Just wondering, why was it OK when North Korea was given a nuclear reactor capable of producing weapons grade material, but it is not OK to help India with their non weapons nuclear program, while pushing them to give up their existing nuclear weapons program?
Oh, that’s right, Bush is President. Same reason the Left is pitching hissy fits over what is going on with Iran. The USA lets the EU and UN take the lead on negotiations, and, when they fail, “it’s Bush’s fault!!!!!!”
First of all, India was never a signatury to the Non Proliferation Treaty. North Korea and Iran were. North Korea pulled out, Iran hasn’t.
And, though India never signed it, part of the NPT is to motivate countries with nuclear weapons programs to make them completely non weapons. Energy production only.
What does this mean for Iran? As distatesful as it is, if Iran will do everything it can to prove that their program is simply for energy (which they do not need,) then they should be allowed to keep the program. Obviously, they would need to be held accountable, but, we need to hold on to the letter of the NPT.
Though it would still be better if they gave up all their programs, but, once the genie’s bottle is open…..
With India, they won’t give up their weapons unless Pakistan gives up theirs. But, the deal with India gives the Russians a better business opportunity. Who would they rather deal with? India or Iran? My bet’s on India.
I just wonder why America is helping out India when they are not even part of the nuclear non proliferation pact. Is’nt that one of our major beefs with N. Korea?
Raymond B
http://www.voteswagon.com
What we are trying to do, from everything I have heard and read, is provide them with a way to get power. They are short on it, and have over 1.08 billion people. Along with this is an attempt to get them to give up their nuclear weapons program. Also, since so many contracts go to the Russians, we give the Russians an incetive to help India, not Iran.