Sanku wrote:I followed all posts on all threads for that
I see you in a new light entirely, gargantuan effort - any person capable of that has to be given a BR medal of somekind). Now that does make sense!and I basically think it is a capitulation because
1) Arun_S says so
They have different EUVM, which are much more intrusive. The nuke deal with US, was the "EUVM" we have for them.RayC wrote:Where you are missing the issue is that the EUVM does not stop at the civilian nuclear reactors!
You are missing the wood for the trees.Cain Marko wrote:No kidding? They can actually come and inspect the weapons producing reactors as well? Dammit I thought there was a clear separation between civilian and military and that the military assets were off the table. That is ridiculous, can 't believed it was signed. It is a capitulation.RayC wrote:Where you are missing the issue is that the EUVM does not stop at the civilian nuclear reactors!
CM.
Hope that helps!India has already signed verification agreements before the supply of equipment on troop-landing ship INS Jalashwa (USS Trenton) and Boeing Business Jets for VVIP travel.
http://www.hindu.com/2009/06/06/stories ... 271100.htm
ravi_ku wrote:
They have different EUVM, which are much more intrusive. The nuke deal with US, was the "EUVM" we have for them.
The first faction. This simple question will answer the problem. Which side can even after coming out of congress win an election and influence 3-4 additional seats, i.e. which faction needs Sonia's support? That is the faction she is in.RajeshA wrote:Amit ji,amit wrote:Rajesh which faction does Sonia Gandhi belong to? That's the key you know. The rest is just Maya (not Mayawati!).
The Queen need not belong to any faction. All other factions vie for her attention and favor. In other democracies of the world, where the party itself is democratic, would the King or Queen have his or her own faction. That need not be the case in India.
JMTs
I believe they were trying for a one time EUVM for the same. It was never clear whether it was signed or not and if so what was the final form.RayC wrote:ravi_ku wrote:
They have different EUVM, which are much more intrusive. The nuke deal with US, was the "EUVM" we have for them.
Really.
What about the Landing ship Trenton?
What covered that?
yes, trenton/Jalashwa has the same "normal" non-nuke military EUVM. Uptil now, the EUVM was signed on a case by case basis, i.e. whether getting that equipment was worth that the money + EUVM.RayC wrote:ravi_ku wrote:
They have different EUVM, which are much more intrusive. The nuke deal with US, was the "EUVM" we have for them.
Really.
What about the Landing ship Trenton?
What covered that?
WTO scale back on equality in trade (farm subsidies by US and EU)derkonig wrote:So can we make a list of capitulations by MMS this fortnight?
1. S-e-S sell out and branding India as a terror sponsor. Letting pak get away with terrorism. 'Shared sacrifice' as in HC's words.
2. EUVA to compromise national security and hobble armed forces.
3. proto-FMCT to CRE our nuke programme.
What else?
RayC wrote:ravi_ku wrote:
They have different EUVM, which are much more intrusive. The nuke deal with US, was the "EUVM" we have for them.
Really.
What about the Landing ship Trenton?
What covered that?
Deployment patterns, military schedules and repairworks will be known. Ofcourse cost is borne by us only for our massas.amit wrote:Sanku,
Can you tell me what your objection are to a verification regime which states that India will choose the place and time for the verification?
There is something called the End User Certificate and that is accepted worldwide.Another point: I'm sure you'll agree that some of the US concern may be related to their fear that valuable IP could be transferred to the Russians who have had very close interaction with the Indian military. For example would you be comfortable if India were to transfer Bhramos tech to say, for example, Qatar without some form of agreement to ensure that the tech doesn't go to the Pakis.
not for the US, they require physical inspection. This is the whole issue.RayC wrote:There is something called the End User Certificate and that is accepted worldwide.Another point: I'm sure you'll agree that some of the US concern may be related to their fear that valuable IP could be transferred to the Russians who have had very close interaction with the Indian military. For example would you be comfortable if India were to transfer Bhramos tech to say, for example, Qatar without some form of agreement to ensure that the tech doesn't go to the Pakis.
Sanku,Sanku wrote:ravi_ku jee, economist types stick together. There are too issues
1) Fanboy
2) Fellow economist love fest.
