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.

 

Egypt plans to join the nuclear club very soon

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by US Monitor
 


Wikipedia is not a credible source, when anyone can edit it. Where did the name "United Nations" come from? So we weren't listed under the "Declaration by United Nations"?




posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by US Monitor
Another poster who depends on hyperbole and rhetoric instead of actually looking at the facts.


So tell me, has placing a label on me helped your argument any?


I suggest you take a closer look at Africa and the ME.


I don't know how much of a closer "look" one can get, than actually visiting there, rather than reading about it on the news.


Just an FYI, the ME has been a turbulent place since long before the US was ever conceived.


Everywhere in the world has been, but thanks to US and the UN helping to create the borders in the Middle East (not to mention in Africa as well), we can attribute much of the causes of wars there to this.


I notice you ignored my statement involving Darfur.


I didn't comment on Darfur, because Darfur is not seeking nuclear energy. Darfur is going through a food/water shortage, not a nuclear energy concern.


And you are comparing thieves in the US to the Pirates off Somalia?


Both steal, do they not? Both are capable of murder, kidnapping, or blackmail. Only difference is that one group uses boats, the other can use cars.


Yeah that is the same......I guess you can say Zimbabwe is a peaceful place too right?


Before or after the UN placed sanctions on it?


Wow. I mean just wow. Talk about revisionist history.
Lets tackle that assertion about the US putting Saddam in power.


Lets do. So you're saying that the US didn't put Saddam in power? The CIA did not help kill off Qasim's party and its followers in 1963, and place Saddam's Ba'ath party in power? Is this not Rumsfield shaking hands with Saddam?

The CIA has no problem assassinating key political figures. Look up the "Phoenix Program" of Vietnam, just as an example.


So we used Afghans to kill Soviets?


Where did the Mujahadeen get its weapons, military training, and money from? Being from Afghanistan, I know its history very well.

Ever watch the movie Charlie Wilson's war? Though the movie is a Hollywood telling of what happened, it gets many of the key facts right.


Let me guess, the US told the USSR to invade Afghanistan as well right?


Incorrect. I suppose one would say something like this to change the subject or try to put words in my mouth.

[edit on 28-4-2008 by DJMessiah]



posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 12:06 AM
link   
reply to post by US Monitor
 


I'm just wondering about what Zimbabwe and Darfur have to with egypts nuclear safety?

It is like calling USAs Nuke stockpile badly guarded (which it may very well be) on the basis of civil war in columbia..

[edit on 28-4-2008 by northwolf]



posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 12:43 AM
link   



Why solar and wind power aren't the focal points for energy in these areas I don't understand.

I beleive this has something to do with it.







I don't beleive any country should be added to the list of countries with nukes, because if detonated it causes peoples clothes to ignite and there skin to melt off, the majority of whom had nothing to do with the war. Thousands dead? Why? Because a government opposes another? That's a #ing fantastic reason for killing thousands of people!


That being said, I don't care about Nuclear power in itself, infact, it's fantastic - CHEAP. But if they create a nuke or spawn an arms race, my perspective will IMMEDIATELY change. I.E. Boycott Russian / Egyptian goods.


What kind of reactor are they making?

[edit on 28/4/2008 by C0bzz]

[edit on 28/4/2008 by C0bzz]



posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 01:00 PM
link   
You obviously didn't read my post you quoted or you would have clearly seen that I singled out the US.



posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJMessiah
reply to post by US Monitor
 


Iraq, Afghanistan, Japan, Hawaii (prior to being forced to be a US state), Vietnam, Philippine Islands, Thailand (1962), Haiti, Spain, Honduras, Korea, Cambodia, Loas (Operation Commando Hunt).

Should I keep going?


Provide some links that show the US is guilty of what you are trying to say.

Iraq, I don't disagree. Afghanistan is a legit war. They harbored the 9/11 terrorists. Japan. You have got to be kidding right? Maybe you missed the whole WWII thing?
I agree about Hawaii.
Philippine's huh? Yeah sure ok....
Spain? Yeah it was just last year that US troops left there right?


Go on post some links, I look forward to reading them....



posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 01:16 PM
link   




So tell me, has placing a label on me helped your argument any?

Well since that is all you have posted, and no links I stand by my statement.





I don't know how much of a closer "look" one can get, than actually visiting there, rather than reading about it on the news.

Well you say you have been there, but this is an internet message board, I don't know you from adam so forgive me if I don't just take your word for it.




