I wonder if we will now step up on the Agent Orange in Vietnam. Randy and I went back to see where we bled and fought. That is one Country that is making it on its own.

John D here is a story for you right wingers

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/local/1699889.htm

Re Vietnam : heck, if we were this lenient and forgiving after WW!!, we'd all be driving Japanese and German cars -- and we all know that'll never happen ☺.

Re India: expanded nuclear trade with the enemy of Pakistan, which is a key ally in the "War on Terror." What kind of message does this send to Iran -- India does not allow for international inspections of their nuclear facilities.

Please don't beat the same old drum again and again. India never signed NPT because of its discriminatory nature, and so never cheated and walked out of it unlike Iran and North Korea. It would also be fair to remind that India was the first country to have vociferously demanded for all nuclear weapons to be abolished. It did not took the route of weaponisation until 1970's when none of the so called powers could persuade her next door bullying neighbour China from exploding her own bomb. India kept the restraint for further two decades and never tested another nuclear device until China go in cahoot clandestinely with Pakistan to help them make the "Islamic Bomb." All this happened while successive presidents kept certifying knowing albeit in contrary year after year that Pakistan was cheating USA because it was needed to create that much needed bedlum in Afghanistan and to shove pro-Soviet (never an ally though) India!! It's about time USA undoes its folly and be the friend of the ancient, vast and peaceful nation of India. Two biggest democracies in the world should have also been the best friends long before.

"Yet critics complain that the U.S. has forfeited its credibility in continuing relations with other nations, such as Iran, which is enriching nuclear material for what it calls a civilian power program."

There's a major difference between Iran and India. India is a functioning democracy, whereas Iran is ruled by religious fanatics who publicly state that they want to kill Jews.

We are entering a new age in the world. An age where the former minor countries are entering the international trade cash-cow. Everyone is scrambling for position and its only right that we get cozy with the next couple of countries that will provide us with our next generation of cheap labor and parts assembly. The ones we have now are starting to get expensive as they also enjoy an increased standard of living. You just have to look longer term than one election :-)

There is a grave danger to Asian stability from the rise of Chinese hegemony and influence. That is the primary danger. Then there is the larger danger, albeit of a secondary nature to the greater world order.

India therefore becomes very important as an international stabilizer. Bush administration has shown great foresight (Clinton realized it too late after playing the China Cheerleader for the first 7 of his 8 years in the White House.) in moving beyond mere words and gestures to laying the foundation of some very serious shifts in US geopolitics by giving India the platform it needs to tranform itself.

To be sure, India has huge challenges. And to clarify, India was not a Soviet Stooge. It has despite a million problems and prejudices of its own making and those imposed from without, managed to hold on to its goals of making its democracy work.

So Indians, are perplexed and sometimes in doubt of criticism from US bloggers regarding some supposed "special treatment". Know well, you are not doing India a favor. Nor are we asking you for any. This is a much larger "Great Game". Nothing less than the basic foundation of a new world order founded on democratic ideas is at stake in the early part of the 21st century. This will be contested hotly and aggressively by the Chinese and possibly the Russians.

If you are an American, Republican or Democrat, Isolationist or Internationalist, who would you opt for a partner to dance with in this Global Ballroom? India or China. Speak now, or forever hold your silence.

My suggestion, the US and India combo is here to stay ... for a long, long time. It is not just "natural" ... it is obvious.

Best regards
CV

I think US foreign policy has always been dictated by its economic interests: oil supplies in the Middle East; now, selling nuclear power plants to India; opening up Vietnam to US goods. To hide behind the facade of exporting democracy and liberty smacks of hypocrisy. It is no longer about ideology: It is about money--unfortunately at the cost of lives worldwide, if I may add.

I just got back from Vietnam working first-hand with Vietnamese war veterans and children who are victims of Agent Orange (passed through the mothers milk and through ecological means). Further to normalizing trade relations (and more important) is to recognize the devastation we did there with dioxin and to work with the Vietnamese to help them through it.
http://www.vietnamfriendship.org/

On a different note, we should also be mindful of the suppresion (sometimes brutal) this socialist/communist state commits of voices that don't agree with its one party policies.

Both of us have something to learn from each other.

India's not signing of the NPT is of little consequence. There is no evidence that they've ever shared nuclear technology with anyone while China signed the NPT then shipped nuclear materials, technology and expertise to NK, Iran, Pakistan and Lybia...and who knows where else?

