A Billion dollar arms package to Pakistan

[gunnut]

Those days are long gone. More and more call-centers are relocating to the Philippines. Cost advantage and a young population who have a fair command over written and spoken English. ;)

Well, then, time to focus on how dangerous China is to its South China Sea neighbors. Hey look, that's exactly what happened. ;)

[gunnut]

Do you need hellfires to take out insurgents?

It's definitely easier.

[Officer of Engineers]

Isn't India's policy more towards absolute Non-Proliferation? The fine print essentially being total disarmament worldwide (a pipe dream I am sure the Indian policy makers know)

"India has also been discussed in the context of nuclear apartheid. India has consistently attempted to pass measures that would call for full international disarmament, however they have not succeeded due to protests from those states that already have nuclear weapons. In light of this, India viewed nuclear weapons as a necessary right for all nations as long as certain states were still in possession of nuclear weapons. India stated that nuclear issues were directly related to national security."

Arguments for and against proliferation #India, Wikipedia

Iran signed away those rights when she signed the NPT. At this point, India has been consistently arguing that Iran lives up to her obligations under the NPT, not that she should withdraw from it.

[DarthSiddius]

Iran signed away those rights when she signed the NPT. At this point, India has been consistently arguing that Iran lives up to her obligations under the NPT, not that she should withdraw from it.

Agreed.

My contention is more towards what India is doing, which in my opinion is not that blatant of a double standard (nothing wrong with having double standards vis a vis foreign policy BTW) but more like asking a signatory to conform to a legally binding agreement it wilfully agreed upon.

[Officer of Engineers]

My contention is more towards what India is doing, which in my opinion is not that blatant of a double standard (nothing wrong with having double standards vis a vis foreign policy BTW) but more like asking a signatory to conform to a legally binding agreement it wilfully agreed upon.

Which again, if India wants to be completely consistent, she would argue for Iran's perfectly legal withdrawl from the NPT.

And again, there is nothing wrong with having a double standard. In fact, it's a necssity. You get what you can get. Hitesh just wants it to hammer the US over it.

[DarthSiddius]

Which again, if India wants to be completely consistent, she would argue for Iran's perfectly legal withdrawl from the NPT.

And again, there is nothing wrong with having a double standard. In fact, it's a necssity. You get what you can get. Hitesh just wants it to hammer the US over it.

Why be consistent when being ambiguous legitimises your own nuclear program while keeping everyone else happy.

[Double Edge]

Isn't India's policy more towards absolute Non-Proliferation? The fine print essentially being total disarmament worldwide (a pipe dream I am sure the Indian policy makers know)

"India has also been discussed in the context of nuclear apartheid. India has consistently attempted to pass measures that would call for full international disarmament, however they have not succeeded due to protests from those states that already have nuclear weapons. In light of this, India viewed nuclear weapons as a necessary right for all nations as long as certain states were still in possession of nuclear weapons. India stated that nuclear issues were directly related to national security."

Arguments for and against proliferation #India, Wikipedia

On e of the articles in the NPT advocates disarmament. India in the 60s supported the NPT in the hopes that China would disarm. Fast forward into the 70s, and it turns out China gets to keep their nukes but India has to sign and basically renounce.

That's when we tested. As we were doubly screwed at that point.

[Blademaster]

Iran is allow to withdraw from the NPT. The double standard is that India is arguing for Iran to stay within the NPT instead of arguing for Iran's right to leave the NPT.

I am under the impression that India made no such arguments. It is rather Israel and US that made those arguments.

[Blademaster]

Which again, if India wants to be completely consistent, she would argue for Iran's perfectly legal withdrawl from the NPT.

And again, there is nothing wrong with having a double standard. In fact, it's a necssity. You get what you can get. Hitesh just wants it to hammer the US over it.

Only because US has been hammering other countries, including India, for it. I am merely reciprocating in kind.

[Officer of Engineers]

I am under the impression that India made no such arguments. It is rather Israel and US that made those arguments.

Views on the nuclear program of Iran - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Only because US has been hammering other countries, including India, for it. I am merely reciprocating in kind.

It's just brownie points. Nothing more.

[Blademaster]

Views on the nuclear program of Iran - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's just brownie points. Nothing more.

Under great pressure. Ironically what Batista said in the other thread would be true here.

[Officer of Engineers]

Under great pressure. Ironically what Batista said in the other thread would be true here.

Tit for Tat. You got the 123 out of it. Diplomacy 101, nobody gets nothing for nothing.

[Squirrel]

Did you put much stock in the Tamarod movement ?

Mobilised nearly 180k people against Morsi


It would be a slow process.


yes this is why i went the regime despite what the naysayers said. Where it would or could lead. Arab sceptics were doubtful they would even complete their term.

The way it was carried out has alienated the Islamists from participating in democratic movements. it makes them more authoritarian if they want to hold onto power.

The real tragedy in Egypt was there seems to be an imperative of destroy your opposition or be destroyed by them. This means more time is spent fighting than actually doing anything meaningful.


Cutting of the head but leaving the deep state intact always carried a risk that if he could not deliver then they would step in. But cleansing the deep state like was done with the Baath party in Iraq is no solution either.

The only legitimacy the army could have was if the people were behind them otherwise it would backfire.

My source for understanding Egypt at the time was was Nathan Brown.

Tamarod was a joke. A faction of factions. They were barely able to hold it together to oust Morsi, even with the obvious military support and endorsement.

The country VOTED Morsi in, against a military candidate. His ouster was the military getting even.

[Double Edge]

Tamarod was a joke. A faction of factions. They were barely able to hold it together to oust Morsi, even with the obvious military support and endorsement.

But they got people out on the streets and kept them there.

You could say the same thing about people who started the ball rolling in Tahrir. All they could do was oust Mubarak. They did not have a clue how to move forward after. Entities such as the MB that were better organised took advantage. And the same happened again when Morsi was ousted. reverted back to the military because there was no suitable civilian replacement.

So that's two ousters back to back with Mubarak being the more significant.

The country VOTED Morsi in, against a military candidate. His ouster was the military getting even.

Once they realised the people were behind them. I see this as a temporary situation until the people can rise up again. They will have to go further the next time.

Tunisia is the sole country to survive the arab spring. Nahada made compromises that MB in egypt would not.

[Double Edge]

I am under the impression that India made no such arguments. It is rather Israel and US that made those arguments.

India always pushed for normalisation between Iran and the west. Peaceful settlement to the dispute.

Under great pressure. Ironically what Batista said in the other thread would be true here.

Lots of pressure. the nuke deal was Vajpayee's baby. Without the nuke tests there would be no deal. He laid the groundwork for it with reconciliation. This bit is rarely mentioned in India otherwise no way could you get two US presidents of different political persuasions to play along. Strobe Talbott at the time saying

India is in the dog house, they want to get into the clubhouse, we're trying to find them a half way house.

Unfortunately Vajpayee wasn't in power when the deal was offered. What does Advani do, get into cahoots with the left and do their level best to scuttle it (!). Why ? Utter breathtaking opportunism. Maybe he calculated that when BJP comes to power US will offer it to them. hah, fat chance. All Congress had to do was accept the deal and if it wasn't for MMS we'd never have got it. Sonia could have cared less.

The left was also arguing that we should show solidarity with Iran when it came to voting against them. Iran tends to nurse hurts so our voting against them won't be forgotten. We will have to finesse it somehow. As India becomes less important to Iran after normalisation.

Just imagine how we would look today had we allowed the left or Advani to prevail, now with Iran on the brink of normalising.

Batista is just going on about BJP opposition rhetoric. Clueless.