This Story is Archived
Bush signs nuclear deal with India »
Posted by: takeitorleaveit 1 year, 8 months agoWASHINGTON - President Bush on Monday signed a civilian nuclear deal with India, allowing fuel and know-how to be shipped to the world's largest democracy even though it has not submitted to full international inspections.
Read Full Story at news.yahoo.com »
This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed
Comments: 47
-
msaleem
Dec. 18, 2006, 5:46 p.m."...even though New Delhi refuses to sign the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty"
"Eight military plants, however, would remain off-limits to the inspections."
"the agreement could spark a nuclear arms race in Asia by boosting India's atomic arsenal."
An excellent way to alienate another 160,000,000 people.
-
dbol
Dec. 18, 2006, 6:19 p.m.I assume you're talking about Pakistan...I'm pretty sure most of them are already pretty alienated.
And while in principle I'm not a fan of this deal either (due of course to India's failure to sign the NNPT), it's probably making the best of a not-so-good situation.
Finally, if you want to use math as a justification, 160 million is just about 15% of India's population...and in theory those billion people are now less alienated.
-
jeffery1
Dec. 19, 2006, 11:36 a.m.Isn't it amazing how incoherent Bush's policies and words are? What can be said about the double standard between India and Iran? Wouldn't nuclear power abate Iran's greenhouse gas emissions? Of course we know the disingenuousness of that rationale.
The world is once again witnessing why it can't trust Bush's intentions because his incoherencies can only be read as self-serving and promoting American hegemony over other peoples' best interest.
-
felipe
Dec. 19, 2006, 1:38 p.m." . . . because it had protected its nuclear technology and not been a proliferator."
-
-
bloodclot
Dec. 18, 2006, 6:13 p.m.The whole thing is mistake - Bush thought he was signing the "Nuculer" deal...
-
white-pawn
Dec. 18, 2006, 6:40 p.m.I'm guessing that in another 10 years or so, India will be the new Iraq with weapons of mass destruction that we sold them. Except in this case, they really will have them.
-
mbkijb
Dec. 18, 2006, 10:56 p.m.Yup, I can see it now.....Jeb will get in, but only through chads and the electoral college (why do they call it a college? I thought intelligence was taught in colleges.....) Oooooh, I feel sorry for my kids and grandkids. I even feel sorry for myself and the rest of you! Merry Christmas, Happy everything else- it may be one of the few ones we have left!
-
cynicalfairy
Dec. 19, 2006, 1:46 p.m."Just like his father before him,giving weapons to Saddam"
Please be so kind as to show me a non-liberal source that states that this ever happened.
-
deathray
Dec. 19, 2006, 8:05 a.m.To be frank, India is a very different place than Iraq, culturally and politically.
I'd also think we would be less likely to treat India te way we treated Iraq, strategically speaking.
India has traditionally tried to be a nonaligned country. That's the concern for the US. We've really alientated them in the past with our support for Pakistan.
Strategically, we want India on our sideto balance against China...although both China and India are in the middle of a rapprochement of sorts.
Ah, global strategic diplomacy.
-
-
takeitorleaveit
Dec. 18, 2006, 7:19 p.m.Its a very bad deal. What a double standard. No wonder Iran and Nk wants to join the club.
-
palamaComment has been removed: User banned.
-
felipe
Dec. 20, 2006, 2:35 a.m.I agree with the higher percentage approval. I know the Senate has passed it 85 to 12, which is much higher than 75%. I don't know about the House approval.
About "...arming other countries." - this deal is not about arming the Indians. They already are armed.
I think its ok to be partnering with stable democratic govts for a change.
-
LeftTurn
Dec. 18, 2006, 8:12 p.m.Let's not be so hasty to think everyone wants to use these practices for evil, because I would say that more people are good and less evil, although I'll admit the evil ones always seem to rise to power, but let us not forget WHO elects them.
You know what, nucs prevent war, they deter, because we know what destruction it can bring, and it's bad, even for the destructor it's bad. But it protects you from wandering threats of lesser nations and gives anyone who has them... can you guess? Freedom. Freedom to not have to worry about your children and know they are protected from the worst enemies, freedom to relax and work on your government, to recoup and hold a firm line, freedom to keep things in balance and to work on things for the good of your people. That's the way we live isn't it?
So we give everyone what they want,(going out on a limb here) Iran, India, try to level the playing field for Sunnis to have more say in the council along with the Shia (that's all they want anyway)
-
LeftTurn
Dec. 18, 2006, 8:42 p.m.Cont.
So we give everyone what they want, in return, we get oil right's to their property in various places, we have US inspections of nuclear testing and power facilities, with a specific task related force to keep dibs on these people including spending, and making sure research goes towards a nuclear power solution, no nuke will ever have the capability to hit the US and the US WILL BE considered allies within these nations. Ya know, just shut everyone the H*LL up for once and for all and give them what they want, and get all the bad guys on our side, and make sure they use the technology right, and if they want to blow up their neighbor, there would be imposed sanctions obligating the destructor to restore the land he annihilated. If we can somehow incur some of that oil as ours, they won't be able to fund things like that. I'd almost bet they'd never even use their nucs if they had them, maybe some(keyword) just want to live more like we do and feel safer. Can you blame them?
