Yes To India, No To Iran: Bush Administration Sends Contradictory Message On Nuclear Programs
Yes To India, No To Iran: Bush Administration Sends Contradictory Message On Nuclear Programs
Iran and India are making nearly identical arguments to justify pushing ahead with their respective nuclear programs.
Reuters, 8/19/06:
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad insists that nuclear power is Iran’s right and “no one will stop us” developing the country. … “They are trying to deny our right to develop nuclear power. But no one can impose anything on the Iranian people.†… “Our main task is to develop and build the Iranian nation. No one will stop us.” Iran has insisted it is enriching uranium to generate electricity from nuclear power.
AP, 8/23/06:
India’s prime minister said Wednesday the country would retain its right to carry out future nuclear tests despite a civilian nuclear deal with the United States, a news report said. “There is no scope for capping of our strategic (nuclear) program. It will be decided by the people, government and Parliament of the country and not by any outside power,” Press Trust of India quoted Prime Minister Manmohan Singh as saying in a statement in Parliament.
While Iran’s refusal to guarantee that it will not proceed with a nuclear weapons program has elicited calls from Bush for tough sanctions against that country, India’s refusal to make a similar guarantee has not elicited a response from the administration.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has called for the destruction of Israel, is undoubtedly a greater immediate security threat to the world than the Indian government. But the U.S.’s contradictory message undermines the argument against the Iranian threat.
In 1995, President Bill Clinton heralded the extension of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, stating:
The nuclear danger has not ended. The capability to build nuclear weapons cannot be unlearned, nor will evil ambition disappear. But the overwhelming consensus in favor of the treaty and its future attests to a deep and abiding international commitment to confront the nuclear danger by rejecting nuclear proliferation. This decision says to our children and all who follow: The community of nations will remain steadfast in opposing the dangerous spread of nuclear weapons.
Clinton had a policy based on a clear principle: preventing the dangerous spread of nuclear weapons. The Bush administration’s principle has been to dismantle the NPT and pick and choose states to provide nuclear arms. That policy only makes dangerous states — Iran and North Korea — more determined to get the bomb.
UPDATE: Several commentators wrote in to say that Ahmadinejad’s quote does not actually translate into wiping Israel off the map. Juan Cole wrote, “This idiom does not exist in Persian, and that what Ahmadinejad actually said was, ‘This occupation regime over Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.’”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Couldn’t agree more. The world knows we have to engage the non Christians.
August 24th, 2006 at 12:30 pmOh crap DLC, I abhore arrainged marraiges.
August 24th, 2006 at 12:34 pmFortune Cookie Neo-Conservatism.
“Whenever a neoconservative says something should be done, whether it is democracy promotion, or instilling purpose in an enervated American populace, or diplomacy you can finish the thought for him by adding three little words: by killing people.”
-GSD
August 24th, 2006 at 12:37 pmDA, what was your first clue that India is not the enemy of the United States and Iran is a sworn enemy and threat. I’m a Democrat and I have to draw the line here. We can just cut and run because the dumbest guy in the world is right and that part. If he can see that surely intelligent Democrats can. These terrorist aren’t playing games, they intend to destroy American and it’s people too.
I don’t know about anyone else but I don’t want to wait until a nuclear weapons goes off on main street USA to stand up. I don’t support this administration whatsoever, but commone sense tells me that Iran is a threat. I’m not some moron who doesn’t know what he’s talking about either, I spent 11 years in the United States Army and believe me we have to stop them. They will give a nuke to Bin Laden and we will be toast literally.
When we Democrats stand for nothing but running away from confrontation, we weaken our Country. No I’m not a Joe Liebermann supporters either, I can’t stand him, but I have to agree when I know the stakes are high. Democrats need to wake up, look, we are playing for all the marbles, whether we like it or not. The terrorists aren’t going to go away just because we withdraw from Irag. They sworn goal is to destroy us and our way of life. If anyone wants to stand in a line to be slaughtered that’s there business, I intend to fight them anyway and everyway I can.
