Many commentators say that the US has give more to India than they have to others. May be true. But, is this deal good for India? Are the terms clear? It is obvious that the terms are not clear, otherwise, why are there so many interpretations. In an agreement, there cannot be issues to be left to future understanding/interpretation. Every thing has to be clearly written down.
No deal should be accepted just beacuse there is a friendly Head of a Govt. That is the excuse being given by many.
About letting the voter decide, one must understand that if the voter in India had that strength, then we would not have seen so many criminals getting elected. So, forget that the voter will consider the Nuclear issue when he votes next.
RE:Nuclear Deal
by george on Aug 29, 2007 08:25 PM Permalink
The deal will produce 7% of our energy requirement for the next 40 years, provided India has a foreign policy congruent to US, halt further development of nuclear arsenal, and supports US in isolating new nuclear states(read Iran). its as simple as that... You don't have to be a nuclear scientist to understand this. If this is acceptable, everything is fine. The complete text of the 123 agreement, the Hyde act and the nuclear deal with china is available here. http://www.xrl.us/4jp8
RE:Nuclear Deal
by Batman on Aug 29, 2007 09:49 PM Permalink
Nowhere does the 123 agreement asks for India to halt development of nuclear arsenal. u r misleading the people. speak the truth, ur lies cannot fool ne one
RE:Nuclear Deal
by george on Aug 29, 2007 10:18 PM Permalink
(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;
This is in the hyde act.. how does this sound to you?
RE:Nuclear Deal
by Batman on Aug 29, 2007 10:30 PM Permalink
It sounds like nuthn. It says one should nt proliferate nuclear technology. boss this is a must. wot do u want a pakistan everywhere with nuclear bombs. The proliferation of weapons of mass distruction is just nt acceptable and pround of my country India for its track record of non proliferation. The other point, refrain from actions that would further the development of its nuclear weapons program; it just says refrain does it says implicitly for India to cap its nuclear program. Remember some of theclauses were deliberately put in just to avoid a confrontatio with the Non Proliferation Hawks in washington. No where does it asks for a forcible cap of indian nuclear program. Show me atleast one point in the Hyde act where it says "The deal will be given to India only if India caps its nuclear program". Can u plz find such a clause and enlighten ur brothers here
RE:Nuclear Deal
by george on Aug 29, 2007 11:09 PM Permalink
They hyde act says US is going through with the deal cause India fits certain criteria. They can terminate the deal once India fails to fit in. Its common sense. Remember the way they terminated haneefs visa. failed charactor test? The president of US has to submit a report each year on the deal's progress and decide future action.There i no gaurantee on whats to happen. This argument can go on for ever. If the deal goes through t,our economy is going to be dependent on an ambigous deal which if terminated would sent the country into an energy crisis. I bet we will not be looking for alternate sources as long the deal is intact.It is definitley a matter of concern
RE:Nuclear Deal
by george on Aug 30, 2007 07:32 AM Permalink
@ Batman Youi are the one who is making assumtions. You are the one who said "The Hyde Act is a cosmetic effect to shut the mouths of the Non Proliferation hawks in Washington who vehemently oppose this deal. ". Thats what is an assumtion All what i have said is based on the "technicality" of the "text" in hyde act.
RE:Nuclear Deal
by george on Aug 29, 2007 10:54 PM Permalink
I am sorry i disagree.Its US whch decides and interprest the clauses in the deal based on our interest cause they provide the fuel. Without fuel, no power. We would be fully "DEPENDEND" on americans for the power.
RE:Nuclear Deal
by Batman on Aug 29, 2007 11:02 PM Permalink
how is " no clause in the deal that binds us to the US" is like creating darkness by closing your eyes.???? If theres no such clause that means its nt binding. its so simple. the way u talk its like. We discuss somethn n u suddenly tell me am gonna kill u, y coz i neva said am nt gonna kill u. why shuld i tell u am nt gonna kill u whn i don have ne such instance. bt u r still adamant abt me killin u just coz u actually want me to say am nt gona kill u. nw this is called fear psychosis. ur other point the US decides again is wrong. its we who will decide. if US dosn give us uranium thn we go to Russia. theres no clause whch says other countries will folow US policy even if US suddenly is against the deal. We are free to buy froma multitude os countries. Its nt just the US. get outts ur obsession with the US. We are not n we will neva be dependant on the US mind u do not project idnia as weak to the world. u can say u r weak in ur personal capacity bt nt for the rest of India.
RE:Nuclear Deal
by george on Aug 30, 2007 10:28 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:Nuclear Deal
by george on Aug 30, 2007 10:48 AM Permalink
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.
(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 p
RE:Nuclear Deal
by george on Aug 30, 2007 11:15 AM Permalink
It because of stupid people like you the British conquered us. They signed ambiguous agreements with Indian kings and ended up winning 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:Nuclear Deal
by george on Aug 30, 2007 10:20 AM Permalink
"Millions"? lol You are putting too much pressure on me.. anyway.. 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"
RE:RE:Nuclear Deal
by george on Aug 29, 2007 10:55 PM Permalink
The statement " no clause in the deal that binds us to the US" is like creating darkness by closing your eyes.
RE:Nuclear Deal
by Batman on Aug 30, 2007 12:19 AM Permalink
U r wrong again. read the deal carefully it says the US has the right to terminate the deal but other countries can continue with the deal. bt for u thres no world beyond the US. u r opposing the deal just for the sake of opposing the US. oppositin to the US has blinded u of Indias interests. U still havent mentioned one concrete Clause whch clearly states that India should give up its sovereign rights to get da deal. U r a loser. all ur points are based on assumtions and a firm beleif that u r weak and u have a severe inferiority complex.
RE:Nuclear Deal
by Batman on Aug 29, 2007 10:45 PM Permalink
No u r wrong. its we who wil interpret it the way we like it. Not the US buddy. there u have been caught finally. This is exactly wot i wantd u to say. Finally u have proved theres no clause in the deal that binds us to the US. its we India whch decides and interprest the clauses in the deal based on our interest. Thank you, Thank you very much
RE:RE:Nuclear Deal
by george on Aug 29, 2007 10:39 PM Permalink
There is no clause which clearly states it, thats the problem. Ambiguity rules the hyde act. US can interpret it in any way to suit them during various circumstances which deveop in the future.
