Egypt plans to join the nuclear club very soon

Egypt plans to join the nuclear club very soon

english.neftegaz.ru

President Hosni Mubarak and President Vladimir Putin reached an agreement during a meeting in Moscow.
Russia will now be able to bid to build the first of four atomic power stations Egypt plans.

From the words of Mubarak Egypt, in co-operation with its international partners and the International Atomic Energy Agency, is going to develop the sector of nuclear energy..

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.isn.ethz.ch
www.bloomberg.com
www.neurope.eu

Egypt is planning to hop on the band wagon. I wonder if Iran's defiant posture has led to a bums rush for Nuclear tech. "Hey everybody, if we act now nobody will stop us!". Among other countries currently pursuing Nuclear energy; Nigeria and Saudi Arabia, as well as the UAE. It looks to me as if the Middle East and Africa are going nuclear over the next few years

english.neftegaz.ru
(visit the link for the full news article)

There's nothing wrong with using nuclear energy to power their countries. We do it, Europeans do it, so why are we depriving other countries from using it? If it all depends on who's trustworthy, then who gives the power to a nation to deem other nations of trustworthy or non-trustworthy? Are they untrustworthy because they have a different form of goverment, different culture, different skin?

Or is it because if they obtain the nuclear power, it will lead to them being able to have a voice and oppose any foreign forced influence?

[edit on 27-4-2008 by DJMessiah]

It is just wonderful that the 2 most dangerous places on the planet will be joining the nuclear club. 2012 may just be the end but for a reason other then suspected.

Originally posted by US Monitor
It is just wonderful that the 2 most dangerous places on the planet will be joining the nuclear club.

Dangerous for who? I have never had my life threatened anywhere else but the US and Israel, and both have nuclear technology.

The public is only brainwashed into thinking these places are dangerous because they oppose US rule on their countries.

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.

Originally posted by DJMessiah

Originally posted by US Monitor
It is just wonderful that the 2 most dangerous places on the planet will be joining the nuclear club.

Dangerous for who? I have never had my life threatened anywhere else but the US and Israel, and both have nuclear technology.

The public is only brainwashed into thinking these places are dangerous because they oppose US rule on their countries.

You're kidding right? You really think that it isn't dangerous in Africa or the ME? Wow, so I guess there really aren't any pirates off the coast of Somalia, and Darfur? Just made up by the press right? And those terrorist bombings in the ME? Fiction as well right? Yep the only places anything bad ever happens is here in the US and Israel...

Originally posted by DJMessiah
...Europeans do it, so why are we depriving other countries from using it? If it all depends on who's trustworthy, then who gives the power to a nation to deem other nations of trustworthy or non-trustworthy? Are they untrustworthy because they have a different form of goverment, different culture, different skin?..

[edit on 27-4-2008 by DJMessiah]

These days people are so quick to play the race card. Its a pathetic substitute for a half decent argument with substance or a logically formulated opinion based on relevent information.

Originally posted by US Monitor
You're kidding right? You really think that it isn't dangerous in Africa or the ME?

Once again, I ask, dangerous to who? I've been to Egypt, I've been all around the Middle East, I've been to South America, Russia, China/Hong Kong, and so on, and all the places the media wants us to think that are dangerous, I have found to be the opposite.

Wow, so I guess there really aren't any pirates off the coast of Somalia, and Darfur?

Good thing we don't have thieves here, or else US would be dangerous too?

Just made up by the press right?

Lord no. Everyone knows the press is never biased against anyone. Everyone knows that that they will never resort to misquoting, lying, or spreading propaganda.

And those terrorist bombings in the ME? Fiction as well right?

You mean before or after we invaded Iraq? Before or after we created the Taliban and Al Queda? Before or after we created Israel? Before or after we created the UN? Before or after we put Saddam in power? Before or after Osama Bin Laden was working for the CIA? Before or after the US abandoned rebuilding Afghanistan after they used Afghans to kill Russian soldiers? Before or after we force other countries to convert to our beliefs of the false guise of our version of democracy?

Yep the only places anything bad ever happens is here in the US and Israel...

Yep, the only bad things that happen are in the Middle East and Africa. Good thing US is immune to any thieves, criminals, or corruption.

