Pakistan to set up 2nd uranium enrichment plant

[Officer of Engineers]

Ok, Pakistan and AQ Khan. Iran and Hezbollah. China and the NPT (vis-a-vi Pakistan). Canada and Peacekeeping (ie Afghanistan). Australia and Afghanistan. Most of the ISAF countries in Afghanistan (ie, non-combat roles). UK leaving Iraq. India and the Kashmir vote. Pakistan and Kragil. You want me to go on?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Using agnostic's example of the Land Owner and the Peasant. Yes charity should be offered fairly, but business is done on reality. An outsider, even if he wants to be fair, cannot offer a car on loan to the peasant, while he can to the Land owner. Why ? is he being unfair ? No. Because the LO has something to offer back. The peasant doesn't. India was not offered nuke deal out of charity, but because of what the US can get out of India in return. Its alliance, its business, its clout.

When Pakistan is in a position to offer equal benefits to the US, they will give you a nuclear deal too.

Agnostic, your argument is based on demanding charity not fairness.

Continuing with the allegory of the peasant and the land owner, a bank can choose to approve or deny a car loan based on its definition of financial viability of the entity involved, but, under a principle of fairness, it is still required to offer it to both peasant and landowner. Denying the loan is not being unfair (provided that the standards for approval are not changed for either party), but refusing to make the loan available is.

Going back to the nuclear agreement, Pakistan is not asking for charity. Is India not paying for everything the U.S supplies? This is a commercial agreement, if Pakistan can afford to pay for the plants, and has the requisite tech. base to maintain them, then why the double standards? If the argument of "alliance, business, clout" was true, then the U.S should stop trade with 95 percent of the world, since there are perhaps only a dozen countries that can possibly offer the U.S "alliance, business, clout".

 

[Bull]

A society based on that principle alone is a flawed, unjust society and a world based on that principle is a flawed, unjust world - and while that continues, both will continue to tussle with turmoil as a result of the inherent flaws of such a principle. Just as people will struggle against the injustice of such a society, so should nations.

Interesting how you weave in "communism" to describe equitable treatment. You sound like the republicans here in the U.S who start ranting about socialism and communism when someone suggests universal medical coverage. Nothing like the elite caring naught about those less well off and protesting any change in the status quo.

I wasn't referring to socialists policies when i bought in communism, but the unequal treatment of India and Pakistan. India and Pakistan would be dealth under ' interests' and not under 'communism'.

 

[ahf_nuke1]

You guys are wasting time nothing is going to change. It will all remain like this ...