It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

U.S' new heartache: Venezuelan Nuclear Ambitions

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 03:48 AM
link   
Iran has been criticized by the U.S, notably, and the international community for engaging in nuclear programs that is in violation of the international law. Now, Venezuela, a nation that has no reports of harbouring terrorist, funding terrorist or having an "evil" administration is having plans to build a nuclear power plant. Hence, the nuclear programs is again under heat by the U.S.

U.S Criticizes Chavez for Nuke Ambitions



President Bush begins several weeks of almost constant foreign travel today, heading to South America as the White House tries to discourage Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's nuclear ambitions.

"It would be problematic for Chavez to be in the nuclear business," National Security Adviser Stephen J. Hadley said yesterday. "We want to make sure that nuclear power is handled in a responsible way and does not contribute to concerns about proliferation and, ultimately, nuclear weapons."

On Tuesday, Mr. Bush expressed skepticism about Mr. Chavez's request for the Argentine government to build a nuclear power plant in Venezuela. He questioned why Venezuela, which is awash in oil, would need nuclear power.

"If I were a taxpayer in Venezuela, I would wonder about the energy supply that Venezuela has," the president told foreign reporters in advance of today's trip to Argentina.


Same goes for Iran which is rich in natural resources but they still want to have a nuclear power plant. It seems one nation after another wants a nuclear power plant in their soil. I wonder why...

Frankly, I wouldn't be surprise if U.S is to be more lenient to Venezuela as compared to the "evil" Iran.

What action(s) do you think the U.S will most likely take? Is it the same stance it took as for Iran's case?

[edit on 4/11/05 by Heartagram]




posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 04:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Heartagrama nation that has no reports of harbouring terrorist, funding terrorist or having an "evil" administration


yes it does- farc, farc and depends how you view chaves....



posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 04:25 AM
link   
It seems the Pentagon is not drawing up any military plans against Venezuela. Don't you think it's strange that they didn't do so for Iran and Venezuela but takes a harder and more rigid stance against Iran. Maybe the U.S doesn't see Venezuela as a big threat as Iran is.



WASHINGTON - Pentagon spokesmen Wednesday reacted with deep skepticism to an American defense analyst's claim that the Department of Defense is drawing up plans for a potential military conflict with Venezuela's leftist President Hugo Chávez.

William Arkin, a former Army intelligence officer and author of more than 10 books on military affairs, posted a story on his Internet blog Tuesday saying the Pentagon has begun ''contingency planning'' for Venezuela as part of a broad review of defense strategy.

Arkin cited ''internal documents'' used to plan for the Quadrennial Defense Review, a road map prepared every four years to guide defense planners on future capabilities and needs.

If true, Arkin's report would add fuel to Chávez's repeated allegations that the Bush administration is planning to assassinate him or invade his country because of his leftist policies. U.S. officials routinely deny the complaints as lies put out by Chávez to promote his image as a leftist populist.

Pentagon : Conflict Plan Unlikely


Originally posted by namehere
yes it does- farc, farc and depends how you view chaves....


Well, I think Bush views Chavez in many different angles and perspectives unlike the way he looks at Ahmadinejad. Noooo..that Ahmadinejad is evil!





[edit on 4/11/05 by Heartagram]



posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 06:14 AM
link   
Won't see much, if any, criticism of Venezuelan nuclear plans as the country is not strategically important to a "Greater Israel"


NR

posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 06:19 AM
link   
Venezuela has every right for nuclear power plants, i said this so many times and i'll say it again Bush has no right going around and telling ccountrys if they can or cant have a nuclear program god i'm gettin tired of this same BS.



posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 06:33 AM
link   
Keep in mind that the Pentagon has contingency plans for every nation on earth, so I wouldn't worry about it.

Bush and Chavez should run into each other sometime this weekend durring the summit meetings. I had to laugh at Chavez saying that Bush was afraid of him.


NR

posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 06:38 AM
link   
to tell you the truth, i actually want to see a real fight between bush and chavez. Who do you think would win?


[edit on 4-11-2005 by NR]



posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 06:39 AM
link   
Let's see the list..We have..

1) Iran
2) North Korea
3) Venezuela

I wonder if the list goes on in the coming future. Maybe some time later Pakistan will be in it since they have nukes and are not a signatory of the NPT.

What I think is U.S is being paranoid with the fact that more and more countries are popping up and saying they want nuclear power(for peaceful use, of course). Wake up and smell the coffee! U.S has them and Israel secretly has them and the U.S "legalise" it. What a load of BS.


NR

posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 06:42 AM
link   
U.S. has 12,000 nukes hell even more and they are complaining about Iran having nuclear energy despite were still under the supervision of Russia,China and IAEA



posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 06:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Keep in mind that the Pentagon has contingency plans for every nation on earth, so I wouldn't worry about it.


Yes, true but isn't contigency plan and a military conflict plan is different?

Me. I'd just love to see Bush in boxing shorts and shouting "yeehaaa!".



posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 06:45 AM
link   
Well, let me ask you. Would you agree that it is ok for a nation to build nuclear reactors for energy needs but not for bombs?

How can the rest of the world be sure that you are not secretly ramping up to build nuclear weapons? Inspections, of course.

Would you agree that inspections should be part of a nuclear program for any nation?


NR

posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 06:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Well, let me ask you. Would you agree that it is ok for a nation to build nuclear reactors for energy needs but not for bombs?

How can the rest of the world be sure that you are not secretly ramping up to build nuclear weapons? Inspections, of course.

Would you agree that inspections should be part of a nuclear program for any nation?


