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.

 

The West has lost it's military edge.......

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 08:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dizrael
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan


originally posted by: Helious
Bombing women and children and arming terrorists must make people soft.


this where it was brought up.

and as to us "arming terrorists" they weren't terrorists at the time they were armed by us, they were armed because theyre goals at the time were aligned with ours. they later used terrorism but that came later.

anything else?



We arm people that we have no business arming. We arm people who hate America because they serve a purpose for American government interest at the time. We arm people who murder innocents and who would see America and all of it's citizens burned to the ground.

Beyond that, answer me a couple questions if you would be so kind.

1.) Who is Americas closest ally in the Middle East? Once you answer that, please then tell me where the majority of hijackers that perpetrated 9/11 came from.

2.) Why was Americas government supplying billions of dollars and state of the art military equipment to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, a known organization to not only act directly in terrorism but also to fund, sponsor and foster it?

If your argument is that these things are needed to insure American interests and protect national security then, well, ok... I guess I can understand it. If your argument is that you are naive or ignorant of any of these things happening or don't believe it then I'm not sure you and I can have an intelligent conversation.




posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 08:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dizrael

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: Dizrael

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Greathouse


So why the double standard? Are those women and children less important than ours?


the double standard is the country hiding them wont give them up. if the hiding country would give them up and stop harboring KNOWN terrorists we wouldn't have to lay it down.


Although I will preface this by noting that some of these countries have given us permission to engage these "terrorists," what about national sovereignty in other cases? And, this still does not solve the problem of disproportionate collateral damage.

The US and neo-cons are always citing "national sovereignty" whenever anyone speaks against the US' violations of international law, including but not limited to overthrowing regimes, bombing many countries, and invading such countries as Iraq (which is a violation of Iraqi sovereignty).

So if Americans want to at least appear not to be one-sided bullies, using international law when it suits them and throwing it out when it doesn't, then they cannot simply violate national sovereignty and pursue, kill, or apprehend whomever they wish.

If you believe that this is legal, then you have to accept the ability for other countries to do the same in our country, such as arrest George Bush for war crimes. Are you ready for the mutual standard?


simply, yes. I am ready for that. but that means the other countries are required to give up their war criminals (terrorists) I don't even care if they only stand international court, not US. they have wronged more than the US, they need to be held accountable for everything.


FIrst, yes, international law is that ALL war criminals are tried. That, is what is called real justice.

Second, you have it backwards.

The West basically does not have to answer for any of its crimes, while tin pot dictators do all of the time. This is discussed frequently by the international community.

Please tell me in the last 50 years the last time one of our western leaders was hauled in front of the International Criminal Court?

The War in Iraq, was a war crime of aggression, as was CIA torture a war crime and violation of human rights. Where are all of the court cases and war crimes charges for the leadership responsible? Non existant.

So what we have is that either through war tribunals and international law OR drones and invasions, the small weaker criminals or enemies being held accountable but nobody really in the west being held accountable.

Third, the US is doing more violence worldwide than most of the people who seem to be implying. This is one of the first steps of awakening, as a westerner, about foreign affairs.

The way to get back our credibility is to hold our leaders, just like these small time leaders, accountable when they violate the law or ethics.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 08:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: jacobe001

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Dizrael

Feel free to try to parse out intent. Reality is: we killed women and children with bombs. Calling them "collateral damage" doesn't mean we didn't kill them with bombs. And, if we are being honest, it isn't like we don't know that there is going to be "collateral damage". Which means: we knowingly kill women and children.

Unless you would like for me to believe that the military is completely oblivious to the civilians in the general vicinity of those bombs. Because, you know....killing 1100 to get 41.....the contortions of logic it requires to accept that.....


im still waiting to see proof of us arming terrorists.


???

That wasn't part of the discussion.....

but since you asked


"Collateral Damage", "Preemptive War", "Spreading Democracy", "Liberating Countries" are all propaganda slogans to fool the masses.

