'India more important for US than Pakistan'

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Let us make one thing clear about this. what are sanctions? They are simply saying that "I will not trade normally with you", i.e. India is sanctioning Pakistan or Pakistan is sanctioning India.

It is their prerogative on how to trade with you. They need not give any reasons whatsoever.

Perhaps you should understand the context of the discussion between Zraver and I before inferring that I am "criticizing sanctions" - which I am not.

 

[zraver]

Your hands were tied because of your own domestic laws, not because Pakistan "broke a treaty" as you initially argued. I may be wrong on this, but where exactly does the NPT require member states to sanction countries that pursue nuclear weapons programs, that are not signatories?

Article I

Each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; and not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any non-nuclear weapon State to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, or control over such weapons or explosive devices.

No sanctions and continued trading would hardly be not in any way encouraging countries to flout the NPT.

Yes! I would have rather preferred that the two of you obliterated each other, and save the rest of the world a lot of pain and suffering in the process.

Humanity would have been obliterated.

If you want to argue in favor of the interventionist policies that were pursued, then stop whining about terrorism, becasue your chickens are coming home to roost.

Like when we intervenend to force the UK, France and Israel to give back the Suez. Like when we intervened to get Egypt back the Sainai. or Bosnia or Kosovo, or Kuwait or Pakistan vs India in 67 and 71.

And at the very least, lets dispense with this "oh we are the greatest freedom and liberty loving nation on the earth" hogwash, since it is quite obvious from US policy and its effects, that the country is nothing but a self serving, arrogant and bullying entity, that has caused incalculable bloodshed and suffering.

But less than our cold war foes did, and far less than they would have.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Article I

Each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; and not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any non-nuclear weapon State to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, or control over such weapons or explosive devices.

No sanctions and continued trading would hardly be not in any way encouraging countries to flout the NPT.

That is a matter of interpretation and choice, not something necessitated under the treaty - and no clearer example of that in the lack of sanctions on Pakistan and India currently, and the absence of sanctions on Israel - and it is still not, as you claimed, a "violation of the treaty" by Pakistan, since Pakistan signed no treaty.

Humanity would have been obliterated.

That is a matter of conjecture. Personally, given the huge land masses that the USSR, US, Canada and Western Europe comprise, it would have kept the two of you busy enough destroying each other that by the time you were finished, there wouldn’t necessarily have been anyone else to push more buttons, to attack the rest of the world.

Like when we intervenend to force the UK, France and Israel to give back the Suez. Like when we intervened to get Egypt back the Sainai. or Bosnia or Kosovo, or Kuwait or Pakistan vs India in 67 and 71.

It could be argued that the role played by the West in creating Israel was what was responsible for creating the tensions in the Middle East in the first place. And who propped up Saddam, and supported him in his bloody war with Iran?

Half the things you want to point out as ‘constructive interventions” are essentially your country trying to fix the messes it created in the first place

But less than our cold war foes did, and far less than they would have.

That is a matter of conjecture. Though I don’t agree with the ideology of communism, it must be said that, ironically, they chose to spread it through propagating their ideas and winning the masses over in the countries that had US interventions with disastrous consequences. Whether Latin America or Iran, the “evil commie” bogeyman was used as justification for the overthrow of mostly popular regimes. So I would suggest that the “evil commies” actually exercised more restraint and showed more compassion and “peoples power” than the US, or at the very least, were not much worse.

"Manifest Destiny" never really went away.

 

[zraver]

That is a matter of interpretation and choice, not something necessitated under the treaty - and no clearer example of that in the lack of sanctions on Pakistan and India currently, and the absence of sanctions on Israel - and it is still not, as you claimed, a "violation of the treaty" by Pakistan, since Pakistan signed no treaty.

Trade is as much about politics as it is about economics and that ties it to the treaty.

That is a matter of conjecture. Personally, given the huge land masses that the USSR, US, Canada and Western Europe comprise, it would have kept the two of you busy enough destroying each other that by the time you were finished, there wouldn’t necessarily have been anyone else to push more buttons, to attack the rest of the world.

Given the number of weapons involved and massive and redundant measure in place to make sure that they all got delivered mankind would have been dead.

It could be argued that the role played by the West in creating Israel was what was responsible for creating the tensions in the Middle East in the first place. And who propped up Saddam, and supported him in his bloody war with Iran?

The GCC, France, USSR, US- the world really didn't like Iran.