Yes pretty obviously, what difference does it make though if you have nuclear power plants or just want a nuclear weapons arsenal because every single country one day will have nukes but yes inspections should be part of it but in reality its not because that hasnt been happening to Israel or other countrys so why would we listen and go along with it when others arent doing it?.



posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 06:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by NR
U.S. has 12,000 nukes hell even more and they are complaining about Iran having nuclear energy despite were still under the supervision of Russia,China and IAEA


Under the NPT, they encourage disarmament of nuclear weapons but I have yet to see U.S or any other nuclear capable countries do so. Signing the NPT just makes them "legal" to have nukes temporarily. Probably some very very fine print somewhere on the bottom that states "we'll disarm them. Later."



posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 06:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Would you agree that inspections should be part of a nuclear program for any nation?


Hell yeah. I don't suppose Iran having Russian and IAEA supervision would need much more supervision right? Maybe some would see it as incomplete supervision because there is no U.S.

Having nuclear plant and having nuclear weapons has very little differences. There is a very fine thin red line that differentiates the two. However, even if Iran were to build nukes, I think they're sane enough to know nobody, in the atomic age, has the freaking guts to shoot one. Not even the Iranians.

[edit on 4/11/05 by Heartagram]


NR

posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 06:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Heartagram

Originally posted by jsobecky
Would you agree that inspections should be part of a nuclear program for any nation?


Hell yeah. I don't suppose Iran having Russian and IAEA supervision would need much more supervision right? Maybe some would see it as incomplete supervision because there is no U.S.

Having nuclear plant and having nuclear weapons has very little differences. There is a very fine thin red line that differentiates the two. However, even if Iran were to build nukes, I think they're sane enough to know nobody, in the atomic age, has the freaking guts to shoot one.



Exactly, We arent a attacking nation more like defending, dont you think if we wanted to destroy Israel we could of done it already by Shahabs and other types of missiles but we dont want to, i'm sure ahmedinjad likes to say words that will make his presidential election better or some attention. He is after all a president....



posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 07:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by NR
U.S. has 12,000 nukes hell even more and they are complaining about Iran having nuclear energy despite were still under the supervision of Russia,China and IAEA

When it comes to nuclear, please remember that having 100 or 1000 really will not matter. Once the first one flies, it will set off a chain reaction, and we can all say goodbye; the world will end as we know it.

As somebody once said: The living will envy the dead.

I don't want that. I don't know anybody that does want that. But can we just allow every nation to have a nuclear program? Of course not.

Here's a link to a short article about ElBaradei pleading for the world to give Iran more time to comply with inspections. The next step is the UN Security Council slapping sanctions on them, which will elevate tensions. Diplomacy is fine, but when your president talks about driving nations into the ocean, we wonder how committed he is to peace. Even ElBaradei mentions those comments.
IAEA


NR

posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 07:02 AM
link   
we made a comment about saying Israel shouldnt exist but we did not use any threats, sure our president is a stupid idiot but hey that comes around to every single country including the U.S. (Bush).



posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Heartagram
Hell yeah. I don't suppose Iran having Russian and IAEA supervision would need much more supervision right? Maybe some would see it as incomplete supervision because there is no U.S.

The US doesn't need to be part of the inspection team. Just make it fair, and not include allies of Iran only.


Having nuclear plant and having nuclear weapons has very little differences. There is a very fine thin red line that differentiates the two. However, even if Iran were to build nukes, I think they're sane enough to know nobody, in the atomic age, has the freaking guts to shoot one. Not even the Iranians.

That is the only bit of insurance that the world has - the sanity of its' leaders.

I have heard people say that all nations should be permitted to have nuclear programs. That's ridiculous. We can all name at least one madman dictator that we cannot trust.

[edit on 4-11-2005 by jsobecky]



posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 07:11 AM
link   

we made a comment about saying Israel shouldnt exist but we did not use any threats, sure our president is a stupid idiot but hey that comes around to every single country including the U.S. (Bush)

We're not innocent. Just recently, we had one of our religous leaders say that Chavez should be assassinated.



posted on Nov, 5 2005 @ 07:40 AM
link   
Chavez started becoming more and more anti-Bush as he goes on protesting with millions of other to stop the FTAA in Americas. I surely hope Chavez won't be the next target on Bushie's hate list.

Summi t Protest Turns Violents in Argentina



MAR DEL PLATA, Argentina - More than 1,000 demonstrators angry about President Bush's policies clashed with police, shattered storefronts and torched businesses Friday, marring the inauguration of the Summit of the Americas as leaders began debating creation of one of the world's largest free trade zones.

ADVERTISEMENT

The violence reflected the often violent, worldwide debate on free trade as the United States and Mexico pushed to relaunch talks on creating a free trade area stretching from Canada to Chile. Past summits on free trade — including last year's summit of Asian-Pacific leaders in Chile — have drawn bitter opposition and similar angry protests.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez emerged as the most strident opponent of the plan, addressing more than 10,000 protesters hours before the summit convened in this normally tranquil seaside resort.

Chavez vowed to defeat the Free Trade Area of the Americas, or FTAA, once and for all. Speaking before a six-story banner of revolutionary Che Guevara, Chavez urged the throng — including soccer great Diego Maradona and Bolivian presidential hopeful Evo Morales — to help him fight free trade.

"Only united can we defeat imperialism and bring our people a better life," he said, adding: "Here, in Mar del Plata, FTAA will be buried!"

Before Chavez's speech, demonstrators flooded the streets, shouting "Get out Bush!" and "Fascist Bush! You are the terrorist!"


Hopefully, this doesn't give Bush a hidden agenda to motivate him to stop the Venezuelan President using the Venezuelan's nuclear programs plan as a cover.

[edit on 5/11/05 by Heartagram]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join