We could very well lose the most important election in history, simply because we can’t think outside the box.
August 24th, 2006 at 12:37 pmI’m sorry, maybe I missed the memo where India said they wanted to wipe Israel off the map…
August 24th, 2006 at 12:40 pmIf I were the Iranian president, I would say to the UN, “We will refrain from developing nuclear technology and allow inspections as soon as all of the other countries in the world who already have nuclear technology, including the US, do the same. If you want to inspect us, then inspect those other countries as well. If you are going to impose sanctions on us, impose sanctions on the other countries who are already more technologically developed than we are.” I would say to the United States,”When you halt your nuclear technology and get rid of your stockpile of nuclear weapons, we will stop developing nuclear technology.”
August 24th, 2006 at 12:41 pmOh, my, how shocking. Gee, who would have thunk that the Bush Junta is inconsistent to the point of being a “liar, liar, pants on fire!” kind of administration since before it even usurped the White House?
Unless America can pull its collective head out of its collective ass and see the world not as a giant American colon, but what it really is, we won’t wake up from this Republican nightmare that’s been systematically making us unsafe. from participating in 9/11 to goading Israel into weeks of violence with Lebanon, for the sole purpose of clinging to power.
This country has been gripped by the Asshole Regime. Foreign aid, anyone?
August 24th, 2006 at 12:45 pmSo you compare Iran to India! I suppose not many know that India has been a democracy for 60 years, has been at receieving end of terrorism (with not much western media coverage for whatever reason) for much longer than what US has faced and a long history of aggression against it, as a nation (regardless of what pakistan says). If anything, India is one country that deserves to have nuclear policy of its own and it should be a model for US’s nuclear cooperation policy as well.
August 24th, 2006 at 12:46 pm“India don’t have no oil” says Daddy Bush, “Iran do have oil. Go get ‘em Son”
August 24th, 2006 at 12:50 pmWhile Iran’s refusal to guarantee that it will not proceed with a nuclear weapons program
Wy do you assert this? Iran has stated repeatedly and without equivocation that their nuclear program is for the sole purpose of civillian nuclear power.
When did they refuse to guarentee that they will not proceed with a nuclear weapons program?
August 24th, 2006 at 12:52 pmComment by Roger Bixley — August 24, 2006 @ 12:40 pm
Then you weren’t reading. This thread isn’t about comparing and contrasting pro and anti Israeli countries. It’s about NP. Wake up, chump.
August 24th, 2006 at 12:53 pmIndia is the largest democracy in the world. India has not attacked or even exhibited a tendency to violence, including thinking of attacking any country in its 5,000 plus years of history!
Where do you get off comparing Iran to India? Your opposition to Bush (and rightly so) has now reached blinding proportions. Be careful, you may become irrelevant soon, if you do not post in an objective way!
August 24th, 2006 at 1:00 pmI guess Bushit thinks that nukes are OK as long as it is our friends who get them.
We say no to nukes in Iran… but a nearly identical situation exists with Brazil.
Brazilians are refusing to allow UN inspectors to monitor and control their program.
Yet, Bushit doesn’t want (or need) to attack Brazil because they are our #1 trading partner, military partner, tourism partner and anti-terrorism partner in all of Latin America.
August 24th, 2006 at 1:04 pmKlsydevl sez:
The form of India’s government is not the issue here. Neither is India’s history of past warfare, or proclivities towards future warfare. What is the issue here is that a double standard is being applied in a rather insultingly obvious manner. If this administration was serious about getting Iran to toe the line, they’d hold everyone to the same standard, so as not to allow Iran the excuse. The fact that they aren’t doing this speaks volumes about their true motives.
August 24th, 2006 at 1:12 pmApart from the points raised in earlier comments – India being democracy, not threatening to wipe out Israel, not having oil – the primary difference between the two countries, which dictates the “contradictory messages” of the U.S. policy, is following.
August 24th, 2006 at 1:19 pmIndia has NEVER signed the Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT), whereas Iran did sign it and at that point, gave up the rights to develop strategic nuclear technology which can be shielded from international inspections. India has a demonstrated record for non-proliferation even though it did not sign NPT and was not bound by it. I think this difference plays a large part in why India is treated differently from Iran (bad record on both non-proliferation and NPT) or Pakistan (bad record on non-proliferation, not a signatory to the NPT).
Yogi makes the right point: Iran is bound legally not to violate the NPT (which is why the U.N. Security Council is involved with Tehran) but India is not bound to the NPT. It’s that simple.
August 24th, 2006 at 1:24 pmThe form of India’s government is not the issue here. Neither is India’s history of past warfare, or proclivities towards future warfare. What is the issue here is that a double standard is being applied in a rather insultingly obvious manner. If this administration was serious about getting Iran to toe the line, they’d hold everyone to the same standard, so as not to allow Iran the excuse. The fact that they aren’t doing this speaks volumes about their true motives.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — August 24, 2006 @ 1:12 pm
TripMaster, I agree that Indian history, govt. etc. is not an issue. However, there is no double standard either that you claim. You do not see U.S. leaning on Israel, France, England etc. to shut down their nuclear programs.
August 24th, 2006 at 1:26 pmIran signed the NPT and has not been, apparently, living by its obligations under the NPT, although it received the civilian nuclear-know-how under the NPT. If Iran had NEVER signed the NPT, as India, Pakistan, and Israel, have not, Bush administration could not make the arguments and ask for sanctions that it can now. It is only a double standard when the same rules apply to two countries and the US is mating out different treatment on those; that is not the case.
fair points Yogi and Jason, but Iran hasn’t said it is going to violate the NPT. They want to develop nuclear civilian technology at home to meet the energy demands, the say.
As for the distinctions between India and Iran, I agree. But try making a convincing case that we’re trying to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. We’re not — and it’s asking the world to arm up if you want security. A race to the bottom.
August 24th, 2006 at 1:28 pmYogi, you miss the point that we’re rewarding countries for not signing onto the NPT. India didn’t and gets the deal that Iran wants.
August 24th, 2006 at 1:31 pmYogi
America did. So what India does or does not do is pointless. Further, the sale of nuclear technology sends a clear message to Pakistan, which can just as well sell its nuclear know how to the highest bidder.
The double standard is Bush violating the NPT while crying about how Iran is doing the same thing. It has comparatively little to do with India.
August 24th, 2006 at 1:32 pmAren’t contradictions the basis of the bush agenda? Spin and twist, all.
August 24th, 2006 at 1:42 pmFor all of you touting the merits of India in this thread and disparaging Iran I think a rundown of the facts is in order. Regardless of whether we feel that India deserves to possess nuclear weapons, they aquired said weapons outside the bounds of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and in direct contravention of International Law and the United Nations. Iran, on the other hand, is a signor of the NPT and has, to date, abided by their responsibilities to the treaty. In addition, the IAEA has said repeatedly that they have NO evidence to support any claim that Iran is pursuing nuclear technology for anything other than conventional means.
More importantly, Iran has been able to enrich uranium to 3.5% U-235 (the isotope used to make nuclear weapons) using 180 cascading centrifuges (which is ALL the centrifuges they have). In order to produce viable weapons-grade uranium it MUST be, at a minimum, 80% U-235 which requires between 16,000 and 18,000 centrifuges. Iran’s enrichment program can currently produce uranium strong enough to, gasp, light a watch dial. They are 7-10 years from being able to produce anything even remotely strong enough to think about making weapons with it (if that is, in fact, their plan).
Is the prospect of Iran with a nuclear weapons program scary? You bet your ass it is! Will it present a viable threat if they aquire nuclear weapons? Absolutely! Is the threat imminent and requiring immediate harsh (military?) action on our or anyone else’s part (other than diplomacy)? Not even close
The reality of the matter is that the Bush administration has struck this deal with India in order to pick a couple of fights. They, unfortunately, miss the heady days of the cold war and will do whatever they have to to restart the arms race. In the past year alone, they have dedicated Billions of American taxpayer dollars to developing a new class of American nukes, they have made backdoor deals like this one in India to piss off the Russians, Iranians, and Chinese, and have done everything in their power to degrade our intel regarding what’s really going on in Iran (Valerie Plame’s section at BJ&A was tracking WMD in Iran) in order to create a boogeyman like they did with Sadaam. Their goal is perpetual war and if we don’t pay attention and start making noise they’re going to get their wish. Ike (bleeding heart liberal that he was) put it best:
August 24th, 2006 at 1:46 pm
American did the same thing with Saddam years ago. We gave him WMD’s only to invade Iraq with lies and find the weapons we gave him. Ya we now know we just wanted to get Iraq oil but we did give him weapons. Now Bush/Cheney will do the same with India as years to come India will become the axis of evil for the US to lie again about weapons. Well that’s only if India has something the US wants. Notice how China is making deals with all the oil rich countries to lower their price of oil for the public as Bush makes chaos and says he’ll attack based on his thoughts as Americans suffer with the high cost of oil. The world leaders are working together for the best interest of their countries while Bush plays his child games and the world shuts him out of any talks for progress. Israel should have never followed the advice of Bush he is the true Satan of our time.
August 24th, 2006 at 1:50 pmWhat’s really funny is that Karl Rove’s National Security strategy for the November elections completely eliminates Reagan’s “Trust But Verify” dictum regarding nuclear weapons, programs and treaties
U.S. Proposes New Disarmament Nuke Treaty
Of course, there IS a kicker at the very end of the article
Yeah, what a silly, stupid idea, verification of nuclear treaties
That’s our W, making the world more unhinged for fanatics everywhere
“Mission Accomplished” Indeed!
August 24th, 2006 at 2:00 pmIt Amazes me how America pick on weak countries like Iraq that were dissarmed by the UN after the Gulf war then Attacked by America
but America is scared shitless of Iran and north Korea
perhaps you should ask the Un to dissarmthem first before attacking
My view is America is pathetic
August 24th, 2006 at 2:04 pmHey – if it wasn’t self-serving and incoherent, it wouldn’t be our foreign policy, now would it?
August 24th, 2006 at 2:15 pm#4, point taken, however, you’ve bought a hook, line, and sinker if you think there’s a snowball’s chance that some splinter factions from the middle east could ever, ever “destroy our country” good thing americans weren’t this hysterically cowardly during the cold war – we’d have disintegrated by 1960. why all this “duck and cover” bs? i could talk all day long that i’d like to destroy north korea, and get a bunch of people to sing in my choir, but the fact would remain that i can not destroy north korea, or any other country. yes, terrorist attacks have occurred, and probably will again, even if we kill every living person in iraq. none of that comes within a light year of “destroying our country or our way of life” our country and our way of life are being destroyed by sociopathic greedheads who live in mansions and wouldn’t walk across the street to piss on you or me if we were on fire. if we are destroyed, it will be by our own hand, out of our own fears, and by the greed of the few who leverage those fears.
August 24th, 2006 at 2:23 pmHypocricy is the Bush’s administration’s real name.
August 24th, 2006 at 2:29 pm[...] Yes To India, No To Iran: Bush Administration Sends Contradictory Think Progress, DC – 1 hour ago s contradictory message undermines the argument against the Iranian threat. The nuclear danger has not ended. The capability to build nuclear weapons cannot be [...]
August 24th, 2006 at 2:31 pmAnother step to get the treaty passed faster was the U.S. decision to leave out any verification measures. Rademaker said that could take years to negotiate and that U.S. officials thought it better just to sign the treaty and rely on countries to abide by it.
That, of course, would also release the U.S. from the terms of verification under the present NPT. This administration becomes more dangerous each day.
August 24th, 2006 at 2:35 pmSomeone needs to tell aWol that ther are more brown people in India than in Iran. And, more potential sleeper-cell members from India currently in the U.S. than Iranians.
August 24th, 2006 at 3:01 pm2618 ha ha ha ha IDIOTS
August 24th, 2006 at 3:13 pmAMERICA GROW UP
August 24th, 2006 at 3:25 pmas bolton would say GROW UP OR BLOW UP
August 24th, 2006 at 3:25 pmAmerica and the wooden spoon used for shit stiring
August 24th, 2006 at 3:53 pm[...] Yes To India, No To Iran: Bush Administration Sends Contradictory …Think Progress, DC - 3 hours agoPresident Mahmoud Ahmadinejad insists that nuclear power is Iran s right and no one will stop us developing the country. … [...]
August 24th, 2006 at 4:35 pmWhat nobody talks about is how flawed the NPT itself is? The exclusive 5 club hold on to their nuclear weapons and do not want the others to get them. This is in itself bogus. It would have been a different story if there had been an appreciable effort to rid the world of nuclear weapons but that obviously is not palatable
August 24th, 2006 at 4:43 pm“Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has called for the destruction of Israel,”
You phrase this to make it seem like they intend to nuke Israel.
• Meanwhile, ISRAEL IS ILLEGALLY ARMED WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS, AND IS NOT A SIGNATORY ON ANY NUCLEAR DETENTE AGREEMENTS because Israel will not admit the obvious.
• Meanwhile, it is ISRAEL and the AIPAC Neocons in the US who are calling for preemptive nuclear bombing of Iran.
Gee, is there a contradiction? Which famous country or countries just committed major warcrimes destroying a sovereign country for MINOR terrorist problems?
Clearly we must destroy “Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Iran, Sudan, & Somalia.” (PNAC paper)
Henry Kissinger also wants to partition Saudi Arabia.
C. Rice doesn’t want the legally-elected Aristide to enter the Western hemisphere.
Ronald Reagan sold THOUSANDS of TOW missiles to Iran, for a 6x profit, while talking about not supporting terrorist regimes or negotiating with kidnappers. GFH Bush is best pals with Kadafi, Karimov, and every rightwing terrorist dictator in the world.
Iran’s government has about a 10% approval rate, and the country is inevitably moving toward a more free government and society. So let’s have ThinkProgress SPEW Zionist arguments in the hope of demonizing GFH Bush’s India giveaway.
Rather than compare India to Iran, you ought to be looking to the ‘next war’ these neocons are planning — with CHINA, a war in which India would be an ally. Why has Bushco fomented war with so many nations? Is it to stop terrorism? It does the reverse.
Is it to protect Israel? It does the reverse.
Is it to MAKE MONEY AND TAKE OVER THE UNITED STATES THROUGH “a concrete plan to traumatize and shock the here-and-now American society”? (neocon Stockman)
ding ding ding.
August 24th, 2006 at 4:53 pm“American did the same thing with Saddam years ago. We gave him WMD’s only to invade Iraq with lies and find the weapons we gave him. Ya we now know we just wanted to get Iraq oil –Jackie
INCORRECT. THE PURPOSE OF THE ILLEGAL INVASION OF IRAQ HAS BEEN TO INSTALL FOUR (+) MAJOR AIRBASES AND A CITADEL LARGER THAN THE VATICAN, DISMANTLING THE COUNTRY AS NECESSARY TO KEEP THOSE BASES THERE.
*Please make a note of it.*
August 24th, 2006 at 4:58 pm“It Amazes me how America pick on weak countries…My view is America is pathetic–Mumbo Jumbo
Mumbo jumbo is right. When you’re done BUYING the red herring, try the kippers.
America is 300 million people, 99% of which have little or no control over a runaway foreign policy that profers those idiotic herrings on the controlled media.
America, however, is not a dog with two eyes and a tail. Neither is Iran, neither is any country. The racist scapegoating is not America’s private property — it is a human scale problem, and Mumbo, you have it wherever you live too, if you’re honest to yourself.
August 24th, 2006 at 5:04 pmReply to #28. Tom unfortunately what you don’t take into consideration my friend is what happened during Katrina. Why do I make that point? Because that magnified by 1000 percent is what the situation would be like if terrorist got their hand on the bomb. As for being coward, unlike you my friend I served 11 years in the Army, and 4 of them in Infantry, so don’t question my bravery. My point is basically; the Democrats are being accused of cutting and running because they are calling for withdrawal from Iraq. I was taught about the affects of a Nuclear bomb, and believe me it can destroy this Country. Terrorist aren’t stupid, they know that even after it’s exploded, there’s fallout and people will die years later from radiation.
My friend don’t ever get so stupid as to think America can’t be defeated. We are more vulnerable now than we have ever been because of the failed policies of the Bush administration. My basic point was; Iran is the real threat to America because of their connection to terrorist. During WWII as you know no other country had nuclear weapons. We had them and didn’t want others to have them because of the massive destruction they cause. Dr Robert Oppenheimer after seeing the destruction of the atom bomb caused said: “I have become death, I am become the destroyer of worlds”. That’s because he realized too late, that man had become the destroyer of worlds with this new terrifying weapon.
Any fool who thinks we can play games when is comes to nuclear weapons is less than a coward, he’s an idiot. Iran took over our embasy in the 1980s, have supported terrorist and hate israel. Your point about North Korea has nothing to do with this agrument anyway. Tom is right about the rich no caring about the less fortunate.
August 24th, 2006 at 5:27 pmFaiz- Thanks for the HEADS UP re: Iran/India- – when DID India declare she wanted to destroy the US and Israel????
August 24th, 2006 at 5:39 pmI think #39 makes the important point: Is NPT the right way to achieve objectives?
August 24th, 2006 at 6:36 pmWhether a particular country signs on to a UN treaty is that countries prerogative; in particular, India, Pakistan, and Israel are free to choose to NOT sign the NPT. A treaty comes with benefits and constraints, and you lose the benefits if you cannot abide by the constraints. There is nothing illegal in choosing to NOT sign a treaty; US has chosen not to sign or ratify various treaties. The UN (security council) has power only when a country signs the treaty and does not abide by itsterms.
I agree that even among countries in minor violations of NPT (last year’s revelations by Brazil and South Korea about having enriched material beyond the 3-5% required for civilian reactors) , US response varies a great deal, and Iran is definitely being picked on more than the US reaction to those revelations.
However, to claim that Israel is illegally acquiring nuclear weapons (#40) or that India acquired them outside the bounds of NPT in contravention to the International Law etc. (#23) is fundamentally flawed. Those countries never signed up to abide by this treaty – and this is just a treaty, not international law binding to ALL members of the UN . So their conduct is not governed by the NPT, which incidentally, has NOT yet been ratified by the US congress :)
“Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has called for the destruction of Israel, is undoubtedly a greater immediate security threat to the world than the Indian government.”
— FAIZ
I think it seems clear that either Mr. Faiz hates India or he is certainly unaware of the history of India.
Pls stop u re India bashing Mr. Faiz. I know u don’t like bush and pls don’t let tht fog u re ability to think and look at the bigger picture.
Grow up.
August 24th, 2006 at 7:43 pmGrow up.
Comment by Sri Harsha — August 24, 2006 @ 7:43 pm
Says the person who types writes like a teenager, who didn’t understand the topic of the thread, let alone the point of the quote he referenced.
August 24th, 2006 at 8:40 pmThis is relevant to the current American stance towards Iran:
Israel is carefully watching the world’s reaction to Iran’s continued refusal to suspend uranium enrichment, with some high-level officials arguing it is now clear that when it comes to stopping Iran, Israel “may have to go it alone,” The Jerusalem Post has learned.
Israel may ‘go it alone’ against Iran
I don’t know what makes the Israeli government think they can take on Iran, when they failed to defang Hezbollah in their month long offensive in Southern Lebanon.
August 24th, 2006 at 8:44 pmGregor, I bet ol bush and company are waiting in the wings, pushing the Israles on and ready to supply them with the big bomb…..My guess it may already be in Israel with our name painted on the side. Sad state of affairs our country is in with these nut cases in charge…..There’s little left of the America I grew up in or right’s we faught so hard to get…..Blessings
August 24th, 2006 at 9:12 pmGregor, i bet u understand the topic of this thread better than anyone else right!
August 24th, 2006 at 9:31 pmYour comment clearly shows that……
Most Dangerous Country in the World (2006) : PAKISTAN
• Harbors Al Qaeda, and OBL.
• Dictatorship, no period of democracy to point to.
• Ruthless war with East Pakistan. Near-nuclear war with India in 2003.
• Celebrates Pak scientist who spread nuclear info and materiel to Libya, N. Korea, and Iran.
• Opium trade produces lots of money for terrorism. “Pakistan, which regards both Gul Agha and Hazrat Ali [Afghan opium warlords] as allies. For 20 years, the complex of heroin-terror networks in Central Asia has been fostered by Pakistan’s intelligence service, the ISI.”
• Aligned to Cheney’s Pipelinestan project (as the necessary outlet to the sea).
• If Musharaf gov’t falls, Al Qaeda might come into possession of nuclear missiles.
• Cowboy in the Shitehouse.
Focus on Iran? Zionist, neocon, warmonger PROPAGANDA.
Israel — ARMED WITH 25 NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND THE MOST ADVANCED NATIVE MILITARY IN THE ME. Not particularly threatened, but boy do they love to commit warcrimes and pound their chest about how endangered they are.
Faiz, lay off the propaganda. It’s going to stunt your growth.
August 24th, 2006 at 10:24 pmWell I guess we shouldn’t be surprised.
Last time Bush came back from India, he was wearing a T-Shirt that said “I just got back from trading our nukes to India and all I got was these lousy mangos”.
August 24th, 2006 at 11:34 pmi bet u understand the topic of this thread better than anyone else right!
Comment by Sri Harsha — August 24, 2006 @ 9:31 pm
If you made that bet, you’d probably lose.
However, I am willing to bet you are among those who understood it the least.
August 24th, 2006 at 11:50 pmSharon,
The Israeli offensive in Lebanon was done will full diplomatic support from the US. The reason why the UN resolution was delayed for so long was to give Israel the opportunity and time to strike Lebanon at will.
There is more. Israel expected a “refund” for their expenses:
According to sources in Jerusalem, the government was considering requesting US aid – one report estimated a request of $2 billion – to help pay the cost of the war. There was talk in Washington of a large-scale financial package to help rebuild southern Lebanon, and in the process keep the Iranians out of the process. Israel was apparently hoping to fold its aid request into this package.
US to Israel: No financial aid for war
I would not be surprised to learn of a similar arrangement to “hit” Iran.
August 24th, 2006 at 11:58 pmThe answer is quite simple:
Iran has oil and India doesn’t.
Follow the trail of oil folks, and you will be astonished by what you find.
August 25th, 2006 at 2:20 am#23, your comment
is spot on. The argument should not be whether Iran’s policies might potentially be dangerous but rather how imminent they might be. That fact drives what the appropriate policies might be. The Iranian threat can be dealt with in a host of different ways at this point, not just the military card. Somehow that needs to be driven home to the American electorate. I am not sanguine that this will be done given the complete collapse of the American media’s ability to discuss anything substantive.
August 25th, 2006 at 7:19 amThe difference is India is a secular democracy of more than 1000 millions with open press and a history of non-aggression towards any other nation, where as Iran is a theocratic state with no freedom of press or expression and a history of confrontation with the West. India’s search is for independence where as Iran’s serach is to acquire enough capability to carry out their revengeful agenda. The fundamental wisdom behind both the countries’ arguments is different. It is foolish to compare India with Iran. I am sure US policy makers are able to see this.
August 25th, 2006 at 10:28 amIndia’s nonaggression would certainly be contested by Nepal, Sri Lanka and Pakistan.
August 25th, 2006 at 12:22 pmAmerican deaths in Iraq, Afghan wars approach 9/11 toll LIES LIES LIES America Civillian contractors in this Statement dont count otherwise a lot more killed than 9/11
2,973 victims killed in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
2622 American troops killed in Iraq
333 American troops killed in Afghanistan
237 America civilian contractors killed in Iraq
= 3192 Total Americans Killed
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
230 Coalition troops killed in Iraq
August 27th, 2006 at 3:43 pm112 Coalition troops killed in Afghanistan
211 Coalition civilian contractors killed in Iraq
India is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and as such has developed nuclear weapons (As has Pakistan which is also not a signatory).
Iran IS a signatory nation and is within it’s legal rights to develop peaceful uses for atomic material. Of course anyone that can make a nuclear reactor for power generation automatically has the ability to create weapons and that’s where the international inspections come in.
The NPT also states very clearly that it is ILLEGAL for a signatory nation to assist in the development of nuclear technology with a non-signatory nation. The US Constitution says that ratified treties are the Law of the Land. The Bush administration’s plans to inflame nuclear weapons proliferation in India, Pakistan and China is blatantly illegal under international law and a gross violation of the US Constitution.
Not that the Republicans give a damn about the Rule of Law…
August 28th, 2006 at 10:19 amThe day the bombs begin to fall, the mullahs will join ranks with teenagers in the streets of Tehran. Dr. Ahmadinejad will become as politically immune from public criticism as Mr. Bush was on September 12, 2001.
August 28th, 2006 at 4:35 pmIran’s program can be delayed a few years by bombing, but only at the price of solidifying Dr. Ahmadinejad’s rule in Iran and making him a regional symbol of Islamic defiance. In this non-elected office, he will replace Osama bin Laden. The difference is, Ahmadinejad is a legitimately elected President of a nation with a lot of oil.
This is about oil, political power, currencies, and above all, legitimacy. It is about the ability of the United States to change regimes its way and then preserve these new regimes from replacement by domestic enemies.
The United States and its client state regimes will be replaced in the Middle East. It is only a matter of time. If the United States bombs Iran, the timetable will speed up.
August 28th, 2006 at 4:38 pmHmm. Anyone who says that India is non-violent is purely stupid.
However, in all the wars they have fought- in all but one they were attacked first (exception is 1971 war) and retaliated, they have a nuclear ‘no-first use’ policy, and no threatening of nukes in the case of conventional inferiority.
Before the 1971 war Indian diplomats went around the world asking for UN/US assistance to stem the flow of literally millions of refugees from East Pakistan, no solution was offered and Pakistan practically dared India to attack thinking ‘ that the third time is lucky’.
Compared to Iran that has been trading nuke secrets with pakistan along with NK…
December 9th, 2006 at 6:14 amHmm. Anyone who says that India is non-violent is purely stupid.
However, in all the wars they have fought- in all but one they were attacked first (exception is 1971 war) and retaliated, they have a nuclear ‘no-first use’ policy, and no threatening of nukes in the case of conventional inferiority.
Before the 1971 war Indian diplomats went around the world asking for UN/US assistance to stem the flow of literally millions of refugees from East Pakistan, no solution was offered and Pakistan practically dared India to attack thinking ‘ that the third time is lucky’.
Compared to Iran that has been trading nuke secrets with pakistan along with NK…
December 9th, 2006 at 6:14 amHmm. Anyone who says that India is non-violent is purely stupid.
However, in all the wars they have fought- in all but one they were attacked first (exception is 1971 war) and retaliated, they have a nuclear ‘no-first use’ policy, and no threatening of nukes in the case of conventional inferiority.
Before the 1971 war Indian diplomats went around the world asking for UN/US assistance to stem the flow of literally millions of refugees from East Pakistan, no solution was offered and Pakistan practically dared India to attack thinking ‘ that the third time is lucky’.
Compared to Iran that has been trading nuke secrets with pakistan along with NK…
December 9th, 2006 at 6:14 am[...] that could be used against regional adversaries such as … Iran. Moreover, the administration seeks to provide nuclear assistance to India, a nuclear state that never signed the NPT, which is also a treaty [...]
April 8th, 2008 at 7:28 pm