Half the things you want to point out as ‘constructive interventions” are essentially your country trying to fix the messes it created in the first place

How did we create Israel, the situation in Bosnia or Kosovo etc?

That is a matter of conjecture. Though I don’t agree with the ideology of communism, it must be said that, ironically, they chose to spread it through propagating their ideas and winning the masses over in the countries that had US interventions with disastrous consequences. Whether Latin America or Iran, the “evil commie” bogeyman was used as justification for the overthrow of mostly popular regimes. So I would suggest that the “evil commies” actually exercised more restraint and showed more compassion and “peoples power” than the US, or at the very least, were not much worse.

"Manifest Destiny" never really went away.

Communist ideologies killed more people in the last 100 years than any other violent source. The "revolution was spread with the sword not the pen. No country ever chose communism every single one of them had it foisted on them by a minority group.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Trade is as much about politics as it is about economics and that ties it to the treaty.

The word "encourages" can tie mandating the use of one square of toilet paper per visit to the loo. No one is arguing over the statement you made above - what is contentious is your initial statement, that you still have not backed up, that "Pakistan broke a treaty". Pakistan signed no treaty, the treaty does not explicitly require any of the sanctions or punitive measures that were put in place by the US on non-signatories, and even if the US were to claim that the word "encourage" could be interpreted to support the actions it took, the fact that Israel never had the same level of sanctions placed on it points to the double standards adopted by the US, and also invalidates any consistent interpretation of the treaty that you could claim was applicable.

In essence - The US did not drop support of Pakistan because it "broke a treaty", but because it chose to use double standards, and discriminate against specific countries.

Given the number of weapons involved and massive and redundant measure in place to make sure that they all got delivered mankind would have been dead.

Can we be certain that their were weapons targeted at every single country in the world? Which, if it is the case, would indicate where the true "evildoers" really live.

What would the fallout area of the largest weapon delivered be? And does it matter to the rest of the world if the Soviets and Americans nuked New York and Moscow several times over? The amount of area affected is not going to change, whether you nuked DC once or ten times.

The GCC, France, USSR, US- the world really didn't like Iran.

And that absolves you from your role in supporting a bloodthirsty dictator how? Mind you I am not a fan of the rest of the imperialist bandwagon you mentioned either.

How did we create Israel, the situation in Bosnia or Kosovo etc?

You mean to tell me that the single most powerful country after the second world war had no influence in the creation of Israel?

The US was the first country to recognize Israel, only minutes after it was officially created in 1948, consistent with a 1922 Congressional resolution backing the League of Nations mandate for a Jewish homeland in Palestine.

 

[zraver]

The word "encourages" can tie mandating the use of one square of toilet paper per visit to the loo. No one is arguing over the statement you made above - what is contentious is your initial statement, that you still have not backed up, that "Pakistan broke a treaty". Pakistan signed no treaty, the treaty does not explicitly require any of the sanctions or punitive measures that were put in place by the US on non-signatories, and even if the US were to claim that the word "encourage" could be interpreted to support the actions it took, the fact that Israel never had the same level of sanctions placed on it points to the double standards adopted by the US, and also invalidates any consistent interpretation of the treaty that you could claim was applicable.

Pakistan did not end up under sanctions until she detonated the bomb and made it impossible for the US to ignore. Israel keeps quiet, thats the differance.

In essence - The US did not drop support of Pakistan because it "broke a treaty", but because it chose to use double standards, and discriminate against specific countries.

Pakistan acted, the US reacted.

Can we be certain that their were weapons targeted at every single country in the world? Which, if it is the case, would indicate where the true "evildoers" really live.

IIRC form my days in the Army, if at the height of the Cold War, it had gone thermonuclear. The bombs would have glassed 2% of the surface of the earth. The fallout would have covered another 20%, the problem is that is where 80% of the worlds population lives. After the direct and secondary effects tertiary effects like a nuclear winter, collapse of aid and food shipments to the 3rd world, collapse of trade and energy distribution networks ect would have killed a large amount of the survivors and knocked Humanity as whole backwards by 1000 years.

And that absolves you from your role in supporting a bloodthirsty dictator how? Mind you I am not a fan of the rest of the imperialist bandwagon you mentioned either.

When Elephants dance, mice get squished. Ultimately America or any nation is only responsible to its own people. After them come allies, then strangley enough enemies because of international laws on war and conflict. Only after these do pawns and got-in-the-ways have any bearing.

