India Nuclear News & Discussion - 31 Aug 2007

rsingh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3319
Joined: 19 Jan 2005 01:05
Location: Pindi
Contact:

Postby rsingh » 04 Sep 2007 17:42

Sir you are one of the wisest posters here; why do you embaress us poor folks by asking what I am sure you know?


:)

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Postby Sanku » 04 Sep 2007 17:43

Kanson wrote: Yes, I have seen all those interesting, nerve-wrenching theories. Since your words are dipped in colours, probably i couldnt read much. thanks.


You are ranting; please take a break; and I also refer to the exceedingly intresting reply to ShauyraT :rotfl: it seems the flow of cause and effect is too difficult for you to stick to and you prefer to bring in complete tangentials.

Relax friend; you need to.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Postby Sanku » 04 Sep 2007 17:44

rsingh wrote:
Sir you are one of the wisest posters here; why do you embaress us poor folks by asking what I am sure you know?


:)


Just to clarify I meant it with all my heart; I have used NRao information and views in my own reasoning too. That was not sarcastic.

Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Postby Rye » 04 Sep 2007 17:55

Sanu wrote:

Rye I have pointed the gap to what I see much before you started with your filthy language; please read my posts to see.


Sanku,

There is nothing redeeming in repeating the same thing over and over, as has been done on this thread...to no avail as it would appear.

You have done nothing of the sort. What posts and where have you drawn the differences between J18 and 123? You were asking others to do the legwork for you, the last the I heard.


Secondly; NPA etc. is a fig leaf of an excuse; you had a battle with Valkan where you correctly pointed out how the entire NPA constituncy did whit when China proliferated; and NPA is their internal matter let US worry about it and let GoI worry about left. You are turning your own arguments on their head in your hurry to give a clean chit to the deal.


Not just the NPA, see the pakistani proliferation thread, the NPAs were all following Jimmy Carter's orders and those of his state dept. (which included the "atlanticists" like Madelyn Halfbright and other).

There is no such thing as "clean chit" to the deal --- obviously it is a matter of finding whether the price India is paying is worth what India could get out of the deal if it played its card right. There are no short cuts to indigenous hard work to becoming truly independent. If India has the potential to a power, it should have the resilience to push back if the deal does not go as planned.

If the IAEA/NSG negotiations end up restricting India more than 123, then clearly the deal is not worth the paper it is written on. The question is whether the US will find it in its interest to throw in poison pills into the 123 by adding them in the IAEA and NSG negotiations --- India is obligated to adhere to a combination of 123, IAEA, and NSG rules. So the fat lady has not sung yet.


Thirdly I am still waiting for the answers to the other question I raised (not on J18 vs 123) what does the deal get us; really?


The answer has been posted by many people upto now, so let us not pretend that your question was never answered.

One of the points made was that The civilian nuclear program can access technology from all over the world, that is what the deal gets us. Note the use of the word "civilian"....so "dual use" items are still out of reach...but as Shri AK says that's a good bargain. If the US does screw India at some point in the future, do you think the US will be able to partner with India after that? I doubt it....a lot of bridges will be burnt permanently.



And please mind your language; we can all lower ourselfs to your level and indulge in ad hominem personal attacks; I dont think that is the right way to go.


Why don't you go read my posts, they attacked the line of thinking rather than the person. Pretending that I was attacking you is not going to work.
Last edited by Rye on 04 Sep 2007 18:04, edited 1 time in total.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2935
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Postby Kanson » 04 Sep 2007 18:00

Sanku wrote:
Kanson wrote: Yes, I have seen all those interesting, nerve-wrenching theories. Since your words are dipped in colours, probably i couldnt read much. thanks.


You are ranting; please take a break; and I also refer to the exceedingly intresting reply to ShauyraT :rotfl: it seems the flow of cause and effect is too difficult for you to stick to and you prefer to bring in complete tangentials.

Relax friend; you need to.
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
You need that more than anyone here. When you say
Shorn of the hype; what KS is advocating is we move into the US camp; to contain China (BTW this article has a new date but I remember having read the exact same piece before; it seems KS has nothing new to say)
shows how you interpret what you read. Throughtout article, KS never used the term containing China.
India should sign the 123 Agreement to avoid Chinese hegemony in Asia
By K. Subrahmanyam
is title for his passage. Capping is the one given by the magazine.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Postby Sanku » 04 Sep 2007 18:03

Sorry Rye; filthy language is filthy language; no matter how you spin it; otherwise I have a lot of respect for your posts; in fact my stand is that you are contradicting your own stand.

Atlantistic or not; the fact is US give a damn about NPT when it needs; so we dont need to be so worried about their internal constiuency. Their problem not ours.