A web site to watch in this context.

http://media.putfile.com/Photochor

Sol welcome home. When I went back it tore me up to see how my so-called enemy is suffering with the Agent Orange. I respect my former foe. Now we will see how bad the DU will effect the Iraqi's and our families. Right now we are playing the same game. We see no damage from DU.

This deal with India is clearly an attempt to;

1. flank China by enhancing India's nuke strike capability. (It will)
2. Elbow in the face of Pakistan.
3. Everybody all's nuked up!

As with most Bush 'dip-low-matic' moves it's not completely rational or logical, so don't expect any reasonable outcomes.

We are so screwed.

-------

Dale P.
You are hitting on al 8 cylinders.

Sam Y,

Wow, what a site.

If you go here

http://www.petitiononline.com/AOVN/

you will find a simple petition for justice for victims of Agent Orange. There are currently 696,148. If you look at number 5 you will see my name. Will you help us reach a million?

I also want to note the following from the above article:

"

Beyond the headlines, beyond newsprint
The Chicago Tribune's Washington Bureau

+++

« Talking our way out of Iraq | Latest postings | Democrats and the Foley e-mails »

Originally posted: December 9, 2006
U.S. deals with India, Vietnam
Posted by Mark Silva at 10 am and updated at 12:30 pm CST

In a year marred by colossal failures of diplomacy, and at a juncture when President Bush is ceding control of Congress to the Democrats, the outgoing Republican-run Congress has handed Bush two going-away presents that represent dramatic diplomatic pivots with two erstwhile adversaries of the United States.

Congress early today approved legislation enabling the U.S. to assist India in the development of its civilian nuclear energy program – a controversial deal which Bush negotiated with the prime minister of India during a trip to New Delhi in March. And Congress has approved Permanent Normal Trade Relations with Vietnam, which Bush had hoped to deliver on his visit to Hanoi last month.

With both agreements, the U.S. effectively is bolstering the economies of two fast-growing Asian economies that serve as political counterweights to the dominance of the booming economy – and military aspirations – of China. And with both, the U.S. is setting aside history – having cut off support for India after nuclear testing in the late 1990s which provoked Pakistan to test its own device and threatened a regional conflagration, and having retreated from Vietnam in 1975 after losing a costly war with the Communist regime there.

"You know, sometimes it's hard to get rid of history,'' Bush said in India earlier this year, standing alongside Prime Minister Mammohan Singh. "Short-term history shows that the United States and India were divided… The relationship is changing dramatically.Part of that change is going to be how to deal with the nuclear issue.''

In the case of India – which detonated a nuclear device as recently as 1998 but never has signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that 170 other nations have joined since 1970 – the U.S. is making an about-face turn from its own laws that prohibited nuclear aid for nations that have not signed the NPT.

India, once an ally with the Soviet Union in the Cold War, has secured the right to keep eight of its nuclear plants secret for military purposes while opening the other 14 plants – and all future civilian nuclear power plants – to international inspection. The U.S. and other nations will agree to supply fuel and technology for India's existing and future civilian facilities. And India, a nation of more than one billion with one of the fastest growing economies in Asia, is certain to build a lot more of them.

Sanyay Puri, chairman of the U.S.-India Political Action Committee, today hailed the passage of the legislation as "a turning point in the relationship between the US and India.'' Its advantage for India and indeed the world is clear, he suggested: "This legislation will not only allow India to explore cleaner renewable sources of energy for its booming economy, but will also mitigate the threat of the global warming by controlling its pollution levels."

The agreement holds at least two advantages for the U.S.: With the promise of expanded nuclear energy in a fast-growing nation easing pressure on international supplies of petroleum – and perhaps helping contain the price that the U.S. pays for foreign oil; And a lucrative new market for an American nuclear energy industry that has been stymied in the U.S., where no new nuclear power plants have been ordered since the 1970s.

Bush voiced all of this and more in a statement today commending Congress for adopting the Indian deal: "I am pleased that our two countries will soon have increased opportunities to work together to meet our energy needs in a manner that does not increase air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, promotes clean development, supports nonproliferation and enhances our trade interests.''

Yet critics complain that the U.S. has forfeited its credibility in continuing relations with other nations, such as Iran, which is enriching nuclear material for what it calls a civilian power program. The U.S., insisting that Iran abandon its enrichment – with the U.S. and European nations accusing Iran of building a bomb – has in effect refused to acknowledge the rights of a nation that signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to develop nuclear power, while rewarding another nation, India, which never joined the nuclear regime.

Robert Einhorn, an analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and former assistant secretary for nonproliferation at the State Department who has devoted years to work against proliferation of nuclear weapons, voiced these concerns in testimony before Congress last year.

