Nuclear Deal With India a Victory for Bush

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: bishop china would care much more about the sale of weapons systems to india, rather than sharing nuclear technology/know-how.. and the chinese are going to continue building their military - this deal also doesn't affect that.. as far as pakistan goes, i don't know about you, but i don't see that country as really being an ally - and definitely not a long-term ally.. india, on the other hand, has solid prospects of being a long-term ally.

I don't think Bush sees them as much of an ally either. He isn't pushing for the same deal for Pakistan and he apparently doesn't plan to.

[BobbyO]

Quote by: RickSp The deal is based on a whopper of a double standard, just confirming the imperial arrogance than the US doesn't need to pay attention to treaties or international agreements. The suggestion that India needs to open up is laughable. Have you called a "help desk" recently? India is already wide open to trade. All this deal does, besides strenthening Iran's positon, is to give US industrial vendors a short term advantage in selling India nuclear components.

The only way it is a double standard is if no distinction should be made between the governments of Iran and India.

[rmnunez]

BobbyO is right, the perceived "double standard" results from the disparity between the governments of Iran and India. One is a well-established, periodically-renewed and fairly equitable representative democracy, the other its opposite -a totalitarian Islamic fundamentalist theocracy with terrorist ties that discriminates against women, lacks any transperancy in its political processes, and is wholly unrepresentative. Pakistan may not be as Islamic fundamentalist or as theocratic as Iran, but easily could be. Association with Musharaff and Pakistan is like it was with Iraq and Saddam, a matter of temporary convenience by virtue of provisional geostrategic concerns.

Bolton said the international community should "use all tools at our disposal to stop the threat that the Iranian regime poses." http://sg.news.yahoo.com/060306/1/3z5hb.html

What “tools” do you think Bolton means? An economic embargo or sanctions and diplomatic ostracism weren’t very effective with Iraq and Iran is no more vulnerable. There already are restrictions on what can be sold to Iran nuclear-wise. The military does seem like the only tool that hasn’t been applied yet. With 130 thousand troops next door in Iraq, this tool seems rather handy.

[bishop]

so, you're advocating another "preemptive strike", eh? you should outline what my country's plan should be..

maybe mexico can volunteer to be peacekeepers...

[oranged]

Quote by: dotcoma What do you think is behind this? Is it truly the desire of the US to avoid India's consumption of a large portion of oil as it grows?

Here's a good conspiracy theory, the exchange rate in India is very low, oil companies couldn't make as much money selling oil in India as they would in America. So Bush want them to use Nulear instead. I'm not saying I believe it, I'm just throwing it out there. It's extremely unfortunate that Bush had to give the Indian government one of the only power sources which is more environmentally destructive than oil. Is this guy just trying to piss off liberals?

[rmnunez]

bishop, why don't you think a preemptive strike would be the best answer to Iran? Is this because you think Iran has a "right" to nuclear weapons? Do you think that even if they don't have a right to nuclear weapons its not correct to forcibly deny them such weapons? Do you think the US lacks the authority to compell Iranian submission? Maybe you think there is a better way, what would this involve, incentives, more threats, embargoes and sanctions? Why would these be more effective on Iran than they've been in North Korea or were in Iraq?

No peacekeepers are needed for preemptive strikes, just a few jets and the pertinent missiles.

[bishop]

as far as "rights" go, iran has the right under the NPT to develop nuclear energy. it does not have the legal right to develop nukes.

i'm not about to fool myself into believing that incentives, sanctions or threats will get iran to comply. thus far, the iranians have behaved similar to the north koreans - all attempts to reign in their wmd programs have been met with resistance and threats.

it does look like iran is hellbound to develop nukes. and despite my displeasure, iran has some VERY rational reasons for wanting nukes - particularly our imperial domination over the entire region. additionally, what has helped make the situation worse are american "leaders" who continuously fan iranian fears of a military strike - iranians see nuclear weapons as being their ONLY real deterrant against our imperial forces. when people like john bolton stand up and talk about "all options are available", the iranians logically read that as a threat of war. and, given our country's warlike history, they have correctly perceived the threat that america poses against them.

