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.

 

Ukraine Wants Action, But U.S. Sends Hashtags Instead

page: 3
19
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 26 2014 @ 10:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010
America shouldn't be getting involved at all because it's none of our business. It's time these nations start handling their own problems we are broke and our military is worn out thanks to the world police nonsense it is time we step out of the picture.


Perhaps you are simply ignorant on the subject, but wish to post anyways.

1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances

Look it up.




posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 04:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: buster2010
You mean like how sanctions worked on Iran? Sanctions are an act of war and really makes no sense.


They were admittedly working in Iran until Dear Leader reduced them, otherwise why would Iran agree to the 'deal' the White House proposed and they are not adhering to?

Sanctions are a political and economic tool to help prevent war.


Yeah they worked in Iraq too. 100,000+ children died from lack of sewage / water treatment in Iraq after the Gulf War because the USA enforced an embargo that blocked the export of maintenance parts and tools under the pretext that they would be used for weapons production.

Sanctions are an overt act of war designed to starve and stress populations of a target country. Russia is an economic juggernaut that relies on resource extraction, whereas the USA's economy sustains itself via financial fraud and quantitative easing (ie, it's not really based off of anything productive). Russia is laughing. Russia also just pushed massive initiatives to cut all ties to the American dollar. If all the other countries ignored involvement in American currency and banks, the American economy would implode.

Again, the world laughs at the USA as it tries to throw economic sanctions against countries that seek to abolish economic ties with the USA.



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 05:02 AM
link   
a reply to: oblvion

You do realize Russia needs a war economically and we don't.. right? Russia has the upper hand if we try and extend ourselves into a full blow war with them.

Which is sad, very sad day that we are so over-extended and economically weak.

But in the end, Russia isn't doing anything we haven't been doing. They even have the moral upper hand this time, we cannot really complain without it being thrown in our faces. What's good for the goose and all that.

Not that it bothers us to have it thrown in our faces or anything. Apparently that is not a concern, we make great hypocrites.

I would personally prefer NOT to see the United States go the way Rome did, not that I think I can stop it, I am just not willing to rush headlong into it as quickly as possible.
edit on 27-4-2014 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 05:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: OpinionatedB
a reply to: oblvion



You do realize Russia needs a war economically and we don't.. right? Russia has the upper hand if we try and extend ourselves into a full blow war with them.

Wrong. We have assets in place and would 100% win any war with Russia. Us being extended would mean that another war with a major power such as China would difficult to win as well, but right now we would win both wars.





But in the end, Russia isn't doing anything we haven't been doing. They even have the moral upper hand this time, we cannot really complain without it being thrown in our faces. What's good for the goose and all that.

I must have missed the headlines. What neighbor of ours did we invade and Annex? Any of them have a treaty with us, like Russia had with the Ukraine promising to respect their national integrity?



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 05:37 AM
link   
Well Twitter will ensure this campaign goes the way the state department wants by blocking links to pro-russian sites and hideing certain tweets so do not be fooled if 99% of the public are all agreeing with the whitehouse.

I have warned people here about Twitter and Google subverting the internet before and stated after research that 95% of all googe searches allways return the same top 1000-2000 sites so most of the internet has been locked out.

The USA has started this war, want oil prices up, wants more military speinding at home and it now looks like the USA is telling Europe that it too must spend more on it's military and I would think they want to help us out by selling us a lot of over priced hardware.

Mr Putin has every right to be angry and so do a lot of people in Europe that don't want americains starting a fight over here in Europe and it is time we sent these american trouble makers back home and closed the military bases they have all over Europe.


originally posted by: OpinionatedB
a reply to: oblvion

You do realize Russia needs a war economically and we don't.. right? Russia has the upper hand if we try and extend ourselves into a full blow war with them.


