Bharat Rakshak

Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
It is currently 26 Oct 2014 13:16

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 326 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 06 Aug 2007 23:48 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31
Posts: 754
samuel wrote:
It is interesting, perhaps, to note that the nuclear deal with Japan, per Burns, had over 400 pages. Almost no commitments were made in the China-US agreement, which is a much shorter document. India's is slightly longer than China's. If one were to go by the length of these documents alone, one wonders whether it is inversely proportional to how close an ally the US considers the other side to be and, similarly, inversely proportional to the degree of commitment it wishes to make to the bilateral cooperation.


samuelbhai,

No need to scratch your head and wonder as to why these agreements are of such differing lengths. Its a very zimble matter see!!!. China had the lowest amount of nuke generating capacity when its agreement was signed, something under 2000 MW so its agreement was shortest. India has an installed capacity right now of something between 5000 to 5500MW so its agreement is slightly longer. Japan on the other hand has an installed capacity of about 50,000 MW. So its agreement is the longest!! Zimble onlee. No need to wonder about conspiracy theories. The more the number of facilities listed and covered in the agreement , the longer it will be.!!!

Q.E.D.


Last edited by ldev on 06 Aug 2007 23:51, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 06 Aug 2007 23:48 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 07 Oct 2006 20:54
Posts: 4012
Rye wrote:
Since when has VP Singh been anything less than a politicking lowlife like many other politicos who see all issues in terms of endearing their vote-banks to themselves?


I agree is a politicking lowlife, but this

Quote:
The next biggest contribution he can do to India and Indians is to kick the bucket.


is below the belt.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 06 Aug 2007 23:53 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31
Posts: 1184
So India+P5 are being roped in to sanction Iran.....this means that a US vote in congress on the 123 will take place "after India has demonstrated that it is serious about stopping non proliferation, i.e., support moves on Iran....GoI is going to need to do a lot of tricky dancing...

http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=14505772

Quote:
US to India: Reduce economic ties with Iran
Monday, 06 August , 2007, 22:37
New Delhi: The US on Monday asked India to "diminish" its economic relations with "nuclear outlaw" Iran and join the international community in dealing with "one of the most difficult security problems" facing the world.

"We hope that India, as well as all other states -- China, Russia, France, Britain and Japan -- will diminish their economic relations with Iran," US Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns said.

Talking to TV channels over phone from Washington, he said the US expected India to be part of the international community to "deal with one of the most difficult security problems we face internationally today."

Burns, who was talking to the channels on the Indo-US civil nuclear deal, said Iran was a "nuclear outlaw" as it wanted to have nuclear weapons which was "not in the interest of the international community."

Describing Iran as a "recalcitrant and difficult" country, he said all countries were lining up to impose sanctions against that country.

The UN Security Council has already imposed two rounds of sanctions and "we are considering third sanction resolution" against it.

The State Department official, however, noted that there was nothing in the 123 Agreement between India and the US to implement the bilateral civil nuclear deal that pertains directly to Iran.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 06 Aug 2007 23:55 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Sep 2006 02:23
Posts: 280
Location: India
One point is why didnt India took its lawmakers there, why dont we have a Indian nuke national act type system which wont allow the Hyde to impose anything on us?

Its weird but I believe the deal language has been set in such a way if the nootrious US Lawmakers are asked to make it look like they can give us everything they can do it and if the lawmakers are asked by the administration to screw India through the deals language they can do it too, what we need is Indian national laws that will prevent from the application of the second option.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 06 Aug 2007 23:56 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31
Posts: 1184
CRAmS wrote:
Quote:
is below the belt.


I can see the complete lack of respect for the life of the average Indian by the likes of VP Singh and his ilk in the political spectrum --- 1000s can die if these wankers can mange to get elected, as is their mentality....so excuse me if I choose to reciprocate by placing an equal amount of respect for the lives of callous and self-serving politicos.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 06 Aug 2007 23:56 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 03 Apr 2007 08:52
Posts: 818
ldev wrote:
samuel wrote:
It is interesting, perhaps, to note that the nuclear deal with Japan, per Burns, had over 400 pages. Almost no commitments were made in the China-US agreement, which is a much shorter document. India's is slightly longer than China's. If one were to go by the length of these documents alone, one wonders whether it is inversely proportional to how close an ally the US considers the other side to be and, similarly, inversely proportional to the degree of commitment it wishes to make to the bilateral cooperation.


samuelbhai,

No need to scratch your head and wonder as to why these agreements are of such differing lengths. Its a very zimble matter see!!!. China had the lowest amount of nuke generating capacity when its agreement was signed, something under 2000 MW so its agreement was shortest. India has an installed capacity right now of something between 5000 to 5500MW so its agreement is slightly longer. Japan on the other hand has an installed capacity of about 50,000 MW. So its agreement is the longest!! Zimble onlee. No need to wonder about conspiracy theories. The more the number of facilities listed and covered in the agreement , the longer it will be.!!!

