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.

 

USA is ready to send troops in Ukraine against Russia next week?

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 01:06 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

Arm Ukraine in the first instance and make it plain for Russia to see that any further intervention will be met in a reciprocal way. Russia won't launch nukes (even if they did, there is no guarantee they'd even fly. They have had such problems with their missiles recently I wouldn't want to be banking on them).

They will only go as far as they think they can before it get's real, so if you make it obvious to them it will get very real, very quickly, they'd have no choice.

They don't stand a chance militarily against NATO, they're population is tiny compared to the EU and they have a smaller economy than Italy. Cowering in fear from their Nukes is their only bargaining chip. Even during the height of their power in the 1980's, when they could have taken on NATO and won conventionally, they didn't because they knew it would hurt them badly.

Nowadays, they'd be eaten for lunch. Yeah, we might take a few hits from a nuke if they wan't to play that game, but nuclear war isn't the end of the world you seem to think it is. During the 1980's, the UK Government ran under the idea that even in a full exchange, 70% of the UK would actually be untouched. Sure, fallout is nasty, but that mostly goes away after a few years .

Essentially, you're of the Neville Chamberlain mindset and I am pretty sure that didn't work last time round.




posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 01:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: stumason

Yeah, we might take a few hits from a nuke if they wan't to play that game, but nuclear war isn't the end of the world you seem to think it is. During the 1980's, the UK Government ran under the idea that even in a full exchange, 70% of the UK would actually be untouched. Sure, fallout is nasty, but that mostly goes away after a few years .

No offence but your #ing nuts!

I live in the south east and certainty don't want to take my chances being in that 70% over some poxy 3rd world country that was corrupt to its core anyway.


originally posted by: stumason
Essentially, you're of the Neville Chamberlain mindset and I am pretty sure that didn't work last time round.

That because Neville Chamberlain and France did not have there own Nuclear deterrent.

I get fed up with these WW2 comparisons.

Neither side had nukes.

Hitler steamrolled over Europe because he could.

Putin cant go further than Ukraine as he hits NATO and a rain of Nuclear death.

If you want to make comparisons?

The soviet Invasion of Hungary or Afghanistan.

We let that go.


And as for comparing population as who will win?

Good lcuk with that as I certainty wont be taking up arms conscription or not. Not over Ukraine.

edit on 9-3-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 01:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: Rocker2013

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: subfab
a reply to: Ploutonas

they are sending troops to train ukranian soldiers. that is a bit different than sending troops in to fight against russia.



Funny

I remember Vietnam starting like that.......


Yeah, and on a side note, I remember the Nazis invading and occupying the Northern and Eastern regions of Czechoslovakia under the pretense of "protecting German speakers" too...

No similarities to Russia invading Ukraine to "protect Russian speakers", of course.

/sarc


funny as I don't remember Hitler having 7000 nuclear bombs , nor do I remember UK or France having there own nuclear deterrence to prevent Hitler from steam rolling across Europe.

MAD makes 1930's Germany comparisons irrelevant.

The Ukraine situation is more like the USSR invasion of Hungary.

Russia may be in the wrong.

But they can have these border states as I don't want want to end up as atoms floating up a mushroom cloud.

Better a live coward that allows Ukraine to fall than radioactive dust.


Your cowardliness reminds me of this quote!




First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

edit on 9-3-2015 by Bearack because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 01:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Bearack

Thats the thing. No one is coming for me or the UK.

Ukraine is a corrupt insignificant country many many miles from me.

Certainly not a place I want to die over.

Ukraine's problems are not my problems.

It is for Ukrainians to sort out.
edit on 9-3-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 02:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: Bearack

Thats the thing. No one is coming for me or the UK.

Ukraine is a corrupt insignificant country many many miles from me.

Certainly not a place I want to die over.

Ukraine's problems are not my problems.

It is for Ukrainians to sort out.
Your immediate and blatant disregard for the lives of Ukrainians has been noted. What a selfish point of view.



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 02:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
Your immediate and blatant disregard for the lives of Ukrainians has been noted. What a selfish point of view.


Its a civil war.

Nothing good ever comes out of getting involved in anothers civil war.


Anyway thousands die in Africa everyday through civil wars and political turmoil. Should be intervene with them?

Thousands are dying in the ME for the same reasons again shall we intervene there?

Should the west send troops to all four corner of the globe to sort out everyone problems?

Are you going to pick up a gun and become one of those troops?


edit on 9-3-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-3-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok




No one is coming for me or the UK.


Not right now, but who's to say it couldn't happen in the future?

If we just let Ukraine fall to Russia or the separatists, what stops other countries from following RUssia example and annex parts of countries they feel are their's?


edit on 9-3-2015 by tsurfer2000h because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 02:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rocker2013

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: subfab
a reply to: Ploutonas

they are sending troops to train ukranian soldiers. that is a bit different than sending troops in to fight against russia.



Funny

I remember Vietnam starting like that.......