[edit on 27-4-2008 by DJMessiah]

reply to post by ppskylight


Race is not the only a factor, but it is a major one. Religion is as well, goverment, and so is culture. Can you tell me one country that has a majority "white Democratic Christian" population that US has opposed receiving nuclear technology? Why is it that countries that have populations that have majority Black, Asian, or Latin complexions are denied nuclear technology? The only exception that comes to mind is India, and my guess is that because they used to be own by British.

Originally posted by DJMessiah
reply to post by ppskylight

 

Race is not the only a factor, but it is a major one. Religion is as well, goverment, and so is culture. Can you tell me one country that has a majority "white Democratic Christian" population that US has opposed receiving nuclear technology? Why is it that countries that have populations that have majority Black, Asian, or Latin complexions are denied nuclear technology? The only exception that comes to mind is India, and my guess is that because they used to be own by British.

And sorry budday, but India is not the only exception. Pakistan is a current US ally and they have nuclear weapons.

Are you proposing some sort of racist White conspiracy led by America? America is one of the most free countries in the world, and people of all orgins live in communities and neighbourhoods that work together to maintain peace and security all over the country.

You've got to get past skin color my friend. America was built by people from countries like Britain, France, Belgium, Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands. They are close allies after World War 2 and the Cold war, and the opposition to any country but our strongest allies getting nuclear weapons has been a strategic move in an increasingly violent world. Nuclear non proliferation being called racist has to be about the lamest argument i've heard all day. Is that really the best you liberals can do?

Another poster who depends on hyperbole and rhetoric instead of actually looking at the facts. I suggest you take a closer look at Africa and the ME. Just an FYI, the ME has been a turbulent place since long before the US was ever conceived.

I notice you ignored my statement involving Darfur. And you are comparing thieves in the US to the Pirates off Somalia? Yeah that is the same......I guess you can say Zimbabwe is a peaceful place too right?

You mean before or after we invaded Iraq? Before or after we created the Taliban and Al Queda? Before or after we created Israel? Before or after we created the UN? Before or after we put Saddam in power? Before or after Osama Bin Laden was working for the CIA? Before or after the US abandoned rebuilding Afghanistan after they used Afghans to kill Russian soldiers? Before or after we force other countries to convert to our beliefs of the false guise of our version of democracy?

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

news.bbc.co.uk...

The path to power

The Iraqi president was born in a village just outside Takrit in April 1937. In his teenage years, Saddam immersed himself in the anti-British and anti-Western atmosphere of the day. At college in Baghdad he joined the Baath party and in 1956 he took part in an abortive coup attempt.

After the overthrow of the monarchy two years later Saddam connived in a plot to kill the prime minister, Abdel-Karim Qassem. But the conspiracy was discovered, and Saddam fled the country.

In 1963, with the Baath party in control in Baghdad, Saddam Hussein returned home and began jostling for a position of influence. During this period he married his cousin Sajida. They later had two sons and three daughters.

But within months, the Baath party had been overthrown and Saddam was jailed, remaining there until the party returned to power in a coup in July 1968. Showing ruthless determination that was to become a hallmark of his leadership, Saddam gained a position on the ruling Revolutionary Command Council.

For years he was the power behind the ailing figure of the president, Ahmed Hassan Bakr. In 1979, Saddam achieved his ambition of becoming head of state. The new president started as he intended to go on - putting to death dozens of his rivals.

So we used Afghans to kill Soviets? Let me guess, the US told the USSR to invade Afghanistan as well right?

I didn't realize all that the US created! Wow. Just wow.
www.gwu.edu...

Formed in 1994, the Taliban began with only a few followers, mostly religious students who fought with the Mujahideen in the war against the Soviets and who were schooled in Islamic seminaries (madrasahs) in Pakistan. These students, or seekers, as they are referred to in the documents, wanted to rid Afghanistan of the instability, violence, and warlordism that had been plaguing the country since the defeat and withdrawal of the Soviets in 1989.

The departure of the Soviets, while welcomed by Afghans and the United States, left a political vacuum in Afghanistan. The resulting chaos and civil war led to the involvement of the United Nations which tried unsuccessfully to bring about political transition through the mission led by Special Representative Mahmoud Mestiri. Despite the UN's efforts, and those of the international community, the various factions, as well as the Kabul government led by Barnahuddin Rabbani and Ahmad Shah Masoud, in addition to other outside parties, made a definitive peaceful or military solution difficult.