Q.E.D.

good one ldev! I appreciate the humor :)
I don't know what Japan's capacity was when it signed the agreement...
How many facilities did you see listed in the US-China agreement or US-India agreement, available on BRF now?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 07 Aug 2007 00:03 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31
Posts: 754
samuel wrote:
How many facilities did you see listed in the US-China agreement or US-India agreement, available on BRF now?


You are so smart onlee!! :) Then you will realize that it is the potentially larger number of issues to be covered via those clauses and dratted sub clauses that arise from a larger and more diverse range of facilities inherent in a larger installed base which have to be all covered. So the agreement will be longer. Now how much longer also depends on whether both sides have got US lawyers or only one side. I have seen commercial agreements in the US which I thought should be 5 pages long to cover all issues and the $700/hour lawyers managed to make that into a bound book of 280 pages which I had difficulty carrying.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 07 Aug 2007 00:09 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 25748
Location: NowHere
some how could not decipher w.r.t legal jurisdiction for this deal? which international court would that be?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 07 Aug 2007 00:12 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 02 Sep 1999 11:31
Posts: 639
Location: Office Lounge
The BJP also left India in the “Doubting Thomasâ€


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 07 Aug 2007 00:15 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31
Posts: 1184
SaiK wrote:
Quote:
some how could not decipher w.r.t legal jurisdiction for this deal? which international court would that be?


There is no such thing as "international law" or "international justice"....That story is just for the unwashed masses that like to believe in such nonsense.

"international laws" are meant for those too puny to ignore those that want to "enforce" such laws -- such "laws" can be violated at will by countries that cannot be made to face any consequences of such violations, i.e., you have nastier and meaner weapons than the enforcers (or weapons that are just as nasty and mean as those your adversaries possess) and you are willing to use them.

So Burkina Faso will get nailed (will have to face sanctions unless it changes its behaviour) for violating the "International Treaty on Sneezing on Dusty Roads at Midnight" while China will face no consequences for violating the so-called "Non Proliferation Treaty" that they signed up to.

In some ways, the world is very much like an Indian's left testicle -- it is not right and it is not fair.


Last edited by Rye on 07 Aug 2007 00:23, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 07 Aug 2007 00:21 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 07 Oct 2006 20:54
Posts: 4012
[quote="bala"]The BJP also left India in the “Doubting Thomasâ€


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 07 Aug 2007 00:24 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57
Posts: 4892
It's not clear to me what exact sanctions were being threatened.

I remember how INS agents in the US were busily trying to round up any illegal Indian they could find. But I don't remember what exactly was being done/threatened against India itself, following Pokhran-II.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 07 Aug 2007 00:29 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 09 Sep 2004 05:16
Posts: 690
Location: KhemKaran, Shomali Plain
Situation was grim onlee.

According to Moni Basu, the famous Foreign Affairs Editor of the Atlanta Fishwrap,

Quote:
Now my friends in Kolkatta won't be able to buy Revlon jeans or Levi's Lipstick
:eek: :eek:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 07 Aug 2007 00:32 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 02 Sep 1999 11:31
Posts: 639
Location: Office Lounge
Sanctions: Al bin Powell came up with the tourist clampdown by putting out a US State Dept warning. DRDO/ISRO/BARC were placed under sanction list. I think it was Bush who removed all these silly stipulations. Oh, and let us not forget Kargill and Nuclear Showdown Drama concocted by China/TSP/USA with US NSA Berger pacing up and down the hall fretting about meltdown in flashpoint Kashmir. With Vajpayee given an ultimatum not to cross Yellow Sea (LOC) our IAF jets were constrained to follow through on complete bombardment, the US Navy blockaded Indian Navy to impose any block on TSP Karachi Harbor. India lost many lives in a phony war aided and abetted by the US and China.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 07 Aug 2007 00:36 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31
Posts: 1184
http://www.saja.org/members/profiles/monibasu.html

Not a surprising bit of "analysis" (thanks for the summary of Moni's analytical skills, enqyoob) by Moni Basu, who is apparently a SAJA dorkette --- kinda fits in line with the general asininity coefficient of the cretins in SAJA.


