[razoroccam]

Unfortunately Gengis, you are wrong on four critical issues:

1. Iran is not a friend of India. Start with Nadir Shah, through the Shah of Iran (who gave money to Pakistan) to present day Iran (which pressures India every time a Muslim in India, even a terrorist, sneezes)

2. Iran was and is a signatory to the NPT, India is not. Therefore, India's building the bomb was not breaking the rules of NPT. Iran would be breaking the NPT regulations.

3. You cannot equate Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons to that of India. Iran has offered nuclear technology to all Muslim countries. How often has India offered to share its nuclear knowhow?

4. India is being short sighted about the gas pipeline. How long would gas from Iran take care of India's needs? And how easily would it be held hostage to upheavals in Pakistan and Iran? In contrast, nuclear plants offered by US would help India without having to rely on unstable supply issues. As long as it doesn't piss off Australia (i.e. they can keep winning cricket matches, but with the team we have, that should be no problem)

[Gengis Khan]

Unfortunately Gengis, you are wrong on four critical issues:

1. Iran is not a friend of India. Start with Nadir Shah, through the Shah of Iran (who gave money to Pakistan) to present day Iran (which pressures India every time a Muslim in India, even a terrorist, sneezes)

 

That is pretty much the case with all the Muslim countries. Forget Nadir Shah or the Shah of Iran, you seem to forget a more recent events where India and Iran worked together to take out the Pakistan based Taliban. Even today most of our logistical supplies to Afghanistan passes through Iran because of Pakistans refusal to grant India transit. Dont forget that it was Iran that had opposed the Kashmir resolution mooted by Benazir Bhutto who had the backing of the entire OIC. It was Iran that stalled the resolution.

2. Iran was and is a signatory to the NPT, India is not. Therefore, India's building the bomb was not breaking the rules of NPT. Iran would be breaking the NPT regulations.

 

As far as India is concerned, we do not recognise the NPT and as a result, to us it doesnt matter who violates the rules of NPT. My point was the India cannot act as the NPT police when we ourselves do not recognise or ratify the laws laid down by the regime. When we have neither recognised nor ratified NPT, the question of India censuring Iran for violating NPT does not arise.

3. You cannot equate Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons to that of India. Iran has offered nuclear technology to all Muslim countries. How often has India offered to share its nuclear knowhow?

 

Iran is definitely at fault on that count (and many more) but if the world (read America) has no problem with Pakistan already having passed on Nuclear technology to much of the Islamic world, then we (India) should not be complaining too much about Iranian nuclear technology.

 

Iran is definately on the wrong side. I am not justifying the case for Iran. My point is that we (India) refuse to be dragged into the arena, to further what is essentially America's agenda for the region. We have our own interest to look after.

4. India is being short sighted about the gas pipeline. How long would gas from Iran take care of India's needs? And how easily would it be held hostage to upheavals in Pakistan and Iran? In contrast, nuclear plants offered by US would help India without having to rely on unstable supply issues. As long as it doesn't piss off Australia (i.e. they can keep winning cricket matches, but with the team we have, that should be no problem)

Would US guaranty uninterrupted supplies of nuclear fuel in the event of military standoff/conflict with Pakistan or in the event of India carry out another series of nuclear tests? I dont know how exactly nuclear energy can replace hydrocarbons. We will still need oil from somewhere......... anywhere. Be it Iran.

Unfortunately Gengis, you are wrong on four critical issues:

1. Iran is not a friend of India. Start with Nadir Shah, through the Shah of Iran (who gave money to Pakistan) to present day Iran (which pressures India every time a Muslim in India, even a terrorist, sneezes)

That is pretty much the case with all the Muslim countries. Forget Nadir Shah or the Shah of Iran, you seem to forget a more recent events where India and Iran worked together to take out the Pakistan based Taliban. Even today most of our logistical supplies to Afghanistan passes through Iran because of Pakistans refusal to grant India transit. Dont forget that it was Iran that had opposed the Kashmir resolution mooted by Benazir Bhutto who had the backing of the entire OIC. It was Iran that stalled the resolution.

2. Iran was and is a signatory to the NPT, India is not. Therefore, India's building the bomb was not breaking the rules of NPT. Iran would be breaking the NPT regulations.

As far as India is concerned, we do not recognise the NPT and as a result, to us it doesnt matter who violates the rules of NPT. My point was the India cannot act as the NPT police when we ourselves do not recognise or ratify the laws laid down by the regime. When we have neither recognised nor ratified NPT, the question of India censuring Iran for violating NPT does not arise.

3. You cannot equate Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons to that of India. Iran has offered nuclear technology to all Muslim countries. How often has India offered to share its nuclear knowhow?

Iran is definitely at fault on that count (and many more) but if the world (read America) has no problem with Pakistan already having passed on Nuclear technology to much of the Islamic world, then we (India) should not be complaining too much about Iranian nuclear technology.

Iran is definately on the wrong side. I am not justifying the case for Iran. My point is that we (India) refuse to be dragged into the arena, to further what is essentially America's agenda for the region. We have our own interest to look after.

4. India is being short sighted about the gas pipeline. How long would gas from Iran take care of India's needs? And how easily would it be held hostage to upheavals in Pakistan and Iran? In contrast, nuclear plants offered by US would help India without having to rely on unstable supply issues. As long as it doesn't piss off Australia (i.e. they can keep winning cricket matches, but with the team we have, that should be no problem)

Would US guaranty uninterrupted supplies of nuclear fuel in the event of military standoff/conflict with Pakistan or in the event of India carry out another series of nuclear tests? I dont know how exactly nuclear energy can replace hydrocarbons. We will still need oil from somewhere......... anywhere. Be it Iran.