English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Bush just signed an agreement that enables the United States to share its nuclear technology with India. What gives Bush the right to make this critical and potentially-consequential decision? What ever happened to the non-proliferation agreement? Does the world really need another country with nuclear weapons?

2006-12-19 08:37:02 · 16 answers · asked by Hemingway 4 in Politics & Government Politics

To Rustyshackleford: So the definition of "good guys" and "bad guys" is based solely on the opinion of George Bush?! Brilliant conclusion. Are you really that naïve or so blinded by your perverse sense of patriotism that you really believe our leaders are lily-white?

2006-12-19 08:55:30 · update #1

Yes, everyone knows that India has nuclear weapons. I get it! But why would we promote and encourage greater technology with the potential of more powerful weapons?

2006-12-19 09:02:48 · update #2

16 answers

He seems to think that it is his job to regulate every country in the world, and that's the kind of thinking that got us into the middle of an ongoing war and has destroyed our reputation all around the world.

2006-12-19 08:41:23 · answer #1 · answered by pctorab 4 · 3 3

India already has nukes so I'm not sure what they are sharing. But in general terms, Bush is a president without equal in the fact that he believes Everything he says and does is correct.
See this website for more information: http://www.3bagsofpopcorn.com/pop.html

2006-12-19 08:41:02 · answer #2 · answered by Kwan Kong 5 · 2 1

Because he is still the President.

He has the right and the authority to sign treaties with other countries, right up until January 19, 2009.

2006-12-19 08:45:52 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

in case you elect severe solutions then do no longer ask it right here. additionally do no longer make your question a comedian tale the two. historic previous will practice if President Bush did the the suitable option element. it relatively relies upon on the way it comes out with Islamic extremists. i will no longer be able to make the judgement now. with that reported listed under are some issues amazing others have reported in regards to the Bush administration. possibly it is going to help others verify. LIBERATED 50 MILLION MUSLIMS FROM TYRANNY Afghanistan freed from Taliban Rule loose Elections in Afghanistan IRAQ freed from murderous dictator loose Elections in Iraq Saddam Hussein, a shown supporter of terrorism and a frontrunner who more advantageous and used WMD, isn't any longer RULING A united states of america! His 2 murderous sons killed Zarqawi ineffective seventy 5% of often happening AlQaeda leaders captured or killed Lybia palms over weapons with no shot being fired Syria craps its pants and withdraws from Lebanon after 29 years Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and UAE now allies in combat against terrorism Ukraine has democratic elections Egypt has democratic elections with females vote casting for first time N Korea provides up its nuclear software 9/eleven Mastermind Kalid Sheik Muhammed anticipating trial No significant Terrorist assaults on U.S. Soil because 9/eleven forty 3 minutes in the past Taxes below Clinton 1999 Taxes below Bush 2008 unmarried making 30K - tax $8,4 hundred unmarried making 30K - tax $4,500 unmarried making 50K - tax $14,000 unmarried making 50K - tax $12,500 unmarried making 75K - tax $23,250 unmarried making 75K – tax $18,750 Married making 60K - tax $sixteen,800 Married making 60K – tax $9,000 Married making 75K - tax $21,000 Married making 75K - tax $18,750 Married making 125K - tax $38,750 Married making 125K – tax $31,250 I

2016-10-15 06:25:49 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Except the U.S. and India aren't threatening anyone with those weapons.

Nuclear build up was a big part in the collapse of the Soviet Union. Reagan knew that the Soviets couldn't keep up, and he was right.

2006-12-19 08:44:45 · answer #5 · answered by C = JD 5 · 1 2

Because there are good guys in this world and there are bad guys. India is one of the good guys. There is no moral equivalency between India and Iran or North Korea.

The argument you've made sounds like the same argument for banning ALL firearms because, after all, who are we to differentiate between who can and can't have them? Just like guns, if you don't allow the good guys to have nukes, only the bad guys will have them.

EDIT: No, it's not up to george Bush. He just recognizes who the good guys and bad guys are, as do all other people who don't subscribe to moral relativism.

2006-12-19 08:40:51 · answer #6 · answered by rustyshackleford001 5 · 3 4

NEWS FLASH: INDIA HAS THE BOMB

They've had it for a while. Roughly the same time as Pakistan.

2006-12-19 08:52:29 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

India already has nuclear capability.

2006-12-19 08:41:33 · answer #8 · answered by MoltarRocks 7 · 2 0

We have always been the world's watchdog.. . .. . and will continue to do so .

The very fact that you even asked this question, implies that you don't have much of a historical background !! Not even a thirty year, historical background !!

There's much more to the answer, but first UNDERSTAND history !!

2006-12-19 08:44:07 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

Because he is the most intelligent man in the world and he will decide who needs to have nukes, If a retard can go around nuking everyone then our President can give the technology to anyone he wants to!!

2006-12-19 08:40:57 · answer #10 · answered by SICKO 2 4 · 1 5

fedest.com, questions and answers