Everywhere in the world has been, but thanks to US and the UN helping to create the borders in the Middle East (not to mention in Africa as well), we can attribute much of the causes of wars there to this.

I would love to hear what borders the US set in Africa. Next you will tell me they were US Colonies there too right? You do know that the UN is made up of more then just the US right? And that the US did not create the UN right?





I didn't comment on Darfur, because Darfur is not seeking nuclear energy. Darfur is going through a food/water shortage, not a nuclear energy concern.


I included Darfur because I said Africa and the ME are the 2 most dangerous places on Earth.



Both steal, do they not? Both are capable of murder, kidnapping, or blackmail. Only difference is that one group uses boats, the other can use cars.


I guess apples and oranges are the same to you as well right?




Before or after the UN placed sanctions on it?

So you answer with a question, translation, you don't have an answer.



Lets do. So you're saying that the US didn't put Saddam in power? The CIA did not help kill off Qasim's party and its followers in 1963, and place Saddam's Ba'ath party in power? Is this not Rumsfield shaking hands with Saddam?

The CIA has no problem assassinating key political figures. Look up the "Phoenix Program" of Vietnam, just as an example.


So you are really going to use a picture of Rumsfeld with Saddam as the focus of your argument? I will stand by my link that actually explains things and doesn't leave it up to someone's imagination.




Where did the Mujahadeen get its weapons, military training, and money from? Being from Afghanistan, I know its history very well.

Ever watch the movie Charlie Wilson's war? Though the movie is a Hollywood telling of what happened, it gets many of the key facts right.


Sorry but a hollywood movie isn't factual. And when did the US start giving this aid? That's right, AFTER the Soviets invaded.



Incorrect. I suppose one would say something like this to change the subject or try to put words in my mouth.

[edit on 28-4-2008 by DJMessiah]


No, the US did not make the Soviets invade Afghanistan did they? But I am sure you will try to spin that into making it the fault of the US too.

I notice that you didn't provide any links to refute the links I posted. As for my wiki link, if what it said about the UN is false, then prove it wrong.



posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJMessiah
reply to post by US Monitor
 


Wikipedia is not a credible source, when anyone can edit it. Where did the name "United Nations" come from? So we weren't listed under the "Declaration by United Nations"?


Ok, here you go:

www.un.org...


The United Nations Charter was drawn up by the representatives of 50 countries at the United Nations Conference on International Organization, which met at San Francisco from 25 April to 26 June 1945. Those delegates deliberated on the basis of proposals worked out by the representatives of China, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and the United States at Dumbarton Oaks in August-October 1944. The Charter was signed on 26 June 1945 by the representatives of the 50 countries. Poland, which was not represented at the Conference, signed it later and became one of the original 51 Member States.

The United Nations officially came into existence on 24 October 1945, when the Charter had been ratified by China, France, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, the United States and by a majority of other signatories. United Nations Day is celebrated on 24 October each year.


Tell me where does it say that the US created the UN as you claimed?

Need more? Ok:

www.infoplease.com...

The earliest concrete plan for the formation of a new world organization was begun under the aegis of the U.S. State Department late in 1939. The name United Nations was coined by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1941 to describe the countries fighting against the Axis. It was first used officially on Jan. 1, 1942, when 26 states joined in the Declaration by the United Nations, pledging themselves to continue their joint war effort and not to make peace separately. The need for an international organization to replace the League of Nations was first stated officially on Oct. 30, 1943, in the Moscow Declaration, issued by China, Great Britain, the United States, and the USSR.

At the Dumbarton Oaks Conference (Aug.–Oct., 1944), those four countries drafted specific proposals for a charter for the new organization, and at the Yalta Conference (Feb., 1945) further agreement was reached. All the states that had ultimately adhered to the 1942 declaration and had declared war on Germany or Japan by Mar. 1, 1945, were called to the founding conference held in San Francisco (Apr. 25–June 26, 1945). Drafted at San Francisco, the UN charter was signed on June 26 and ratified by the required number of states on Oct. 24 (officially United Nations Day). The General Assembly first met in London on Jan. 10, 1946.


Again, I don't see anywhere where it says that the US created the UN. Maybe you were confused because the US was ONE of MANY countries behind the creation of the UN.



posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by US Monitor
Provide some links that show the US is guilty of what you are trying to say.


Half the stuff that people are trying to tell you is absolutely common knowledge for most people.



Afghanistan is a legit war. They harbored the 9/11 terrorists.


Where were those terrorists from again?