Last edited by Rye on 07 Aug 2007 00:40, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 07 Aug 2007 00:38 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31
Posts: 13228
Quote:
Also another point that has not been discussed is why BJP committed India to a moratorium on Nuke Test. This I feel is the sole reason for all the major paper roadblocks in the 123 agreement. Bush et al keep harping on this point. They want moratorium to hold.


This deal is to keep India in Trishanku state. It is neither with full tested weapons programs nor a CRE India. This state will go on for many decades.
All this problems will be resolved by chappan.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 07 Aug 2007 00:41 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31
Posts: 13228
[quote="bala"]The BJP also left India in the “Doubting Thomasâ€


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 07 Aug 2007 00:50 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 09 Sep 2004 05:16
Posts: 690
Location: KhemKaran, Shomali Plain
It's interesting to see ppl arguing that the massive changes in infrastructure that will accompany a $375B infusion of power plant construction all over India, is all just "short-term thinking" , of no significance to India, but the supposed disadvantages accompanying the lack of further nuke tests - of 1950s-grade weapons - is a permanent disaster.

Doesn't anyone attack importance to the fact that 5 out of 5 devices tested, actually went "Boom"? (or were there 250,000 other duds?) Even if there were, the fact that India was able to detonate 5 devices on a given day, is convincing enough for me, thank u very much.

In fact nukes worldwide have a depressingly high success percentage. I don't think the US sent 6 bombers carrying nukes over Hiroshima or Nagasaki to get 2 explosions - it was 2 out of 2 IIRC.

None of which matters much 15 years from now, because a fleet of hypersonic cruise missiles and Space-based weapons will be able to knock out every ICBM and IRBM and missile submarine and cruiser and long-range aircraft in 1 hour flat, before a single bomber can be scrambled. Of course, VP Singh's Imported Coal plants will make visibility zero... so it won't matter whether we have electricity for power or not.

This thread has really degnerated, sorry. The anti-deal debators have no substantive objections to advance. I think the NDA GOI was absolutely right in testing, and absolutely right in declaring a moratorium right afterwards. And the present GOI is to be commended for getting the 123 deal that they have signed.

There's more to statesmanship than getting into nuclear p-- ing contests.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 07 Aug 2007 00:57 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 25748
Location: NowHere
remember, only a few from nuke nude side asking for retesting.. most glaring being our "peter" iyengar. bjp didn't dig out for say 15 to 30 tests in one shot., and that later govt needed only to just plant the devices.

other reasons:-
1. device not ready (higher KTs, like 200KT thermos)
2. device already tested, completed testing requirements in the first shot.
3. bad chest thumping, and bad hyphenated fighting with pakis [hamara haath mei bhi bum hai] craps [basically losing focus]
4. un-preparedness and the usual Indian inferiority ness plus "what would the world say to us?"
5. politics overtaking requirements. (Normal Indian state of affairs)

IMHO, reasons 1 & 5 are the most probables.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 07 Aug 2007 01:00 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 03 Apr 2007 08:52
Posts: 818
enqyoob wrote:
Quote:
I changed the goalposts. Now my criteria are:

1. Have 192 members of UN invited India to become 6th Permanent Member of UNSC with Veto?

2. Have P-5 sent invitation to India as Member of Nuclear Weapon Club?
3. Has US agreed carte blanche to "transfer" any and all technology like heavy water, light alcohol(Most important), high-rate enrichment technology and all dual-use technology like Box Cutters, Aerosol Can etc?
4. Has the Obama Amendment been retracted?
5. Have all objectionable items in the Hyde Act been unilaterally retracted?

Seems eminently reasonable to me, and AFAIK, NONE of these, NOT ONE, is met by this "123" agreement.

SELLOUT! The whole thing is a scam to steal our FBR and thorium technology.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 07 Aug 2007 01:02 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 25748
Location: NowHere
Quote:
The anti-deal debators have no substantive objections to advance. I think the NDA GOI was absolutely right in testing, and absolutely right in declaring a moratorium right afterwards. And the present GOI is to be commended for getting the 123 deal that they have signed.


politics overtaking requirements!..


