Source: Page 44 of White Noise Keywords: "firecrackers," "people," "out"

From: "Phil Trevorrow" <philtrev@myhome.com> Subject: Re: Who is the real enemy? Date: 20 Sept 2004 Newsgroups: us.military

"Thelasian" <thelasian@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:848aafc.0409191635.39bd8cbc@posting.google.com... > "Phil Trevorrow" <philtrev@myhome.com> wrote in message news:<jDk3d.4236$je.1846@trnddc04>... > > "Thelasian" <thelasian@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:848aafc.0409180655.2ee286ea@posting.google.com... > > > "Phil Trevorrow" <philtrev@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<_nH2d.215$PZ4.120@trnddc06>... > > > > "Thelasian" <thelasian@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > > > news:848aafc.0409161657.16e66c2d@posting.google.com... > > > > > "Phil Trevorrow" <philtrev@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<X111d.4575$MS1.3097@trnddc02>... > > > > > > > > > > > > > You seem to confuse the US and EU3's demands with what the > > > NonProliferation Treaty itself clearly states. And in fact the latest > > > UN Board of Governors resolution (which requests Iran suspend > > > enrichment) also clearly states that enrichment is the right of all > > > nations. > > > > I just got done reading that document and I did not see anywhere where they > > say uranium enrichment is the right of all nations. Perhaps I read the wrong > > document. Could you provide a link? > > > Uranium enrichment is part and parcel of any civilian nuclear program, > which is why other nations that have signed the NPT also have the same > technology. Had you bothered to read the news, you'd see that even the > media admit as much. To wit: > > "The NPT has never banned uranium enrichment. That didn't stop the > United States, France, Germany and Britain from offering a draft > resolution at last week's IAEA Governing Council meeting, demanding > that Iran immediately cease such activity. Other council members > quickly challenged the provision's legality. Some members of > President George W. Bush's own party are throwing up their hands at > such clumsy doings. "This administration's nonproliferation strategy > consists of flailing around with a two-by-four," says one disgusted > Republican elder statesman. And even the administration must > realize that its Iran options are limited now by the chaos already > overtaking Iraq." Newsweek Sept 27 edition (already available on > MSNBC) The Sept 27th issue isn't on their site yet seeing as how it's only the 20th today. > > > Why the contradiction? Because the US and EU3 are trying to get around > > > the NPT. > > > > What you view as trying to get around, the rest of the world views as > > keeping a rogue state from potentially developing nuclear weapons. > > > I'm not sure who you're referring to as a rogue state. Gee, lets > think...what state admits to having engaged in years of illegal human > experiments on unsuspecting hospital patients and the mentally > retarded using radiation and plutonium, without the patients' > knowledge or approval? (See the Dept of Energy site before you deny > it) Back in the 50's. Hardly pertinent to the situation today. > Gee, What state is it that supports nun-raping terrorists and > death squads in Latin America, trains torturers like the Shah's Savak, > arms Saddam with anthrax and chemical weapons, violates international > law by invading other countries based on pretexts and lies, has > refused to implement the Chemical Weapons Convention inspection > program and has ignored rulings from the International Court of > Justice, and has also tried to undermine the International Criminal > Court....hmm....lets think real hard now... Hmmm, let's review this AGAIN because you seem incapable of grasping the fact that THE US DOES NOT DO THAT ANYMORE. Sure, mistakes were made in the past. As soon as we discovered what those people were doing we stopped supporting them. What part of that don't you get? Are you really that dense? America NEVER gave Saddam chemical or biological weapons. That's pure horseshit. The US will look out for her own best interests. If that includes invading certain countries that pose a threat to us, then that's exactly what we'll do. As for refusing to implement the CWC, you're completely wrong there as well. http://www.dtra.mil/press_resources/fact_sheets/display.cfm?fs=cwc. The US has never acknowledged the authority of the world court so why would we follow it's rulings? As you can see, with very little thought all your attempted lies have easily been rebuked. That wasn't even hard. You're not very good at this. > Oh, did I also mention that this state has been known to intentionally > target several TV stations and kill all the journalists in the > stations - just because it didn't like what was being reported > (http://www.ifex.org/en/content/view/full/24415/?) Or that it bombed > civilian water-treatment facilities in Iraq thereby contributing to > the deaths of 200,000 or more children? > (http://www.progressive.org/0801issue/nagy0901.html) Complete crap. You'll believe anything anti-American won't you? Will you be quoting Al Jazera or Hezbullah websites next, LOL. Gee, let's see... What state has sponsored, aided, and given refuge to terrorist groups for the last 20 years... Why it's Iran!! What a surprise. > > > > > Secondly, enriched uranium is used to power nuclear reactors which > > > > > generate