I have to repeat the same thing over and over because people say the same thing over and over. and I get into the same debate with different posters each starting from zero. I have moved forward from asking people to do J18 vs 123 and done my own in my limited ablities and posted the same. (Using the material provided by others since I first asked; like ShauyraT for example) please look at page 5.

If you are not attacking me and dont have a issue with pushing back if the price is not right; please let me debate the points with other noobs who think I can be debated with in some cases with folks who want to discuss the basics again. I believe that it is all right to do so even at the cost of repetition. OTOH you are free to take the discussion forward as you may think fit.

Thanks for the understanding and lack of personal attacks in future.

Manny
BRFite
Posts: 843
Joined: 07 Apr 2006 22:16
Location: Texas

Postby Manny » 04 Sep 2007 18:07

Sanku wrote:To all those waiting to jump on my and pour vitroil and personal attacks instead of discussing points::

I am still waiting for someone to tell me how the deal helps us (pro-deal faction); in a macroscopic picture; quite willing to learn you see provided some one speaks politely. After a hunderd odd posts and 10 pages; no one has taken this up yet.

Also if some one can tell us how this is J18++ (which to my mind was complete NWS under a new name) I would be still happier.


There are no country that allayed with the US has done poorly. After WWII, look at western Europe that allied with the US. they prospered and did well by their people. Look at Eastern Europe.. The ones who allied with communism and paranoid of capitalism and wealth creation lived miserably and in poverty.

How do you like dem "macroscopic picture" apple.. dude? Clear enough?

:lol:
Last edited by Manny on 04 Sep 2007 18:23, edited 3 times in total.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Postby Sanku » 04 Sep 2007 18:08

Kanson wrote:shows how you interpret what you read. Throughtout article, KS never used the term containing China.
India should sign the 123 Agreement to avoid Chinese hegemony in Asia
By K. Subrahmanyam
is title for his passage. Capping is the one given by the magazine.


Please read the following again; and this time slowly; and also if "avoid Chinese hegemony" is not the same as "containing China"; please I think only N^3 will buy that level of spin here. :roll:

After all, why should the 45-member NSG agree to a waiver of its guidelines on nuclear-related supplies to India when India stays out of the NPT? India is considered a balancer of power, whose growth and technological advancement are good for balance of power in Asia and the world. Without an advanced India, China will be the overwhelmingly dominant power in Asia-a prospect not relished by the US, Russia, European Union and Japan. Only an India with a billion-plus population can balance a billion-strong China.
While the major powers are trying to help India's growth in their own interests, some in this country interpret it as US conspiracy. The only countries that will benefit if the agreement with the international community does not go through will be China and Pakistan.

China avoids direct confrontation with India, but has armed Pakistan with nuclear weapons, missiles and conventional arms. Pakistan has been pursuing a low-intensity conflict with India by supporting terrorism to pin India down. China has tried hard to prevent India from going nuclear by forcing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty on India.

It is not clear if those who oppose India accepting the international offer to free itself from technology apartheid and to help it to grow as a balancer of power understand the implications of their opposition. It will only subordinate India to Chinese hegemony and perpetual Pakistani threat.


As ABCC said; KS is practically begging India to be wests hatchet man; if you can come up with other spins; I am sure Kapil Seebal needs a assistant. :roll:

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35979
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 04 Sep 2007 18:09

123 is not a mandatory requirement for our nuclear continuance.. but a nice to have given our massive economic structure where demands for energy is reaching higher and higher as days pass by.

Yes, we need to talk with the only super power, and consider a "la Lord Ganesh" currently in the nuke world... though our shakti can be obtained from the third eyes. Lets call it a ritual begining to our entry into sharing world nuclear resources that is bound by many international treaties. Its a mark of respect, shall we say?

I don't think we can get far without the blessings of UNkill to source external nukes for civilian requirements. OTOH, if arguments leads to that we would never ever require natural uranium supplies from others, then I agree, we don't need this 123 agreement.

I hope.. I am not misunderstood.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Postby Sanku » 04 Sep 2007 18:10

Manny wrote:
There are no country that allayed with the US has done poorly. After WWII, look at western Europe that allayed with the US. they prospered and did well by their people. Look at Eastern Europe..


Very deep; one word to that level of depth. Pakistan.

And if you go on and on I will throw in another:

Japan.

Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Postby Rye » 04 Sep 2007 18:11

Sanku wrote:

Sorry Rye; filthy language is filthy language; no matter how you spin it; otherwise I have a lot of respect for your posts; in fact my stand is that you are contradicting your own stand.


