Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
| Messages 1 - 9 of total 9 in this topic |
Spinmaster K-Rove
Trad climber
Stuck Under the Kor Roof
|
|
|
Topic Author's Original Post - Mar 2, 2006 - 07:35pm PT
|
OK so I haven't done a lot of research on this but it sounds like Bush has actually gon n dun sum good. I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop...what's the catch?
|
|
Gary
climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
what's the catch?
Everything he touches turns to schit?
|
|
WoodyS
Trad climber
Riverside
|
|
No doubt that a satisfactory arragement with India will turn out to be Bush's fault. How could the dimwit do such a stupid thing?
I hope we have an arrangement with the Indians to nuke the Pakistani stockpile when the radicals overthrow the Pakistan government.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
My nutshell:
 On principle, this Administration explicitly does not acknowledge any legal Constitutional basis for the Executive being bound or constrained by International Treaties ratified by the Legislative branch despite the clear "Supremacy Clause" in the Constitution. This ties in to [url="http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.html?topic_id=156375#msg157468"]a previous post I did about the ex-White House [neocon] legal scholar John Yoo's interpretation of Consititutional law and the Executive[/url] (very scary stuff well worth the time to read):
"Yoo contends that the president has unilateral authority to initiate wars without congressional approval, and to interpret, terminate, and violate international treaties at will. Indeed, ratified treaties, Yoo believes, cannot be enforced by courts unless Congress enacts additional legislation to implement them. According to this view, Congress's foreign affairs authority is largely limited to enacting domestic legislation and appropriating money. In other words, when it comes to foreign affairs, the president exercises unilateral authority largely unchecked by law -- constitutional or international."
So blowing off the NNTP is just part of the program for these guys - they do not believe in International Treaties.
The Administration is just completing another U.S. geo-strategic flip-flop that pretty much closes one of the last open chapters of the cold war with the Soviet Union (See this history of Indo-Soviet relations). The bottom line today is any non-muslim country that isn't a friend of China is a natural friend of ours. This one overrides U.S. political party boundaries.
There is nothing altruistic about the Administration's ovetures in India and they have nothing to do with nuclear weapons. It is all about a stealth attack on the Indian market for nuclear power plants. If we actually had India follow hte NNPT protocols to open their markets then their markets would be just that - open. And that would mean we'd have to compete head-to-head with the EU, Russians, South Africans, and Chinese. This is a deliberate "preemptive strike" to avoid the possibility of a real Boeing-Airbus type competition where we would likely lose or that profits would be greatly reduced by the competition even if we won. The Indians are willing to pay us a premium on our plants in exchange for our tacit approval of them ignoring the NNTP treaty protocols and sanctions.
This essentially guts the enforcement foundations of the NNTP treaty in exchange for commercial gain. For those of you up in arms over our "border situation", this should be of far greater concern. Pakistan has already now asked for a similar "exemptions" as will Iran and N. Korea. This is another case of the administration's absolute hypocrosy. Start wars of WMDs, and rail against Iran and N. Korea relative to the spread of nuclear weapons technology and then for money turn around condone a blatant violation of the treaty that serves as the only bulwark against that very proliferation.
Edit: It appears that a big Arms deal is part of the plan as well. Lot of more advanced versions of F-16's and F-18's (advanced as in better avionics and weapons systems than the ones we're selling to Pakistan). Again, there is simply no principle, ethic, or treaty this administration won't abrogate for a buck...
|
|
Apocalypsenow
Trad climber
Cali
|
|
Pakistan will now need more nukes (in a smaller nutshell). China will need more nukes.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
Pakistan has enough nukes for India. China has enough for Asia, but needs more for us...
|
|
Weenis
Trad climber
Tel Aviv
|
|
Kinda strange how these look similar.
|
|
Patrick Sawyer
climber
Originally California now Ireland
|
|
Don't kid yourself, this deal is bad news in the long run. Bush hasn't done us or the world any favours with this deal, and once Pakistan realises (as they already do no doubt) that they will not be getting a similar deal, then...
|
|
| Messages 1 - 9 of total 9 in this topic |
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!