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.

 

A Troubled Summit

page: 1
7

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 08:10 PM
link   
President Bush and President Putin began the summit today on very shaky ground. It seems there are significant ideological differences in Putin's and Bush's view points on the aggression in the Middle East as well as the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
 



hosted.ap.org
ST. PETERSBURG, Russia (AP) -- In a chilly summit prelude, President Bush blocked Russia's entry into the World Trade Organization on Saturday and President Vladimir Putin mockingly said Moscow doesn't want the kind of violence-plagued democracy the United States has fostered in Iraq.

Alternately joking and poking at each other, the two also showed differences at a news conference on the explosion of violence in the Mideast.

Bush held Israel blameless for its punishing attacks in Lebanon and said it was up to the militant group Hezbollah to lay down its arms. Putin was critical of Israel's use of force and said the violence "should stop as soon as possible."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
At his late-night news conference, Putin indicated that Russia had not changed its opposition to sanctions against Iran, saying "the question is not about toughening our stance, but about finding common approaches." He defended Iran's right to pursue nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.

"We believe that all countries in the world have the right to access high technologies, including nuclear," Putin said.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


That last comment by Putin is very troubling in a world where every dictator or President of every little country is actively attempting to obtain Nuclear Weapons.

With Russia's possession of Nuclear materials and technology, and what would seem to be a readiness to provide this technology, it would seem that it is only a matter of time before more countries also possess nuclear weapons.

Related News Links:
www.cnn.com
www.whitehouse.gov


[edit on 16-7-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]




posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 04:48 PM
link   
the last comment is very very interesting as he mirrors the iranian presidents words and shows aproval this shows he has sympathys with him.



posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 04:51 PM
link   
Agreed and one has to wonder with who else.

It is difficult to comprehend that any major political leader would ever believe that the possession of nuclear weapons by all nations could ever be a good thing.

However what other conclusion can be drawn by that last statement?

Semper



posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 06:11 PM
link   
Nuclear weapons are used to deter countries such as the united states to invade or attack its countries.

Iraq had NO WMD's hence our country's invasion of it. If Iraq did have it, please tell me why they weren't used by Saddam when u.s. forces were on the doorsteps of Baghdad, i mean, the whole point of stockpiling 500 supposed WMD's is to use them against say an enemy invasion in its sovereign country?

You guys are all afraid that rogue countries will have 1 nuclear weapon? Imagine the people in N. Korea, Iran, and Syria who have to deal with threats by the Bush Adminstration who controls 10,000 nuclear warheads? uhhhh ok.



President Vladimir Putin mockingly said Moscow doesn't want the kind of violence-plagued democracy the United States has fostered in Iraq.


I watched an interview a couple of days ago, and some expert said that democracy will not work in the middle east unless you have the basic fundamental freedoms that we have; freedom of speech, religion, press, etc etc

So i do have to say that i agree with Putin in that regard, i mean, Hamas winning the election is a good example of it not working, and yet we have SoS Rice saying that the "democracy" in Iraq will encourage others in the ME to go for democracy. So unless you want Hamas-like regimes in power through democracy in the ME, hey go for it.

Should countries that want Nuclear Power have it? To answer this, look at the countries that do have it. The U.S. won't even try to touch N. Korea or China etc. Why? I've seen people talk about wanting regime change in N. Korea, but they won't force it like they did in Iraq, simply because N. Korea DO have nuclear weapons.

It just seems weird that our media makes the leaders in Iran and N. Korea seem like thier "crazy" or "madmen" like in videogames, hellbent on the destruction of the world. These guys are smart, probably more so than anyone on these boards, why? because their the leader of the country. Granted, everyone says bush is an idiot etc etc but he is the president of the U.S. so either someone is being smart for him, or something, but he didn't get to where he is by ONLY making fun of handicap people.

Anyways, to end this post i'll just say that the same way that Mutually Assured Destruction is used to deter countries to attack America, is in sync with the way countries seeking nuclear power wants to use it to stop U.S. military aggression on thier homeland.



posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 07:02 PM
link   
You analogy to the war in Iraq is better served here.

www.abovetopsecret.com...'

Not relevant here.

Semper



new topics

top topics
 
7

log in

join