On September 27, 2001 the FBI released photos of the 19 hijackers, along with information about many of their possible nationalities and aliases.[13] All the suspected hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Lebanon or Egypt. wiki


And by the way, the terrorists blew up on those planes that they were on when they crashed (per official story), so if anything Afghanistan was harboring terrorist ghosts and I don't think they were poised to demoniacally possess the Western populace.


Philippine's huh? Yeah sure ok....

Western involvement in the Philippines cannot be new to you.

But in the purchase, the United States also had received control over ancient Muslim sultanates still angry about the Spanish takeover centuries earlier. More urgently, it confronted a separate Catholic nationalist rebel movement, led by Emilio Aguinaldo. War soon erupted between the nationalists and the American troops stationed in the islands. The outgunned Filipinos adopted guerilla tactics; the U.S. army responded by rounding peasants into "reconcentration camps" and declaring entire areas battle zones, in which no distinctions were made between combatants and civilians. At least 4,200 American and 16,000 Filipino soldiers are thought to have been killed in the fighting. Historians have debated the scale of civilian deaths, with estimates ranging from 200,000 to almost 1 million. source



Spain? Yeah it was just last year that US troops left there right?


Just because it seems long enough for you to not consider it, does not mean that it did not happen and does not negate the impact that such actions had on the rest of the world to this day. That's reality, you either face it or you don't.

An act of Congress, passed in April 1898, just
prior to the U.S. declaration of war against Spain, explicitly declared Cuba to be
independent of Spain, demanded that Spain withdraw its military forces from the island,
and authorized the President to use U.S. military force to achieve these ends, if necessary.3
Spain rejected these demands, and an exchange of declarations of war by both countries
soon followed thereafter.4 .pdf source



Go on post some links, I look forward to reading them....


There you go. Something however tells me that no matter how many sources I will provide for you, you will find something wrong with them to discredit them. Believe what you wish. *shrug*



posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by US Monitor
www.infoplease.com...

The earliest concrete plan for the formation of a new world organization was begun under the aegis of the U.S. State Department late in 1939. The name United Nations was coined by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1941 to describe the countries fighting against the Axis. It was first used officially on Jan. 1, 1942, when 26 states joined in the Declaration by the United Nations, pledging themselves to continue their joint war effort and not to make peace separately.


Again, I don't see anywhere where it says that the US created the UN. Maybe you were confused because the US was ONE of MANY countries behind the creation of the UN.


*Bolding Mine*



Are you even reading what you're posting? I honestly have never seen such a thing as arguing a point while posting sources to back the opposite side of the debate.




posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by niteboy82
 


Actually you would have to go back to the League of Nations for the first attempt at forming a UN type organization.

And while the idea may have begun there, it was NOT the US that created the UN. That should be plainly clear as the US did not force any nation to sign on or become a part of the UN. Unless you are saying that the US strong armed, the USSR, China, GB, France....

Are you?



posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by US Monitor
I would love to hear what borders the US set in Africa. Next you will tell me they were US Colonies there too right? You do know that the UN is made up of more then just the US right? And that the US did not create the UN right?

The US is the dominant figurehead of the United Nations whether you want to admit to it or not. We go through the formality of bringing issues up for a vote to be approved by the whole, but we obviously have shown that we will go in unilaterally and accomplish our own ends. If the US was not the dominant player in the UN, do you really believe that everything would be allowed to go on as it does?


So you are really going to use a picture of Rumsfeld with Saddam as the focus of your argument? I will stand by my link that actually explains things and doesn't leave it up to someone's imagination.


That has to be the most ridiculous thing I have read in quite a while. So you will not take the evidence of a photograph that clearly shows one of the top ranking US officials shaking hands with the person that we helped get into power? And you don't believe the CIA would do such a thing? I am absolutely speechless. Completely.



No, the US did not make the Soviets invade Afghanistan did they? But I am sure you will try to spin that into making it the fault of the US too.

No, but we sure made a hell of a lot of money over it!


Of course, we lost that money after 9/11 when we decided to go after your terrorist ghosts in Afghanistan.



I notice that you didn't provide any links to refute the links I posted. As for my wiki link, if what it said about the UN is false, then prove it wrong.


No one can show you reality except for yourself. As far as your UN link for wiki and the other links you provided. I still stand by my statement that you obviously either did not read what you sourced, or you simply did not understand it.

[edit on 4/28/08 by niteboy82]



posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by niteboy82
 


The terrorists were born in SA, where were they trained? Where were there camps located? That's right, Afghanistan.