The propaganda we put out would make the empires of the past blush. Imagine if they had used the same slogans in those days.

I'll be those that support it would scream bloody murder if another country tried that on us.

We do not have "Democracy" in the USA but they would sure scream bloody murder if another country tried to "spread" it on our shores.


EXACTLY. Virtually all of the people claiming these phrases would never allow it in reverse. I can usually tell in about five minutes that 95% of the very people saying these phrases have never considered it in reverse, i.e. what if a country called out the US for war crimes and aggression, what if another country called for liberating us from the government and using force, what if another country attacked us for geo-political reasons even though we were not threatening them (Iraq), what if another country had drones flying in the sky and attacking wedding parties, what if another power came in when it wanted and removed democratically elected leaders and installed dictators in the US?

The truth is, I bet some of us would become "terrorists" to fight those other countries.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 08:15 PM
link   
The West has been eerily quiet in the teeth of relentless provocation by an untypically belligerent Russia.

I'd like to go with the general consensus that it's because the West is secretly beefing up its rolling stock; I'd LIKE to believe that.

The Ruskies will have seen what a dog's dinner the West made in Afghanistan, pussyfooting around with an unprofessional army of basically Bedouin tribesmen armed with some high tech...and fancy their chances.

Compare and contrast the WW2 German army, who would have wrapped the whole thing up in a matter of weeks, basically liquidating the entire area and, thus, eliminating the threat.

The West's military is possibly up to the task but has the additional handicap of fighting its wars under the softly-softly rules of neo-Marxism.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 08:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Helious

I believe my response below sums up as to what my argument is.


originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: Dizrael

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: Dizrael

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Greathouse


So why the double standard? Are those women and children less important than ours?


the double standard is the country hiding them wont give them up. if the hiding country would give them up and stop harboring KNOWN terrorists we wouldn't have to lay it down.


Although I will preface this by noting that some of these countries have given us permission to engage these "terrorists," what about national sovereignty in other cases? And, this still does not solve the problem of disproportionate collateral damage.

The US and neo-cons are always citing "national sovereignty" whenever anyone speaks against the US' violations of international law, including but not limited to overthrowing regimes, bombing many countries, and invading such countries as Iraq (which is a violation of Iraqi sovereignty).

So if Americans want to at least appear not to be one-sided bullies, using international law when it suits them and throwing it out when it doesn't, then they cannot simply violate national sovereignty and pursue, kill, or apprehend whomever they wish.

If you believe that this is legal, then you have to accept the ability for other countries to do the same in our country, such as arrest George Bush for war crimes. Are you ready for the mutual standard?


simply, yes. I am ready for that. but that means the other countries are required to give up their war criminals (terrorists) I don't even care if they only stand international court, not US. they have wronged more than the US, they need to be held accountable for everything.


FIrst, yes, international law is that ALL war criminals are tried. That, is what is called real justice.

Second, you have it backwards.

The West basically does not have to answer for any of its crimes, while tin pot dictators do all of the time. This is discussed frequently by the international community.

Please tell me in the last 50 years the last time one of our western leaders was hauled in front of the International Criminal Court?

The War in Iraq, was a war crime of aggression, as was CIA torture a war crime and violation of human rights. Where are all of the court cases and war crimes charges for the leadership responsible? Non existant.

So what we have is that either through war tribunals and international law OR drones and invasions, the small weaker criminals or enemies being held accountable but nobody really in the west being held accountable.

Third, the US is doing more violence worldwide than most of the people who seem to be implying. This is one of the first steps of awakening, as a westerner, about foreign affairs.

The way to get back our credibility is to hold our leaders, just like these small time leaders, accountable when they violate the law or ethics.


I completely agree, EVERYONE guilty should be tried. if the playing field were leveled we should drag em all through the street. as the playing field is NOT EVEN CLOSE, ill go with the lesser of two evils.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 08:34 PM
link   
a reply to: CJCrawley

it is almost scary quite in any manner of response (or lack there of) to Russias saber rattling. maybe that's all it is though, just a show from Russia and we know better now?

maybe we are waiting for them to cross a very specific line?



