world dont need America as watchdog...

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/coup53/coup53p1.php

You sound just like the people who were paid to casue trouble by the CIA in 1953.

What do you hope to prove by posting such a inflamatory threating topic?

For a countr that claims to hate America and not need us you dear sweet Iran seems to have no trouble taking $75 million of American money and aid.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/19/AR2006021901154.html

you ,ll never reach with your rubbish copy and pasta 510 visitor...for that you must learn still some behaviour....

you are not mature for politic discourse...

Are you hoping to distract attention from the nuclear program in Iran?

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/iran/nuclear_program/index.html
Latest Developments | Updated Oct. 27, 2009

Oct. 27: If Iran sends out 80 percent of its low enriched uranium (LEU) within 2-3 months, the IAEA drafted fuel deal will still be a win-win for the United States and Iran. But if Iran sends out the LEU more slowly, the deal quickly becomes a loser for the United States. From David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security.

Oct. 23: Secretary Hillary Clinton called for vigorous enforcement of the Nonproliferation Treaty, including adopting automatic penalties for violation of safeguards agreements. However, it's hard to reconcile this policy with the new Vienna deal with Iran, as Iran has repeatedly failed to comply with its Safeguards Agreement. From William H. Tobey, senior fellow at Harvard's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.
Overview | Updated Oct. 21, 2009

Iran's nuclear program is one of the most polarizing issues in one of the world's most polarized regions. While American and European officials believe Tehran is planning to build nuclear weapons, Iran's leadership says that its goal in developing a nuclear program is the ability to generate electricity without dipping into the oil supply it prefers to sell abroad.

After a long-running clandestine nuclear program was uncovered in 2003, Iran suspended the program, allowed international inspectors in and began negotiations with Britain, France and Germany. But after hardliners solidified their power with the election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2005, Iran has taken an increasingly confrontational line, restarting its enrichment program and ignoring demands from the United Nations Security Council to stop.

American officials and international inspectors are concerned that Iran seems to have made significant progress in the three technologies necessary to field an effective nuclear weapon: enriching uranium to weapons grade; developing a missile capable of reaching Israel and parts of Western Europe; and designing a warhead that will fit on the missile. And in late September 2009, Iran said that its Revolutionary Guards test-fired missiles with sufficient range to strike Israel, parts of Europe and American bases in the Persian Gulf.

President Obama broke with President George W. Bush's policy by offering to negotiate directly with Tehran, but he continued to call the program a threat to the region. And like Mr. Bush, he found it difficult to persuade Russia and China to consider imposing tough sanctions on Iran if the talks failed.

On Sept. 25, 2009, President Obama and leaders of Britain and France accused Iran of building a secret underground plant to manufacture nuclear fuel, saying the country has hidden the covert operation from international weapons inspectors for years.

In talks between Iran, the United States and other major powers in October 2009, the first such discussions in which the United States has participated fully, Iran agreed to quickly open the newly revealed plant to international inspection. It also agreed to send most of its openly declared enriched uranium outside Iran, to be turned into fuel for a small reactor that produces medical isotopes.

American officials remained skeptical about whether Iran would follow through, and many suspected that other secret sites remain hidden.

Iran's Nuclear History

Iran's first nuclear program began in the 1960s under the shah. It made little progress, and was abandoned after the 1979 revolution, which brought to power the hard-line Islamic regime. In the mid-1990s, a new effort began, raising suspicions in Washington and elsewhere. Iran insisted that it was living up to its obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, but in 2002, an exile group obtained documents revealing a clandestine program. Faced with the likelihood of international sanctions, the government of Mohammad Khatami agreed in 2003 to suspend work on uranium enrichment and allow a stepped-up level of inspections by the International Atomic Energy Association while continuing negotiations with Britain, France and Germany.

In August 2005, Mr. Khatami, a relative moderate, was succeeded as president by Mr. Ahmadinejad, a hard-line conservative. Five months later, Iran announced that it was resuming work on turning uranium into a gaseous form, the first step in the so-called fuel cycle. The following January, Iran announced that it would resume enrichment work, leading the three European nations to break off their long-running talks. Under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has the right to enrich uranium, but the atomic energy association called for the program to be halted until questions about the earlier, secret program were resolved.

The United Nations Security Council voted in December 2006 to impose sanctions on Iran for failing to heed calls for a suspension. Iranian scientists continued the work of building a series of centrifuges that concentrate uranium by spinning the gas at very high speeds.

