US double standard Policy: Iran and India

Quote:

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

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

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.

Originally Posted by Sing

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

Spoken like a true American.

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

oh boy you got me there

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

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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

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.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by RABicle

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.

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."

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Quote:

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.

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

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.

Most amazing jew boots

Quote:

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.

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

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 Watts

What's good for the world at large, probably isn't good for the European Union.

Originally Posted by Watts

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

What the fuck is this?

Originally Posted by Cal

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.

Oh I see. Cal wins.

I was speaking idiomatically.

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

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!

FELIPE NO

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, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Watts

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

Originally Posted by RABicle

What the fuck is this?

Originally Posted by Watts

In one accurate term: glib defeatism.

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

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?

There's nowhere I can't reach.