Cost and headaches, practicality of doing that. Still remains intrusive enough (access to crew for the equipement, current status of the same) lack of "will do with it what we like flexibility" like Indians doing jugaad on other equipment all the time to do their stuff.amit wrote:Sanku,
Can you tell me what your objection are to a verification regime which states that India will choose the place and time for the verification?
It is just as speculatory as the speculation on India being taken for a ride on Nuke deal was.Of course this is assuming that this is what India will agree to - it's still speculation as most other points including India compromising etc is since nothing has been signed yet.
No India WANTS NO EUMs headaches what so ever, this is a poor excuse for that. Its like saying "I hate headaches once in a while, so perhaps a continuous headache will not make me notice that"Regarding your point about case by case, perhaps you didn't notice, but it's India that wants to get rid of that time consuming clause where there is protracted negotiation on EUVM for each piece of equipment and replace that with an all encompassing EUVM which will be applicable to all future purchases that may take place.
Irrelevant and rhetorical, what to say ?Please note this is a rhetorical response to your equally rhetorical point about second best technology
Well why worry about people who don't know better I ask? Are we that useless? And all this spin about jumping the gun and all is your spin totally. No one is jumping the gun. We have seen the gun, empty loaded and fired. We discussed the US and EUM issue and why its bad and why MoD hates it much before some people think its very cool since it has the word US and MMS in the same sentence.All I'm saying let's not jump the gun and start shouting that India's interests have been sold the moment India starts to discuss something with the US. People who didn't know better would equate that with xenophobia.
So have the Russkies, but that is not end use monitoring my dear friend. That can be done by IP protection deals like we have for Brahmos.Another point: I'm sure you'll agree that some of the US concern may be related to their fear that valuable IP could be transferred to the Russians who have had very close interaction with the Indian military.
Oh really Ravi!ravi_ku wrote:Deployment patterns, military schedules and repairworks will be known. Ofcourse cost is borne by us only for our massas.
That was hardly a personal attack on you dear friend. I am speaking of the typical kind of personal support I have seen for MMS in general. I am speaking of more than one person(s) here and outside. I find it interesting that you chose to escalate the scenario and blame me fori that. But if it hurts you, my apologies.amit wrote:Sanku,Sanku wrote:ravi_ku jee, economist types stick together. There are too issues
1) Fanboy
2) Fellow economist love fest.
If I were you I wouldn't go down that path again. \
Personal attacks only show that folks who do that don't have a coherent argument. I suspected as much with you but was will to wait and see. However, this post of yours and the previous one on the nuclear deal just shows your true colours. (For ex just what ENR issues did India agree to?).
I didn't know that being an economist was/is considered an inferior position on BRF.
There are many issues you need to understand, many of them playing conflicting roles.amit wrote:Regarding your point about case by case, perhaps you didn't notice, but it's India that wants to get rid of that time consuming clause where there is protracted negotiation on EUVM for each piece of equipment and replace that with an all encompassing EUVM which will be applicable to all future purchases that may take place.
Take your US fanboyism else where.
I agree India has produced spectacular results by mating second best technology with Indian military doctrine. Just imagine how more spectacular the results could be with the best technology. (Please note this is a rhetorical response to your equally rhetorical point about second best technology).
Fine.not for the US, they require physical inspection. This is the whole issue
Vikas ji,VikasRaina wrote:Soon this thread will de-generate into whine-fest with all sorts of absuses heaped on MMS and SG.
So, if you take out something out of frontline duties to show at these peacetime bases,-say artillery pieces, you dont understand the patterns in it? Is the US so dumb?amit wrote:Oh really Ravi!ravi_ku wrote:Deployment patterns, military schedules and repairworks will be known. Ofcourse cost is borne by us only for our massas.
Good point. If say a F-18 is flown to Singapore (for example) for the inspection then the US will know what the deployment pattern is say at Ambala! I wonder how the weapons locating radars are verified by the AmeriKhans.
And psst, can you let me know who's your inside source of information? I mean surely you state all this with insider information.