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 07 Aug 2007 01:09 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 09 Sep 2004 05:16
Posts: 690
Location: KhemKaran, Shomali Plain
Samuelji:

If THAT idiotic list is the best u can quote... 8) :P

SaiK: Supply of fissile material was probably not so plentiful; besides, 5 in 2 days is a LOT of tests. Well-planned.

All this noise about insufficient testing is nonsense. Firstly, first-principles design/prediction is really not that far off. A few terraHz computers, and some good physics profs, DOOs and engineers is all they need.

Secondly, weapons test data can presumably be purchased from one of the P-5 at a reasonable price, a few years down the line, purely for validation purposes, of course.

How many tests would be "sufficient" to please the "bum-inflate-NOW!" crowd? 10? Nah! 25? Nah! The US conducted some 1365 or so, and the Soviets maybe another 1500, so I would say that's a minimum. And that should include at least 900 at the 1MT level and up.

Otherwise, the arsenal developed will be by definition, not even up to where the US and USSR were in 1980, and hence the insecurity would be way too high.

Thinking along these lines brings one to the swift conclusion that "5 out of 5" is an excellent and sufficient record.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 07 Aug 2007 01:10 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 06 Jul 2007 02:14
Posts: 233
Quote:
The current question is why not the present govt test before it signs the nuclear deal. This option is always available and it is still available.


Acharyaji, you must be joking. You really think present GoI can test with MMS as PM - This is same person who was opposed to both POK-I,II.

OTOH, if NDA or whosoever comes to power in 2009, they should straight away embark on a testing program and perfect the N-weapons. Here are my reasons for the same.

1) Let us face it, sanction against India are not going to work. They did not work in 1998, when India was relatively weak. Consequently, Unkil got back to the table and carefully charted out the strategy to change the course and followed the policy of engagement.

2) PRC is only going to become stronger and eventually as many people estimated, it will take over Unkil economically. ASAT test has already made Unkil work on stealth satellites. If Unkil has to contain PRC, their best bet is India. They have to engage India. Why all these military exercises are happening in the recent years? What is the need for a such a big exercise involving US-India-Japan-Australia-Singapore. They only purpose is to contain China, at least I think so.

3) 123 agreement and Unkil's all this rhetoric of strategic partnership will be put to test. IMO, they will ignore India's test in the subsequent years although they NPA's and Congress will make some noises and put some token sanctions.

4) NDA or Third Front will score a political victory on UPA. People of India will support the tests as they did in 1998. If Unkil imposes sanctions, NDA will say,"we told you so, UPA has taken the country for a ride." If Unkil does not impose sanctions, they will say,"we need to perfect our weapons, considering the threat perceptions - PRC's and Pak's modernization of their armed forces."

IMO that will be the ideal time to test, considering everything.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 07 Aug 2007 01:19 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31
Posts: 13228
nkumar wrote:
Quote:
The current question is why not the present govt test before it signs the nuclear deal. This option is always available and it is still available.


Acharyaji, you must be joking. You really think present GoI can test with MMS as PM - This is same person who was opposed to both POK-I,II.


This is the point I am trying to make. Afte opposing the tests they are making a deal.

If anybody gives credit to this govt raise this point and ask question.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 07 Aug 2007 01:19 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 25748
Location: NowHere
enqyoob saab, Amen.

for the *deleted* (aam junta talk) 4 x 45KT MIRVs is quite enough too. I am sure, we could get those 200KT wallahs readied up from super comps + bought p5 data, perhaps agreeing to FMCT, NPT etc.

we need more fuel for civilian use than mil [actually speaking] and strategic deployment just for NFU purposes onlee.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 07 Aug 2007 01:23 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 02 Sep 1999 11:31
Posts: 639
Location: Office Lounge
I agree, the BJP despite the rhetoric did not go the whole way in Nuke testing, they might still resort to more testing when they are in power. And when they come to power things might be different and reality may be yet another ball of wax. Meanwhile, we (India) need to work out in the gym and grow economic/military muscle, have the ability to kick the can down the road fearlessly and have the other big boys applaud instead of rebuke. Get the investment rolling and stock up on the slow burning chula should be the mantra.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 07 Aug 2007 01:32 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 06 Jul 2007 02:14
Posts: 233
Quote:
If anybody gives credit to this govt raise this point and ask question.

