Ahmadinejad pushes India gas deal - Page 2

obvious Child · 05-11-08, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vader

Iran is a terrorist hell hole that needs to be nuked. It's as simple as that!

Your sarcasm needs work.

Vader · 05-11-08, 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by obvious Child

Your sarcasm needs work.

Thank you for the constructive critique!

lol

Vader · 05-11-08, 10:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billo_Really

That's mighty TOT of you!

Were you speaking to me you lover of Jimmy Carter?

bhkad · 05-11-08, 11:09 PM

In an effort to help supply the energy starved needs of the quickly growing Indian economy the US has offered India a bilateral nuclear deal which would not only 'legitimize' their nuclear program but also help them get nuclear fuel and absolve them of some of the responsibilities of inclusion into the "Nuclear Club."

The Indian Congress has accepted the American offer.

But the powerful Indian Communist party wants nothing to do with capitalist America so they are pushing instead for acceptance of a $7.5 billion natural gas pipeline deal with India's old friend (with very strong cultural ties dating back centuries), Iran.

America has been pushing the Indians to say no to Iran. However, the Indians have assured US they are capable of carrying on a relationship with whomever they please without our assistance, 'thankyouverymuch!'

It is interesting to me that other nations seem not to feel threatened by the rise of Iran.

Quote:

May 7th 2008
From Economist.com
India wants to deal with America, and Iran

On May 5th a top communist signalled his preference for another foreign power: Iran. Its leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, also wants closer ties with India. On April 29th he visited Delhi to push for a long-mooted co-operation between the two countries: a pipe-line to supply Iranian gas to India and Pakistan. According to A.B. Bardhan, the relevant communist, “If the pipeline deal goes through, then we will know we have an independent foreign policy. If not it would mean the American pressure has won.”

The two deals are scarcely comparable. America's nuclear offer is an expression of grand strategy, not commerce. It would give India a free pass into the world's nuclear club, despite its refusal to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

This would be of great practical benefit to India. It would, for example, boost its modest civilian nuclear programme, thereby helping to address India’s urgent need for energy. But the communists object to the deal in principle: they want nothing to do with capitalist America.

For Mr Ahmadinejad, the hoped-for pipeline is also a strategic affair: the great Holocaust-denier wants to show Iranians that he can win important friends, as well as alienate them. Yet this deal is stalled mainly because it is currently a bad one for India: Iran's price is too high. It wants India to build the $7.5 billion pipe-line and agree to buy 70% of its gas at an undetermined price. And there are other snags in the plan, including that the pipe-line would traverse Pakistan’s wild and war-torn Baluchistan province. India knows all about the insurgency there: it has been fuelling it.

That the two deals have nonetheless been linked in opposition is partly the communists' fault. But it is also America's. Partly at America's urging, in 2006 India voted to report Iran to the UN Security Council on account of its suspicious experiments with uranium. Yet America's influence in Delhi goes only so far. Under rowdy American pressure to rebuff Mr Ahmadinejad's approaches, last month India told its would-be sponsor to back off.

Asia.view | New friends and old | Economist.com

obvious Child · 05-11-08, 11:12 PM

That India-US nuclear deal need to be nuked.

Under no conditions should that be allowed without first requiring India to join the NPT.

Quote:

It is interesting to me that other nations seem not to feel threatened by the rise of Iran.

You sure? Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the other ME states have all been paying to support the occupation in Iraq. Saudi Arabia is one of the most anti-Iranian nations in the region.

Billo_Really · 05-11-08, 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vader

Were you speaking to me you lover of Jimmy Carter?

Do the math!

Vader · 05-12-08, 12:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by obvious Child

That India-US nuclear deal need to be nuked.

Under no conditions should that be allowed without first requiring India to join the NPT.

You sure? Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the other ME states have all been paying to support the occupation in Iraq. Saudi Arabia is one of the most anti-Iranian nations in the region.

King Abdullah and his family have hated the Mullahs for a very long time.

It's the only thing about the Saudis.

bhkad · 05-12-08, 02:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by obvious Child

That India-US nuclear deal need to be nuked.

