nkumar wrote:arnab wrote:nkumar wrote:"Hyperventilating"..good word to use..reminds me of the articles of C. Raja Mohan, KS and the daily dose from IE about India losing face internationally if we don't sign the deal
Uh..so if we can't beat 'em - Join 'em I thought folks came to BRF to specifically avoid this sort of sensationalism. If we are here to mirror mainstream media, why bother ?
How difficult it is for you to understand that I was highlighting the selective quoting and then highlighting it as an important point. Did we agree to statements like these, 'India should not send a cow to the moon because the RSPCA objects' in the past 3 years, which Sreenivasan is suggesting that India should have no problem with.
I'm sorry - not understanding onlee. Are you arguing the following: First, India is already compromised by agreeing to the 123 agreement and the IAEA agreement? Second, that the NSG 'additional' conditions make the earlier agreements even worse because they are no longer a 'clean and un-conditional' (whatever that means only AK knows) waiver? Third, therefore MMS should walk out now and show 'statesmanship' irrespective of what these 'additional' conditions are? Fourth, you are saying this because you have no confidence in MMS or the babus who negotiated this deal because they are not lawyers (btw is this established? do we know that there were no lawyers in the Indian setup? They might not be sitting on the negotiation table but they could have been there in the background.)
If the answer is 'yes' to the above and unless you specify which portions of those agreements bother you and why (facts only please and not what you 'think' the sub-text means), then it is hyperventilation and therefore unhelpful. Again, you might want to read the FAQs.