so, we're left with an embargo or a preemptive strike... unless sanctioned by the UNSC, an embargo is an act of war and the iranians would likely treat an unsanctioned embargo as such. we could stop all iranian ships from leaving the gulf, but that would spark off a global oil crisis and would be incredibly counterproductive.. and an embargo won't persuade iran to abandon its nuke program.

a preemptive strike could definitely take out the nuke sites, but have you weighed your desire for conflict resolution through force against the consequences of force? that doesn't seem to be in your thought process (a real consideration of the potential consequences).. this isn't some zero-sum game where when we run out of peaceful solutions, that war then becomes the necessary solution. (you can always just accept the fact that iran will become a nuclear power and deal with it.) the consequences of such a strike could be a global oil crisis, iranian retaliation, multi-state retaliation (iran, syria, possibly russia and/or china), chaos in iraq, etc...


i'd pose one additional question.. given this administration's mentality and history - do you think that their intentions are solely to eliminate iran's nuke program? isn't it also very possible that they'd want to destroy iran's military capabilities? couldn't we also want to try and destroy iran's ruling regime?

[Boetie]

It has been said that India will become the third largest world economy.

Europe, United States and Japan is aging and that aging will become a burden. Russia's population is fast shrinking. India on the other hand has a almost perfect demographic that will make it ideal as a consumer nation.

India has long taken an anti-imperialist stance, because of that diplomacy with India requires a long process of building trust.

If the United States does decide to screw off Pakistan, then Pakistan and China will ally with a common problem, which is both of them have border disputes with India.

Pakistan hosts at least four terrorist groups, this too will be a good reason to not blow off Pakistan.

The deal is just a flower and candy offering, to court the country, but don't count on the fact that this means we can trust India.

[rmnunez]

iran has some VERY rational reasons for wanting nukes -particularly our imperial domination over the entire region.

That concern would be just one reason, its rationality depends on perceptions of "imperial domination" over the entire region

what has helped make the situation worse are american "leaders" who continuously fan iranian fears of a military strike -iranians see nuclear weapons as being their ONLY real deterrant against our imperial forces.

Iran has certainly helped provoke united statian military threats since they seized that embassy and went theocratic. There hasn't been much 'rapprochement' or improvement in relations between the US and Iran since then. Whether Iranians seek nukes for their deterrent value is your interpretation. If fear of military threats from the US were the motivator, given the US reaction to identical pursuits in Iraq next door, common sense says pursuit of nukes would not be a good way to avoid US threats.

unless sanctioned by the UNSC, an embargo is an act of war and the iranians would likely treat an unsanctioned embargo as such.

Sure, but if the Iranians deemed themselves to be at war with a unilateral US imposing some embargo, what could they do about it? They might put armed sailors on every tanker of theirs leaving port -only to draw fire from US enforcers.

we could stop all iranian ships from leaving the gulf, but that would spark off a global oil crisis and would be incredibly counterproductive.

I doubt it would be that catastrophic, check and see how much oil the US imports from Iran and if you want a larger impact explain why Iranian flows to others should be endangered as the conflict is presented as something exclusively between Iran and the US (in a unilateral embargo).

have you weighed your desire for conflict resolution through force against the consequences of force?

If force is not used Iran will acquire nukes and if they have them they will use them. If force is used, there will be fewer casualties and property loss to those against which Iran would have used its nukes, to Iran as well as to the US.

this isn't some zero-sum game where when we run out of peaceful solutions, that war then becomes the necessary solution.

We have run out of peaceful solutions, now Iran is on the verge of acquiring nukes and refuses to stop the process towards their acquisition, Iran says they are going ahead anyway, regardless of sanctions, embargoes or diplomatic pressure -all other alternatives have proven ineffectual.