Yeah, and on a side note, I remember the Nazis invading and occupying the Northern and Eastern regions of Czechoslovakia under the pretense of "protecting German speakers" too...

No similarities to Russia invading Ukraine to "protect Russian speakers", of course.

/sarc


However Nazis were doing that just for an offensive agenda. Russia is doing similar deal to protect its geostrategic interests for present and the future.



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 02:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: crazyewok




No one is coming for me or the UK.


Not right now, but who's to say it couldn't happen in the future?

If we just let Ukraine fall to Russia or the separatists, what stops other countries from following RUssia example and annex parts of countries they feel are their's?



What stops the UK being under threat?

Our nukes.


Same with the EU and USA.

No one is marching into Europe or the USA. Not for the next few decades anyway.

This aint 1930's


Its more likely 1980's cold war.

I dont remember us marching in when the USSR attacked Afghanistan or Hungary.



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 02:38 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

The difference here is that Ukraine had an Agreement with Russia and the West called the Budapest Memorandum. Ukraine agreed to give up it's nuclear arsenal. In exchange, both the West and Russia agreed that neither will encroach on Ukraine's borders, and not annex/invade any part of it's territory.

Russia wiped it's arse with it, took Crimea, and is now coordinating taking Eastern Ukraine to secure a land bridge between Crimea and Moscow.

If Ukraine hadn't signed the Memorandum, my feelings on the matter may have been different. Then again, Russia wouldn't have invaded Ukraine either. Those pesky nukes and whatnot. You're right, the US, EU, Any NATO country/nuclear country is safe. Do we just let the rest of it go to Russia because we're afraid of them?

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 02:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun


The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

So when then are you going to return to the US from Japan and sign up to the US army?


Those that call for war should do the fighting.



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 02:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun


The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

So when then are you going to return to the US from Japan and sign up to the US army?


Those that call for war should do the fighting.
If I were able-bodied (by military standards), I would gladly sign up. I tried to when I turned 18 but was turned down due to a neurological problem. Not sure what use a middle-aged IT girl would have in the conflict, but I'd be happy to contribute.



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 02:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: Bearack

Thats the thing. No one is coming for me or the UK.

Ukraine is a corrupt insignificant country many many miles from me.

Certainly not a place I want to die over.

Ukraine's problems are not my problems.

It is for Ukrainians to sort out.


Again, you're willingness to turn a blind eye to the plight of others suffrage is a prime example how we will never learn anything from history and as long as their suffering does not impact you, you're fine with it. But by the time their suffering reaches you, it'll be too late as there will be no one left to hear your plight of suffrage.



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 03:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bearack

Again, you're willingness to turn a blind eye to the plight of others suffrage is a prime example how we will never learn anything from history


We did in the Hungarian Revolution/USSR intervention.

we did it in the USSR invasion of Afghanistan

We did it when China occupied tibet

We did it when china Invaded Vietnam

We did do it all the time in Africa.


Would you have intervened in all those too?


The worlds a evil place. # happens. We cant solve all the worlds problems. Especially the UK since we don't have a empire anymore and barely even have a army.



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 03:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: noeltrotsky

originally posted by: crazyewok
Sure im all for more economic sanctions.
I would happily turf every single Russian oligarch out of London my self.
But I draw the line at military action in Ukraine.


As soon as you draw that line you have lost Ukraine. The dictator moves in, takes it and says F U. After that he takes another part of a country. Then again. Until you take away the 'line' you drew and say you will fight to stop him. History makes this fact very clear.

Unless you think Putin is like Ghandi...then I guess we should keep talking to him.


You cannot say this, both Russia and your country took equally from Uckraine.

Uckraine did a parody ellections and the very next morning, US military airplanes transfered ALL THE GOLD of Uckraine into a federal bank of America... (gone kaput).

Russia took land, a land that have been always Russias dream, also during 18th century it was russian.

you want proofs?

link about Uckraine gold

after this fiasco, that USA robbed the entire gold of Uckraine and after the poronesko government dropped down, they investigated the matter and the result is, that someone took the gold from the Uckraine vaults and replaced it with LEAD, painted in golden colors.. hahahaha

u cheeky americanos... lol

link about fake gold

So lets not speak about dictatorships.. Now this country is light as a feather, no gold, no nothing. 40-50.000klg of gold taken. Now Crymaia is a much wealthier state than Uckraine, so dont take Vietnam very lightly. And my opinion is, to just leave it be and at the end, those local people there, will find their new way and they will support each other at the end. Because the today Uckraine, really is in a desperate condition.
edit on 9-3-2015 by Ploutonas because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 04:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Ploutonas

India belonged to Britain until the recent past.

Japan owned parts of China until the recent past.

Using "The past" as justification for invasion of the present, would render the world at war.

So don't use it here.

And you want to talk "parody" elections? Let's talk Crimea and it's "Referendum".