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 08:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dizrael


im still waiting to see proof of us arming terrorists.



We armed the mujahideen in Afghanistan who later morphed into the Taliban and al qaeda. We armed the free Syrian army who later morphed into ISIS.

The people in this region we should have armed and supported was the Kurds screw what Turkey thinks.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 08:37 PM
link   
The real deal is , America does not want war. I dont care what your friend or neighbor tells you.In fact in most major conflicts , we have held off really a little too long before joining. War is not blowing spitballs at the student in front of you in elementary school . All sides cause damage and death to civilians. I do not have to tell some people this , I dont know why they keep stating how bad America is. If they are in a foreign country , let them look at their own countries. Should I start spouting off about war crimes in other nation ? All that info was readily available in school in history class.Oh, wait , nowadays everyone wants to rewrite history to make their "group" or favorites are angels - NO.I can tell you from what I read , a lot of posters need a very long refresher course in World History.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 08:38 PM
link   
a reply to: LDragonFire

agreed, but they were rebels, or "allied" forces at the time. we didn't arm terrorists.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 08:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Dizrael

What exactly should be done? Russia is being careful to stay on the right side of international law. The only real complaint is in how they intercept our aircraft, and that's technically a treaty violation.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 08:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dizrael
a reply to: LDragonFire

agreed, but they were rebels, or "allied" forces at the time. we didn't arm terrorists.


I'm sure the ones they were fighting against viewed them as terrorist just like we view them as terrorist when they changed sides and started fighting us.

But before they changed sides and started fighting us we labeled them as freedom fighters.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 08:59 PM
link   
a reply to: LDragonFire

terrorists use terror as a fighting tactic. hence the name. so until they employ such tactics, they are not terrorists, just freedom fighters. as you said, we didn't arm ISIS or al Qaeda/Taliban. we armed the earlier versions of the groups, before they went terrorist.


originally posted by: LDragonFire

originally posted by: Dizrael


im still waiting to see proof of us arming terrorists.



We armed the mujahideen in Afghanistan who later morphed into the Taliban and al qaeda. We armed the free Syrian army who later morphed into ISIS.

The people in this region we should have armed and supported was the Kurds screw what Turkey thinks.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 09:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

nothing should be done at this point, I just meant what I said. its quite, theres no briefings to be heard, no reassurances. and I mean that from my specific point of view as an Active Duty member.



to anyone who may or may not reply to any of my other posts, you will have to wait until I get online tomorrow, its time for sleep.
edit on 14-4-2015 by Dizrael because: logging off



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 09:20 PM
link   
a reply to: PurpleDog UK

The last one struck me as odd. Delivery of new fighter aircraft? Really?

Putin just decreased the order for PAK-FA down to twelve initial units in 2016. The F-35 is spitting out not only in the U.S. but Italy is now assembling F-35s as well.

Any 'new' fighters coming out of Russia would be SUs which are a full generation behind and I highly doubt they match the production of not only the U.S. but all the other western nations as well.

Sounds like a bit of hype in all this.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 09:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: jacobe001

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Dizrael

Feel free to try to parse out intent. Reality is: we killed women and children with bombs. Calling them "collateral damage" doesn't mean we didn't kill them with bombs. And, if we are being honest, it isn't like we don't know that there is going to be "collateral damage". Which means: we knowingly kill women and children.

Unless you would like for me to believe that the military is completely oblivious to the civilians in the general vicinity of those bombs. Because, you know....killing 1100 to get 41.....the contortions of logic it requires to accept that.....


im still waiting to see proof of us arming terrorists.


???

That wasn't part of the discussion.....

but since you asked


"Collateral Damage", "Preemptive War", "Spreading Democracy", "Liberating Countries" are all propaganda slogans to fool the masses.

