Did anyone see or hear about this? (if allowed here)

[politicasista]

:shrug:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x884396

[Mass]

1. People panicked about a treaty with India that is far from being

finalized and for which nobody knows what is inside.

The funny thing is that, contrarely to what they say, it has nothing to do with being TOUGH. It has to do with controlling India's nuclear civil plants and with global warming.

It is disturbing because it would basically break the NPT without replacing it, so it is probably not a great idea, but this is Kerry bashing and by people who dont even know what they are talking about.

[JohnKleeb]

2. So basically this is a enviromental issue as well as a foreign one?

I don't believe the rumors about Bush wanting to nuke Iran to be honest. The man is no rocket scientist at all but he knows that his party would look awfully stupid promoting democracy in Iran than nuking it, now if there was an invasion they would still look bad however not as bad.

[Mass]

3. There are many issues. In my opinion, the treaty has many flaws

and I 'd hope that Kerry had been less in a hurry to say he was inclined to support it, but this thread is BS for the most part, but the points made by Kerry in the SFRC were valid (there is no point ignoring the reality on the ground - Iran and North Korea have signed the NPT. Is it actually doing us any good at this point? Once again, I will point to Kerry's Ireland speech about security, where he says how these issues should be dealt with. Obviously, it is not going to happen).

It has nothing to do with nuking Iran either (my guess is that these are contingency plans and nothing else, but I cant say I like that either).

[JohnKleeb]

6. Hmmm

Yeah I just don't see the relation of a Indian treaty to what is going on in Iran/ I for the record think this is definely an issue that shouldn't be ignored, I don't see anything good in Mahmoud Ahmadijad and the so called Islamic Republic of Iran.

[Mass]

7. There is one - Iran has signed the NPT. Not respecting the NPT

ourselves by selling nuclear services (even if only civil) to India that has not signed it makes it more difficult for us to ask Iran to respect it.

The point is that Kerry understands these issues. He does not ignore them and it was the core of his questions to Rice during the SFRC hearing last week.

[JohnKleeb]

8. Good

I know that India and most Muslim nations have an antagonstical relationship on the count of the Hinduism vs Islam thing. Kerry I really do think is one of our country's best minds on foreign policy, it's a large part of why I respect and admire him a lot, he doesn't see the world in black and whtie like Bush does and parts of the left do and thats a good thing.

[Mass]

9. In fact, one of the advantages of the treaty is to break links between

India and Iran and to keep India on our side in the Iranian issue. India is a very large customer of Iranian oil.

[JohnKleeb]

10. Very interesting

It's too bad I don't have much skills with language but international relations is really interesting.

[JI7]

4. yes, environmental

considering India's huge population and if they want to raise the standard of living for all of them they will have to come up with energy sources that don't pollute.

it's not simple. if Kerry was president he would have focused on investing in alternative and safe energy sources with cooperation from other world leaders.

i haven't visited India but i have family that always goes and they say as soon as you get off the plane the polluted air just hits you.

i don't believe Bush will nuke Iran either. i do think they will try to instill fear in people by using Iran for their own electoral and other advantages. but probably wont go beyond that.

[JohnKleeb]

5. Sure seemed that way to me from what Mass was saying

Yeah I think he will try to use Iran as an issue but I don't think he'll actually invade unless we get the troops out of Iraq or his poll numbers shake up a bit. What I would do honestly if I were president because Iran has some "democratic" elements to it, I would secretly fund secular oppoistion to Ahmadinjad much like what happened in Ukraine with the Orange Revolution. I know a bit about Iran because we discussed it a lot in Political Science last year. What we did wrong in Iraq wasn't toppeling Saddam, it was going in there and destroying its infrascture plus lying to the American people about why we went there, I still don't know why we're in Iraq, Bush and his people change the story all the time. I agree it's not simple and I think the people flamming Kerry and Biden don't get that.

[sandnsea]

11. Nuke deal with India=bad, Iran with nukes=good

Sorry, these people are idiots. India is not Iran and it's much better to move forward with some sort of deal and maintain good relationships than to try to bully yet another country. These were the same people who were howling about doing nothing about Iran just a few months ago, and are now howling because Iran is being challenged on its nuclear program. They're just a bunch of idiots and the reason the country doesn't trust Democrats on defense, I wouldn't trust these people either.

[JohnKleeb]

12. These people see Iran

like this, if we have nukes so should they which is sloppy policy in my opinion. I hate nuclear arms a lot and hate that we have them however I don't see anything good about Iran having them.

[sandnsea]

13. I wish nobody had them

But that isn't the real world. And in 2003 and 2004, part of their anti-war line was that Bush let Iran get nukes while going after Iraq instead. They really change in the political winds, it's damned annoying.

[JohnKleeb]

14. Exactly I hate nuclear arms

I didnt know the anti war movement did that, we should be critical of Iran. The thing liberals must do if we want credibility is to criticize tyrannies around the globe like Castro's Cuba, Jung's Korea, etc.