It was never Russia that was spending more on the military than the rest of the world combined and the USA is up to it's ear in debt as it is and needs to try anything to raise some money.


edit on 27-4-2014 by VirusGuard because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 05:44 AM
link   
a reply to: VirusGuard

Yes, I can't believe America invaded Crimea!!! Wait .. you mean that wasn't America? So how exactly is America starting a war when Russia has actually invaded the Ukraine? You must have to suspend all reason and logic to even type that ...



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 05:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: oblvion
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Send our guys over there, it would be our first actual good use of troops since the end of WW2.

We arent the bad guys this time. We would be the guys protecting those too weak to defend themselves.



It's not as easy as that.

There's been so much bad publicity on the US, so much attacks from Wikileaks and Manning, and Snowden, with the latter protected BY Moscow, that the US makes one false move, and it's over. Revolution explode, the US government is overthrown, and who knows who is at the head afterward... coughFifthColumncough.

Notice how Snowden and Manning released their "breaking news" about the US not a year before Moscow attacked Ukraine? Notice how then, mysteriously, Snowden is under the protection of Poutin? Doesn't it seem a strange coincidence that the only military power that could've stood against Russia has been completely destroyed by Manning and Snowden not 6 months before the attack on Ukraine?

Food for thoughts.

Now, the US can't do one thing to stop it, even if Ukraine doesn't have the power to defend itself. Too much bad publicity, and too much chance of a revolution if they intervene and 2 years later, the US population doesn't like it.



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 06:14 AM
link   
a reply to: starheart

No. There will be no revolution. This would be possibly the first War that would have lasting public approval since Desert Storm.



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 06:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: oblvion
What is the current stat for Russian tanks vs the Abhrams? Like 200 to 1?...LOL

Russia has a good military from a korean war view point, from a modern view point....They are pathetic.

When was the last time a russian weapons system beat a western weapons system?

The last time the west dominated russian tech was Iraq, 73 easting in 91' was kinda dramatic. Honestly the most one sided tank battle in history. They might as well have been hiding behind wicker shields for all the good those russian tanks did them.

The only Russian tech America has ever been pitted against has been Iraqi imports and Chinese (see Type-56 vs AKm/-47)knock-offs sold to other countries.

The Abrams dominated at 73 Eastings because an 80's-90's designed MBT was launched against export model(downgraded) T-62s, T-72s and similarly outdated armor and weaponry. The Abrams had a full extra decade of development from the get-go.


I won't sit here and speculate on M1A2's or even the rumored A3 models vs non-export Russian T-90/90AM/SM and their own various upgrades, since the majority of specifications of armor and weaponry is classified and simply can't. But judging what Russian tech can do based upon what Iraq did with last year's model is a tremendous misconception.



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 08:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vovin
Yeah they worked in Iraq too. 100,000+ children died from lack of sewage / water treatment in Iraq after the Gulf War because the USA enforced an embargo that blocked the export of maintenance parts and tools under the pretext that they would be used for weapons production.



The sanctions on Iraq were admittedly effective.


There is a general consensus that the sanctions achieved the express goals of limiting Iraqi arms. For example, American war architect Douglas J. Feith says that the sanctions diminished Iraq militarily[19] and scholars George A. Lopez and David Cortright say sanctions compelled Iraq to accept inspections and monitoring; winning concessions from Baghdad on political issue such as the border dispute with Kuwait; preventing the rebuilding of Iraqi defenses after the Persian Gulf War; and blocking the import of materials and technologies for producing weapons of mass destruction".[20][21][22] Hussein told his FBI interrogator [23] that Iraq's armaments "had been eliminated by the UN sanctions."[24] and scholars George A. Lopez and David Cortright say sanctions compelled Iraq to accept inspections and monitoring; winning concessions from Baghdad on political issue such as the border dispute with Kuwait; preventing the rebuilding of Iraqi defenses after the Persian Gulf War; and blocking the import of materials and technologies for producing weapons of mass destruction".[20][21][22] Hussein told his FBI interrogator [23] that Iraq's armaments "had been eliminated by the UN sanctions."[24] ]Source