Now for the creation of the UN.
P.S. I think you should contact Wiki and update them about who created the UN.

en.wikipedia.org...

The United Nations (UN) is an international organization whose stated aims are to facilitate cooperation in international law, international security, economic development, social progress and human rights issues. The UN was founded in 1945 to replace the League of Nations, to stop wars between nations and to provide a platform for dialogue.

There are now 192 member states, including almost every recognized independent state. From its headquarters on international territory within New York City, the UN and its specialized agencies decide on substantive and administrative issues in regular meetings held throughout the year. The organization is divided into administrative bodies, primarily:

The United Nations was founded as a successor to the League of Nations, which was widely considered to have been ineffective in its role as an international governing body, in that it had been unable to prevent World War II.

The term "United Nations" (which appears in stanza 35 of Canto III of Byron's Childe Harold's Pilgrimage) was decided by Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill[1] during World War II, to refer to the Allies. Its first formal use was in the 1 January 1942 Declaration by the United Nations, which committed the Allies to the principles of the Atlantic Charter and pledged them not to seek a separate peace with the Axis powers. Thereafter, the Allies used the term "United Nations Fighting Forces" to refer to their alliance.

The idea for the UN was espoused in declarations signed at the wartime Allied conferences in Moscow, Cairo, and Tehran in 1943. From August to October 1944, representatives of France, the Republic of China, the United Kingdom, the United States, and the Soviet Union met to elaborate the plans at the Dumbarton Oaks Estate in Washington, D.C. Those and later talks produced proposals outlining the purposes of the organization, its membership and organs, and arrangements to maintain international peace and security and international economic and social cooperation.

On 25 April 1945, the UN Conference on International Organization began in San Francisco. In addition to the governments, a number of non-governmental organizations were invited to assist in drafting the charter. The 50 nations represented at the conference signed the Charter of the United Nations two months later on 26 June. Poland had not been represented at the conference, but a place had been reserved for it among the original signatories, and it added its name later. The UN came into existence on 24 October 1945, after the Charter had been ratified by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council — the Republic of China, France, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States — and by a majority of the other 46 signatories. That these countries are the permanent members of the Security Council, and have veto power on any Security Council resolution, reflects that they are the main victors of World War II or their successor states: the People's Republic of China replaced the Republic of China in 1971 and Russia replaced the Soviet Union in 1991.[2]

Initially, the body was known as the United Nations Organization, or UNO. However, by the 1950s, English speakers were referring to it as the United Nations, or the UN.

Creation of Israel:

www.theocracywatch.org...

On November 29, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly voted 33 to 13, with 10 abstentions, in favor of a Partition Plan that created the State of Israel. The British reliquished their mandate over Palestine in 1948. War broke out between the Arabs and Jews soon after. The 1948 Arab-Israeli War, established the state of Israel as an independent state, with the rest of the British Mandate of Palestine split into areas controlled by Egypt and Transjordan.

In 1949, Israel signed separate cease-fire agreements with Egypt on February 24, Lebanon on March 23, Transjordan on April 3, and Syria on July 20. Israel was able to draw its own borders, occupying 70% of Mandatory Palestine, fifty percent more than the UN partition proposal allotted them. These borders have been known afterwards as the "Green Line". The Gaza Strip and West Bank were occupied by Egypt and Transjordan respectively.

I don't see the US there, unless of course you meant because they were part of the UN.....

Before or after we force other countries to convert to our beliefs of the false guise of our version of democracy?

Which countries are those? Please provide links. Thanks.

Originally posted by ppskylight
And sorry budday, but India is not the only exception. Pakistan is a current US ally and they have nuclear weapons.

Oh, so I guess when both Indian and Pakistan asked the US for nuclear technology, US gave it to both right? Us only gave information to India. Of all the Middle East countries that are denied nuclear technology, I would actually support denying it to Pakistan.

Are you proposing some sort of racist White conspiracy led by America?

Virtually any neighboring race White colonists have had contact with, they have either enslaved, killed off, or stolen land from (or tried to).

