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... :rolleyes:

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

Isn't the reason being given for why we won't let Iran get the bomb because they have a President who has publicly claimed the desire to destroy the nation of Israel? Do you even watch the news, or what?

Apparently he doesn't read threads either. He seems to have missed my air-tight friend vs. bum in bus station analogy.

It's sort of hard to argue with you when you, eriol, ignore the fact that Iran has been petulant and non-chalant about going on with nuclear development. They've ignored talks and agreements, so on and so forth.

There is a better argument to be made for Bush extending a nuclear agreement towards Pakistan, but that'd be shortlived too.

Wouldn't be as stupid is all.

Yes. The existence of Israel helps American interests in the region so of course they're going to oppose any country that opposes Israel.

I dunno maybe I've delved off topic but I was talking about a bigger picture than just Iran and India.

And since Minion decides that's one's worth is wethor or not they ignore his piss weak analogies or not. No that doesn't but let's say your policy was "I will not lend a buck" then it does.

America is constantly ramming the "end nuclear proliferation" line not just for Iran but across the board and now they go and share technology with India.

Ignore the fact that Iran haven't been the aggressor in war for centuries yet India have fought Pakistan on three occasions and China on one in the past century and then one day declared themselves a nuclear power and tested a bomb to prove it.

War isn't the only indication that a country is dangerous, though.

You mean like the picture that were Israel to be nuked that the entire Middle East and every capital city of every developed nation on the planet would glow for a thousand years?

You claim that it's hypocritical for the US to let India in on Nuclear info, when the actual information we're giving them doesn't aid them in the proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

"Under the accord, India gets access to US civil nuclear technology and opens its nuclear facilities to inspection."

Unless all potential nuclear facilities in Iran would be open for inspection, the Iranians would never receive the tech or the information on how to increase their nuclear energy program. Then again, the Israelis are already experts on hiding reactors from Atomic Energy investigators.

So either it is hypocritical that the US refuses to share energy secrets with an uncooperative power, or it isn't.

You are right, though, in that Minion's analogy was terrible.

Brady I understand why and even support the steps the US has taken on this one particular issue. India needs nuclear energy to prevent it from doubling the worlds fossil fuel emissions and the world's leader in nuclear technology should do all it can to help them develop. I can see why you guys might not want to help out Iran in the same way.

I'm just arguing that US foreign policy as a whole is riddled with double standards. See; my examples about democracy earlier in the thread. It suffers from this hypocracy because the US claims to base it's decisions around a set of values it holds dear when it clearly doesn't.

Spoken like a true American.

oh boy you got me there

It's not hypocritical to support your friends and not your enemies. I don't see how I failed to convey that, but that's basically what I'm trying to say. It's the most obvious bit of common sense I can think of when dealing with foreign policy.

The imaginations of people who want to criticize the US never cease to amaze me.

Foreign policy is not made based upon ethics or principles. It's built on security and then survival. That doesn't just apply to the United States either, that applies to every nation with a foreign policy.

So if the policy is fixed around matters of security/survival then it isn't really a double standard since our ideals have nothing to do with it.

Allright... sorry for the slow reply. Not that I'm running away coz I began such provocative, yet interesting topic to be debated of.

Anyway, I researched this topic for awhile and found some interesting, well-hidden fact: the real reason of US aggresive pressure toward Iran apparantly not because of WMD. It could be explained by one word: Petroeuro. Yup, Iran build a bourse that denominated Euro as the main currency, just like what Saddam did in 2000. What's the meaning of this? simply because it could shake the monopoly of US toward standard international currency. Oil-consuming countries will surely pick 37 euro of oil barrel instead the $57 one. Such condition will depress american economic.

In this situation, US actually has very few options, the first is of course to openly press Iran's nuclear program for it's actually a good investment in context of long-term. Dont forget, the oil reserve in middle east is predicted will run out about 50 years from now on. A technology replacement toward oil-consuming technology is what needed most by Iran.
Second, using invasion like what it did to Iraq. But this one has risky implication toward the oil price in the world. Iran has anti-ship missiles based in "Abu Mousa" island that controls the strait of Hermuz at the entrance of the Persian Gulf. Iran could easily close the strait thus blocking all naval traffic carrying gulf oil to the rest of the world causing a global oil crisis. Such condition will make a bad implications toward Iran as well, because Iran actually importing oil to fulfill the need of its national demand.