(you can always just accept the fact that iran will become a nuclear power and deal with it.)

You are more willing to simply "accept" a nuclear Iran than the present US government (and a few others) seem to be.

the consequences of such a strike could be a global oil crisis, iranian retaliation, multi-state retaliation (iran, syria, possibly russia and/or china), chaos in iraq, etc...

Iranian retaliation is of minor concern, unless they have nukes Iran presents no real threat to the US. It is inconceivable Syria, Russia and/or China would join forces reacting to US action to forcibly preclude Iranian nukes.

do you think that (US) intentions are solely to eliminate iran's nuke program?

I think this is the primary reason, it is what the US government has indicated is their main concern with Iran, this is the explicit motive for referal of the matter to the Security Council.

isn't it also very possible that they'd want to destroy iran's military capabilities?

There aren't much Iranian military capabilities to destroy, but eroding these further wouldn't be a bad thing generally (unless someone here knows that country is barely held together through its military repression).

couldn't we also want to try and destroy iran's ruling regime?

This could be a beneficial 'side-effect'.

[bishop]

what the hell kind of reply was that nunez? could you have been any more sparse and incoherent?

[rmnunez]

There were too many incomplete thoughts and dangling sentences to build a coherent reply.

[bishop]

[rmnunez]

We can complicate things too much, better to limit analysis to a few basic tangibles; it is preferable Iran doesn't have nukes, it is likely Iran would use them if they had them, any nuke use will be detrimental far beyond the location where it is used, Iranian nuke acquisition will foster further proliferation to others, Iran has shown absolute intractability on the issue and will not yield to diplomatic pressure, Iran's oil wealth gives them relative immunity from economic sanctions, embargoing Iranian oil is nearly impossible since oil is fungible and in a sort of 'pool' from which the market draws without distinction as to source.

These are relatively solid "facts" we must work with in dealing with the problem. Assurances Iran seeks nukes for peaceable applications, claims they have a right or necessity for such weapons, that they wouldn't use them unless in self-defence, that these wouldn't become a tool to pressure neigbors and others within range, should all be dismissed as too speculative. Past conduct and recent statements from high-ranking figures in Teheran all suggest Iran seeks these weapons because they specifically want to launch one at Israel. Though I don't sympathise with Israel, I can't be brought around to advocate nuking them.

Since we all recognize sanctions, embargoes and diplomatic pressure won't work, unless we are willing to accept a substantial probability parts of Israel will get incinerated, some other means must be considered to keep Iran from going nuclear. I can think of just 2; use of force or Israel's surrender and relocation of its population to non-Muslim claimed lands. Which seems more likely to you?

[SaintLucifer]

Quote by: dotcoma What do you think is behind this? Is it truly the desire of the US to avoid India's consumption of a large portion of oil as it grows?

It is just another example of the U.S.A. attempting to horn in on Canada's nuclear sales territory. India's current nuclear technology is Canadian. They do not need American nuclear reactors so if it was really about preventing India from using fossil fuels then they would simply purchase more of Canada's superior CANDU reactors. American reactors are inferior so this is clearly an attempt by those in the US nuclear industry who have lobbied Bush to obtain India's business by stealing it from Canada.

SaintLucifer
The Dark Saint

[Livemike]

Quote by: bishop i support this deal with india.. they're rapidly growing and already have nuclear technology/weapons.. it makes sense to foster nuclear energy usage in india. economically, india also has a current account deficit (in part because it imports most of its energy), so improving their energy self-sufficiency would improve their economy's stability and long-term prospects.

India has abundant hydro-electric power potential and it's nuclear energy program consumes vast amounts of money and scarce trained brainpower for a net _negative_ energy output. The last thing a nation with a current account deficiet needs is to import more of something that isn't making a profit at the moment.
The reason that India even wants this deal is so that it can divert more of the domestic resources to producing nuclear weapons, which means that Pakistan will do so as well, possibly right before it's taken over by radical Islamists. A nuclear and Islamist-controlled Iran is impossible within 10 years and if America plays it right will never happen. A nuclear armed and Islamist-controlled Pakistan could happen next damn year. If that happens then this deal will have resulted in a better-nuclear-armed.