You mean to tell me that the single most powerful country after the second world war had no influence in the creation of Israel?

Palestine was a British Mandate, most immigration occurred while the US was isolationist and was recognized by the UN.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Pakistan did not end up under sanctions until she detonated the bomb and made it impossible for the US to ignore. Israel keeps quiet, thats the differance.

Pakistan acted, the US reacted.

I was referring to the sanctions in place before the detonations - Pressler etc. - At which point Pakistan had not detonated, and neither had Israel, yet Pakistan got singled out.

With respect to the sanctions after the tests - those too were under domestic US laws, and cannot be justified from the standpoint of "breaking treaties". I have no doubt though that were Israel to conduct tests, the US would find a way to justify them, and waive sanctions, by bringing up the "big bad Arab threat". Though the equivalence between India and Pakistan, in punitive sanctions, at least indicated some semblance of consistency.

IIRC form my days in the Army, if at the height of the Cold War, it had gone thermonuclear. The bombs would have glassed 2% of the surface of the earth. The fallout would have covered another 20%, the problem is that is where 80% of the worlds population lives. After the direct and secondary effects tertiary effects like a nuclear winter, collapse of aid and food shipments to the 3rd world, collapse of trade and energy distribution networks ect would have killed a large amount of the survivors and knocked Humanity as whole backwards by 1000 years.

Interesting. I wasn't aware the fallout would actually cover 20 percent of the world, should have been a good incentive against interventionist policies I say.

When Elephants dance, mice get squished. Ultimately America or any nation is only responsible to its own people. After them come allies, then strangley enough enemies because of international laws on war and conflict. Only after these do pawns and got-in-the-ways have any bearing.

Realpolitik - I detest the word. It is the final shelter for the argument that loses all moral credibility, and in essence was what I was pointing out to you all along - A "self serving, arrogant, bullying nation" - true you had company, but it seems the US tends to go around tooting its own horn and pretending its **** doesn't stink a tad bit more than anyone else.

So lets be done with this business of scoring points by pretending that "the US did such and such because Pakistan broke treaties and committed genocide" - neither observations that you have proven, and arguments/criticisms that the US has no moral standing to make at any rate.

Palestine was a British Mandate, most immigration occurred while the US was isolationist and was recognized by the UN.

The immigration I have no issue with. If you were to follow the human migration pattern, the entire world was populated starting from one tribe in Africa anyway (or so recent genetic studies indicate) - so who really has any legitimacy to state who is or isn't "an immigrant".

My concern lies more with the actual declaration of the Israeli state, by carving it out of the Arab territories, and to suggest that the UN was in anyway, right after WWII, anything close to an independent body, is being intellectually dishonest. Israel was created because the West decided to create it/acquiesced to its creation whatever. Any interventions from that point on were essentially a result of that "initial intervention", whose problems last to this day - especially as fodder for the AQ types.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

With respect to your claim that all of the interventions were against regimes with little popular support, most Latin Americans would disagree, as would the Iranians. I think rather than list every single intervention gone wrong, which can be obtained by a cursory google search, I'll quote President Taft, whose racist statement while not quite applicable exactly as is today, still finds solace in Realpolitik:

"The day is not far distant when three Stars & Stripes at three equidistant points will mark our territory: one at the North Pole, another at the Panama Canal and the third at the South Pole. The whole hemisphere will be ours in fact as, by virtue of our superiority of race, it already is ours morally."

 

[zraver]

I was referring to the sanctions in place before the detonations - Pressler etc. - At which point Pakistan had not detonated, and neither had Israel, yet Pakistan got singled out.

was not aware of Pressler, reading on it now.


Realpolitik - I detest the word. It is the final shelter for the argument that loses all moral credibility, and in essence was what I was pointing out to you all along - A "self serving, arrogant, bullying nation" - true you had company, but it seems the US tends to go around tooting its own horn and pretending its **** doesn't stink a tad bit more than anyone else. [/quote]

it is not the final argument, but the first reason, except people don't want to hear that thier nation is a pawn. Pakistani's are just as proud and just as cable of blind spots such as your denial of genocide. So why rub thier faces in it.

So lets be done with this business of scoring points by pretending that "the US did such and such because Pakistan broke treaties and committed genocide" - neither observations that you have proven, and arguments/criticisms that the US has no moral standing to make at any rate.

