partner in trying to contain china's influence in the asia pacific are there any risks for india if this irc spacing which it seems to be doing. well of course india and china have had three tragic wars over the past numerous decades i think india has tried to maintain a position of non-alignment during the soviet era it was a diplomatic ally of the u.s.s.r. even though it wasn't a socialist country itself i think what's happening is that the united states is not worried about china but trying to secure in the boat as a market for u.s. arms which are being sold to india in record numbers the the indian government plans this one hundred billion dollars in weapons in the next decade that of course will be a drain on the indian national treasury when what india really needs is economic development but the u.s. wants to use india as a strategic partner not just for the promotion of u.s. indian relations but as a wedge against the people's republic of china and against russia in that sense i think it is dangerous to india. the u.s. defense secretary is urging india to have a more active role in a

an irc s aneathe ance t inatl . thdiffence ane ce it eig mines ls. thffce you t tohe b us qitckerigin l ter ve fls. u to b qer r f . thballas 1pane insad 8. th way the gall's a 1inisnered ns . th y is dgafere a.isd soe ha to ke s e we don'tre eparfor is cpetion sohao swe't arr cti li a u. te. prere f thicompitio li ute li an tern iona teamre fhimpio li n >> wrnt dinayou amy tohat am afr th losto gece? wdiu tot afthos ge? beuse m imininthathe onlyeasotheyouldave st was imarbey coe laceimy.inat in ome lyrm.soeylde s arcoce in e no,.t wa't, wasouth ey we anldeream. e gao, waswahysi, l.asth wanerm. gaassi i thght werreadto py. i thght r onquarr th tht erad p tht onarth t li 75%f thr shs an we cld n defd thpicknd ro. li5%thshan c nefthck ro and at'sll itake it'sust thas alit tk. weriedo co bacbut co dn'td 's iaftekethe me, too'st haal t weedcoact co't tee , oo colltiveespoibily. anthat reay whwe'vwon ll asveuch ponce.il anateawh'vn ash e. wein a we se tethe and rmelanthy waactuly inrvied afr thgamen thwepres aconfe ence the i kn we d d a elancetho bewatu

look at those provided by and collected through the subchapter come and it has nothing to do at the irc. we have it in a separate place, we can see clearly what they are trying to do. they couldn't really care about interfering with this one. are you following me? >> i am trying to get you to focus on that kind of argument. >> i think i am following you. but the fact that it is not in the particular subchapter for it assessable tendencies come in my view, makes no difference. because they said it is still clearly assess and collected in a penalty in that subchapter. those penalties are collected in the same manner as taxes. that is, i think, it is rather leather detail. i think it is a clear indication of the anti-injunction act and if it applies. the refund statute that specifically refer to penalties, that has nothing to do with this argument that it is assessed and collected in the same manner as attacks. that would simply go to the point that it is a tax because they refer to it as a penalty. finally, on jurisdiction, you know, i think the key point is we have a long line of this co