enqyoob wrote:The US-India agreement is the 123, NOT the Hyde Act. What the Hyde tells the US President, is no more relevant to the international agreement than what the Indian Parliament tells the Indian PM.
Let the Parliament have its say then - without party whips. MMS did not even allow a sense of the Parliament, even to strengthen him in August 06, he dare not take a vote, without party whips now.
I promise if the democratic will of the people (without party whips) is expressed and it is for this deal, not one more post from me, on this subject.
As for spying, well, is it your position that without the agreement with the US, there is no US spying directed at the Indian nuclear and weapons programs?
The devil will keep on trying, no matter what. The last thing you do is, deal with the devil in a manner that allows him, inside your house, knowing fully well, what the intentions are. The devil has not hidden his face.
So, from the American POV, reading the newspapers or the gazillion posts by postors like yourself on this forum, one would rightly conclude that this deal is entirely a scam by India to get nuke fuel and technology from civilized countries so that India can build nookulear weapons as fast as India can dig up uranimum ore, and also to produce weapons-grade fissile material from thorium reserves.
It is quite easy, to broad stroke all in a single stroke and resort to sound bites. Saves you from meaningful debate.
As far as the AMERICAN POV is concerned, it is spelled out in full color as the Henry J. Hyde act.
People like yourself have been working overtime, telling the world that this is what India is about - a bunch of yahoos intent on putting up a whole rack of nuclear missiles to threaten civilization, like Hitler did, or like Saddam tried to do. So that no one in their right mind would want to deal with India.
Do you really think, it is that difficult for me to be calling you names, such as Mir Jaffer and a traitor, who sold out for a few crumbs? You are welcome to resort to your favorite epithets, in the hope that you may win the debate by hitting below the belt and scaring everyone away. I am afraid, this tactic, does not impress anyone. Try harder.
So that we continue to be isolated, and denied the opportunity to progress. So that you'll have more of a constituency for your soapbox to paranoia and xenophobia.
No one can beat you in the soapbox category. You are the uncrowned king, in use of sound bites to create a lot of heat and no light.
I am guilty of being paranoid. Paranoid about India's interests. But, finally, you charge me of being xenophobic! All this hate, just for having a different point of view. What is it N^3, you are either with me or against me? And, if you are against me, then here is a list of epithets, I will use against, you. And, I care for facts, not.
There is no "annual certification" in the 123.
Ever seen a contract, that references other contracts?
As for the Hyde, the "annual certification" is in the NON-BINDING
Care to enlighten us, exactly, where does Hyde say that these parts of this law, are not binding?
If you are referring to the Presidential signing statement, then care to elighten us the validity of these statements, as per US constitutional laws?
Care to tell us, if these signing statements last beyond the term of the President?
part - trying to tell the President what he SHOULD do. NOT what he HAS to do.
There is no such thing as "should" or "has". Please read beyond what the spin masters spin for you. COTUS makes US law, not advisories. The President conducts policy as per, US law. Yet, there is separation of powers and the President is ultimately responsible for the security of the country and hence holds wide latitude in interpretation and implementation.
My point is, there is no such thing as SHOULD or HAS to do. COTUS has its job to do, to make laws and the President has to implement policy.
The President is not waking up every morning to figure out, which Law is he going to break today. The President upholds US law. Plain and simple.
This is no more relevant than what the Shiv Sena tells the Prime Minister of India that he SHOULD do.
Have you lost it? You are now comparing the role that COTUS plays in the US constitutional process to the Sive Sena?