Quote by: bishop i tend to look at india as a natural ally of ours because of the strong similarities in our societies..

Say what? An underdeveloped, Hindu/Islamic country of over a billion has so much in common with a highly developed, Judeo-Christian country of 250 million.

Quote by: bishop geopolitically, they're also a good proxy between pakistan and china. and, india's relationships with each country aren't exactly cozy.

Why would America need a proxy? What could it possible want in that part of the world that it couldn't get by you know, paying for it? And cheaper than trying to interfer in that region's diplomacy. I mean when you consider how badly using Pakistan as a proxy worked out (5,000 dead Americans on American soil) why would you want another one.

Quote by: bishop the NPR treaty's de-facto obsolete, so i don't think any hypocrisy arguments will have any lasting power.

Since when? In case you haven't noticed Iran's been abiding by it and they're supposedly the main threat. The only thing making the NPT irrevelent is the moronic Bush's insistence on framing countries that abide by it. What evidence do you have that the NPT is obselete? In any case hypocracy arguements do have lasting power, regardless of treaties. The reason that countries _don't_ develop nukes is that by refraining they give a reason for their enemies to refrain as well. By encouraging India to develop nukes the administration undermines that. There's a reason why there are laws against doing what Bush is doing here.

Quote by: bishop this is one of the few instances where i think bush made a good decision - amongst the loads of instances where bush fucked up.

hkhjkl;lk;l'lk;'kl;'k
lk;k;kl;'k;'

[Livemike]

Quote by: BobbyO The only way it is a double standard is if no distinction should be made between the governments of Iran and India.

On the contray it's a double standard because IRT the NPT Iran is compliant and yet is being denied it's rights under the NPT and India is VERY noncompliant and yet is being given things against US law. The double standard is that if a country is percieved as being anti-US it's not allowed help to develop peaceful nuclear power, but if they're arguably pro-US then they're allowed to get technology even though they've never signed the NPT and actually are developing more nukes.

[Livemike]

Quote by: rmnunez We can complicate things too much, better to limit analysis to a few basic tangibles; it is preferable Iran doesn't have nukes,

Says who? A nuclear Iran would have the clout to pressure Israel to disarm in exchange for it disarming. That's very preferable to the current situation with Likud in charge of 200 nukes.

Quote by: rmnunez it is likely Iran would use them if they had them,

How do you figure? The only country that Iran would want to use them on (absent an attack by the US or Iraq which is US controlled) is Isreal. Now Isreal has over 200 nukes and it's going to be years before Iran has even one. It's unlikely that even the Mullahs would start a fight that unbalanced, particularly as it would almost certainly mean the Dome of the rock gets wasted.

Quote by: rmnunez any nuke use will be detrimental far beyond the location where it is used, Iranian nuke acquisition will foster further proliferation to others, Iran has shown absolute intractability on the issue and will not yield to diplomatic pressure,

Actually it's repeated submitted to increased inspections, voluntarily sealed it's facilities when asked and has never asked for anything it wasn't guaranteed under the NPT. It is the US that has shown intractability.

Quote by: rmnunez Iran's oil wealth gives them relative immunity from economic sanctions, embargoing Iranian oil is nearly impossible since oil is fungible and in a sort of 'pool' from which the market draws without distinction as to source. These are relatively solid "facts" we must work with in dealing with the problem. Assurances Iran seeks nukes for peaceable applications, claims they have a right or necessity for such weapons, that they wouldn't use them unless in self-defence, that these wouldn't become a tool to pressure neigbors and others within range, should all be dismissed as too speculative.

No actually they should be presumed true until there is some evidence they are false. There is so far NO evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program.

