US To Sell Nuclear Fuel To Vietnam, Will Permit Uranium Enrichment

page: 1
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 12:47 PM
link   
Once again the astounding hypocrisy of the US government is showing itself to the world. Not sure if this makes us look evil, hypocritical or both. Let's go with both. We say Iran can't enrich uranium because they might "make the bomb" but then turn around and offer to sell nuclear fuel to Vietnam and tell them "Go ahead, enrich away."

Why would we want Vietnam to have enriched uranium? I don't have an answer to that but the suspicions don't feel good.

US To Sell Nuclear Fuel To Former Foe Vietnam, Will Permit Uranium Enrichment


There was a time when Vietnam was America's staunchest proxy war foe. This is not those times which explains why yesterday the president signed a landmark, controversial and not to mention hypocritical deal with Vietnam in which allows the U.S. to sell nuclear fuel and technology to its former foe, which will then be allowed to further enrich it.

The US "aims to help guarantee Vietnam's' energy independence as China asserts a more prominent role in the region."

“I have determined that the performance of the Agreement will promote, and will not constitute an unreasonable risk to, the common defense and security,” Obama wrote in a memo for the secretaries of State and Energy.

The deal aims to get Vietnam to import the fuel it needs for its reactors instead of producing it domestically. But it doesn't bar the country from conducting its own uranium enrichment, raising concerns about nuclear proliferation.

What does this really mean? Are we hoping Vietnam makes a bomb and uses it on China if things go south in the world of geopolitics?




posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 01:02 PM
link   
Exactly......China, and Vietnam are eons old enemies....with the Chinese trying to conquer Vietnam more than once....
The enemy of my enemy turns out to be Vietnam this time.....
Why don't we just give them the bombs and say have at it.....
The Washington idiots are floundering or they are deliberately acting goofy to put through their private agendas....
Doesn't anybody take a long view in government anymore?
This is obviously not a healthy decision....



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 01:04 PM
link   
Strategically it makes sense, though I am weary of Tyler Durden as a source...



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 01:09 PM
link   

captaintyinknots
Strategically it makes sense, though I am weary of Tyler Durden as a source...


Fair enough.

The Hill: Obama OKs nuke deal with Vietnam

ETA - I'm wondering what we would do if China made the same offer to Nicaragua or another Central or South American country we have friction with.
edit on 850pm1717pm12014 by Bassago because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 01:32 PM
link   

stirling
Exactly......China, and Vietnam are eons old enemies....with the Chinese trying to conquer Vietnam more than once....



Think you summed it up.

USA is trying to provoke China me thinks.


I cant say I blame Vietnam if they wanted nukes as China is a very clear and dangrous threat to them and quite frankly nukes may be the only thing one day that keeps millions of chinamen armed to the teeth pouring over the border.

But the USA shouldnt be the one that helps them to get nukes. No one should, let them figure it out on there own. Vietnam are hardly and long time and trustworthy ally of the USA. Japan, Taiwan and South Korea? Maybe as they have proven there loyalty but vietnam? Be likleing giveing nuclear weapons to the new goverment of Iraq.
edit on 25-2-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)
edit on 25-2-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Bassago
 



Once again the astounding hypocrisy of the US government is showing itself to the world. Not sure if this makes us look evil, hypocritical or both. Let's go with both. We say Iran can't enrich uranium because they might "make the bomb" but then turn around and offer to sell nuclear fuel to Vietnam and tell them "Go ahead, enrich away."

Why would we want Vietnam to have enriched uranium? I don't have an answer to that but the suspicions don't feel good.


There's nothing inherently bad about playing the game of Risk in real life. It has been happening since countries had flags. The only thing that bothers me is claiming this is all done for humanitarian or moral reasons, or completely out of fear.

You have to read between the lines. Its a lot like high school politics.



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Bassago


ETA - I'm wondering what we would do if China made the same offer to Nicaragua or another Central or South American country we have friction with.
edit on 850pm1717pm12014 by Bassago because: (no reason given)


Id piss myself laughing if they did it to mexico. Epic backfire comes to mind.

US goverment really likes to blunder about the world scene right now



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 01:53 PM
link   

captaintyinknots
Strategically it makes sense, though I am weary of Tyler Durden as a source...


What makes 'strategic' sense is to develop anti ICBM missile technology.

Unlike gutting defense, and our own nuclear arsenal.

Meanwhile saying X can't have nukes, but give Y nukes.

The current admin does not know what the hell it's doing.

And it is making the world more dangerous by the day.



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 02:06 PM
link   

neo96

captaintyinknots
Strategically it makes sense, though I am weary of Tyler Durden as a source...


What makes 'strategic' sense is to develop anti ICBM missile technology.

Unlike gutting defense, and our own nuclear arsenal.

Meanwhile saying X can't have nukes, but give Y nukes.

The current admin does not know what the hell it's doing.

And it is making the world more dangerous by the day.

Ummm, ok? While you attempt to drag another thread into this while, Ill just point out that I didnt say I agreed with it or not. I simply said it makes strategic sense.

Obvious is obvious.



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Bassago
 


Can't help but wonder if they are signators of the non-poliferation treaty, and how is this will be impacted by the Simington Amendment to that treaty?
Will they be afforded the same "wink and nod" to another who, has nuclear warheads but, refuses to sign the treaty.