Well, this is getting interesting. Time will be the answer whether Iran will become the next iraq or not.

They already HAD the tech, though.

We're not going "hey, you build a nuke like so," we're going "hey, you make sure that you don't blow yourselves to kingdom come like so."

Not trying to one-up you, or anything, but I think the French are the world's de facto leaders in Nuclear Energy. We haven't built a new reactor since the 70's, while the French have a Nuclear energy economy.

It's ironic that Jimmy Carter, the president who wanted the most to lower our reliance on petrofuels ended up with the 3 Mile Island incident on his lap.

Jimmy Carter was the worst thing to ever happen to the United States. Worse than Pearl Harbor. Worse than Three Mile Island. Worse than Abba.

Ell-oh-ell two political wrongs make a geoeconomic right so stfu non-America.

These threads make you realise how PP is a basically a microcosm of US foreign policy. There's no sovereignty of argument but American Argument.

/b/town

One of the reasons yeah. Threats to the petrodollar definitely concern American security and survival. The reason why other nations are getting involved though, is because Iran can more or less hold the world's economy hostage. (in the event of a American/Israeli attack) Thanks to the lack of spare capacity right now. Not to mention the billions of dollars a lot of countries have invested in Iran's energy production.

The Europeans realize that any "petroeuro" benefits would be temporary at best, and don't appreciate having their new currency jerked around. What's good for the world at large, probably isn't good for the European Union.

Yes it surely is. Things are far more complicated then what's really let on.

Iran has probably already been decided though. So the real question is, are we gonna bomb Norway as well? Since the director of their bourse wants oil priced in Euros.

Eh, what can I say? Nations are self-serving pricks... kinda like me.

On a more positive note, it just became a lot easier for Americans to support Bush. After all, he's just continuing his predecessor(s) foreign policy.

What make's sense for America probably doesn't have to make sense for the rest of the world.

What the fuck is this?

Oh I see. Cal wins.

In one word; realism.

Because anything less then that is just being naive.

If your definition of winning is "becoming outraged over matters beyond your control", then yeah he's winning a awful lot. His grand prize will a lifetime supply of anti-depressants.

The debate herre should probably be over wethor or not the American people know the definition of a double standard.

<World in this thread> This is a double standard and heres why
<US> Iran are bad guys
<World> Yeah I know that doesn-
<US> THEY'RE GOING TO BLOW UP ISRAEL!

This story just got a little more interesting.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4782930.stm

The Iranian President has just recently demanded 'full compensation' for ridding itself of it's nuclear ambitions in the past. It was a completely voluntary decision that they made. Is that being hypocritical or are you just a American-bashing hypocrite?

Either way, it just reinforces my point that all nations act in their own self interest. And/or that you don't understand the words; strategic competitors.

Realism is what the warlords practice; how you and others behave in PP is symptomatic. Well-informed glibness at best.

I for one actually believe Iran just wants nuclear energy powering her population. Does that make me a bad westerner? A man who can't see the readily apparent truth? Ahmadinejad's claiming he wants Israel off the map is likely mere talk--tantamount to election promises our politicians seldom honour. Probably, the US foreign ministry and the international community know this full well, but that won't stop America from engineering it into something useful, going in there and installing a democracy trust.

This is a reactionary hunch, but I think it's sound. We should at the least all be thankful this dilemma hasn't arisen after China's full industrialisation.

Eh humanity has been pretty war-like throughout it's history. In fact I'll go as far to say that we've been at in a constant state of war with itself. Can you name any time period where humans wern't killing each other en masse in a war? I know I can't. Over time as populations and technology has grown/progressed we just manage to out-do ourselves in the level of destruction caused. Which make's me quite cynical to the way the world works.

How's that old saying go; the optimists are usually happier, but the pessimists may be right?

Fair enough.

As far as seeing the readily apparent 'truth'. Well there isn't room for skepticism in that is there? The Iran issue is a lot bigger then nuclear energy for one. Refer to economic ramifications of eriol's post.

Even though it's just talk and blustering we still have to take it seriously. Think of the consequences if nations didn't take each other seriously.

Eh give the Chinese problem some time... maybe a year or so. But let's see how Taiwan's doing then yeah?