Question for people that live in the USA

reply to post by buster2010


I wonder if that scares many people the way it scares me?

Originally posted by superman2012

So, my question is, why is it ok for some US citizens to tell people what to do in their country, but, if someone tells you what to do in your country, it is stupid and they should keep their nose out of your business?

Because, they ratified the Nuclear non-proliferation treaty in 1968.

reply to post by anton74


Right, but not really an answer to my question.

Edit: Plus the US isn't abiding to the NPT 100% either, so it is still a case of do as I say, not as I do.

reply to post by ADVISOR


Sorry, Advisor.

The Republic was a stage of governance just like the stages of governance that any other country would go through as population increased, gross domestic product grew and international relations became more of an entanglement.

It's nice to think you could still play Little League Baseball and slide down the hill on your sled like you used to, but there are other things to do now, to take care of now that you've grown. The United States is 236 years old now. A republic is for smaller nations with far fewer concerns.

reply to post by superman2012


"I wonder if that scares many people the way it scares me?"

Something strange: Canada's Hands Are Dirty Also

Canada's Nuclear Industry - History

Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by anton74

 

Right, but not really an answer to my question.

Edit: Plus the US isn't abiding to the NPT 100% either, so it is still a case of do as I say, not as I do.

edit on 9-1-2013 by superman2012 because: (no reason given)

From Wiki, "Nuclear proliferation is the spread of nuclear weapons, fissile material, and weapons-applicable nuclear technology and information to nations not recognized as "Nuclear Weapon States" by the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons, also known as the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty or NPT."

Please explain how the U.S. is not in compliance.

Edit: Our gun rights are not part on any international treaty.

reply to post by superdud2012


In fact, this is what Canadians believe about Iran:

What Canadians Believe about Iran's Ability to Build a Bomb

reply to post by skyzeagle


But, I want to keep playing on my Knight Rider Sled, and preserve that in which I was raised.

I am not against change, so long as it is for the better.

reply to post by skyzeagle


Even more information about how Canada helped the United States build nuclear armaments:

Canada is Violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferating Treaty

reply to post by anton74


You are right, on the definition of nuclear proliferation.

However, the NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty) is not the same.
It is a 3 pillar system:

1. non-proliferation (as you mentioned)
2. disarmament (which is what I was talking about)
3. the right to peacefully use nuclear technology (which is Iran's stance on the issue)

Disarmament, in this case, was for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons. This hasn't happened. Some people argue that the US has reduced it's stockpile. While admiral, it isn't complete elimination.

Anymore questions?

reply to post by skyzeagle


Canada is just as dirty as the US, I wasn't saying otherwise. You were the one that decided to bring nationality into play, not me. (sorry, I wanted you to compare me to that dreamy Brad Pitt again, thanks for the compliment btw )

Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by anton74

 

You are right, on the definition of nuclear proliferation.

However, the NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty) is not the same.
It is a 3 pillar system:

1. non-proliferation (as you mentioned)
2. disarmament (which is what I was talking about)
3. the right to peacefully use nuclear technology (which is Iran's stance on the issue)

Disarmament, in this case, was for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons. This hasn't happened. Some people argue that the US has reduced it's stockpile. While admiral, it isn't complete elimination.

Anymore questions?

I have a question: How much uranium has Canada supplied France not just for it's power generation but its weapons since it has no other source for it?

I have another question: what does NAFTA afford Canada to do as far as supplying the U.S.A. with uranium from Saskatoon mines for the purposes of creating nuclear warheads?

Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by skyzeagle

 

Canada is just as dirty as the US, I wasn't saying otherwise. You were the one that decided to bring nationality into play, not me.

(sorry, I wanted you to compare me to that dreamy Brad Pitt again, thanks for the compliment btw

)

He's an overrated actor and frankly your argument is almost dead with the inclusion of Canadian supplied uranium.

It means that you have no high ground on which to argue.

reply to post by skyzeagle


Relevance to this thread is?

Feel free to make your own thread (you have enough posts now) and let me know what the title is. I would be happy to talk to you about whatever your little mind thinks of. (No offense meant by that, just a phrase).

reply to post by skyzeagle


Sounds like you should start a new thread with your interests. Why the need to drag a thread that obviously irritates you off track?

Originally posted by skuzzyeagle

Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by skuzzyeagle

 

Canada is just as dirty as the US, I wasn't saying otherwise. You were the one that decided to bring nationality into play, not me.

(sorry, I wanted you to compare me to that dreamy Brad Pitt again, thanks for the compliment btw

)

He's an overrated actor and frankly your argument is almost dead with the inclusion of Canadian supplied uranium.

It means that you have no high ground on which to argue.

High ground? What does any of what you have mentioned in the last couple of posts have to do with my original question? If you are trying to derail it, you are being too obvious. Make your own thread, I will discuss with you there. Did you not read the T & C's?

Edit: overrated actor yet you reference his movies and make puns out of them suggesting you are a fan and aware of his work.

Finally! I get to the end of the thread and can make a comment.

If Iran builds a nuclear weapon, they are within their "rights". That act may break a treaty or two but it is a choice that Iran as a country can make.

If Iran states that Israel should be wiped off the map, they are within their "rights". Perhaps call the area Palestine as that would satisfy the Iranians if indeed wiping Israel off the map is literally their intention.

Israel already has nuclear weapons and delivery vehicles (most likely, courtesy of the USA) and that is their "right".

If Israel and Iran want to nuke each other, as is within their "rights", I say let them go at it without outside interference from any allied third party , especially the USA.

The problem as I see it - although these "rights" exist, exercising them is NOT RIGHT by any stretch.

ganjoa

reply to post by DelMar


Agreed.

So, what was the topic again?



* Looks around for the OP but can't seem to find it in the fog of obfuscation...*

Originally posted by superman2012

Originally posted by skyzeagle

Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by skyzeagle

 

Canada is just as dirty as the US, I wasn't saying otherwise. You were the one that decided to bring nationality into play, not me.

(sorry, I wanted you to compare me to that dreamy Brad Pitt again, thanks for the compliment btw

)

He's an overrated actor and frankly your argument is almost dead with the inclusion of Canadian supplied uranium.

It means that you have no high ground on which to argue.

High ground? What does any of what you have mentioned in the last couple of posts have to do with my original question? If you are trying to derail it, you are being too obvious. Make your own thread, I will discuss with you there. Did you not read the T & C's?

Edit: overrated actor yet you reference his movies and make puns out of them suggesting you are a fan and aware of his work.

edit on 10-1-2013 by superman2012 because: (no reason given)

Holy crap! This is ATS.

Thanks, Superman. Your thread was incredibly entertaining. For a moment there I forgot who was hosting.

I'm putting you up for an ATSy award!

Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by anton74

 

You are right, on the definition of nuclear proliferation.

However, the NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty) is not the same.
It is a 3 pillar system:

1. non-proliferation (as you mentioned)
2. disarmament (which is what I was talking about)
3. the right to peacefully use nuclear technology (which is Iran's stance on the issue)

Disarmament, in this case, was for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons. This hasn't happened. Some people argue that the US has reduced it's stockpile. While admiral, it isn't complete elimination.

Anymore questions?

There is no timeline for Disarmament, so we are not in violation of that.