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 





Ummm, ok? While you attempt to drag another thread into this while, Ill just point out that I didnt say I agreed with it or not. I simply said it makes strategic sense.


So in your opinion it makes 'strategic' sense to give military aid to a country that has killed over 50,000 Americans, and was one of the most bloodiest era's of US history.

Sorry it doesn't make sense.

I trust Vietnam about as much as I trust China, and Iran, and Saudi Arabia.

Hell I don't even trust my own government to make decisions like this.
edit on 25-2-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 02:24 PM
link   
You got to be kidding me! Maybe we are in the beginning the end of times. Especially with Obama in power.



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 02:31 PM
link   

captaintyinknots
Strategically it makes sense, though I am weary of Tyler Durden as a source...


You're kidding.

Seriously pissing off a heavily nuclear and conventionally armed China, seeing as they are pretty much in charge of doleing out Americas' pocket money, is NOT a good strategic move.

Not a good move at all.

Not forgetting of course, this makes any potential US inspired strong arm moves on any Iranian nuclear move, less of a strong arm and more of a weak, limp wrist.

What a bunch of bloody hypocrites.




edit on 25-2-2014 by MysterX because: added info



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by teamcommander
 


Not sure how that amendment would effect the decision but looks like they have a lot of wiggle room.

..unless before such delivery—

(1) the supplying country and receiving country have reached agreement to place all such equipment, materials, or technology, upon delivery, under multilateral auspices and management when available; and

(2) the recipient country has entered into an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency to place all such equipment, materials, technology, and all nuclear fuel and facilities in such country under the safeguards system of such Agency.
Symington Amendment

I'm not great at legalese things but it seems to me a sovereign nation would have plenty of places to develop a nuclear weapons program off grid if they chose. Maybe it's harder than that though.



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 03:29 PM
link   

neo96



So in your opinion it makes 'strategic' sense to give military aid to a country that has killed over 50,000 Americans, and was one of the most bloodiest era's of US history.

To be fair Americans that shouldnt have been there......

If Someone turned up and occupied your home town and started meddling in your affairs im sure you would be pretty peed off.

What did you expect from the people of vietnam to roll over and accept the rule of the USA and the corrupt reguime it was trying to prop up? USA should of just let the people of vietnam sort there own civil war out. Yes 50,000 Americans died, but it was war, guess what people die in war.

Still a stupid idea to give Vietnam nuclear material but a past stupid war shouldnt factor into this. I mean the UK killed Americans in 1776 and 1812, so has Germnay and Japan. But we are all very close allies now. Some point you got to let things go.

But no reason why vietnam and the USA cant build up a freindship in other less military ways.
edit on 25-2-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)
edit on 25-2-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)
edit on 25-2-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)
edit on 25-2-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by crazyewok
 





To be fair Americans that shouldnt have been there......


To be 'fair' neither should Russia, and China who was supplying the 'Viet Cong'.

But hey who cares right ?

And it was Colonial Powers that created that 'WAR'.

Like France.
edit on 25-2-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by MysterX
 





Not a good move at all.


Its a good move if you want us to be annihilated.



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 03:48 PM
link   

neo96

To be 'fair' neither should Russia, and China who was supplying the 'Viet Cong'.

So? doesnt mean you had to send men to die in a war which out come had little diffrence on the American people and there home secruity.

At best you could have suppied weapons to the opposition

But full fledged intervention?
WHY!


neo96
But hey who cares right ?

why care? What diffrence did the outcome of the war have on America? Nothing except alot of dead americans that died for nothing.

May has well kept out and you would of just had nothing without the deaths.

neo96
And it was Colonial Powers that created that 'WAR'.

Like France.





So?

Then should have left it to the french then.

Again why should America have been there? Why was it Americans jobs to sacrifice there lives for a country that didnt want them there?

I twas war, you send people to war people die (learn something new everyday). Know why? cause when you shoot at people they shoot back! Wow shock horror! Or is its a case of how dare the other side shoot back! Only America are allowed to discharge firearms in a war zone.


News flash the war has been over nearly 40 years. It in the past gone, you got beat deal with it and move on. UK has Killed americans, Canada has Killed Americans and so has Japan and Germany. Thats life war sucks. Its time to stop acting like a 5 year old haveing a tantrum cause they lost at a board game and move on.

No selling weapon grade uranium is a bad thing. But developing better relations with vietnam in General? dont see a Issue.

edit on 25-2-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)
edit on 25-2-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)
edit on 25-2-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 03:51 PM
link   
Im lost for words..............well, maybe few!, I feel sorry the citizens of the usa, for being ruled over by a bunch of clowns, who decided that this would be good idea. If their chief dictator clown wants to create a sh#t-storm, he's on the right path. Hypocrisy at its finest. The sooner that f@#kin' idiot and his stooges are out of power, the better. I may not share the opinions or logic of caravan to midnight's Jon B Wells, but theres one thing I do share, im giving up using the oval office idiots name. Rant over!!



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 03:57 PM
link   
I am now convinced that we really have a government of retards.
edit on 25-2-2014 by HUMBLEONE because: Add Retard





new topics
top topics
 
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join