Quote by: rmnunez Past conduct and recent statements from high-ranking figures in Teheran all suggest Iran seeks these weapons because they specifically want to launch one at Israel.

What past conduct? Have they launched nukes at nuke-armed nations before?

Quote by: rmnunez Though I don't sympathise with Israel, I can't be brought around to advocate nuking them. Since we all recognize sanctions, embargoes and diplomatic pressure won't work, unless we are willing to accept a substantial probability parts of Israel will get incinerated, some other means must be considered to keep Iran from going nuclear.

You're drawing a long bow here, even assuming an Iranian nuclear weapons program (and again there is no evidence of such) there is no reason to assume that Iran will use them.

Quote by: rmnunez I can think of just 2; use of force or Israel's surrender and relocation of its population to non-Muslim claimed lands. Which seems more likely to you?

lkfdsjlkjdsafl;jdsklaljkfdsa

[Livemike]

Quote by: rmnunez Why must the critical left always seek some "ulterior" motive? Google is likely experiencing a surge of enquiries relating Bushian cabineteers and shareholders of "General Electric" or other nuclear technology purveyors. The deal makes sense, by institutionalizing a technological relationship maybe the US can monitor any Indian transfers.

So what? After the US finds out that their technology has been transferred what do they do? Say "Hey you can't transfer technology illegally, that's our job."?

Quote by: rmnunez India has detonated a nuke, they are known to have a limited nuclear arsenal and some ballistics technology. India is admired as a third-world leader, they have a great pacifist tradition,

They've been in HOW many wars since independence? Not counting violent suppression of their own minorities.

Quote by: rmnunez a huge market, powerful economy and top rate technology. In some way India, though thuroughly capitalist, is a model for the critical left. They have poverty which helps show them as victims of neoliberal globalization,

Because of course as the Left remember it there was no poverty in India before neoliberalism.

Quote by: rmnunez they have high technology and democracy which shows these aren't western exclusives, they have a huge market which gives them muscle in global trade, they have a large surface with some wonderful natural environments which makes them ecologically attractive. For India to embrace united statian nuclear policy enrages the critical left which can only explain this with some hidden and secret motive behind the scenes, mangoes? I think the deal is for the US to somehow curtail any Indian nuclear technology transfers through non-IAEA monitoring,

So the plan is to curtail technology transfers by giving them more technology and making it clear that they don't have to obey the rules to get it?

Quote by: rmnunez with an exception to the Agency's restrictions for transfers to India that are approved by the US. The advantage for the US may be some sort of 'exclusive' on upper-end technology transfer, though I'd anticipate non-US developers will bid.

You're dreaming, non-US firms will be queuing up now that their governments realise there is no point in _not_ selling to India.

[Livemike]

Quote by: rmnunez Quote by: ??? iran has some VERY rational reasons for wanting nukes -particularly our imperial domination over the entire region. That concern would be just one reason, its rationality depends on perceptions of "imperial domination" over the entire region

Well the US has invaded a Middle Eastern country and set up a puppet regime, justifing that with lies. That's pretty clearly imperialistic.

Quote by: rmnunez Quote by: ??? what has helped make the situation worse are american "leaders" who continuously fan iranian fears of a military strike -iranians see nuclear weapons as being their ONLY real deterrant against our imperial forces. Iran has certainly helped provoke united statian military threats since they seized that embassy and went theocratic. There hasn't been much 'rapprochement' or improvement in relations between the US and Iran since then. Whether Iranians seek nukes for their deterrent value is your interpretation. If fear of military threats from the US were the motivator, given the US reaction to identical pursuits in Iraq next door, common sense says pursuit of nukes would not be a good way to avoid US threats.

Actually Iran has done nothing that threatens the US and if it got nukes it would still not be a threat. In fact the reason why Iraq was attacked was that it had no nukes. If it had nukes it would not have been attacked because the invading army would have been destroyed. Common sense says that pursuit of nukes, if successful, is a very good way to avoid US (and all other) threats of invasion.