Under no conditions should that be allowed without first requiring India to join the NPT.

What are your reasons for saying this?

Quote:

Originally Posted by obvious Child

You sure? Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the other ME states have all been paying to support the occupation in Iraq. Saudi Arabia is one of the most anti-Iranian nations in the region.

Of that I am aware. However, the support Iran gets from nations like India, Russia, Venezuela, North Korea, China, South Africa, Germany, Norway, the British, French, Japanese, South Koreans, Swedes, and Swiss is puzzling.

It is as if they were unaware or uncaring as to the nature of the threat posed by an aggressive, hegemonic, Messianic, nuclear Iran.

It's almost criminal that only in 2005 did our own General Electric (GE) stop doing business with them.

obvious Child · 05-12-08, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhkad

What are your reasons for saying this?

Because allowing bilateral agreements between nuclear nations and non-npt nations for nuclear technology completely bypasses the purpose of the NPT. It effectively renders the NPT toothless. Without the NPT, nations are essentially free to do whatever they want with nuclear technology. That is a BAD outcome. If India wants US tech, it needs to agree to the NPT.

Quote:

Of that I am aware. However, the support Iran gets from nations like India, Russia, Venezuela, North Korea, China, South Africa, Germany, Norway, the British, French, Japanese, South Koreans, Swedes, and Swiss is puzzling.

Define 'support.'

Quote:

It is as if they were unaware or uncaring as to the nature of the threat posed by an aggressive, hegemonic, Messianic, nuclear Iran.

It's almost criminal that only in 2005 did our own General Electric (GE) stop doing business with them.

Doesn't Halliburton or at least KBR still have business in Iran?

bhkad · 05-12-08, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by obvious Child

Because allowing bilateral agreements between nuclear nations and non-npt nations for nuclear technology completely bypasses the purpose of the NPT. It effectively renders the NPT toothless. Without the NPT, nations are essentially free to do whatever they want with nuclear technology. That is a BAD outcome. If India wants US tech, it needs to agree to the NPT.

Quote:

In early March of 2006, India and the United States finalized a deal, having critics in both countries, to provide India with US civilian nuclear technology. Proponents of the deal note that India will now classify 14 of its 22 nuclear facilities as being for civilian use, and thus open to inspection. Mohamed ElBaradei, the director of the IAEA at the time, welcomed the deal by calling India "an important partner in the non-proliferation regime". However, attempts by Pakistan to reach a similar agreement have been rebufed by the U.S. as well as the international community. The argument put forth is that not only does Pakistan lack the same energy requirements but that the track record of Pakistan as a nuclear proliferator makes it impossible for it to have any sort of nuclear deal in the near future. [15]

In December 2006, United States Congress approved the United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act that was cemented during President Bush's visit to India earlier in the year. The legislation allows for the transfer of civilian nuclear material to India. Despite its status outside the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, India was granted these transactions on the basis of its clean proliferation record, and India's unusually high need for energy fueled by its rapid industrialization and a billion-plus population.

The Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) Guidelines currently rule out nuclear exports by all major suppliers with very narrow exceptions for India, Pakistan, and Israel, since none of the three has full-scope IAEA safeguards on all its nuclear activities. The NSG is prepared to consider a broad exception for India, but is awaiting the conclusion of negotiations on an agreement for cooperation between the United States and India and a safeguards agreement between India and the IAEA before making a decision on such an exception. Several countries, including France, Russia and Australia, are discussing possible nuclear cooperation with India in case of such an exception to the NSG Guidelines.

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

Originally Posted by obvious Child

Define 'support.'

In my book the Iranians deserve to live but not well enough to export terrorism or pursue Islamist expansionism. Oil for food anyone?
Just because Saddam corrupted it when it was used in Iraq that doesn't mean it HAS to be a corrupt program. Yes, I know this is but a fantasy.

Quote:

Doesn't Halliburton or at least KBR still have business in Iran?

I don't know but if they do they should be stopped and/or investigated.