He also said this in an interview with the Tribune earlier this year: "I don’t think the administration needed to cut this deal in order to cement its relationship with India. There are a lot of ways that we could have shown India how much we love them. Civilian nuclear cooperation is the forbidden fruit that looks so luscious up there on the branch… The administration was prepared to do it, in part because some in the administration working on this didn’t understand the downside, and others didn’t really care about the downside.''

"In the near term, U.S. plans to engage in nuclear cooperation with India will make it more difficult to address proliferation challenges such as Iran,'' Einhorn testified in Congress. "Of course, Iran’s interest in nuclear weapons long pre-dated the India deal. But the deal has strengthened the case Iran can make – and is already making – internationally. Why, Iranian officials ask publicly, should Iran give up its right as an NPT party to an enrichment capability when India, a non-party to the NPT, can keep even its nuclear weapons and still benefit from nuclear cooperation? It is an argument that resonates well with many countries and weakens the pressures that can be brought to bear on Tehran.

"In general, the Bush administration’s policy shift conveys the message that the United States – the country the world has always looked to as the leader in the global fight against proliferation – is now de-emphasizing nonproliferation and giving it a back seat to other foreign policy goals.'' Einhorn said. "Other countries can be expected to follow suit in assigning nonproliferation a lower priority relative to political and commercial considerations in their international dealings, and this would have negative, long-term consequences for the global nonproliferation regime.''

The deal cleared the House on Friday by a vote of 330-59 and cleared by Senate by acclamation early this morning. Bush said today that he looks forward to signing the legislation. The bill is entitled the Henry J. Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006,'' named for the retiring Illinois congressman who is also the outgoing chairman of the House International Relations Committee.

It will enable India to obtain civilian nuclear fuel and technology while obliging New Delhi to allow international inspectors to monitor its 14 present and future civilian reactors – while its eight military facilities remain off limits.

Brahma Chellaney, a professor of strategic studies at The Center for Policy Research in New Delhi, suggested in an interview earlier this year that the U.S. has its own motivation for this agreement.

"I think the Bush administration is keen to revive the U.S. civilian nuclear industry, which has been moribund,'' Chellaney said. "There has been no reactor deal signed since the 1970s…Nuclear power plants involve higher capital costs than non-nuclear plants… It seems to me the only way the nuclear power industry in the U.S. can be revived is to get India to place some multimillion nuclear reactor contracts… Each reactor is going to be nearly two billion dollars…. If they can get India to buy six, that's 12 billion dollars.''

Bush indeed is intent on reviving a nuclear power industry in the U.S. that has been sidelined since the meltdown at Three Mile Island in the 1970s.

"Today there are more than 100 nuclear plants in America that operate in 31 states, including
right here in Wisconsin,'' Bush said during a speech in Wisconsin in late February, as he prepared for his trip to India. "The plants are producing electricity safety -- safely, and they don't emit any air pollution or greenhouse gases. America hasn't ordered a nuclear plant since the 1970s, and that's the result of litigation -- or because of litigation and complex regulations.

"It's interesting when you think about a country like France, however,'' Bush said. "They have built 58 plants since the 1970s; they get 78 percent of their electricity from nuclear power. It's an interesting contrast, isn't it? We haven't done anything since the '70s. This country has decided to recognize the importance of having renewable sources of energy that protect the environment, and they have -- 78 percent of their electricity comes from this form of energy.

"China has eight nuclear plants in the works, by the way; plans to build at least 40 more over the next two decades,'' Bush said. "I think we ought to start building nuclear power plants again. I think it makes sense to do so. The technology is such that we can do so and say to the American people, these are safe. And they're important.''

In Vietnam, the U.S. sees another new market for its own goods in a nation where nearly 60,000 American soldiers died – and one million Vietnamese died – during a war that raged in the late 1960s and early 1970s."

How easy it is to modify history and change the number of Vietnamese who died from four million to one million. I know we will never know the real number, but most good estimates are closer to the value of 4 million than 1 million.

Finally, I second the comments about DU. How can my country do these things to other people in far away lands? Shock and Awe! Win! How do you win something that was so wrong to begin with?

Comparisons between apparent discrepancies in our nuclear policy towards India and Iran are not valid. There are legitimate reasons for our national interests in how we are dealing with those two countries. For one, India has not said it wants to wipe another country off the map. Iran on the other hand with its deranged leader, would not hesitate to use nuclear weapons against its enemies. This is the problem with the "islamic bomb". While normal countries have nuclear weapons as a deterrent, muslim countries like Iran and Pakistan will use the weapons just because they have them. Throw China into the mix and India has serious security concerns.