STATISTICS OF PAKISTAN'S DEMOCIDE

1.5 million dead

America can toot its own horn, we make mistakes and commit crimes, but we are also a force for good.

My concern lies more with the actual declaration of the Israeli state, by carving it out of the Arab territories, and to suggest that the UN was in anyway, right after WWII, anything close to an independent body, is being intellectually dishonest. Israel was created because the West decided to create it/acquiesced to its creation whatever. Any interventions from that point on were essentially a result of that "initial intervention", whose problems last to this day - especially as fodder for the AQ types.

How are they Arab lands? Were they not gained in conquest? From the inheritors of the Romans who had kicked the Jews out.

The USSR was hardly a US rubber stamp in 1947.And yet the USSR was the second nation to recognize Israel. Although this may have been vengeance on the Arab's for supporting Hitler and sending a legion to fight in Russia.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

it is not the final argument, but the first reason, except people don't want to hear that thier nation is a pawn. Pakistani's are just as proud and just as cable of blind spots such as your denial of genocide. So why rub thier faces in it.

If you cannot show how any "treaty was broken", if you cannot conclusively prove genocide (again, the thread link I posted earlier discusses it quite thoroughly, and any points you want to make on that issue can be made there, if they haven't been addressed already), then there is no moral, ethical or legal justification for your initial statement.

"Rubbing someones face in" seems to be a antic perfected by the Americans, oblivious of their own history of immorality and destruction in dealing with nations and peoples, both on the land they currently call home, and on others. Who else goes around admonishing other countries on this that or the other, when they themselves have far more skeletons in their closet? A little humility and circumspection is all that is asked.

America can toot its own horn, we make mistakes and commit crimes, but we are also a force for good.

And how would that statement be any different if uttered by Hitler? "Yes we committed crimes (holocaust), and invaded other nations (realpolitik), but we did it as a force for good!"

That particular elephant just happened to be on the losing side. The genocide in Guatemala, conducted by forces supported by the US - The atrocities and murders committed by the Samoza's, Pinochet's and Noriega's - The Germans did it themselves, you did it through proxies - Realpolitik at its best.

How are they Arab lands? Were they not gained in conquest? From the inheritors of the Romans who had kicked the Jews out.

How is any land anyones? Who owns the United States then? Latin America? As I said, there was nothing wrong with the Jews immigrating, purchasing land and settling, but to then create a new state out of it would be the equivalent of creating independent nations out of the Hispanic majority areas in the US. Or are we simply down to "might is right" - I conquered you therefore I own you? If the latter case, then back we go into the immoral refuge of "realpolitik", and there go any shreds of "morality" and "force for good" that could be claimed.

The USSR was hardly a US rubber stamp in 1947.And yet the USSR was the second nation to recognize Israel. Although this may have been vengeance on the Arab's for supporting Hitler and sending a legion to fight in Russia.

The primary movement, support and "lobby" for this was all in Western Europe and the US (closer to the establishment of the state). What you say, about the legion, might be true, or it could simply be a case of letting the US and Britain do whatever they wanted with an insignificant area of land. Hey, they all found a great way to get rid of the Jews without using Hitlers methodology. Whatever the case, it essentially suggests that the US, Britain and France had Carte Blanche in the UN, on this issue, and they used the authority to create Israel.

 

[roadrunner]

STATISTICS OF PAKISTAN'S DEMOCIDE

1.5 million dead

Just a note on Rummel's calculation method. Rummel's method of research for calculating his 1.5 million figure was to use newspapers (at least half of which were Indian), and then calculate an average of these figures. The table below is from a link on the page you give (table 8.2). Take a look at his sources.



http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.TAB8.2.GIF

Notice how all the Indian authors are towards the bottom of the table with highly inflated figures. One of the figures quotes 8,000,000 Bangladeshi dead! (that of Chandra at the bottom). All of these he has used in his "estimation" using his "consolidation" approach, even the ridiculous figures. How is it scientific to take a selection of propagandist newspapers predominantly from one side (one reference to ZAB at the top quoting 50k), and then to derive a figure from these? Is it any wonder no serious researcher convened a meeting to listen to the results of his research, like they did for Sarmilla Bose? I can understand you're bias in what you say and the reasons for it, but so far you're either quoting fictitiously or giving hopelessly outdated, weak references that no serious scholar has considered creditable.