America is one of the most free countries in the world

Where are our nude beaches? Where is the sex on public TV? Where can women be shirtless, just like men? You will see that our notion of "free" is completely different when you visit other countries. What is censored here is what other countries will not restrict.

and people of all orgins live in communities and neighbourhoods that work together to maintain peace and security all over the country.

Although that would make this place a better place to live, it's far from what US is like. After Sept 11th, anyone with an Arab complexion was viewed as a terrorists. See a Latin/Mexican worker here and the first thing people say is that they're an illegal immigrant. I wont even go into police shootings and abuse against Blacks. Racism still exists, and minorities still feel that they're being treated as second class citizens.

You've got to get past skin color my friend.

This is easier said than done, when you're not one of the people who does not have light skin. People treat you much different if you're not white.

America was built by people from countries like Britain, France, Belgium, Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands.

Lots of countries had a part to play in building America, but some we still treat as enemies. What about the south Americans who helped build this country too? What about the Chinese we brought into this country to build the railroads and mines? What about the African-Americans who fought in WWII, and the civil war?

They are close allies after World War 2 and the Cold war, and the opposition to any country but our strongest allies getting nuclear weapons has been a strategic move in an increasingly violent world.

Why did Germany become our ally? Notice all the countries we oppose are the ones who resisted influence from us. We do not seek friendship with other countries, we seek control, whether it be through their politics, media, or economy.

Nuclear non proliferation being called racist has to be about the lamest argument i've heard all day.

Care to give me an example of a South American country that we allow to have Nuclear Weapons? What about African?

Is that really the best you liberals can do?

Great, now you're stereotyping too. So what makes me a liberal?

[edit on 27-4-2008 by DJMessiah]

As for most dangerous places: yes the US is one of them, lets see a link with a list shall we?

listverse.com...

www.msnbc.msn.com...

orbes Most Dangerous Destinations 2006
• Afghanistan
• Burundi
• Cote d'Ivoire
• Democratic Republic of the Congo
• Georgia
• Haiti
• Iraq
• Liberia
• Pakistan
• Papua New Guinea
• Russia (Chechnya)
• Somalia
• Sudan
• Zimbabwe
Source: Forbes.com

www.forbes.com...

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?

reply to post by US Monitor


If a country has the ability, money, knowledge, technology and will to build nuclear reactors, then im pretty sure they have the ability to build defenses, security and provisions to ensure some rag tag militia cannot walk in the front door, and walk out with a megaton nuke.

Also,

If a country has enough of a populace, economy and industry to build nuclear stations capable of powering their society, they arent going to nuke someone straight of the bat, and ruin all that countries history / advancements which LED them to nuclear technology.

The same goes for Iran,

I cannot beleive some people REALLY believe the hype

'' they are building weapons to bomb Israel ''

You think Iran, the first empire of the world, the famous persians who defeated places like ancient egpyt are prepared to have all that history, all that proud knowledge and technological wonders wiped out over 1 flash in the pan retaliatory move?

'' we lasted centuries, defeated Egypt, conquered the middle east, invented algebra and many other wonderous advancements all so we could be wiped out in a matter of minutes because we bombed Israel. ''

At a time when oil is at $120.00, there's humanitarium crisis's brewing over food shortages and global warming is coming to a forefront, is it any wonder MORE nations are moving toward nuclear technology?


...ahh, thats right.. they are.... but we dont want them to, because it gives them a voice, and the ultimate defense.

reply to post by US Monitor


Did you even read that list before posting a link to it? The top nations it lists are all US has tried to invade or has invaded. It even lists Antarctica as #6 because of the cold, and South Africa at #8 because of its AIDs epidemic. Seriously, if they're going to include factors like that, then they should include the US for school shootings or obesity epidemic, Japan for its suicide rate, or the Atlantic ocean for its shark population.

The US is even listed as a "bonus" at the bottom, with the following note:

The USA now leads all nations in violent crime and leads all nations with incarcerations now standing at 2.3 million. American citizens also make up the greatest number of criminals serving time in overseas prisons. Militias, hate groups and other right wing radicals all spread their message of violence and are known to throw around the odd pipe-bomb. The government is not much better, spending a whopping $600 billion a year on defense in order to contain the handful of nations hostile to it.

[edit on 28-4-2008 by DJMessiah]