In Washington, administration hawks, led by Vice President Dick Cheney, were reported to favor consideration of more aggressive measures, including possible air strikes, while Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice pushed for more diplomacy.

The situation was muddied in December 2007 when American intelligence agencies issued a new National Intelligence Estimate that concluded that the weapons portion of the Iranian nuclear program remained on hold. Contradicting the assessment made in 2005, the report stated that the Iranian government did not appear determined to obtain nuclear weapons, although it said Iran's intentions were unclear, and that the country probably could not produce a bomb until the middle of the next decade.
These are the real issues not any of the emotional, childish caims you make.
If left unchecked Iran will be the cause of nuclear winter and the over all distruction of the whole world. The mass murder of people who do not agree in Iran and who end up burried in mass graves with no markers is a far greater problem to the world, than honorable deaths in war.

at least real problem are you...not iran neuclear bomb ....
you dont know about topic... you,ll only to sustain one's position...not more .

burn all the petrol from your country and i assure you that americans will go as they came

then they think of his own advantage....not for iraq freedom or iraq population....

America is barking Dog... after barking they ,ll go back home kindly..

I am not an anti-America nor am I an anti-Iran.

If the world doesn't need America than which country in the world can they depends on ????

Without Amercia, I am sure the world is not going to live in peace and harmony. Just look at the recent Gulf war and without America, do you think the war can come to an end.

No country is perfect and whatever America has contributed, the world must not forget cos American is still a super power country.

you can to be anti all country... it is not my problem... but it is not means..if one country like America have a power ....must suck in all country and interfering in every country where his advantage is...

I don't think America has any advantages at all. America is a country of noble peace.

Of what I observed from your comments, you are putting a hatred on all the American as well.

As an Islamic country, you should love and try to create peace and not hatred. God bless.

i,ll try my best.. but i feel whol islamic country are thorny in America eyes.and i can not tolerate what happend in iraq or Afghanistan... becouse America ,ll bring them freedom...
it is ridiculously what America politic understand beneath freedom....

Hi delroba...Thank you for your understanding. Never mind what America have done for Iraq and Afghanistan cos god is always great.

God bless America

America can investing money for own kid,s schooling.
instead to maintain iraq war…

OK now lets look up American Aid to India, lets see what we can learn!

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/280061
Billions of U.S. aid to Pakistan diverted, India concerned
By Kevin Jess. Published Oct 5, 2009 by ■ Kevin Jess
Only a fraction of the $6.6 billion in U.S. aid sent to Pakistan between 2002 and 2008, meant for the war on terror, has actually reached Pakistan's military, and it has India worried about how the money may have been spent.
According to a report by Associated Press, two army generals are saying that only $500 million of U.S. aid has actually made it to where it was intended, to help the Pakistan military fight the war on terror.
There were American government suspicions about where the money might have been spent. It was suspected that Musharraf, who was chief of staff and president of Pakistan at the time may have diverted the money to the domestic economy, and many other causes including fighting India, and to boost his sagging image by providing economic subsidies, says the AP report.
In an interview with Associated Press, retired General Mahmud Durrani said, "The army itself got very little. It went to things like subsidies, which is why everything looked hunky-dory. The military was financing the war on terror out of its own budget."
Other generals and government ministers are telling the same story and feel that it helped al-Qaida, which was virtually dismantled in 2001, rejuvenate and be able to take on a weakened Pakistani force.
The aid money is paid from the Coalition Support Fund, which was created to reimburse allies for money spent on the war on terror.
By 2008, Pakistan had received $8.6 billion in military aid from the fund making the nation the largest recipient in the coalition. To date they have received approximately $12 billion and they are about to get more.
Last week, in a move causing new concerns for India, the U.S. Senate voted unanimously to triple Pakistan's non-military aid from $500 million to $1.5 billion per year until 2014, reports The Times of India.
The announcement was made by President Barrack Obama at a meeting of the Friends of Democratic Pakistan at the United Nations headquarters in New York, says the report.
India's foreign minister S M Krishna said in a Times of India interview that his country was concerned about the vote in the U.S. Senate as "Islamabad had in the past diverted American aid to bolster its defences against India."
The report also quoted Krishna as saying, "Consider the statement that has been issued by the former president of Pakistan Musharraf himself where he has said that the aid provided to Pakistan by the US has been used for directing its hostile operations against India."
He said, "India's concern is only that aid has to be appropriated for the purpose for which it is provided by the United States."

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-170.html
Foreign Aid and India:
Financing the Leviathan State
With a debate now raging over whether further foreign aid programs financed by U.S. taxpayers are justified in the post-Cold War era, a review of the development experience of the recipient of the largest amount of foreign aid is instructive. India has received more foreign aid than any other developing nation since the end of World War II--estimated at almost $55 billion since the beginning of its First Five-Year Plan in 1951.(1) It has long been an article of faith among development economists and policymakers that foreign aid is a necessary and central component of economic development, yet the record of Indian economic development since 1947 belies that view.
. . . .
A Brief Anatomy of India's Economic Failure

The centrally planned industrialization strategy of India's post-independence period has resulted in over 60 percent of investment in the industrial sector going into public-sector enterprises. The private sector has been severely restricted by the banning of private-sector investment in major industries; a strict regime of industrial licensing; intrusive quantitative, price, and distribution controls; uneconomic preferences for cottage, village, and other small industries; extensive labor-market and employment controls; and comprehensive external-sector controls.(3) Restrictions have included prohibitive tariffs, perhaps the developing world's most comprehensive and onerous set of quantitative controls and restrictions, an ever-expanding export control and subsidization scheme, and severe and often prohibitive restrictions on both direct and portfolio foreign investment.(4)

Over 20 million Indians are on the public payroll, and around 70 percent of all formal, above-ground employment is in the public sector. Confiscatory tax rates combined with a jungle of red tape--permission to open a hotel involves 45 applications and over 25 different government agencies--have led to the growth of one of the largest and most thriving underground economies in the world, where an estimated 50 percent of economic activity is generated.(5)

From 1950 to 1985 per capita income in India grew at a meager average annual rate of 1.5 percent, compared with rates of 5.5 to 6.5 percent in the "newly industrializing countries" of Hong Kong, South Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan and 3 to 4 percent in the three southeast Asian nations of Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand.

India's heavily centralized economic planning, its lack of openness to trade and investment, and its large accumulated inflow of foreign aid--mainly in the form of official development assistance--have set it apart from its neighbors.
. . .
U.S. Aid Officially Promotes Comprehensive Planning

Indeed, in the 1960s India began to be heralded in the West as the epitome of rational, planned economic development. John P. Lewis, the dean of American foreign aid experts who had held prominent posts with the Council of Economic Advisers, the UN Reconstruction Agency, and the U.S. Agency for International Development's mission to India, argued in his influential 1962 book, Quiet Crisis in India:

There is much less need now for [a] defense of the very concept of comprehensive economic planning in countries like India. . . . Today [such] planning is officially viewed as an essential concomitant of any national development that merits American assistance, and the United States government is urging such planning upon Latin American, African, and Asian governments that do not yet practice it.(9)
Lewis argued that India's planned development was the most feasible and desirable path for a country at an early juncture in the development process and that the decentralized market system was inappropriate, destined to fail, and had only led to the development of Great Britain and the United States because of "special circumstances." His book made an impassioned plea for vastly stepped up levels of American aid to support the "rationally planned economic development" of India's Second Five-Year Plan.

So roopindar, from what I can find and read it does not look like India can aford to hate America. Ever consider being greatful and not hateful?
I see $6.6 billion reasons for you to rethink your "trendy hate of America".
Worth thinking about at any rate.

OK now lets look up American Aid to India, lets see what we can learn!