Thank you for the other links.



posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by US Monitor
 


Let's try this one more time, after that I am not bothering to explain this to you.

From your source. Not mine, your's:



The earliest concrete plan for the formation of a new world organization was begun under the aegis of the U.S. State Department late in 1939. The name United Nations was coined by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1941 to describe the countries fighting against the Axis. It was first used officially on Jan. 1, 1942, when 26 states joined in the Declaration by the United Nations, pledging themselves to continue their joint war effort and not to make peace separately. source


You are arguing with information that you are not sourcing, you are sourcing information that is not congruent with your statements. I really don't know how else to better explain that to you.


The terrorists were born in SA, where were they trained? Where were there camps located? That's right, Afghanistan.


Terrorists are trained all over the world, perhaps we should all push the nuke buttons and end it now.

The country we should have hit was Saudi, but we're too busy holding hands with Prince Bandar the Saudi Playboy Prince and flying bin Ladens out at the speed of sound after 9/11 before we even had a chance to interrogate them. Another example alone of the US' own involvement in continuously shooting itself in the foot while foolishly running around playing world police.



posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 01:53 PM
link   


The US is the dominant figurehead of the United Nations whether you want to admit to it or not. We go through the formality of bringing issues up for a vote to be approved by the whole, but we obviously have shown that we will go in unilaterally and accomplish our own ends. If the US was not the dominant player in the UN, do you really believe that everything would be allowed to go on as it does?


Oh so the USSR when it existed and China really weren't there then right?




That has to be the most ridiculous thing I have read in quite a while. So you will not take the evidence of a photograph that clearly shows one of the top ranking US officials shaking hands with the person that we helped get into power? And you don't believe the CIA would do such a thing? I am absolutely speechless. Completely.


I am amazed that a picture of Rumsfeld with Saddam means that the US put Saddam in power. Amazing leap there. Hey if I find a picture of FDR with Stalin does that mean I can say FDR and the US created the USSR? That we put them in power? Refute the link I posted and I will read it. But to use a picture and then create a story, not gonna fly.



No, but we sure made a hell of a lot of money over it!

Of course, we lost that money after 9/11 when we decided to go after your terrorist ghosts in Afghanistan.


But did we make the Soviets invade? And if the Soviets hadn't invaded would any money have ever gone to Afghanistan? NO.

Oh that's right, there weren't any terrorist camps in Afghanistan right? OBL wasn't there?



No one can show you reality except for yourself. As far as your UN link for wiki and the other links you provided. I still stand by my statement that you obviously either did not read what you sourced, or you simply did not understand it.

[edit on 4/28/08 by niteboy82]


Again, the US did not create the UN by itself. Unless you are trying to tell me that. Are you?



posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by US Monitor

I am amazed that a picture of Rumsfeld with Saddam means that the US put Saddam in power. Amazing leap there. Hey if I find a picture of FDR with Stalin does that mean I can say FDR and the US created the USSR? That we put them in power? Refute the link I posted and I will read it. But to use a picture and then create a story, not gonna fly.

The picture of Donald Rumsfeld was taken in either 1983 or 1984 when he met as part of a presidential envoy with Saddam Hussein in which he let Hussein know that while the US was publicly protesting the use of chemical weapons in Iraq, America's goal of improving relations with Iraq was not going to be lessened in any way.


But did we make the Soviets invade? And if the Soviets hadn't invaded would any money have ever gone to Afghanistan? NO.

What do the Soviets invading Afghanistan have to do with our funding of the Mujahideen? You are taking the cause of a war, and using it to somehow negate the fact that the CIA helped support the group that would break off to become our modern day Al Qaeda.


Oh that's right, there weren't any terrorist camps in Afghanistan right? OBL wasn't there?

If we knew were OBL was we would have either have caught him by now, or we would have let him be to help keep the American citizenry in fear of terror. I see it is obviously working for the latter ends, so I will take that one as the more probable story. I never said there were no camps in Afghanistan either, you are the one making up fallacious statements out of things that are not said and twisting them to fit your argument. Nice try.


Again, the US did not create the UN by itself. Unless you are trying to tell me that. Are you?


I told you I wasn't explaining this anymore, and I'm not.

[edit on 4/28/08 by niteboy82]



posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by US Monitor
I am amazed that a picture of Rumsfeld with Saddam means that the US put Saddam in power.

You just have to type 3 magic words in Google and open up your mind.