I agree.

Why can't the pro-deal people offer a point-by-point refutation of the points raised by BC, Rajiv Sikri et al to convince others who are not so sure about the deal? Nobody is against the deal with US, but some people are not sure if the current 123 deal serves our interests in the best way.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 07 Aug 2007 01:46 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 06 Mar 2002 12:31
Posts: 1804
Something is fishy. Congress don't want to put this in Parliament committee.

x-post
Quote:
Congress rejects BJP's demand for JPC review of N-deal
http://in.news.yahoo.com/070806/139/6j38x.html

Quote:
New Delhi, Aug 6 (ANI): The Congress Party on Monday went ballistic against the opposition BJP over the Indo-US nuclear deal, and rejected the latter's demand for a review of the bilateral agreement by a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC).

Stating that the 'frustrated' BJP could not 'digest' the fact that an "incredible, unprecedented and historic agreement" has been achieved by Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh, Congress spokesperson Abhishek Manu Singhvi said that there has never been a convention wherein an international treaty was referred to the JPC.



Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 07 Aug 2007 01:50 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 25748
Location: NowHere
whoa! now this has become an "international treaty" for the kangrez! jee.. and they see nothing to do with our security and strategic arses to be covered?

again politics overtaking requirements.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 07 Aug 2007 01:57 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 26 Oct 2006 09:56
Posts: 49
Location: zz_ota-ku
New York Times critisizes the N-deal


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 07 Aug 2007 01:58 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 06 Jul 2007 02:14
Posts: 233
Quote:
Stating that the 'frustrated' BJP could not 'digest' the fact that an "incredible, unprecedented and historic agreement" has been achieved by Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh, Congress spokesperson Abhishek Manu Singhvi said that there has never been a convention wherein an international treaty was referred to the JPC.


Utter nonsense and total BS. This is Congress's answer to Hyde Act !!! They can't even refer the deal to JPC, leave alone enacting a law to counter Hyde.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 07 Aug 2007 02:03 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31
Posts: 1184
Quote:
Rejected the latter's demand for a review of the bilateral agreement by a Joint Parliamentary Committee


123 cannot be changed anymore (has to be an up/down vote) and has already been released to the public...so what is the BJP's problem exactly? They can always vote down 123, one would think.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 07 Aug 2007 02:10 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 25748
Location: NowHere
aaah! here is a good note on what is a trigger-happy test v/s requirements based. good.

[url]A good deal
It is a significant diplomatic success for the government.

The final text of the Indo-US civil nuclear energy cooperation agreement, released last Friday, represents a significant diplomatic accomplishment for the Manmohan Singh government. The 14-day delay in unveiling the final text had aroused considerable public curiosity in the country about its contents. That was understandable since the Hyde Act – the law passed by the US Congress last December to authorise the Bush Administration to negotiate the bilateral agreement, better known as 123 agreement – contained several clauses unacceptable to India. So much so, the government itself had found it compelling enough to convey its concerns to Washington over at least three crucial aspects of the Hyde Act.

The foremost area of concern arose from the Hyde Act’s emphasis on strangulating India’s nuclear weapons programme, preferably also by getting India to convert its unilateral moratorium on nuclear tests into a binding bilateral commitment. However, if there is one most important success for the Indian officials who negotiated the 22-page final text, it is about completely insulating the nuclear weapons programme and the nuclear doctrine of credible minimum deterrent. Indeed, crucial clauses under Article 14 of the text effectively meant that the US has acknowledged the Indian strategic rationale for possessing nuclear weapons. While the Hyde Act requires US Administration to terminate the 123 agreement if India conducted nuclear tests in future, the text has nevertheless made an important distinction between what can be termed a trigger-happy test and a test undertaken in response to a deteriorating security situation or tests by other countries.

Second, in view of the Hyde Act’s emphasis on America’s non-proliferation goals, it sought to deny India the right to reprocess spent fuel from the civil nuclear facilities offered to be placed in the civilian sector. That is because reprocessing produces plutonium which is also the main route for the country’s nuclear weapons programme. The final text has, however, granted India “consent to reprocessâ€


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 07 Aug 2007 02:13 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 25748
Location: NowHere
Rye, a "review" does not necessarily mean a change. It could be an analysis that would give a better explanations for a safe "yes/no".