"India does not allow for international inspections of their nuclear facilities"

Will the U.S. allow international inspections of its military nuclear facilities?

And furthermore, only one country has *ever* used a nuclear weapon on a civilian population, and it certainly isn't India.

Dale and Sol...I was stationed at Clark AB and the Port of Manila in the early 70's and alot of our fellow soldiers were exposed to malathion as dog handlers.....are you aware of the their plights also? I don't mean to be rude,but it's not only the Vietnamese that have problems with chemicals,but our buds do too...do you know that?
Paulo

The US is making the right move with regard to nuclear trade with India. That large and heavily populated nation has huge energy needs. Without international cooperation, its competent technologists have had a difficult time expanding its nuclear generating capacity rapidly enough to meet demands. With help, India's technologists will now be able to develop nuclear plants rapidly enough to slow the need for burning coal - an outcome that bodes well for the world's long term safety.

With regard to the disconnect between this intelligent deal with India and our illogical treatment of Iran, all I can say is that perhaps we will learn and modify our stance.

Much is made about the fact that Iran cheated on its obligations twenty years ago and began doing weapons research. Many of those comments come from people who are completely ignorant of the fact that Iran had good reasons for its research. Twenty years ago, Iran was being attacked with chemical weapons from Iraq, which was, at the time, supported with US funding. Iran asked the international community for help several times, but its pleas were met with inaction. No wonder it began to research ways to defend itself and no wonder it undertook that research secretly.

Iran is a sovereign nation with a long history of math, science and literature. It has a young population with about half of its 70 million people under the age of 30. Its oil wealth is not infinite and as much as possible should be conserved for future generations. It has every right to develop peaceful nuclear power and to develop a full fuel cycle that will allow it a long term measure of independence.

The conclusion of the Indo-US nuke deal is a recognition of the credibility of India in the proliferation sphere as well as the practical wisdom displayed by US legislators. No doubt a very vocal section in India is higlighting the so called anti-india provisions of the recent legislation passed by US Congress. Most of these are misgivings based more on fear than on facts. It is to be hoped that India will grab the opportunity sooner than later to step up the contribution of nuclear energy to India growing energy requirements.

1 comment: According to a poll done in India (not sure of sample basis), 80% have a favorable view of America.

Now I assure you that if you do a similar poll of India's neighbors that # drastically decreases.

What does this mean? India and the US should be allies. Both are democracies and both value freedoms.

Having this nuclear pact is just one small step in a new lasting friendship.

I wonder if we will now step up on the Agent Orange in Vietnam. Randy and I went back to see where we bled and fought. That is one Country that is making it on its own.

John D here is a story for you right wingers

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/local/1699889.htm
Posted by: Dale Peters | Dec 9, 2006 10:33:13 AM

Dale:

I just tried your link Sunday afternoon at 1:30 PM, and got a "Requested article not found message". Can you please check your article source and post a working link if possible?

Thanks

Paulo a dog handler from Tieland is going before Congress this year with proof of how the dogs where affected by Orange

Dale...I was writing about the dog handlers,not the dogs.
Paulo

"What does this mean? India and the US should be allies. Both are democracies and both value freedoms.

Having this nuclear pact is just one small step in a new lasting friendship.

Posted by: Dragon | Dec 10, 2006 9:15:50 AM"

Indians 'like' us?
Maybe because our corporations are outsourcing lots of technical jobs to India.

Lasting friendship?
Or another step toward nuclear conflict in Asia?

Your calculations seem simplistic.

Dale, Sol, Bc, I thank each of you for your service during, and in, the most divisive "war" the US has ever had - and I include the Civil War in that statement.

Agent Orange, it's bastard brothers and other chemicals probably killed or disabled as many US troops as did the bombs, bullets and grenades. In my own experience, I have an ex-husband who suffers from the effects of Agent Orange, and his brother (my daughter's favorite uncle) died from complications directly caused by this vicious chemical compound.

As to India - I am of a "wait and see" attitude. Many of that nation and I see eye-to-eye but how much and how deeply can one know when your entire mindset, from birth, is so totally different?

Nobody really "needs" nukes nowadays. The stuff of terror is not a nation and it's number of nukes it has stashed. It's the number of it's people who have access to RPG's, IED-makings, "suitcase bombs" and the like that is, to me, the frightening part.

Then again, there's always Timothy McVeigh and a little fertilizer here, a little ammonia nitrate there..........