Again, the distressing lack of appreciation of context. It is extremely silly to pretend that statements are made without any surrounding context. There is ALWAYS a context for when argument is made. The text of 123 was not made available to the general public until about a month ago. There were people intent on knifing it from both sides, which is why both executive branches put in the non-renegotiable clause --- renegotiation could end up with India getting less than it did now too, BTW...there is no guarantee that renegotiations will do for India what the negotiations so far have not been able.


Every argument is within a context, just because a statement was true in one context, it does not mean it will be true in others. I am contradicting my stand only because the text of the 123 exists, and it does not seem to be half as bad as J18 was. 123 is purely about civilian nuclear tech. engagement with the NSG supplier countries. That is what India is getting access to for signing up to the 123.



I have to repeat the same thing over and over because people say the same thing over and over. and I get into the same debate with different posters each starting from zero. I have moved forward from asking people to do J18 vs 123 and done my own in my limited ablities and posted the same.


Well, perhaps you may have noticed the lack of language about India's military or strategic program in the 123, as opposed to the J18. That is just one of the differences -- another one is the nailing down the details of the IAEA monitored waste-site/nuke fuel dump.


Thanks for the understanding and lack of personal attacks in future.


If the gentle folks here make dishonest arguments, they are liable to be called on it. None of the attacks so far have been personal, even if you want to pretend otherwise.
Last edited by Rye on 04 Sep 2007 18:17, edited 2 times in total.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2935
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Postby Kanson » 04 Sep 2007 18:13

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: sorry man sorry i think you need help from dictionary.org... Till you settle all yours...I think I will take leave.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Postby Sanku » 04 Sep 2007 18:16

Rye wrote:Again, the lack of context. Every argument is within a context, just because a statement was true in one context, it does not mean it will be true in others. I am contradicting my stand only because the text of the 123 exists, and it does not seem to be half as bad as J18 was. 123 is purely about civilian nuclear tech. engagement with the NSG supplier countries.


Please Sir; 123 does not have to say that; it use Hyde in the back drop. You want to restart that debate again? 123 is a fig leaf for Hyde. I think enough bandwidth has been wasted. Last I remember sraj and ShauryaT posted how Hyde can overrule 123 and so have I posted links. If you still dont agree let us agree that this is one of the fundamental disagreement points. I believe I am right; and if you can quote arguments to how we are wrong I will listen.

If the gentle folks here make dishonest arguments, they are liable to be called on it. None of the attacks so far have been personal, even if you want to pretend otherwise.


Double please; you are now saying I am lying!! Another personal attack to cover the previous one. No sir; I am not lying and look at my statements asking for comparison and later my own will bear that out.

Sorry you are indulging in personal attack and that I am not going to let you spin out of.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Postby Sanku » 04 Sep 2007 18:18

Kanson wrote::rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: sorry man sorry i think you need help from dictionary.org... Till you settle all yours...I think I will take leave.


I can fix my understanding by enabling spell check in my browser :lol: how will you fix your inabilty to look at truth and resort to external inanitiies when confronted? Is there such a software?

samuel
BRFite
Posts: 818
Joined: 03 Apr 2007 08:52

Postby samuel » 04 Sep 2007 18:19

Admins, please help.
Apologies to others in advance.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35979
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 04 Sep 2007 18:19

Sanku wrote:
Manny wrote:
There are no country that allayed with the US has done poorly. After WWII, look at western Europe that allayed with the US. they prospered and did well by their people. Look at Eastern Europe..


Very deep; one word to that level of depth. Pakistan.

And if you go on and on I will throw in another:

Japan.


did Manny meant "allayed" or "allied" ?

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Postby Sanku » 04 Sep 2007 18:20

BTW I think this discussion has revealed the true colors of most of the Pro-dealites here (note most);

They basically want India to become Japan pronto before Massa changes his mind.

Well at least we know :lol:

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Postby Sanku » 04 Sep 2007 19:27

Kanson wrote:
Sanku wrote: I can fix my understanding by enabling spell check in my browser
No Sir no, you are mistaken. If your intention is to do good-faith base debate..


It is only you who has the spin "containing china means; interfering with the external affaris" even the magazine used the word caging; if that does not mean containing; it is you who is in a la la land arguging over pedantics instead of meaningful debate.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35979
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 05 Sep 2007 00:39

The Indian commie fishes needs to be irradiated and there is no other better opportunity than 123.. politicking here. I wonder this is more so 'cause pre-BJPs agreeing to 123, as is, but with additional desh laws. Lets wait for 2 days per Pranab da.. and see how the churning happens.. I am sure, the Indian commies would be the "Vasuki". :twisted: . The new age rakshas have now been converted devas.., while the real devas have gone vanvas., giving a starter ion beam, and gone critically 123.


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests