RE:Kapil Sibal clarifies the N deal
by george on Aug 30, 2007 10:12 AM Permalink
The 3rd point is still debatable. The americans have made conflicting statements about it. One of them even going on to say " if India conducts the test, the deal is off" while Bush says the Hyde act is not binding. The ambiguous terms should be removed before proceeding. I have no problems with having good relationship with US.. but it should be of "friendship" not "master and servant" The complete text of 123 agreement and hyde act is here http://www.xrl.us/4jp8
RE:RE:Kapil Sibal clarifies the N deal
by george on Aug 30, 2007 10:23 AM Permalink
You cant continue staying in a bachelor's lodge once you get married. does it ring a bell? There are some terms that are "obviously binding" unless said otherwise.
RE:Kapil Sibal clarifies the N deal
by george on Aug 30, 2007 10:29 AM Permalink
I am not barking.. you are the one who is losing the cool. If there is a qualification criteria for a certain deal and you fail the criteria at any stage, the deal is off. Its common sense.
RE:Kapil Sibal clarifies the N deal
by george on Aug 30, 2007 10:32 AM Permalink
and i am not a communist. Infact i am not politically aligned. i only care about "India"
RE:RE:Kapil Sibal clarifies the N deal
by george on Aug 30, 2007 10:46 AM Permalink
and its obvious to everyone who is barking and running out of ideas... i have not tried to insult you once, but you have been constantly using words like "weak" "stupid" "barking" "communist" 'Chinese slave' and what not, against me in desperate attempt to prove me wrong.
RE:Kapil Sibal clarifies the N deal
by george on Aug 30, 2007 11:06 AM Permalink
It because of stupid people like you the British conquered us. They signed ambiguous agreements with Indian kings and ended up won huge areas without any war. This deal may not be that bad and we may never lose our freedom, but the fact remains that the deal is against national interest and only people with brains can see th devil in it.
RE:RE:Kapil Sibal clarifies the N deal
by george on Aug 30, 2007 10:55 AM Permalink
If there were "direct" terms which prohibited India from conducting nuclear tests, the deal would have been off on day 1. Use your brain. The devil is in details.
RE:Kapil Sibal clarifies the N deal
by george on Aug 30, 2007 10:42 AM Permalink
lol.. (B) the country has a functioning and uninterrupted democratic system of government, has a foreign policy that is congruent to that of the United States, and is working with the United States in key foreign policy initiatives related to non-proliferation;
(C) such cooperation induces the country to implement the highest possible protections against the proliferation of technology related to weapons of mass destruction programs and the means to deliver them, and to refrain from actions that would further the development of its nuclear weapons program; and
(D) such cooperation will induce the country to give greater political and material support to the achievement of United States global and regional nonproliferation objectives, especially with respect to dissuading, isolating, and, if necessary, sanctioning and containing states that sponsor terrorism and terrorist groups, that are seeking to acquire a nuclear weapons capability or other weapons of mass destruction capability and the means to deliver such weapons;
These are qualifications required to get into a deal with US, The moment India fails the "Yearly character test"(The US president has to submit a report every year)the deal is off. Its standard procedure and anyone with common sense can understand why.