Quote by: rmnunez Quote by: ??? unless sanctioned by the UNSC, an embargo is an act of war and the iranians would likely treat an unsanctioned embargo as such. Sure, but if the Iranians deemed themselves to be at war with a unilateral US imposing some embargo, what could they do about it? They might put armed sailors on every tanker of theirs leaving port -only to draw fire from US enforcers.

It doesn't matter what the Iranians would do, what matters is that the world would have proof of the US starting a war and thus undermining all the good things the US is trying to accomplish.

Quote by: rmnunez Quote by: ??? we could stop all iranian ships from leaving the gulf, but that would spark off a global oil crisis and would be incredibly counterproductive. I doubt it would be that catastrophic, check and see how much oil the US imports from Iran and if you want a larger impact explain why Iranian flows to others should be endangered as the conflict is presented as something exclusively between Iran and the US (in a unilateral embargo).

You have to be kidding me. Do you imagine that Iranian oil flows (not to mention Iraqi ones that the Iranians target) wouldn't be reduced by this lunatic course of action?

Quote by: rmnunez Quote by: ??? have you weighed your desire for conflict resolution through force against the consequences of force? If force is not used Iran will acquire nukes and if they have them they will use them. If force is used, there will be fewer casualties and property loss to those against which Iran would have used its nukes, to Iran as well as to the US.

You are making assumptions with no evidence. It would actually be relatively easy to convince Iran not to develop nuclear weapons. The Iranians were gradually growing close to the West before the idiot US invasion. The Mullahs are going to steadily lose power as a generation grows up that never knew the Shah's corruption and incompetence and so don't see the Mullahs as comparitively good.

Quote by: rmnunez Quote by: ??? this isn't some zero-sum game where when we run out of peaceful solutions, that war then becomes the necessary solution. We have run out of peaceful solutions, now Iran is on the verge of acquiring nukes and refuses to stop the process towards their acquisition, Iran says they are going ahead anyway, regardless of sanctions, embargoes or diplomatic pressure -all other alternatives have proven ineffectual.

There are plenty of peaceful solutions. For instance simply get Iran to agree to give up all nuclear ambitions, civilians or military, in return for Isreal getting rid of it's nukes and the capacity to make more. Considering that the US holds Isreal's financial balls in it's hands this would be easy to arrange. Far from running out of peaceful solutions we in fact have no warlike solutions.

Quote by: rmnunez Quote by: ??? (you can always just accept the fact that iran will become a nuclear power and deal with it.) You are more willing to simply "accept" a nuclear Iran than the present US government (and a few others) seem to be.

So?

Quote by: rmnunez Quote by: ??? the consequences of such a strike could be a global oil crisis, iranian retaliation, multi-state retaliation (iran, syria, possibly russia and/or china), chaos in iraq, etc... Iranian retaliation is of minor concern, unless they have nukes Iran presents no real threat to the US. It is inconceivable Syria, Russia and/or China would join forces reacting to US action to forcibly preclude Iranian nukes.

So you don't think that they might just have some influence with Iraqi Shiite groups? You don't think that maybe just maybe they might be able to make it a little difficult for the Yanks?

Quote by: rmnunez Quote by: ??? do you think that (US) intentions are solely to eliminate iran's nuke program? I think this is the primary reason, it is what the US government has indicated is their main concern with Iran, this is the explicit motive for referal of the matter to the Security Council.

Quote by: rmnunez Quote by: ??? isn't it also very possible that they'd want to destroy iran's military capabilities? There aren't much Iranian military capabilities to destroy, but eroding these further wouldn't be a bad thing generally (unless someone here knows that country is barely held together through its military repression).

Iran fought off Iraq back when it was a decent military power. It's gotten richer since
then.

Quote by: rmnunez Quote by: ??? couldn't we also want to try and destroy iran's ruling regime? This could be a beneficial 'side-effect'.

No it's the intended main effect. The nuke thing is a cover.