But the agreement is full of contradictions....

Mark Silva writes for the Chicago Tribune: "The agreement spells out how India, a fast-growing economic power which never has signed an international nuclear nonproliferation treaty, will separate its civilian nuclear power-generators from a military weapons program that tested its first atomic bombs in 1976 and tested again as recently as 1998.

"This is what will make the deal between Bush and Singh a tough-sell in Congress, where critics question why they should allow an exception for India. American law prohibits the U.S. from sharing its nuclear technology with nations that have not signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which more than 170 nations have signed, or with nations that have tested nuclear weapons."

Deb Riechmann writes for the Associated Press: "Critics said the deal undermines the Nuclear Nonproliferation Agreement, which India won't sign. And they say it sends the wrong signal to leaders of North Korea and Iran, who have snubbed their noses at international calls to halt their nuclear weapons programs. . . .



>>>If Iran creates a bomb, how hard do you think it will be to put it on a truck and drive it to Israel? Or Bagdhad? Forget rockets. That's how it will be delivered.
>>Iran can't send a nuclear bomb to Israel. Because Israel have nuclear bombs and they don't need to send them with trains or trucks.
>>Iran says they won't build nuclear guns. However Pakistan and India has noclear rockets. They thread each other frequently with nuclear guns.
>>How you can explain Bush signed an agreement yesterday with India about giving nuclear technology.
>>
>>Isn't it a discrepancy?
>
>No. We are trying to help India with its civilian nuclear program. That is a country of a billion people with little oil reserves - they need the energy. Iran is far, far smaller, with large amounts of oil available. Why do they need nuclear power? Do YOU trust them? I don't. Especially not after the Iranian president said Israel should be destroyed.