That is the whole point of this whine fest thread.RayC wrote:Fine.not for the US, they require physical inspection. This is the whole issue
But then do we really require their equipment?
Is there no country with compatible equipment?
If there is, then why sell our soverignty?
ravi_ku wrote:Take your US fanboyism else where.
Do you want me to explain in more simpler terms? I could you know, I'm always willing to help folks. Just say the word.I agree India has produced spectacular results by mating second best technology with Indian military doctrine. Just imagine how more spectacular the results could be with the best technology. (Please note this is a rhetorical response to your equally rhetorical point about second best technology).
Just think logistics for a second. Pretty please.somnath wrote:If India insists on taking each F18 bought to the Maldives for inspections, which sensitive base will the US insist on?
You are looking at it from a different perspective. To buy US stuff, we are being "forced" to sign this. The force is else where. Osomnath wrote:Seems as if India is being "forced" to buy US stuff just because we signed up on an EUVA! Its easy to use adjectives like "intrusive" etc, more difficult to practically define them..If India insists on taking each F18 bought to the Maldives for inspections, which sensitive base will the US insist on?
So choppers from the front line duties will be stopped from doing this, taken back to maldives to show them?
Look at the type of equipment that we are buying/"thinking" of buying from the US:
1. MRCA
2. C1300
3. P8I
4. Select missile systems
5. Choppers
None of these require them to have access to anywhere near India if we didnt want them to..
In anycase, its upto us to make a decision to buy! The EUVA doesnt force us to buy!
You have RayC who was head of a chopper wing. Ask him.A few posts after that:Sanku wrote:That was hardly a personal attack on you dear friend. I am speaking of the typical kind of personal support I have seen for MMS in general. I am speaking of more than one person(s) here and outside. I find it interesting that you chose to escalate the scenario and blame me fori that. But if it hurts you, my apologies.
As always it was a generalization.
Nice! All coherent arguments.Sanku wrote:If it looks like a duck, squacks like a duck, walks like a duck and lays eggs what do you say?
1) The engineering answer -- its a duck
2) The MBA economist liberal art answer -- this is a speculation on a non sentient being, belonging to a different species, as such this is purely speculatory and biased by the typical anthropomorphic tendencies that humans have.
Take it as my rhetorical flourish to your rhetoricamit wrote:ravi_ku wrote:Take your US fanboyism else where.
Ravi,
Don't you understand English?
I wrote:
Do you want me to explain in more simpler terms? I could you know, I'm always willing to help folks. Just say the word.I agree India has produced spectacular results by mating second best technology with Indian military doctrine. Just imagine how more spectacular the results could be with the best technology. (Please note this is a rhetorical response to your equally rhetorical point about second best technology).
wow -so many engineers are burning the midnight oil to make their lives more complicated and stupid!If it looks like a duck, squacks like a duck, walks like a duck and lays eggs what do you say?
1) The engineering answer -- its a duck
2) The MBA economist liberal art answer -- this is a speculation on a non sentient being, belonging to a different species, as such this is purely speculatory and biased by the typical anthropomorphic tendencies that humans have.
Ok back to real discussion now.
Few posts above is what I think of it. If US wants our money, they should behave as we say. If we want their equipment, we do as they say. The urgency of this contract from the US perspective is because without this signed, they will be fighting for MRCA(money, money) with their hands tied. If we cant use it and sign it right now, it is nothing but a massive massive sell out by Indian govt.somnath wrote:^^^ I am aware of the logisitics challenges -but I am only quoting the "worst case scenario"...In usual times, most EUVs will actually not be physical, only reports submitted...and when they are physical, they are not "surprise inspections" either - they are planned months in advance.....
the point is the whole world "surrenders sovereignty" to buy US equipment, to use the words expressed here..I dont know if they have bended rules for anyone the way they are doing the gigs for India, but by signing an EUVA, India is simply buying an "option", not selling one, if you know what I mean!
So the best case scenario for lack of intrusiveness is worst case in other matters. Similary the best case logistically will be worst case elsewhere.somnath wrote:^^^ I am aware of the logisitics challenges -but I am only quoting the "worst case scenario"...In usual times, most EUVs will actually not be physical, only reports submitted...and when they are physical, they are not "surprise inspections" either - they are planned months in advance.....