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/280061
Billions of U.S. aid to Pakistan diverted, India concerned
By Kevin Jess. Published Oct 5, 2009 by ■ Kevin Jess
Only a fraction of the $6.6 billion in U.S. aid sent to Pakistan between 2002 and 2008, meant for the war on terror, has actually reached Pakistan's military, and it has India worried about how the money may have been spent.
According to a report by Associated Press, two army generals are saying that only $500 million of U.S. aid has actually made it to where it was intended, to help the Pakistan military fight the war on terror.
There were American government suspicions about where the money might have been spent. It was suspected that Musharraf, who was chief of staff and president of Pakistan at the time may have diverted the money to the domestic economy, and many other causes including fighting India, and to boost his sagging image by providing economic subsidies, says the AP report.
In an interview with Associated Press, retired General Mahmud Durrani said, "The army itself got very little. It went to things like subsidies, which is why everything looked hunky-dory. The military was financing the war on terror out of its own budget."
Other generals and government ministers are telling the same story and feel that it helped al-Qaida, which was virtually dismantled in 2001, rejuvenate and be able to take on a weakened Pakistani force.
The aid money is paid from the Coalition Support Fund, which was created to reimburse allies for money spent on the war on terror.
By 2008, Pakistan had received $8.6 billion in military aid from the fund making the nation the largest recipient in the coalition. To date they have received approximately $12 billion and they are about to get more.
Last week, in a move causing new concerns for India, the U.S. Senate voted unanimously to triple Pakistan's non-military aid from $500 million to $1.5 billion per year until 2014, reports The Times of India.
The announcement was made by President Barrack Obama at a meeting of the Friends of Democratic Pakistan at the United Nations headquarters in New York, says the report.
India's foreign minister S M Krishna said in a Times of India interview that his country was concerned about the vote in the U.S. Senate as "Islamabad had in the past diverted American aid to bolster its defences against India."
The report also quoted Krishna as saying, "Consider the statement that has been issued by the former president of Pakistan Musharraf himself where he has said that the aid provided to Pakistan by the US has been used for directing its hostile operations against India."
He said, "India's concern is only that aid has to be appropriated for the purpose for which it is provided by the United States."


Its all about Pakistan.... :)
India is not funded by America. :D

what is pakistan and India related to iraq war...
the people dont want America as watchdog.... America bring only agitation....
any way check this it is more suited to you..and make you more intelligent by your housekeeping...

http://www.getcreativeshow.com/Craft_Sew_Business/Business_Seminars/teaching_sewing.htm
http://www.craftyarncouncil.com/knitguide.html

America is Psychological spoiled...

Based on their statements, I can easily believe that they have a "malign, groundless, irrational" hatred of America -- their embrace of tyranny, love of violence, and intolerance of dissent make it obvious.

Most of all ignorant of the world around them, knowing so little of other countries and cultures, but expecting the rest of the World to know theirs.

Americans are perceived as selfish twats from a holistic point of view, because they know so little about the World that they declare to dominate. If the World was one country, the USA would be the leader, but it would without a doubt be a fascist dictator, forcing the rest of the World to conform to its views and ideologies, and inconsiderate of those that they are apparently there to lead.

but we,ll not allowed someone or any country to interfering in our any project.
even neuclear project.

lol im the "watchdog" of my friends, family, and patients.. if your not one of those, your living, or dying is not my concern at all.. i won't put a foot in your door, so no worries about me :)

I don't hate American's. I find them......entertaining.

Are we here to fight?? Why blame the Americans, they are not even involved in this thing?? Better fight with the person/department having the authority... the body who is responsible for all this...
let's live in peace, at least here on Zorpia!!

peace ...which peace... did you forget who blast mumbai last year in Dec. pakistan with America protect....If you dont know about your own country... I can not help you.

did you forget 09/11

for your such information...
check this here and you,ll see the reason ....

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread236086/pg1

perhaps you find enough information for your own convincing.

for your such information...

Part 1 of 50



Take time to watch it, it will open your eyes. ;D

.

sorry arabic is not my language..
and i,m not blind perhaps your mind is blind..
i can understand you that u love america becouse you are under hand from america and coomonwealth from them.
we are free ...and my country is free from all . we are our own almighty

I know about my country... and I know it wasn't any American civilian involved, neither any Pakistani civilian... they were terrorists and terrorists don't belong to any country...
Say for example if you kill someone, would it be right for anyone to say Iranians are killers??
I've seen, heard and experienced enough bloodshed. Do you know why there are still differences between India and Pakistan?? Its just because a large amount of people think like you.
It's just like a Pakistani killed an Indian, to take the revenge, the Indian killed another Pakistani, and for further revenge and retaliation another Pakistani kills another Indian... Is it right?? this vicious circle of bloodshed??
We had our first lady Prime Minister... Indira Gandhi... she was assassinated by a religious Sikh, and for revenge, Hindus started killing Sikhs and in return Sikhs killed Hindus... Do you think all this is justified?? can't we ever call it a day??
If Mumbai was attacked, it's better to blame and take strict action against the authorities who did it, rather than blaming the innocent citizens of those countries...

Peace!!

i hope never happend again attack like mumbai in india.