Comments on: Response to CPI(M) Objections against the Indo-US Nuclear Deal http://skeptic.skepticgeek.com/2007/09/01/response-to-cpim-objections-against-the-indo-us-nuclear-deal/ ...reason and emotion, shaken and stirred... Tue, 23 Feb 2010 05:23:57 +0530 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Blogging Highlights of 2009, Challenges & Thoughts for 2010 | An Unquiet Mind http://skeptic.skepticgeek.com/2007/09/01/response-to-cpim-objections-against-the-indo-us-nuclear-deal/#comment-3558 Blogging Highlights of 2009, Challenges & Thoughts for 2010 | An Unquiet Mind Tue, 08 Dec 2009 06:50:13 +0000 http://skeptic.skepticgeek.com/2007/09/01/response-to-cpim-objections-against-the-indo-us-nuclear-deal/#comment-3558 [...] effort and time into serious blogging for Indian Mutiny, particularly with my posts surrounding the Indo-US Nuclear Deal. Once bitten, twice shy, I have stayed away from networks like DesiPundit, DesiCritics, and [...] [...] effort and time into serious blogging for Indian Mutiny, particularly with my posts surrounding the Indo-US Nuclear Deal. Once bitten, twice shy, I have stayed away from networks like DesiPundit, DesiCritics, and [...]

]]> By: Sathish http://skeptic.skepticgeek.com/2007/09/01/response-to-cpim-objections-against-the-indo-us-nuclear-deal/#comment-918 Sathish Fri, 25 Jul 2008 12:44:54 +0000 http://skeptic.skepticgeek.com/2007/09/01/response-to-cpim-objections-against-the-indo-us-nuclear-deal/#comment-918 Of course some of the CPI's complaints are unfounded but so are most of your explanations too. Yes I agree they have used Hyde and 123 interchangably - but once you had established that in the 2nd point or so, you could have moved on to answer the content of their complains rather than the context of their claims. You conveniently ignored CPI's explanation for item 9 - where they have meant to say that Hyde requires such a thing and the 123 does nothing to stop it. I believe its very convenient for the US to have tied a local regulation to an international treaty and foolish of indians to have agreed to something as vague as "will be subject to the Parties’ respective applicable laws, regulations, and license policies"!!! If the US president is not able to report to Congress as per Hyde that India is in full compliance, the above statement allows US without any liability to stop their end of the obligations in the treaty... Of course some of the CPI’s complaints are unfounded but so are most of your explanations too. Yes I agree they have used Hyde and 123 interchangably – but once you had established that in the 2nd point or so, you could have moved on to answer the content of their complains rather than the context of their claims. You conveniently ignored CPI’s explanation for item 9 – where they have meant to say that Hyde requires such a thing and the 123 does nothing to stop it. I believe its very convenient for the US to have tied a local regulation to an international treaty and foolish of indians to have agreed to something as vague as “will be subject to the Parties’ respective applicable laws, regulations, and license policies”!!! If the US president is not able to report to Congress as per Hyde that India is in full compliance, the above statement allows US without any liability to stop their end of the obligations in the treaty…

]]> By: mahendrap http://skeptic.skepticgeek.com/2007/09/01/response-to-cpim-objections-against-the-indo-us-nuclear-deal/#comment-913 mahendrap Tue, 04 Sep 2007 10:11:24 +0000 http://skeptic.skepticgeek.com/2007/09/01/response-to-cpim-objections-against-the-indo-us-nuclear-deal/#comment-913 A certain 'somebody' has been trying to post comments to this post. The 'comments' have been a copy-paste of clauses/sections of the Hyde Act, with follow-up comments asking me to 'respond' to the 'questions'. An earlier post, this one, and the one following this, make it amply clear that we need not be worried about the Hyde Act. If any reader fails to understand this, even after reading my posts, I'll prefer agreeing to disagree. However, simply copy-pasting Hyde Act clauses and expecting a response is not what I consider as a valid way to comment, and hence such comments have been deleted. I encourage reasoned debate (as anyone following my blog will agree), and have kept comments unmoderated. Please help me to make it stay that way. Thank you. A certain ’somebody’ has been trying to post comments to this post. The ‘comments’ have been a copy-paste of clauses/sections of the Hyde Act, with follow-up comments asking me to ‘respond’ to the ‘questions’.