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 04:29 PM
link   
Left unsaid in all this madness is the simple fact that Russia is not, and has not done anything more than protect it's own backyard, as any country would do when military idiots are encroaching on it. In this case, the US and NATO, it's proxy army.

Russia was getting along just fine and western trade with Russia was doing well, working for Russia as well as Europe. All that ended when the US neocon idiots decided to finance and run the coup to take over Ukraine for the IMF and corporations. They want Russia too and will also try to engineer unrest there as well to gain control.

It also seems like most Europeans are getting more and more pissed off at the prospect of the US engineering conflict on their doorstep and want a peaceful negotiated solution. Sending in troops, armour and aircraft into countries bordering Russia, to thwart the cooked up and non-existent Russian threat is laughable. THERE IS NOT AND HAS NOT BEEN A RUSSIAN THREAT, other than the the one cooked up by the US and the corporate media.

They won't be happy until they have started another war. It's good for business - debt creation - and they care not how many people are killed or maimed in the process. The banks are imploding and the destroyed western economies won't hold up much longer - they need a distraction, and a very big one to cover their own crimes and enrich themselves in the process. Makes me sick!

We'd be better off just shooting the warmongers then sitting down and talking. After all, a war benefits nobody other than the bankers, history has taught us that very painful lesson twice already.



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 04:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: Ploutonas

India belonged to Britain until the recent past.

Japan owned parts of China until the recent past.

Using "The past" as justification for invasion of the present, would render the world at war.

So don't use it here.

And you want to talk "parody" elections? Let's talk Crimea and it's "Referendum".


if we play that game, all the planet is Hellenic and all of you must find a way to move out lol
(only the black race can stay).

In the prev message I ve described what really happened. And US started it, russia came after they saw all the fiasco with the elections and the robbery of the gold... US provoked that.

So the best solution at this point, is to leave it be, both sides.. Let them live. Or else its a genocide.

edit on 9-3-2015 by Ploutonas because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2015 @ 07:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
No offence but your #ing nuts!

I live in the south east and certainty don't want to take my chances being in that 70% over some poxy 3rd world country that was corrupt to its core anyway.


Thanks


I live in the South East too, but I seriously doubt Russia would risk a nuclear exchange herself either. Either way, that's why we have the nukes in the first place, to put off people using them as a weapon/intimidation (as Russia tries to do anyway) and to reply in kind if they do decide to be silly bastards.


originally posted by: crazyewok
That because Neville Chamberlain and France did not have there own Nuclear deterrent.


No, but combined they had the worlds largest Naval force which, at the time, was a comparable deterrent. We could have simply threatened War as soon as he rolled Austria (or earlier - building an Air Force, building tanks) and blockaded them into submission.

Instead, Chamberlain et al allowed him to take the Sudentenland as well and gave Hitler the time to build up his Army.

The writing was on the wall for years before 1939 yet it was ignored, because people feared standing up to him as it might mean War, but if action had been taken in 1936 when Hitler took the Rhineland back, he would not have been able to stand up to France and the UK. We knew he was re-arming long before they became a threat - he wasn't actually building tractors you know!


originally posted by: crazyewok
I get fed up with these WW2 comparisons.


Tough.


originally posted by: crazyewok
Neither side had nukes.


No, but as I said above, France and the UK had more than the capability to crush Hitler early on. By the time of Poland, it was too late.


originally posted by: crazyewok
Hitler steamrolled over Europe because he could.


Because he was allowed to.


originally posted by: crazyewok
Putin cant go further than Ukraine as he hits NATO and a rain of Nuclear death.


Well, no, it doesn't mean a "rain of nuclear death at all". NATO would not use nuclear weapons in a first use scenario. Back in the 1980's, it was supposed they might have done that (using tactical nukes) owing to the Soviets domination in numbers and armour, but that is not the case now. Even minus any conscription or re-armament, NATO outnumbers Russia in every department and has much better equipment anyway.

If anyone would use Nukes, it would be Russia first.


originally posted by: crazyewok
If you want to make comparisons?

The soviet Invasion of Hungary or Afghanistan.

We let that go.


Not even remotely comparable. Hungary was dominated by the Soviet Union from the end of World War 2. What happened in 1956 was the Army moving out of barracks to crush a pro-Democracy revolt at the behest of the Communist Government in Budapest, not an actual invasion. The Soviets moved extra troops in from elsewhere, but there was already a Soviet Army inside Hungary and it had been there since 1945.


originally posted by: crazyewok
And as for comparing population as who will win?

Good lcuk with that as I certainty wont be taking up arms conscription or not. Not over Ukraine.


Fine, you do that. It'll be the coal mines or farms for you then



posted on Mar, 10 2015 @ 08:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: stumason


Fine, you do that. It'll be the coal mines or farms for you then


More like Iceland, Switzerland or Japan.


If you warmongers Russian/European or American want your European gang bang then fine. Im off to live a long and profitable life elsewhere. I get plenty of job offers round the world so I will take one in country that will be far removed.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join