Decius wrote:

Mike the Usurper wrote:
The Clinton measures added after the 1998 test were gone.

I just sent you a link to the removal of a "Clinton measure" in 2005. If all of the "Clinton measures" were removed in 2001, how is it possible that some were removed in 2005? It simply is more complicated then you are implying. Furthermore, it is misleading to call them "Clinton measures" as they were required by various international treaties not all of which he personally signed. There were a complex set of sanctions that were removed at various points over a period of years as the result of negotiations by the Indian government and various concessions that they made to the United States. Some of the sanctions are still in place today. Its not like Bush showed up in office and said "woo hoo lets get rid of all the sanctions!" for no other reason than he is "bat shit crazy." A detailed timeline up to 2005 is here with some more current information here.

Tom, those aren't what we're talking about. That's a side issue with NPT, not the sanctions put in place in response to the 1998 test. Under NPT, aid to some locations is going to be flat out barred because of dual-use issues. What your link is about is the reclassifying of some Indian nuclear facilities as non-dual use and thus cleared for assistance. The Russians are taking the exact same approach in their work with the Iranians.

This is apples and oranges. Equating them is like equating the technology restrictions on trade with the Soviet Union and the grain embargo and Olympic boycott Carter did after the USSR invaded Afghanistan. Just because it deals with the same country, they do not exist for the same reasons, which you would be aware of if you'd read the link I provided on this. Or maybe, if you'd read your own link you would have seen this.

September 2001: U.S. President George W. Bush waives U.S. economic sanctions against India and Pakistan originally imposed as a penalty for their nuclear weapons tests conducted in 1998. The New York Times suggests that the United States undertook this measure to reward those nations assisting in the "war on terrorism."

Are there more complications? Sure. Is my assessment of the intent of the Bush Administration overly simplistic? Vaguely, in the sense that I don't get into the motives of people like the folks who put together PNAC but the bottom line is, they want to start another war, this one with Iran, and they're using the nuclear issue as the wedge just as they used WMDs five years ago.

RE: Bush: Threat of World War III if Iran goes nuclear - Yahoo! News