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 08:21 AM
link   
a reply to: TritonTaranis

My country has 23 Million people and weighs in at 10th richest country in the world per capita, funnily enough Qatar is ranked number one yet the people of that country are poor because the wealth isn't distributed amongst the population. What does estimating Billions have to do with anything? 50 Million people in the USA barely live above the poverty line, does that mean you also have the most poor people in the world also? Last I heard your country was actually Trillions (20 to be exact) in debt.

edit on 27-4-2014 by DarknStormy because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 08:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: VirusGuard

Yes, I can't believe America invaded Crimea!!! Wait .. you mean that wasn't America? So how exactly is America starting a war when Russia has actually invaded the Ukraine? ...


I did not say the USA invaed so stop trying to put words in the mouth. an invasion means hundreds of tanks rolling down the road, shells being fired, blood all over the roads.

The USA paid the nazi thugs in the Ukraine and leaked tapes prove it and are trying the same tricks used as in Syria

"You must have to suspend all reason and logic to even type that"

Seems to me that you cannot be logical because you only have half the infomation needed to make an informed decision but if you trust the ramblings of jhon-kerry then thats is up to you.
edit on 27-4-2014 by VirusGuard because: Logic say my daddy toe is always next to mummy toe, logic is under attack



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 09:04 AM
link   
a reply to: starheart

"Notice how Snowden and Manning released their "breaking news" about the US not a year before Moscow attacked Ukraine?"

You think so ?

Well lets look at the facts like if they attacked then how come a russian puppet got removed at the point of a gun from Kiev.

Why after we were told that everyone just about in the Ukraine hated russians do we now have Ukraine tanks point shells at protestors in the east.

This "Attack" you speak about must one of them stealth attacks because I did not see tanks rolling down the streets, fighters overhead , hundreds of people being killed by Russia but my crystal ball says the Ukraine has tanks in the east and is killing civilians and yesterday used helicopters to kidnap someone.

Are you fearful of a vote in the Ukraine with international bodies ensuring the voting is free and fair because thats whats needed and it's not Russia that is standing in the way.



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 01:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: starheart

No. There will be no revolution. This would be possibly the first War that would have lasting public approval since Desert Storm.


.... Until a guy like Snowden or Assange "release" a document that "proves" that the US military tortured innocent peoples, and everyone believes it.

You talk of Desert Storm, but that is exactly about what Manning "released" 400,000 documents, "proving" that the military did horrible things during the Iraq War (Desert Storm).



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: VirusGuard

Last time I checked, it was Russia that attacked Ukraine, not Ukraine that attacked its own population. Which is why the UN sanctioned Russia, and why the US hesitate to intervene. I don't know where you take that information, but it's not true.

I know that the media seems to be trying to showcase how Russia is a way better country than the US (even though Russia still imprison simple journalists, and puts in jail whoever is remotely gay), but the truth is, not this time.



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 04:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: DarknStormy
a reply to: oblvion

Going by modern history sending troops would be the last thing Ukrainians want.. Every country you have touched over the last decade is now a terrorist paradise.


Sadly this is was a lot of Americans seem not to understand, they still think that everybody wants their troops as soon as there is a conflict.
No, people finally realize, that US troops did no good to Iraq and Afghanistan.
The countries were at least stable before the US moved there and look at them now. You have to live in fear that you can be hit by a terror attack of one of the thousand underground cells there.
There is no stability in this countries anymore, the economy is weaker, the people poorer... the countries are bombed to the ground and still dont have a new infrastracture.

Do you really want to proceed like that all over the world?
Now the USA is funding Syrian rebels, the same the try to get rid of in Lybia or Yemen.
This is ridiculous.

I just wait for the announcement, that the will fund Dimitri Jarosch in Ukraine.