-
-
Teech
Dec. 18, 2006, 8:42 p.m.Somehow, somewhere, this will make the Bush family, Cheney, and Rice piles of money. Anything they engineer or approve will profit them in the short run, but ultimately be horrible for America in the long run. History will show that this administration has attained the nadir of national disgrace. The stench from Washington goes around the world.
Dumbya can't even pronounce the two syllable word, nu-clear....let alone be trusted with dealing with it.
His only question before signing was.......which way do I make the X ???
-
takeitorleaveit
Dec. 18, 2006, 9:23 p.m.rich,
Never thought I will give you a positive rating- what a heck, I just did. When are you going to snap out of this? lol
-
-
DoctorRobert
Dec. 18, 2006, 9:03 p.m.Wow I can't believe some of the comments about India. They have Nukes now. It's not as if this gives them Weapons of Mass Destruction. Also if anyone has a concern about the enviroment, the USA doesn't hold a candle to the waste and polution going on in Asia. This might be a step in the right direction.
Saddly this is about making money, and thats such a terrible thing. Bet North Korea and Iran are really happy about this. If something does go down in the East, might help to be on good terms with as many countries over there as possible.
-
betruthful
Dec. 18, 2006, 10:48 p.m.Doc- I have been to India several times and if you haven't been there you wouldn't believe the polution. I would be very worried what India will do with nuclear waste. Just as always Bush only cares about the agenda of his corporate masters and neo-cronies.
-
-
RASSRASS
Dec. 18, 2006, 9:41 p.m.I just hope this is not a case of the US arming India to destroy Pakistan. I really hope I will not in my lifetime live in a world where one country will use nuclear weapons on another. If I were doing work on a project that led to such a device as the atomic bomb, I would burn my notebook and deny the feasibility of the work. That would be a far noblier thing to do than to express regrets years later.
TALK LESS, THINK MORE, DO MORE.
-
mbkijb
Dec. 18, 2006, 10:53 p.m.ONE WORD: insane.... no, maybe two: absolutely insane. This shouldn't be a global nuclear know-how.....Are there brains in our leaders' heads?????
-
deathray
Dec. 19, 2006, 8:08 a.m.They already have the knowhow.
The nuclear technology is partly to get them to develop energy sources that won't use up more oil on a daily basis.
You know how much oil a developed economy of over a billion people wuld use daily? By comparson, the US with 300 million people uses 20 million barrels of oil a day...you do th math.
-
-
kafka
Dec. 19, 2006, 1:14 a.m.is it me or is the hypocrite song playing in the background?
mmm, gotta love those double standards
-
Twistoflex
Dec. 19, 2006, 2:34 a.m.Isn't this another brilliant stroke of Dumbyanomics? In exchange for mangos we'll violate the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, forking over nuclear technology to a non-signatory.
-
diverpaulusa
Dec. 19, 2006, 9:22 a.m.Let's not kid ourselves here. This so-called treaty was pushed very hard by GE Nuclear Energy so that they can use cheap Indian labor for engineering work. The NRC has banned them from doing this thus far. Here we go losing more high-skilled jobs.
-
liberty
Dec. 19, 2006, 9:26 a.m.Our governement seem to learn anything from past mistakes, and seem to follow the money wherever it goes. One day this will come back to get a big chunck out of our ass!
We should never give nuclear power to any country. period.
-
1rooster
Dec. 19, 2006, 9:44 a.m.How do you stop nuclear proliferation by spreading it? You don't. We are the United States and we do whatever the hell we want to. Case closed!
-
inverse
Dec. 19, 2006, 10:20 a.m.I am no sure that in a long run we will continue to enjoy technological superiority. Future breakthrough may not be mainly from us. I wonder how we control others then.
-
jumpmaster
Dec. 19, 2006, 2:09 p.m.This is bad. It is almost as bad as Slick Willie giving nuclear missile guidance technology to China in exchange for campaign contributions.
-
-
felipe
Dec. 20, 2006, 1:16 a.m.You mean Madeline Halfbright!
I think she is searching for Elian Gonzalez.
-
-
el-jefe
Dec. 19, 2006, 5:12 p.m.I'm appalled at some of the comments on this issue. The ignorance is downright amazing.
First, India already has the bomb. They devloped the technology themselves. They have plenty of scientists with the know-how, and they have more nuclear raw materials then the US. The largest amount of technical help they got to build their nuclear program came from Canada, but the weapons program was all India.
Second, they have all the weapons they need for now, and if they think they need more, they have the means to build them without this treaty.
Third, the reason they have them has nothing to do with Pakistan. It has everything to do with China's nuclear weapons. I'll admit, once India got the Bomb, there was tremendous incentive for Pakistan to get one. But that wasn't India's fault; why did China need the Bomb?
Fourth, India has had the Bomb for years, and hasn't proliferated to anyone. Nor do they care to.
-
felipe
Dec. 20, 2006, 1:31 a.m.Very well said El Jefe!
India and Pakistan became independant countries at the same time. And the history shows the difference.
India was always under a democratic system and had a stable govt. Until now there is no evidence of proliferation by them of the nuclear technology or weapons they developed.
Forgot how many times Pakistan govt was taken over by military coupe and run by dictators.
The first 41 comments are shown. Show all 47 comments »
