What the Indian giver got

[Hildebrand]

What the Indian giver got

Standing beside Pervez Musharraf, an ally in the war on terror, President Bush explained how he told him Pakistan would not be getting the same aid in developing peaceful nuclear power that Bush had just promised to India:

“I explained that Pakistan and India are different countries with different needs and different histories. So as we proceed forward, our strategy will take in effect those well-known differences.”

Bush was bluntly saying India is a democracy we can trust not to spread nuclear technology, but we’re not sure we trust you. After all, your boy A.Q. Khan was running a Home Depot for A-bomb technology.

[more]

 

[WanderAimlessly]

Sorry, but I do not take anything Pat Buchanan says these days seriously. :nope:

PF

 

[Hildebrand]

WanderAimlessly:

Sorry, but I do not take anything Pat Buchanan says these days seriously. :nope:

PF

ANYTHING? Why so?

 

[bones_IV]

WanderAimlessly:

Sorry, but I do not take anything Pat Buchanan says these days seriously. :nope:

PF

This article of Pat’s was a little hard to follow and very confusing. Hmmm? There are many a thing I agree on, but I’m unsure about this article. I don’t know where to stand on this article of Pat’s. What’s your judgment?

 

[bones_IV]

Hildebrand:

ANYTHING? Why so?

Pat Buchannan I think is pretty straight forward, and tells it like it is. I don’t the idea of making Nuclear weapons, which I think is an unholy act. Besides the dropping of the Atom bomb on Hiroshima started the Cold War in the first place.

 

[vern_humphrey]

bones_IV:

Pat Buchannan I think is pretty straight forward, and tells it like it is. I don’t the idea of making Nuclear weapons, which I think is an unholy act. Besides the dropping of the Atom bomb on Hiroshima started the Cold War in the first place.

No, a villainous, paranoid dictator named Joseph Stalin started the Cold War for his own purposes. Stalin was killing people in whole-sale lots long before the Manhatten project was even dreamed of, and he was the mortal enemy of democracy and capitalism.

 

[bones_IV]

vern humphrey:

No, a villainous, paranoid dictator named Joseph Stalin started the Cold War for his own purposes. Stalin was killing people in whole-sale lots long before the Manhatten project was even dreamed of, and he was the mortal enemy of democracy and capitalism.

And he was more wicked than Hitler. What Hitler did was nothing compared to what Stalin did.

 

[vern_humphrey]

bones_IV:

And he was more wicked than Hitler. What Hitler did was nothing compared to what Stalin did.

You can say that again. Zbignew Brezenski is right when he says, “Communism is the greatest calamity ever to overtake the human race.”

 

[Hildebrand]

bones_IV:

This article of Pat’s was a little hard to follow and very confusing. Hmmm? There are many a thing I agree on, but I’m unsure about this article. I don’t know where to stand on this article of Pat’s. What’s your judgment?

Yes, it was complex. The gist of it was that India should not have been given this privilege. There is no reason to do so.

India has refused to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and has deceived the world when it developed its nuclear weapons.

Choosing this particular moment to make this move (along with the port deal) will further hurt our image in the Muslim world. Muslims see us allowing the UK to manage some of our ports, but no Muslims need apply. Muslims see us allowing and rewarding the Indians for sticking their tongue out at the world community (developing nuclear weapons). While Muslims are threatened with a pre-emptive war.

He is saying it was not a smart move and there was no real justification for it.

 

[gilliam]

1. It puts the non-military plants under IAEA supervision (a good thing)
2. India is a democracy and has not been selling its nuclear secrets abroad
3. India will be the worlds largest country very soon and needs the power. If it doesn’t get it from us, it will go elsewhere and make alliances we would not want it to.

Three good reasons here.

 

[bones_IV]

vern humphrey:

You can say that again. Zbignew Brezenski is right when he says, “Communism is the greatest calamity ever to overtake the human race.”

Who was Brezenski? In my opinion, Russia was the one who really started WWII. There are German documents that said that Stalin wanted it.

 

[bones_IV]

Hildebrand:

Yes, it was complex. The gist of it was that India should not have been given this privilege. There is no reason to do so.

India has refused to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and has deceived the world when it developed its nuclear weapons.

Choosing this particular moment to make this move (along with the port deal) will further hurt our image in the Muslim world. Muslims see us allowing the UK to manage some of our ports, but no Muslims need apply. Muslims see us allowing and rewarding the Indians for sticking their tongue out at the world community (developing nuclear weapons). While Muslims are threatened with a pre-emptive war.

I agree, and the Muslims threatened with pre-emptive war are feeling like they are being singled out. This is going to cause more trouble than one realizes. I think that Bush ought to be kicked in the head for doing something so senseless.

He is saying it was not a smart move and there was no real justification for it.

 

[jc-servant]

The title of this thread uses an offensive racial stereotype as a play on words. Not cool.

The term “Indian giver” has been used in this country for many years with the implication that Native Americans renege on deals when in fact the opposite was true, the government reneged on treaties with them. It was an unpleasant surprise to find this term used on a Catholic board where one would presume people should know better.

 

[vern_humphrey]

bones_IV:

Who was Brezenski? In my opinion, Russia was the one who really started WWII. There are German documents that said that Stalin wanted it.

Brezenski was National Security Advisor under President Carter – the best appointment Carter made.

I don’t think one can make a case that the Soviets attacked the Nazis. One can make a very good case that they would have if the Nazis had not attacked them first.

 

[rayne89]

jc-servant:

The title of this thread uses an offensive racial stereotype as a play on words. Not cool.

The term “Indian giver” has been used in this country for many years with the implication that Native Americans renege on deals when in fact the opposite was true, the government reneged on treaties with them. It was an unpleasant surprise to find this term used on a Catholic board where one would presume people should know better.

The title of this thread is the actual name of the artical if you check the link. When posting links to articles the forum rules state we must use the actual headline.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Originally Posted by jc-servant
*The title of this thread uses an offensive racial stereotype as a play on words. Not cool.

The term “Indian giver” has been used in this country for many years with the implication that Native Americans renege on deals when in fact the opposite was true, the government reneged on treaties with them. It was an unpleasant surprise to find this term used on a Catholic board where one would presume people should know better.*

rayne89:

The title of this thread is the actual name of the artical if you check the link. When posting links to articles the forum rules state we must use the actual headline.

Oh, no blame attaches to those posting here – but the title should give us a clue to the kind of thinking behind the article.

 

[bones_IV]

vern humphrey:

Oh, no blame attaches to those posting here – but the title should give us a clue to the kind of thinking behind the article.

You tell them Vern! I don’t like when people want to play the blame game.

 

[WanderAimlessly]

jc-servant:

The title of this thread uses an offensive racial stereotype as a play on words. Not cool.

The term “Indian giver” has been used in this country for many years with the implication that Native Americans renege on deals when in fact the opposite was true, the government reneged on treaties with them. It was an unpleasant surprise to find this term used on a Catholic board where one would presume people should know better.

It was the name of the article which is required for the post. It also does not surprise me that an aricle from Pat Buchanan would have such a term in it.

PF

 

[Hildebrand]

1) It puts the non-military plants under IAEA supervision (a good thing)

It singles out India over Pakistan. India started the mini arms “race” in South Asia.

2) India is a democracy and has not been selling its nuclear secrets abroad

India secretly develop nuclear weapons, something we may literally go ballistic over with Iran.

3) India will be the worlds largest country very soon and needs the power. If it doesn’t get it from us, it will go elsewhere and make alliances we would not want it to.

India has never been in an alliance with the United States and never will. She has always did what she wanted to do.

 

[Hildebrand]

WanderAimlessly:

It was the name of the article which is required for the post. It also does not surprise me that an aricle from Pat Buchanan would have such a term in it.

PF

Are you saying Pat Buchanan is a racist?