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.

 

Russia Warns US Against Strikes on ISIS in Syria

page: 8
22
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 01:23 PM
link   
This whole Syria thing is insane. My son was confused and to be honest I was getting confused too, so I devoted entirely too much time to figuring it all out and note taking.

Side 1 - Assad (president of Syria) backed by Iran, Hezbollah (a military created to get Israel out of Lebanon to set up an Islamic state), and Russia

Side 2 - Syrian opposition aka the Syrian coalition aka Sunni rebels. Backed by, Sunni states like Turkey and Qatar, and Saudi Arabia as well as France, Britain and the US.

Now add in Iraq who is supported by the US and Iran, who supports Syria against Sunni's

We give money and weapons to the Syrian/Sunni rebels to fight the Shiite govt in Syria while giving weapons and money to the Shiite govt to fight the Sunni rebels in Iraq. Both in turn share with their neighbors (since size wise its like Oregon sending help to Washington). All of whom are Islamic and want an Islamic state.

Then we get upset at the outcome of us giving so much money to side number 2 last year, so now we are going to give money to side number 1.

Then our super bright govt and reporters make comments on tv about how surprised they are at the amount of money and weapons ISIS has (Islamic state of Iraq and Syria) Who's there mysterious backer?

Now Syria says we can not come in and take out ISIS. Surprised??? No. Both sides who are fighting, want the same thing, an Islamic state. They are fighting over who is going to control it.


edit on SepSat, 20 Sep 2014 13:24:56 -050056.thpm565614p by mrsdudara because: (no reason given)

edit on SepSat, 20 Sep 2014 13:26:28 -050028.thpm282814p by mrsdudara because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 04:47 PM
link   
POST REMOVED BY STAFF
edit on Sat Sep 20 2014 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 05:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: FlyingFox

Trouble is that satellites have been using nuclear power since the 1960's....trying to differentiate between nuclear thermoelectric batteries, and nuclear weapons onboard would be difficult.



Not really as the diffrent types and frequencys of radiation would likely leave fingerprints.

Useing a geiger counter sure you would not see a diffrence.

Use a spectrometer and you would likely tell not only if a nukes there but were it was made.



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 05:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wirral Bagpuss
Russia SHOULD be worried by Islamic State. One word springs to mind Chechnya. Extremists will get through to Russia by the back door and cause chaos. Putin is well advised to stop messing about in the Ukraine and join the rest of the world in sorting out the Islamic State and it's affiliates threat if only to help protect their boarders. Quite simple really. United we stand, divided we fall. Or perhaps Putin and his inner circle are so cut off from the reality of the situation on the ground they don't realise the threat they and us all face.



I believe Russia realizes it. However, I think they also realize what trying to use any part of this situation to some kind of geopolitical advantage will cost all of us, in the end.

The best way to end this once and for all - is what is needed now. Not trying to turn tables into whatever favor we think we might like best.

Most people are intelligent enough to realize that. US politicians are not, however, intelligent.



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 05:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: GargIndia
There is nothing wrong with a conscript army. It facilitates military training for a large number of men.

Large professional armies are not logical as wars do not happen every day. A war is a once in lifetime eventuality. For that you need manpower that you can call in the hour of need.

A conscript army also forces the equipment to be simple, or at least simple to use and service.

The technical base of building and maintaining the equipment can be merged with the civilian industries in a lot of cases.

The wild chase of more and more destructive weapons is not a good idea. I would rather say if peace is to be found on this planet, the first step is to abolish large standing armies.


If conscriptin was so good then why did the small UK army trump the larger conscript army in the falklands war?



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 05:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: GargIndia
There is nothing wrong with a conscript army. It facilitates military training for a large number of men.

Large professional armies are not logical as wars do not happen every day. A war is a once in lifetime eventuality. For that you need manpower that you can call in the hour of need.

A conscript army also forces the equipment to be simple, or at least simple to use and service.

The technical base of building and maintaining the equipment can be merged with the civilian industries in a lot of cases.

The wild chase of more and more destructive weapons is not a good idea. I would rather say if peace is to be found on this planet, the first step is to abolish large standing armies.


If conscriptin was so good then why did the small UK army trump the larger conscript army in the falklands war?



A couple hundred years of highly specialized training, knowledge, skill, experience, expertise, equipment, and application versus not?



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 05:52 PM
link   
As above we have had enough wars to know the tactics inside out and some of the best trained troops by air,sea and land in the world




top topics



 
22
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join