US double standard Policy: Iran and India

Anyone has comment about this hypocrisy done by Bush? Recently US agreed to share the nuclear technology to India, and in the same time, US aggressively pointing at Iran and N. Korea to stop their nuclear program.

I don't really call it hypocrisy though. India isn't giving us the kind of crap Iran is. Really, if Iran weren't threating to wipe us out, maybe Bush would be more incline to believe them and make a deal...

Yeah, what sabbey said.
India is in no way a threat to the interests of America. Pakistan is.
Iran is a threat to a shitload of countries, specifically the U.S.
India does not have the objective of destroying whole nations of people to cleanse the earth.
Iran does.

Originally Posted by eriol

Anyone has comment about this hypocrisy done by Bush? Recently US agreed to share the nuclear technology to India, and in the same time, US aggressively pointing at Iran and N. Korea to stop their nuclear program.

Big difference. India is a ally of the United States, and anything that empowers India really diminishes China. So no real hypocrisy... and even if there was; it's politics realpolitik-style so it's a given.

I heard we also shared nuclear secrets with the French and British. How could we be so hypocritical to not give the technology to China and North Korea today.

Originally Posted by eriol

Anyone has comment about this hypocrisy done by Bush? Recently US agreed to share the nuclear technology to India, and in the same time, US aggressively pointing at Iran and N. Korea to stop their nuclear program.

This really isn't the kind of quality we're looking for in opening posts. I'll update the Read Before Posting thread to indicate this, so please keep it in mind for the future.

Speaking about the deal itself, I don't recall the U.S. sharing nuclear weapons technology with India, which is what we're aiming to stop North Korea and Iran from acquiring. Also, the head of the IAEA apparently didn't see the agreement in a negative light, calling it "a milestone, timely for ongoing efforts to consolidate the non-proliferation regime, combat nuclear terrorism and strengthen nuclear safety". President Chirac also praised the agreement.

Speaking of Chirac, he seems to have escaped your hypocricy charge. Which is odd, since he signed an agreement similar to this one with India last month, and is playing a leading role in halting Iran's nuclear ambitions.

(Source)

Aww, someone that knows how to quote.

Sort of sounds to me that this is just another bush=hypo or bush=tard, etc lame ass topic. Seriously what does sharing nuclear energy technology with an ally of ours (that is starving and horribly over populated) have to do with Iran's nuclear weapon program?

Originally Posted by Fyodor D.

India does not have the objective of destroying whole nations of people to cleanse the earth.

Most of the Hindu spiritual leaders in India have said that they want to remove the Muslims and Christians in India much in the same way that a lot of Germans once said they would like to remove the Gypsy's and blacks and Jews from Germany back in 1939.

And nuking their own country would be the best way to go about that.

The Indians already have the bomb. Whether or not we share any nuclear secrets with them isn't that big a deal considering that our policy regarding Iran is one of non-proliferation.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

The Indians already have the bomb. Whether or not we share any nuclear secrets with them isn't that big a deal considering that our policy regarding Iran is one of non-proliferation.

What secrets are left? Except secrets based on safety the Indians might've missed in their rush for nuclear weapons. My take on the deal is that the U.S. merely provides technical assistence on a domestic use level; so there isn't a nuclear reactor meltdown, and that the proper safeguards are in place.

Originally Posted by eriol

Anyone has comment about this hypocrisy done by Bush? Recently US agreed to share the nuclear technology to India, and in the same time, US aggressively pointing at Iran and N. Korea to stop their nuclear program.

Listen kid. It's Bush's job to "make friends" with as many countries as possible. Now, admittedly, he doesn't do a great job, but speaking from at least an iota of knowledge, I think we should do what we can to get India on our side.

Besides, hypocrisy is the wrong word. If you let your friend borrow a buck, but not that creepy guy who is always hanging out at the bus stop, does that make you a hypocrite?

Quote:

India does not have the objective of destroying whole nations of people to cleanse the earth.

That's only true if you don't consider Pakistan a "whole nation of people".

Quote:

The Indians already have the bomb. Whether or not we share any nuclear secrets with them isn't that big a deal considering that our policy regarding Iran is one of non-proliferation.

Brady is dead-on here. The goal with Iran is to prevent obtaining a nuclear weapon. Once a country already has it, there's not much we can really do.

The thing is, the Indians are not barbaric enough for that possiblity to be a real threat. At least, their government isn't.

If they want to stay happy taking our jobs through outsourcing, they best behave themselves.

Pakistan and India doesn't like each other very much. It makes me feel uneasy that India is producing more of this stuff. Peace is as fragile in South Asia as in the Middle East.

Okay, but does everyone understand that violent tendencies are inversely proportional to standard of living? And that (due to outsourcing, mostly) the standard of living in India keeps going up at an alarming rate?

If you are right, this sounds like a giant clusterfuck in the brewing .

I think that I remember hearing on NPR that Bush wanted to REALLY limit India's weapons producing capabilities, something to the tune of about 3-4 bombs/year, whereas India wanted about 5 times as much. Soo... I dunno. I searched NPR's site, but couldn't find anything about it.

As for the topic itself, as much as it's a rarity (especially considering how much I disagree with Bush), I have to agree with pretty much everyone here. Iran's basically been about as hostile as they can be without openly declaring war, while India's actually been pretty kind to us. While it's a bit disconcerting that they didn't sign the non-proliferation treaty, I think that since they already have a bomb, there's nothing we can do, so why not make sure they don't blow themselves to kingdom come?

Oh, and I fucking love your sig, Semper.

Well done guys. I think it's fair to say that everyone already knows why the US supports countires like India and tries to suppress those like Iran, even eriol here probably knows that. The point he's trying to make though is that America is being hypocritical about the way it does it.

Bush endlessly preaches about spreading democracy, ending nuclear proliferation etc. He uses these as the absis for war with Iraq, etc. However at the same time, here America is supporting oppressive regimes such as Saudia Arabia and Pakistan while denouncing the the democratically elected Venezuelan and Palestinian governments. America does all it can to stop Iran having anything to do with nuclear weapons, energy while agrees to share nuclear technology with India.

We all know why Bush/America supports these countries over others, because they are friendly and supportive of US interests. It's just that's not the reason we're told, instead we get the bullshit freedom/sercurity line. And in that sense eriol is on the money.

I don't agree with Bush at all, in my opinion, we shouldn't have nuclear weapons anywhere... much too dangerous. Nothing is worth all of humanity and a planet we can live on.

But that's not the debate we're having here. maybe start your own thread about the evils of nuclear weaponry and the money wasted on it.