The propaganda we put out would make the empires of the past blush. Imagine if they had used the same slogans in those days.

I'll be those that support it would scream bloody murder if another country tried that on us.

We do not have "Democracy" in the USA but they would sure scream bloody murder if another country tried to "spread" it on our shores.


EXACTLY. Virtually all of the people claiming these phrases would never allow it in reverse. I can usually tell in about five minutes that 95% of the very people saying these phrases have never considered it in reverse, i.e. what if a country called out the US for war crimes and aggression, what if another country called for liberating us from the government and using force, what if another country attacked us for geo-political reasons even though we were not threatening them (Iraq), what if another country had drones flying in the sky and attacking wedding parties, what if another power came in when it wanted and removed democratically elected leaders and installed dictators in the US?

The truth is, I bet some of us would become "terrorists" to fight those other countries.


If another country was attacking us and had their troops on the ground, I would be protecting my most precious among me, my family. And the invaders would say I am hiding behind women and children.

That is how the propaganda works



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 09:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dizrael
a reply to: LDragonFire

terrorists use terror as a fighting tactic. hence the name. so until they employ such tactics, they are not terrorists, just freedom fighters. as you said, we didn't arm ISIS or al Qaeda/Taliban. we armed the earlier versions of the groups, before they went terrorist.


originally posted by: LDragonFire

originally posted by: Dizrael


im still waiting to see proof of us arming terrorists.



We armed the mujahideen in Afghanistan who later morphed into the Taliban and al qaeda. We armed the free Syrian army who later morphed into ISIS.

The people in this region we should have armed and supported was the Kurds screw what Turkey thinks.





I am sure some beheaded Russian soldiers leaked out on video from the Afghan War to terrorize the Russian citizens would beg to differ.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 09:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: here4this
The real deal is , America does not want war. snip

NO.I can tell you from what I read , a lot of posters need a very long refresher course in World History.


As an American and former military myself, I think you need a refresher yourself on history.
We have had more wars on other countries (propaganda-military operations) than any other country in the last 50 years.


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 10:00 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker




Putin just decreased the order for PAK-FA down to twelve initial units in 2016. The F-35 is spitting out not only in the U.S. but Italy is now assembling F-35s as well. Any 'new' fighters coming out of Russia would be SUs which are a full generation behind and I highly doubt they match the production of not only the U.S. but all the other western nations as well.


Russians are broke in stealth, quite behind in avionics and low in R&D funds. One expert mentioned PAK-FA to be 4.75 generation aircraft not 5th generation like F-22s and F-35s.

Instead of attacking the 5th gen birds, Russians might have better chances attacking or avoiding the weapons that F-22s and F-35s unleash. Then using higher fuel capacities, range etc. come closer i.e. with visual range to Raptors and play out the old fashioned dog fight.

Sorry OP, but it seems Western military edge especially of the US, is getting stronger not weaker, IMHO.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 10:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Dizrael

Feel free to try to parse out intent. Reality is: we killed women and children with bombs. Calling them "collateral damage" doesn't mean we didn't kill them with bombs. And, if we are being honest, it isn't like we don't know that there is going to be "collateral damage". Which means: we knowingly kill women and children.

Unless you would like for me to believe that the military is completely oblivious to the civilians in the general vicinity of those bombs. Because, you know....killing 1100 to get 41.....the contortions of logic it requires to accept that.....


im still waiting to see proof of us arming terrorists.


???

That wasn't part of the discussion.....

but since you asked



That's the trouble with war, you have to kill the women and children, or in a few years they will come for you . You are dammed if you do and dammed if you don't. The whole point of foreign policy is to secure a safe future. How can collateral damage be doing this?. If a village wants a water pump and you supply one, its a far better policy . Not only have you made a future friend, but have improved someone's life. Its a future investment.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 10:42 PM
link   
a reply to: victor7

That sounds about right, from my limited understanding.

Add in the tanker capability of the west and that makes range a far bigger priority for the Russians....




top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join