Thats the problem of the world and US and second world war losers and those who needed to run to Unkil to survive. I was hoping a little better from India, evidently some people are very comfortable settling for less.the point is the whole world "surrenders sovereignty" to buy US equipment, to use the words expressed here..I dont know if they have bended rules for anyone the way they are doing the gigs for India,
Ah but it will happen, just as predicted, just as all the "oh its in future" stuff all came true in Nuke deal.but by signing an EUVA, India is simply buying an "option", not selling one, if you know what I mean!
That reference gives away the fact that you are not taking a India centric view, since its not midnight or anywhere close in Indiawow -so many engineers are burning the midnight oil to make their lives more complicated and stupid!
Very valid and practical points.ravi_ku wrote:Few posts above is what I think of it. If US wants our money, they should behave as they say. If we want their equipment, we do as they say. The urgency of this contract from the US perspective is because without this signed, they will be fighting for MRCA(money, money) with their hands tied. If we cant use it and sign it right now, it is nothing but a massive massive sell out by Indian govt.
Sanku wrote:That reference gives away the fact that you are not taking a India centric view, since its not midnight or anywhere close in India
Well I think you didnt catch the import of what I said - there are thousands of engineers in India who are burning the midnight oil to become MBAs - so they must be stupid!That reference gives away the fact that you are not taking a India centric view, since its not midnight or anywhere close in India
I) Eh no I dont understand, I only understand that India is the customer and if you want to sell to sell to us you do what I say. I dont understand why we have have buy an option to buy goods at these terms.somnath wrote:^^^ Sanku, I hope you understand what "buying an option" means...By signing the EUVA, we have simply bought an option to buy US equipment,
You didnt catch the last pun either, and anyway note first pun was the expense of "mba economist liberal arts" types. There are four clauses there which all have to be trueWell I think you didnt catch the import of what I said - there are thousands of engineers in India who are burning the midnight oil to become MBAs - so they must be stupid!
and in any case that was pun to illustrate how even a obvious can be distorted given enough words.The just-concluded Indo-US end-user monitoring defence agreement on Tuesday created heat in the Lok Sabha with Opposition parties demanding an immediate statement on the pact, which they charged compromised the country's security and sovereignty.
With almost the entire Opposition attacking the government on the agreement reached during the current visit of US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton [ Images ], Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee [ Images ] announced that the government would make a statement before the House rises for the day.
Raising the issue during Zero Hour, former External Affairs Minister and BJP leader Yashwant Sinha [ Images ] said the agreement was a matter of grave concern, as it would give the US right to physically inspect equipment sold by it to India.
"The US will have the right to visit Indian military bases to verify if the equipment, meant for both civilian and military use, were being used for the purpose for which it was sold," he said, adding the government had succumbed to the US pressure.
He was supported by Basudeb Acharia (CPI-M [ Images ]), Gurudas Dasgupta (CPI), Mulayam Singh Yadav [ Images ](SP), Sharad Yadav (JD-U), Lalu Prasad (RJD), Bhartuhari Mahtab (BJD), M Thambidurai (AIADMK) and Nageshwara Rao (TDP).
Amid cries of 'shame, shame' from Opposition benches, Sinha asked the government to lay the text of the agreement on the table of the House and if it has not ratified the pact so far, it should refrain from doing so.
"This is a matter of grave concern. It seems that the government has succumbed to US pressure. Why should the US be allowed to inspect the equipment sold to us by visiting our military bases? We do not have such agreements with other countries including Russia [ Images ] and France [ Images ]," he asked.
The pact, Sinha said, also puts the onus on India to create firewalls between civilian and military uses so that the equipment was not put to dual use.
He wondered why India was bowing to US diktats when in reality Washington needed New Delhi [ Images ] more, given the fact that they are desirous of selling to India fighter jets worth 10.5 billion dollars.
Associating with Sinha on the issue, Basudeb Acharia said it was against the interest of the country, while Gurudas Dasgupta dubbed it as a Himalayan blunder.
Mulayam Singh Yadav said not just the House, but the whole country was concerned over what was happening.