That is how things work here usually.

Ever seen a puppet on a string?

The puppet dances, and the masters of puppets pull the strings.

There were many little and big dictators all over the world, which were either sponsored by the West or by the East, to fight their proxy wars for the balance of power between them. In any case, Saddam was only a puppet.

And I still fail what this matters in the case of Egypt wanting nuclear power. At the moment there are more than 400 nuclear power plants (NPP) all over the world, which produce about 17% of the world's electricity. So how does that make you feel?



posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 05:07 PM
link   


The picture of Donald Rumsfeld was taken in either 1983 or 1984 when he met as part of a presidential envoy with Saddam Hussein in which he let Hussein know that while the US was publicly protesting the use of chemical weapons in Iraq, America's goal of improving relations with Iraq was not going to be lessened in any way.


The statement made was that the US put Saddam in power. I contend, and through a link, have shown that is not the case. Your pic. that you seem to love was taken well AFTER Saddam was in power. Now if you can SHOW me where the US put Saddam in power I would be happy to read it.



What do the Soviets invading Afghanistan have to do with our funding of the Mujahideen? You are taking the cause of a war, and using it to somehow negate the fact that the CIA helped support the group that would break off to become our modern day Al Qaeda.


Go back to the post I first responded to to get the answer. If the Soviets had not illegally invaded Afghanistan the US would never have gotten involved. Are you saying the US should not have helped those fighting the Soviets? Should the US have had a magic crystal ball to see the future about who AQ would become? So if anything the US is guilty of helping people fighting against an invader. How bad of the US.



If we knew were OBL was we would have either have caught him by now, or we would have let him be to help keep the American citizenry in fear of terror. I see it is obviously working for the latter ends, so I will take that one as the more probable story. I never said there were no camps in Afghanistan either, you are the one making up fallacious statements out of things that are not said and twisting them to fit your argument. Nice try.


Nice try? How? Fact is the camps existed, thus my so called Ghost terrorists were in FACT trained in Afghanistan. Thus after 9/11 Afghanistan became a viable military target to remove those camps to prevent future attacks. Now I know this may be hard to fathom, but you do know that there are extensive caves in Afghanistan, and the Soviets were there for how many years and were never able to find him or other leaders of the Afghan resistence and you are surprised that the US can't find 1 person there in half the time? Not to mention that he is in Pakistan where US troops aren't allowed.



I told you I wasn't explaining this anymore, and I'm not.

[edit on 4/28/08 by niteboy82]


You don't have anything to explain. I already have laid it all out for you. My question is simple. Do you think the US created the UN all by itself? I say no. The idea may have started with the State Dept. but that is a far cry from creation. If you recall, or care to look, the original statement that I responded to was that the US created the UN. This is absurd and incorrect as I have already shown. If you care to argue it with me, then post something that proves me wrong. And while the US may be the dominant nation in the UN, again that does not mean the US CREATED the UN. Maybe we need a definition of creation?



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 12:32 AM
link   
Ehrm.


Egypt plans to join the nuclear club very soon



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 02:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by US Monitor
reply to post by DJMessiah
 


Of course one big drawback to nuclear power is disposing of the waste. Something that isn't so very easy for any country.

Why solar and wind power aren't the focal points for energy in these areas I don't understand. I understand why they aren't in the west cause then Oil companies wouldn't make there money gouging us.

Centralised control.

With centralised power generation the government can still ensure it gets a cut of taxes. If, however, we were all encouraged to micro generate using wind, solar and batteries then the government would have no income whatsover from energy generation.

Some people think this centraslied control is NWO related but no, It's far far more mundane....the financing of central government and the preservation of jobs for the boys.

So watch out for statements like "Nuclear is the only viable option". "Wind is not consistent enough to meet demand" etc Also watch for two behaviours by government:

A. How the react to objections to nuclear (we hear but we need it so tough......)
B. How they react to objections to wind farms (No problem we'll stop building it)

Hmmmmmmmmmmm.........

Has the government informed its voters that the "next" generation of nuclear power uses the fuel in a far more efficient manner..........Oh and that because of this the waste is far more highly radioactive. So much so that previous generations of waste can be stored in barrels above ground (because we still haven't found somewhere safe to bury it). But the next generation of waste CANNOT be temporarily stored like this, it MUST be buried somewhere immediately. What a nightmare for our children and grandchildren.

Nuclear power: the most over engineered method of boiling water ever invented! Yes folks that's all the heat is used for!



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join