India may begin acting more American

[Nubclear]

I apologize for any spelling errors or typos in this document.

From the INDIA WEST Newspaper:

U.S. Rejects Hawkish Indian Stance
Delhi does not have the right to preemptive strike against Pakistan, Washington says

WASHINGTON - Citing the U.S. military action on Iraq, India claimed the right to carry out a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan in order to end its alleged support to terrorism but the Bush administration rejected the claim, saying the two situations were not similar.
Promising to put more pressure on Islamabad to curtail violence in Kashmir, the United States placed a restraining hand on India's threat to punish Pakistan. The administration scrambled to put out a cuationary message to India April 4 after Indian Foreign Minister Yashwant Sinha told a foreign news agency pre-emptive action was a sovereign right and India would be justified in taking such action against Pakistan because of its alleged export of terrorism and threats to use weapons of mass destruction.
"Any attempts to draw parallels between Iraq and Kashmir situations are wrong and are overwhelemed by the differences between them," a State Department official said.
Citing Iraq's 12 year refusal to diarm in the face of U.N. Secuirty Council resolutions, the official said the circumstances that made m,ilitary action necessary in Iraq do no apply in the subcontinent and should not be considered a precedent.
"Iraq invaded, occupies, and brutalized kuwait in 1990. The international community came together to drive Iraq out of Kuwait in 1991. A decade earlier, Iraq attacked another neighbor Iran and used chemical weapons in that war. The Iraqi government has used chemical weapons to kill thousands of its own people," the official said.
The U.S. and its coalition allies have taken action against Iraq only after 12 years of U.N. secuirty council resolutions, including UNSC 1441 which was unanimously passed, failed to achieve Iraq's disarmament, he added.
The official's invocation of the earlier U.N. resolutions and the breadth of the coalition were evidently aimed at reminiding New Dehli of its shortcoming on this score despite the more recent perception of American unilateralism in Iraq.
However the administration also tried to placate Indian leaders by expressing concern and disgust at the cotninued killings in Kashmir. The recent massacre of 24 Hindus including women and children in Nadi Marg was the immediate prvocation for Sinha's comments.
"The United States recognizes the very serious nature of the situation in Kashmir. Oure joint statement last week with the United Kingdom made clear our repugnance at killing innocents that have been taking place in Kashmir with alarming frequency," the official said. Washington was also tal;king to Pakistan with increasing urgency, the official added.
Bush administration sources said the state department decided to "weigh in" aftger Sinha and other indian officials alluded to the US-Iraq precedent several times in the recent past.
In fact, Secretary of State Colin Powell had been primed to issue the same message during a recent interview on Doordarshan but was not asked the question.
The US, however, refrained fgrom suggesting Indo-Pakistan talks as a way out of the crisis. When it did so in response to the Nadi Marg massacre, Sinha angrily responded, saying the US suggestion was insensitive to India's sentiments.
Although there were no signs on the ground that India was readying to attack pakistan, one senior administration official say "Were kind of bothered....that kind of rhetoric gets to us than it does India."
Pakistan reacted angrily to Sinhas comments. In a statement, Pakistani Foreign Minister Khursheed Mehmood Kasuri warned that Islamad would make a befitting response to any such pre-emptive strike.
"Any misadventure by India will be met with full force" he said.
Mehmood said he viewed the comments, pubiuhsed in Pakistani newspapers, with "amazement and regret".
Pakistan also dismissed reports that the US would turn on Pakistan after the war on Iraq.

Yay I really like the part where Powell says that the situation isn't the same, considering Pakistan is proliferating nuclear weapons, supporting terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda, threatening soviergn nations with nuclear weapons, supporting anti-hindu extremists, Pakistan is NOT a democracy......

In fact, Pakistan is looking a tad bit worse than Iraq, isn't it

Thank Bush for teaching the world the doctrine of Pre-emption.

[Spiffor]

The situation is indeed not the same : Pakistan has nukes. The wise hawk only attacks weak countries.

[Oerdin]

India won't do anything and everyone, including the Pakis, know it. That doesn't mean certain opportunitistic Indian politicians won't make jingoist speeches in order to get reelected but that's just par for the course in a Democracy.

[chequita guevara]

Only the US has the right to pre-emptive strikes?

[Oerdin]

Read Mine and Spiffor's posts, Che.

[Sandman]

Whilst Iraq is squashed beneath the boot of the West for supposedly possessing weapons with limited military use, nukes are spreading round the world like a plague. It's like brutalising cannabis users, whilst ignoring crack cocaine.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Only the US has the right to pre-emptive strikes?

GE thinks so.

[yavoon]

sandman to not recognize the added problems of targetting ppl who posess nukes then u are blind to reality.

I'd luv to takeout a buncha psycho's who have nukes, but they have nukes.

[Q Classic]

yes.

let's start with chirac, putin, blair, bush, sharon, hu, kim, musharraf, and vajpayee.

[yavoon]

u n anarchist q? nothing mean meant by it(as if u are one I'm sure u'd know)

[Q Classic]

no, i'm not. i do, however, find nuclear weapons abhorrent, and most of the more commonly considered psychos in the world don't have nukes.

instead, we have many democratic leaders in the world who operate under a limited time frame to push their party's agenda, and so might as well behave like psychos.

[Urban Ranger]

The fact remains that from now on, the US is in no position to say anything about another country that launches a preventive attack.

[yavoon]

yes well the box is opened isnt it q, u can hate them all u wnt. they aint going away.

and urban thats a logical fallacy. that'd only be true if we acted amorally in our pre emptive assault, but we did not. thats not to say that u can't hate us for it. but to say that we would be intellectually dishonest by getting on another country for it is untrue.

[Q Classic]

yes well the box is opened isnt it q, u can hate them all u wnt. they aint going away.

we could sure as hell do a lot better in stopping proliferation.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by yavoon
and urban thats a logical fallacy. that'd only be true if we acted amorally in our pre emptive assault, but we did not. thats not to say that u can't hate us for it. but to say that we would be intellectually dishonest by getting on another country for it is untrue.

This has been discussed to death in many threads, so I will not state my reasons against this invasion. However, it appears that the US has failed to convince the majority of countries that there is a valid reason to invade.

So far, no NCB weapons were used on the coalition forces, and none was found.

[Starchild]

It's just pre-emptive non-aggression people. Dear Leader Bush has already set the precedent.

[Urban Ranger]

Yup, I think so too.

[Sava]

Stupid commies, go to Cuba.

USA USA USA USA
[/end stupidity]

Yup, Bush has shown the world that pre-emption is good.

[ThePlagueRat]

Some years ago I met Jimmy Carter, when he was on an unoffical visit. I regret I didn't get to discuss politics with him. He has been reasonable in the interviews I've seen. We just shook hands, and he sounded like a nice old chap... Nothing holy about him. So what's this silly worshipping of G.W.Bush then? I find it very premature...