The only people that always scream for US help are the ones that hope that they might profit from it finacially.
edit on 27-4-2014 by aLLeKs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 01:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: starheart
a reply to: VirusGuard

Last time I checked, it was Russia that attacked Ukraine, not Ukraine that attacked its own population. Which is why the UN sanctioned Russia, and why the US hesitate to intervene. I don't know where you take that information, but it's not true.

I know that the media seems to be trying to showcase how Russia is a way better country than the US (even though Russia still imprison simple journalists, and puts in jail whoever is remotely gay), but the truth is, not this time.


Are you serious?
edit on 28-4-2014 by Cablespider because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 03:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Vovin
Yeah they worked in Iraq too. 100,000+ children died from lack of sewage / water treatment in Iraq after the Gulf War because the USA enforced an embargo that blocked the export of maintenance parts and tools under the pretext that they would be used for weapons production.



The sanctions on Iraq were admittedly effective.


There is a general consensus that the sanctions achieved the express goals of limiting Iraqi arms. For example, American war architect Douglas J. Feith says that the sanctions diminished Iraq militarily[19] and scholars George A. Lopez and David Cortright say sanctions compelled Iraq to accept inspections and monitoring; winning concessions from Baghdad on political issue such as the border dispute with Kuwait; preventing the rebuilding of Iraqi defenses after the Persian Gulf War; and blocking the import of materials and technologies for producing weapons of mass destruction".[20][21][22] Hussein told his FBI interrogator [23] that Iraq's armaments "had been eliminated by the UN sanctions."[24] and scholars George A. Lopez and David Cortright say sanctions compelled Iraq to accept inspections and monitoring; winning concessions from Baghdad on political issue such as the border dispute with Kuwait; preventing the rebuilding of Iraqi defenses after the Persian Gulf War; and blocking the import of materials and technologies for producing weapons of mass destruction".[20][21][22] Hussein told his FBI interrogator [23] that Iraq's armaments "had been eliminated by the UN sanctions."[24] ]Source


That's nice. Unfortunately that's all a distraction from the reality of what sanctions really are. Do you really believe that sanctions are used to target military capability? In reality, sanctions are designed to limit the ability to feed and sustain a population, with the goal of eventually inciting a pro-west uprising against the target regime. Countries such as Cuba and the DPRK are examples of what western sanctions achieve.
edit on 28-4-2014 by Vovin because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 05:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vovin
Do you really believe that sanctions are used to target military capability? In reality, sanctions are designed to limit the ability to feed and sustain a population, with the goal of eventually inciting a pro-west uprising against the target regime. Countries such as Cuba and the DPRK are examples of what western sanctions achieve.


I am well aware of the desired outcome and support the use of sanctions as opposed to sending United States military personnel to go die in some foreign country that could not give a rat's ass about us.



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 05:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: oblvion

originally posted by: buster2010
America shouldn't be getting involved at all because it's none of our business. It's time these nations start handling their own problems we are broke and our military is worn out thanks to the world police nonsense it is time we step out of the picture.


Yes because it is much better to watch and actual travesty we could stop with little actual effort. We call his bluff he will flinch. He is not going to cause WW3 just so he can be a bully to those around him to weak to defend themselves.

You dont give a bully what he wants to try to end the problem, you tell him to go EFF his mother, and then punch the pussy in his face 14 or 15 times.

This method has worked for thousands of years. Bullies are at their core, sissies and they know it, they hide behind bravado so you dont see it.

If we do nothing, the blood of thousands of innocents will be on our hands. We can stop this, we should stop this.

If we dont....well the world maps will be redrawn, as Russia takes Ukraine, then the rest of eastern EU.

It is simple, learn from history, stop the problem when it is small with little actual effort or los of life, or wait until it is out of control, and millions must die to end it.

I was a math major in college, millions of lives lost, is way more than a few.


If we don't stand up to Putin now, we'll just have to later. By that time, the costs could be much higher. =/



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join