Kerry may support India nuclear deal

[hfojvt]

http://www.liberaloasis.com/

I think now is the time to tell him not to, before it becomes a done deal.

[pocket]

1. what a fucktard

This is what beat Dean for the nomination?

[blm]

4. India wants to use nuclear energy instead of fossil fuels - damn them for

having such a large population with energy needs.

Do you really believe Dean will weigh in AGAINST India having access to legal nuclear power when Pakistan has gained most of their nuclear power ILLEGALLY?.

[pocket]

8. So does Iran

.

[blm]

9. Yep - And Kerry is on record saying WE should help Iran with their

nuclear energy needs so that they don't have to develop nuclear technology that can also be used for weaponry.

I am shocked that so many are unaware of the reality of this issue. India is the world's largest democracy and their own most threatening neighbor HAS nuclear power gained ILLEGALLY through the Bush1 administration and its dirty BCCI dealings.

[LittleClarkie]

11. Riiiiiiiiight

that's why they keep firing off test rockets. For energy.

[pocket]

19. it was sarcasm, neither just wants energy

[LittleClarkie]

24. Don't forget the little drippy thing when you're being sarcastic

it's helpful.

See the link to the article in my other post. This is no surprise to me. He told the Indian press this in January.

[WildEyedLiberal]

15. I see fucktards

But Kerry ain't one of them. Why don't you put your money where your mouth is big man, and support Kerry's resolution to withdraw from Iraq?

[pocket]

20. done.

and done.

[WilliamPitt]

28. "This is what beat Dean for the nomination?"

Doesn't say much for Dean the candidate, does it?

[hfojvt]

33. well once he became the frontrunner and got Gore's endorsement

all the other candidates started Dean bashing 24/7. At least that is all the media reported. Then, as he tried to remain positive and enthusiastic, "the scream" became a millstone tied around his neck.
I think the real reason that Dean lost Iowa was because of the televised debates. He stood right next to Kerry on the stage and his 5-9 to Kerry's 6-5 made him look decidedly unpresidential.
Isn't democracy grand?

[Blaukraut]

35. There you have it

If Dean had worn platform shoes or stood on a box during the primary debates, he'd be our president today.

[WildEyedLiberal]

36. LOL - you have discovered the truth!

The DLC gave Kerry growth hormones for the express purpose of humiliating Dean. Kerry's as 'roided up as Barry! Bwaah!

:eyes:

[LittleClarkie]

43. Well, that's what happens when you become frontrunner

The other candidates go gunning for ya.

Nevertheless, it was merely a dress rehearsal for what the Bush campaign would have done to him had he won the nomination. So if he couldn't handle a good, hearty game of "dog pile on the rabbit" then, well, he probably didn't belong in the Big Show anyway.

[fujiyama]

38. Dean's not in the senate

and it's hard to know how he would have gone on this. It's possible he would have a similar stance as Kerry on this but since Dean isn't a lawmaker, it really doesn't matter.

The key is, how do we get India away from fossil fuels which are bad for the environment? They have growing energy demands and a huge population. So far they've proven relatively responsible with their nuclear program as well (they haven't spread it to other nations).

[blm]

2. No way will Kerry say India can't access nuclear power for energy needs -

especially when he knows better than anyone the underhanded dealings that allowed Pakistan to gain its nuclear footing.

Anyone want to explain why Pakistan should have illegally everything that India can't have legally?

[jpak]

18. India's acquisition of nuclear weapons was an underhanded deal

http://www.ccnr.org/india_press.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/lee02272006.html

...and this deal is nothing more than a reward for India's development of nuclear weapons.

It is also a multi-billion dollar bonanza for GOP-connected nuclear vendors.

I don't see anything good about this at all.

[Sensitivity]

32. Good point.

[hfojvt]

39. it is not about stopping India from getting nuclear power

although I am not at all a fan of nuclear power. It is about stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons to every country on the globe and also to prevent nuclear power from having the secondary purpose of producing not only power, but more nukes.

[blm]

42. Kerry's been the strongest antinuke senator for years - he would NOT

agree to an India deal without doing the necessary research first. He went to India and Pakistan last January, didn't he?

Whatever he discovered then is most definitely playing out in this decision.

Hell, Kerry advocates for the US to stop producing nuclear weapons, he's not about to be snookered by India.

[jpak]

44. This deal allows India's nuclear weapons program to proceed unfettered

and without fear of sanctions or international inspections.

It will accelerate India's production of nuclear weapons.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/HC04Df03.html

Australia's recent decision to end its long-standing nonproliferation policy and sell *massive* quantities of uranium to China was a direct consequence of this deal.

...as was Russia's recent decision to sell uranium to India.

Will Pakistan stand-by and NOT accelerate its acquisition of nuclear weapons?????

How can the US justify its stance against Iran's nuclear program if this deal goes through????

How does any of this advance nuclear nonproliferation in Asia and South Asia????

It doesn't....

[blm]

45. There has to be more to it and changes that can be had. This deal is still

far from being done.

[jsamuel]

3. I don't see HOW he could oppose it...

someone care to enlighten?

[Mass]

5. Definitively a difficult question as it is another of these negotiations

that Bush and Rice f* up once again.

It could be a good thing with a good treaty. Can we trust them to do that?