electricity. Much like oil-rich Russia and oil-rich USA, Iran > > > > > can't rely on oil as a power source forever, esp. since oil is Iran's > > > > > major export and hard-currency earner. That''s why the Stanford > > > > > Research Institute told the Shah in the 1970's that Iran needs to > > > > > diversify its energy sources, and so Iran has planned 7 nuclear > > > > > reactors which will be powered by Iran's rich deposits of uranium. > > > > > > > > Which they do not need since the US has said they would give them all the > > > > enriched uranium for their nuclear reactors they need. The only reason > > > > therefore you can deduce is they intend to highly enrich it for a weapon. > > > > > > Well, you know what? Iran promises to sell the USA all the oil it > > > wants too, so the USA should immediately stop developing a domestic > > > energy sources. REally. Honestly. Take our word for it. You can trust > > > us. > > > > I cannot find anywhere where Iran said they give the US all the oil we need. > > Could you provide a link? The difference you seem to keep ignoring is that > > Iran supports terrorist groups. > > > See above. I still don't see any links that credibly prove anything. > > Seems like the vast majority of the world > > (except you) thinks it's a bad idea for Iran to have the capability to > > enrich uranium. > > > Ah, the old "bandwagon" appeal. Too bad it's the truth eh? Iran will be forced to comply with the UN despite your attempts at subterfuge and spin. Deal with it. > > > > > > > In fact, the US doesn't claim that Iran HAS a nuclear weapons program. > > > > > > > The US claims that Iran COULD ONE DAY use a legitimate civilian > > > > > > > nuclear energy program to make bombs so Iran should not have even a > > > > > > > legitimate legal civilian nuclear energy program. Of course this is > > > > > > > totally contrary to the NonProliferation Treaty, which says that Iran > > > > > > > has an INALIENABLE RIGHT to civilian nuclear technology. In fact, the > > > > > > > whole reason countries like Iran GAVE UP the RIGHT to build nuclear > > > > > > > WEAPONS was in EXCHANGE FOR the recognition of the right to have > > > > > > > civilian nuclear technology. > > > > > > > > > > > > No. Iran is trying to enrich uranium. There's only once thing you do with > > > > > > enriched uranium and it's not making firecrackers. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, make fuel for reactors. The process is under IAEA safeguards > > > > > too. > > > > > > > > Which is easily fooled as evidenced by Iraq's nuckear weapons program which > > > > the IAEA said didn't exist but which we now know did and were actively > > > > pursuing thanks from captured documents. > > > > > > > > > FYI Iran has signed the Additional Protocol, which was specifically > > > drawn up as a result of IRaq's evasions, and still no evidence of any > > > nuclear "weapons" program has turned up in Iran. > > > > Ah, but the inspectors said there was no conclusive proof they weren't > > trying to develop a weapons program either. > > There's no conclusive proof that an elephant doesn't live in my fridge > either. Take Logic 101 and get back to me. Yeah but your fridge isn't capable of enriching uranium and making nuclear weapons. Try thinking for a change. > > > > > The US has no problem > > > > > > with Iran having nuclear reactors for civilian use, we do have a problem > > > > > > with them trying to enrich uranium. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How exactly are the reactors supposed to run then? Pixie dust? > > > > > And before you say that Iran should import its nuclear fuel from > > > > > abroad- why? The Non-Proliferation Treaty itself says that Iran has > > > > > the "inalienable right" to enrich uranium, and Iran has lots of its > > > > > own natural uranium deposits, and lots of other countries use the same > > > > > enrichment technology too (ie Brazil, Holland) > > > > > > > > > > REally? Gee, tell me who was supporting the nun-raping death squads in > > > Nicaragua? The US of A. Therefore, what makes the US of A qualified to > > > point any fingers about "supporting terrorism"? > > > > Key word there is "was". Once we found out what they were doing the aid > > stopped. Which, by the way, has no bearing on this topic of discussion. The > > US has every right to point fingers when they can be backed up with proof. > > > Really? It stopped when it became exposed? Wow how nice of you. Too > bad it had gone on in one form or another for 40 years before that, > and may be going on now for as much as anyone knows...Course, no one > was ever actually held to account for it either, were they? Different times called for different measures. It has no bearing on the topic of Iran today. That's just your attempt to divert attention away from the issues. > > > > > > > So the US is violating the NPT. > > > > > > > > > > > > Only in your mind. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry, you need to read the NPT. I suggest you do it too - its not a > > > > > very long or complicated treaty. > > > > > > > > I have read it. I don't see anywhere where every country has an inalienable > > > > right to enrich uranium nor do I see where the US is in violation of the > > > > NPT. > > > > > > > > > Well, you need to work on your reading comprehension: > > > > > > "[T]he benefits of peaceful applications of nuclear technology, > > > including any technological by-products which may be derived by > > > nuclear-weapon States from the development of nuclear explosive > > > devices, should be available for peaceful purposes to all Parties of > > > the Treaty, whether nuclear-weapon or non-nuclear weapon > > > States...Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the > > > **inalienable right** of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop > > > research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes > > > without discrimination and in conformity with articles I and II of > > > this Treaty." > > > > Ok, so you say that and it's possible I missed it in my reading so please > > provide me with a link. > > > Let me get this straight. You want me to give you a link to the NPT > treaty? What's the matter, your index finger broken? USE A SEARCH > ENGINE. Try DMOZ. (I won't mention that wildly popular commercial one) Yes, give me a link. I read the NPT and I didn't see anywhere where it says "inalienable right" so I must be reading a different NPT then you are. In fact, here is the complete text of the provisions of the NPT. Notice there is nothing about "inalienable rights" mentioned at all. "The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, also referred to as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), obligates the five acknowledged nuclear-weapon states (the United States, Russian Federation, United Kingdom, France, and China) not to transfer nuclear weapons, other nuclear explosive devices, or their technology to any non-nuclear-weapon state. Non-nuclear-weapon States Parties undertake not to acquire or produce nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices. They are required also to accept safeguards to detect diversions of nuclear materials from peaceful activities, such as power generation, to the production of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. This must be done in accordance with an individual safeguards agreement, concluded between each non-nuclear-weapon State Party and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Under these agreements, all nuclear materials in peaceful civil facilities under the jurisdiction of the state must be declared to the IAEA, whose inspectors have routine access to the facilities for periodic monitoring and inspections. If information from routine inspections is not sufficient to fulfill its responsibilities, the IAEA may consult with the state regarding special inspections within or outside declared facilities." > > > Here's how the NPT works > > > > > > The NPT was a two-way bargain. > > > Countries already had nuclear weapons agreed to > > > 1- Work toward disarmamenet > > > 2- Share nuclear technology with signatory nations > > > 3- Not share nuclear technology with non-signatory nations > > > > > > In return, nations which did not yet have nuclear weapons agreed: > > > > > > 1- to forego their RIGHT to build nuclear weapons & only develop > > > nuclear technology for civilian purposes > > > 2- to permit inspections by the IAEA > > > > > > The US has violated all three of its obligations by > > > > > > 1- Instead of working towards disarmament, it is building a whole new > > > class of "user friendly" mini-nukes that are intended to be 'more > > > practical' > > > > We're doing research to upgrade existing stockpiles of nuclear weapons, not > > develop more weapons. We're abiding by all treaties. > > > Sorry, I mistook you for someone who is from planet earth. > http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/mininukes-pr.cfm Try reading your own links brainiak. Here's a quote from the first paragraph: "The administration of President George W. Bush, Americans are finding out, may develop a new breed of nuclear weapons." Notice it says may? We have not done so. How's the weather on Mars by the way? > > > 2- Refusing to share nuclear technology with other signatory nations > > > (like IRan) > > > > A rogue state that supports terrorism. That isn't a violation of the NPT, > > it's called common sense. That's like saying we should share nuclear > > technology with Hezboulla. > > > The NPT doesn't say you get to pick and chose what articles of the > treaty you will and won't abide by. If you want others to stick to > their end of the bargain, you'll have to abide by your end. It's called common sense, something you seem to be lacking. Fortunately, the rest of the world has it and will not let Iran get away with it. > > > 3- Sharing nuclear technology with non-signatory nations such as > > > Israel and Pakistan. > > > > We never shared nuclear technology with either of those countries. > > > Look, the information isn't going to magically come into your head. > Before you deny it, check out the dual-use nuclear technology export > licenses issued by the US Dept of Commerce. And read The Samson > Option: Israel's Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy, Seymour > M. Hersh Israeli's were supplied with all their nuclear technology from France, not the US. Mr. Hersh's book is highly controversial and has never been corroborated. What is fact however is France's culpability. http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/ You should do some basic research instead of taking for gospel any and every article, book, and website that points the finger at the US for being the world's problem.

Back to 2004 Archive, "The Usenet Project" - Back to Starve.Org Main Page - Contact - Starve Archive