian neuclear prog irrespective of pressure of other countries.
are USA, China or other take india permission when they develope their nuclear power or in present r these countries care about UN or other countries. NO.
but india have to. disrimination b/t countries n people find it encourising.