Anyway, it is still months away.

However, it should be noted that Kerry has recently proposed ways to follow to replace the NPT by something that could work better, as the NPT is flawed. He should be pushing that.

[confludemocrat]

30. Bush and Rice fuck up once again

and Kerry is there to vote for it. Nice.

[hfojvt]

Liberal Oasis from March 3

http://www.liberaloasis.com/archives/022606.htm#030306

also again on March 21

http://www.liberaloasis.com/archives/031906.htm#032106

[Mass]

6. Not only him - Call all Senators and Reps.

The treaty will probably be signed, but everybody has doubts. They better make sure these doubts are stopped.

[Sensitivity]

7. India Deal just treating India more like France than as rogue state.

India's behavior as a world citizen compares well with China and Russia.
Why should the punitive boycott continue against the worlds largest democracy.
Did it make any sense?

[Mass]

10. Last time I checked, France was part of the NPT.

This said, the treaty allows some supervision of the civil nuclear by the international authorities, which is the reason why Kerry could support the deal. It is better than the statut-quo.

Dont expect purists to understand that though. They prefer that India continue to burn coal and oil and do not care about global warming. Probably the same who say that Iran is not at all an issue.

[fujiyama]

41. True

but India is unlikely to sign the NPT at this time anyways, considering they are nowhere near China in nuclear parity. Plus, as long as China continues to supply Pakistan with military hardware and expertise (including nuclear), they are unlikely to go with it.

[LittleClarkie]

12. I don't think there is much of a "may" about it

Coverage from January in India:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-1367480,curpg-2.cms

"Kerry's positive assessment of India's nuclear energy needs could be influential in procuring bipartisan support for the India-specific legislation the Bush administration plans to introduce in Congress early this year. The legislation will grant full exemption to India from stringent domestic non-proliferation laws. "

[Mass]

14. Hopefully, there is a lot of a MAY.

I listened to Kerry yesterday. While he was too closed to an agreement to my taste, he did not say he was 100% sure to vote for it. He still had reservations, even if he was enclined to vote for it. I hope he will not.

[blm]

27. I think Kerry and other Senators will force changes they want if Bush is

to get any legislation passsed.

[jpak]

13. First the IWR, now this

Kiss the NPT goodbye....

[Mass]

16. Kissing the NPT goodbye was done a long time ago.

Israel and Pakistan never signed the NPT. They both have nuclear weapons.

It needs to be replaced. The problem would be to sign this resolution BEFORE something new is done to replace the NPT.

[jpak]

21. How does this deal halt nuclear weapons proliferation????

It doesn't - it rewards bad behavior.

Nothing good will come of this.

[Mass]

22. Did I say I supported the deal?

I just said the NPT does not work.

Tell me what is your problem.

[WildEyedLiberal]

17. Speaking of Iraq, since you seem to care so much

Why don't you put your money where your mouth is and sign this resolution to withdraw from Iraq? I mean, since you care about ending the war, and all that.

[TayTay]

23. There were a lot of problems with that deal that

were laid on the table yesterday. Sen. Sarbanes noted how the deal rewrites soem of the US Atomic Energy Act and makes if harder for the Congress to disapprove of the PResident's actions.

This is far from a done deal in the Congress and there is a long ways to go before this gets approved. I saw Senators yesterday who were expresses the same doubts that are in this thread. I don't think the proposal, as thought up by Condi, is going to go through without major revisions.

[Mass]

25. We are months away from an agreement.

Nobody knows what the final deal will look like. You are right, while it is an important issue, we certainly have not seen the last of it.

[karynnj]

26. As Tay Tay says this is not a done deal,

if you watch the hearing, although Kerry says very tentatively that he is inclined to support it (obviously give the alternatives). He does ennumerate serveral problems and says they could have negotiated a better deal. He also suggested several things that could make this better - and the negotiations are still open.

Here is a link to the hearings - if you want to just see what Kerry said, he starts at about 2:12.

http://foreign.senate.gov/archives/2006/archive040506.ram

[confludemocrat]

29. Though JK and Biden have reservations, "they'll vote for it anyway"

their usual MO, the two fucktards

[Mass]

31. Except this is NOT what they said. But, coming from you. no surprise.

One line in AP release makes the truth.

So I guess Bush is the greatest too. :sarcasm:

Could it be that what Kerry said was a little more nuanced and intelligent.

[confludemocrat]

34. that quote's from Liberal Oasis but they are traitors to the Kerry cause

so f 'em, right?

[fujiyama]

37. Do you have a better alternative

to revise the NPT, or would you rather just call Kerry names?

[confludemocrat]

40. yes, call him on violating a treaty obligation

and basically there are alternatives to Kerry and Bidens take on it, need I say

[necso]

46. Former President Carter,

"A Dangerous Deal With India":

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/28/AR2006032801210.html

And I would add that while our corporatist masters (and their out-of-control, militarist flunkeys) deliberately try to obscure the lines between nuclear power and nuclear weapons in order to deny nuclear power to those that they oppose, they use the same techniques to justify the development of nuclear power by those they favor -- and who are likely to further develop nuclear weapons.

But hey, the corporatists will get some of those big-ticket deals that they love. So why worry our heads about consequences? There are profits to be made.