An earlier post, this one, and the one following this, make it amply clear that we need not be worried about the Hyde Act. If any reader fails to understand this, even after reading my posts, I’ll prefer agreeing to disagree. However, simply copy-pasting Hyde Act clauses and expecting a response is not what I consider as a valid way to comment, and hence such comments have been deleted.

I encourage reasoned debate (as anyone following my blog will agree), and have kept comments unmoderated. Please help me to make it stay that way. Thank you.

]]> By: India-US 123: we can run but can we ‘Hyde’ « “me no big chief… http://skeptic.skepticgeek.com/2007/09/01/response-to-cpim-objections-against-the-indo-us-nuclear-deal/#comment-912 India-US 123: we can run but can we ‘Hyde’ « “me no big chief… Sat, 01 Sep 2007 23:54:59 +0000 http://skeptic.skepticgeek.com/2007/09/01/response-to-cpim-objections-against-the-indo-us-nuclear-deal/#comment-912 [...] intelligent people, as their main argument in response to the “Left’s” concerns, convincingly says How can a requirement between the US President and the US Congress be a part of an international [...] [...] intelligent people, as their main argument in response to the “Left’s” concerns, convincingly says How can a requirement between the US President and the US Congress be a part of an international [...]

]]> By: mahendrap http://skeptic.skepticgeek.com/2007/09/01/response-to-cpim-objections-against-the-indo-us-nuclear-deal/#comment-911 mahendrap Sat, 01 Sep 2007 16:15:51 +0000 http://skeptic.skepticgeek.com/2007/09/01/response-to-cpim-objections-against-the-indo-us-nuclear-deal/#comment-911 Rambodoc: Career in politics?! I'll have to search for a way to break the law first! ;-) Nita: Thank you. I've been taking a lot of effort on this subject ever since I wrote on Mutiny, because it is easy to question something; it's much more difficult to answer! Paul: Thank you. Your appreciation means a lot to me. I really mean this. Rambodoc: Career in politics?! I’ll have to search for a way to break the law first! ;-)

Nita: Thank you. I’ve been taking a lot of effort on this subject ever since I wrote on Mutiny, because it is easy to question something; it’s much more difficult to answer!

Paul: Thank you. Your appreciation means a lot to me. I really mean this.

]]> By: Paul Sunstone http://skeptic.skepticgeek.com/2007/09/01/response-to-cpim-objections-against-the-indo-us-nuclear-deal/#comment-914 Paul Sunstone Sat, 01 Sep 2007 11:34:52 +0000 http://skeptic.skepticgeek.com/2007/09/01/response-to-cpim-objections-against-the-indo-us-nuclear-deal/#comment-914 Mahendra, thank you for this extraordinarily informative post! Mahendra, thank you for this extraordinarily informative post!

]]> By: Nita http://skeptic.skepticgeek.com/2007/09/01/response-to-cpim-objections-against-the-indo-us-nuclear-deal/#comment-917 Nita Sat, 01 Sep 2007 11:10:00 +0000 http://skeptic.skepticgeek.com/2007/09/01/response-to-cpim-objections-against-the-indo-us-nuclear-deal/#comment-917 You have taken a lot of effort over this post. Anyone looking for a comprehensive understanding of the subject should certainly look this post up. You have taken a lot of effort over this post. Anyone looking for a comprehensive understanding of the subject should certainly look this post up.

]]> By: rambodoc http://skeptic.skepticgeek.com/2007/09/01/response-to-cpim-objections-against-the-indo-us-nuclear-deal/#comment-916 rambodoc Sat, 01 Sep 2007 10:01:12 +0000 http://skeptic.skepticgeek.com/2007/09/01/response-to-cpim-objections-against-the-indo-us-nuclear-deal/#comment-916 Great going, mate! Why don't you think of a career in politics? You have one vote sealed up already! Great going, mate!
Why don’t you think of a career in politics?
You have one vote sealed up already!

]]> By: The Great Indian Mutiny » Response to CPI(M) Objections against the Indo-US Nuclear Deal http://skeptic.skepticgeek.com/2007/09/01/response-to-cpim-objections-against-the-indo-us-nuclear-deal/#comment-915 The Great Indian Mutiny » Response to CPI(M) Objections against the Indo-US Nuclear Deal Sat, 01 Sep 2007 09:40:01 +0000 http://skeptic.skepticgeek.com/2007/09/01/response-to-cpim-objections-against-the-indo-us-nuclear-deal/#comment-915 [...] (Crossposted) (Not rated yet) [...] [...] (Crossposted) (Not rated yet) [...]

]]>