US double standard Policy: Iran and India

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by RABicle

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.

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.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by eriol

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.

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.

Originally Posted by eriol

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

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.

Originally Posted by Cal

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

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.

Originally Posted by Cal

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.

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

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by RABicle

What the fuck is this?

In one word; realism.

Because anything less then that is just being naive.

Originally Posted by RABicle

Oh I see. Cal wins.

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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

This story just got a little more interesting.

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

Originally Posted by RABicle

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

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Cal

Realism is what the warlords practice;

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?

Originally Posted by Cal

how you and others behave in PP is symptomatic. Well-informed glibness at best.

Fair enough.

Originally Posted by Cal

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?

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.

Originally Posted by Cal

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Cal

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

FELIPE NO