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 07 Aug 2007 02:17 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31
Posts: 1184
SaiK wrote:
Quote:
a "review" does not necessarily mean a change. It could be an analysis that would give a better explanations for a safe "yes/no".



Is the BJP going to have analysis that differs from those in the articles by BC and others? Just asking.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 07 Aug 2007 02:22 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 02 Sep 1999 11:31
Posts: 639
Location: Office Lounge
Aahgh. The US minions have to keep their stupid trap shut. Otherwise we get into such wrong perceptions. India will vote on Iran based on the merits of the case and so will the rest of the world. Constantly bringing up the Iran topic because it is on some hot list will not solve the issue. No amount of pressure will cause the desired outcome. Iran has very few friends, but if the world perceives a meritless argument put forth by the US then the whole debate changes. Iran's nuclear posture is a worry for India and so too are its Ayotollahs Islamist agenda. But India will not be brow beaten into senseless arguments. Even Russia is not too keen on providing nuclear fuel without IAEA supervision to Iran.


Burns delinks Iran and 123

Describing Iran as a “recalcitrant and difficultâ€


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 07 Aug 2007 02:31 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31
Posts: 1184
If GoI is going to disallow Iran's nuclear program anyway, this posturing by Burns could be towards pacifying the Lantos-types before 123 goes in for the up/down vote. Just another angle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 07 Aug 2007 02:33 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 25748
Location: NowHere
Rye wrote:
SaiK wrote:
Quote:
a "review" does not necessarily mean a change. It could be an analysis that would give a better explanations for a safe "yes/no".



Is the BJP going to have analysis that differs from those in the articles by BC and others? Just asking.

I thought they said "JPC" and not "BJP". Its their politics and I don't take anything further than that.


Quote:
US ticks off India on Iran

We hope that India,..

hoping is a bad idea. they have to spell out exactly what they want, in detail, and how they are going to solve the issues, that could be taken on a P2P basis sitting with Iran. We could be the new great power p6 negotiator for the middle-east problems. on the brighter side, we can increase our stake in Iran and Iraq oil lines for more years to come.

I think India could talk with Iran, to make things explicit about their weapons program. MMS has already intended that we don't want another weaponizer in the neighborhood.. so be it.. get this moving, and we have a big hat on!


Last edited by SaiK on 07 Aug 2007 02:41, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 07 Aug 2007 02:40 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 12 Mar 2005 02:30
Posts: 731
Quote:
There is no such thing as "international law" or "international justice"....That story is just for the unwashed masses that like to believe in such nonsense.

"international laws" are meant for those too puny to ignore those that want to "enforce" such laws -- such "laws" can be violated at will by countries that cannot be made to face any consequences of such violations, i.e., you have nastier and meaner weapons than the enforcers (or weapons that are just as nasty and mean as those your adversaries possess) and you are willing to use them.

So Burkina Faso will get nailed (will have to face sanctions unless it changes its behaviour) for violating the "International Treaty on Sneezing on Dusty Roads at Midnight" while China will face no consequences for violating the so-called "Non Proliferation Treaty" that they signed up to.

In some ways, the world is very much like an Indian's left testicle -- it is not right and it is not fair


Too bad, Nehru did not understand this. Somehow I feel his legacy still lives within Indian Inteligencia. The notion of "fair play" seems to be planted in the spine of Indians, despite over 1000 years of bad experiance. When will we learn??

Sign the nuclear treaty and get hold of the nuclear tech, make sure we do not get dependant on forigin input, tear it up, when ever it suits us. Pure and simple. Yet many here are hooled up in the finetext, as if it actually mattred.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 07 Aug 2007 02:43 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 28 Sep 2003 11:31
Posts: 165
Location: Earth ... but in a parallel universe
Reading the text of the Nuke Agreement, it sounds ominus to me. Especially the part where it says something to the effect that U.S will determine if the civilian nuke co-operation in any way enhances India's nuke weapons production, i.e. the number of nukes made. This seems like their back door to get into India's nuke weapon production system. I wonder if they'll demand data from us about our weapons program to make their determination. The whole of the weapons program and the reactors associated with it supposed to be outside of their reach. Sometimes I wonder if Congress and M. Singh really know what they're doing. It doesn't look like they do. I hope the BJP and others sink this ship even before it sets sail. :evil:


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 326 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group