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 says will retaliate if U.S. weapons stationed on its borders

page: 4
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 11:17 AM
link   
If Russia can't have hardware in Cuba then why should we be able to have hardware so close to Russia? By putting weapons over there so close to Russia it's like our government is just asking for war.




posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 11:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: JHumm
If Russia can't have hardware in Cuba then why should we be able to have hardware so close to Russia? By putting weapons over there so close to Russia it's like our government is just asking for war.


Exactly
The western nations are really pushing Russia the biggest country on Planet Earth by a mile with thousands of nukes into the ropes. Total madness, arrogance and a potantially death for us all lack of respect.



posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 11:34 AM
link   
a reply to: JHumm

Show me the nuclear missiles we're putting on their border. Russia had equipment in Cuba for years. Totally different to have nuclear missiles two minutes from their target.



posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h




You do know that the UN security council were the ones who established the no fly zone not NATO.
Yes I know and I also know that it was not the UN that bombed the crap out of the country while shooting down how many planes ?? I guess NATO misunderstood no fly to mean if it didn't fly then it was ok to bomb .



posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 11:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
Some NATO members pay the 2% GDP premium while others pay less and I think if I am not mistaken that some don't pay . In those cases I think the US tax payers pick up the tab .


In the words of an animated, Mexican housekeeper... "Nooooo"....

You have it so wrong it's laughable. Nobody pays a "premium" to NATO, it isn't a club. The 2% GDP is what each member nation should be spending (as per the Treaty) on defence out of it's own budgets. Some meet this minimum whole others have let it slip, especially over recent years with budget problems. Nobody "picks up the tab" if another member doesn't spend this target.


originally posted by: the2ofusr1
There seems to be a general confusion as to the workings of NATO not just me but others as well . Take for instance there duty to set up a no fly zone over Libya .


Irony in action - indeed you are confused - the UN (with Russia and China on board in the UNSC) setup the "No Fly Zone" and NATO just enforced it.


originally posted by: the2ofusr1
So yea I have no clue how NATO works .


No, you don't. Not one iota.
edit on 16/6/15 by stumason because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 11:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: tsurfer2000h




You do know that the UN security council were the ones who established the no fly zone not NATO.
Yes I know and I also know that it was not the UN that bombed the crap out of the country while shooting down how many planes ?? I guess NATO misunderstood no fly to mean if it didn't fly then it was ok to bomb .


Not quite sure why you think it was just a "no fly zone" - it wasn't. Seems you're confused by a lot of things...

Here, go learn something instead of spouting off half cocked about things you're clearly quite confused about.



The resolution formed the legal basis for military intervention in the Libyan Civil War, demanding "an immediate ceasefire" and authorizing the international community to establish a no-fly zone and to use all means necessary short of foreign occupation to protect civilians

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973




posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 11:51 AM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

I must've missed it.

When did Jordan, Qatar, and the UAE join NATO?



posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 11:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

Good point - it was the Arab league who went to the UNSC and asked for action.



posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 02:20 PM
link   
a reply to: MrSpad

Are you saying that this is not a big deal? Seriously? It's not big deal to move your military equipment including heavy artillery, rocket launchers and probably patriot systems to Poland, Romania and three baltic countries? Not to mention that you will also have to set up logistics, that is to move a specific number of men who can operate with those weapons, and before you know it, you have american troops getting bigger and bigger at Russian border...But hey, it's not big deal. I'm not sure why are you discussing the military power here, because that's not the point of this action. I'm pretty sure you know what this action means...

And what a funny answer the US gave for this action. So they can protect countries from Russia! LOL! As if Russia would be crazy enough to attack any member of NATO because that would mean you just attacked the whole organization.

A question for you guys. Why don't Russia have any nuclear missiles anywhere else but in their country? And, did you know that the US has over 250 nuclear missiles in NATO bases all over Europe? And compare the number of bases that each country has on this planet...



posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 02:28 PM
link   
a reply to: stumason

The other part people like to leave out is the "United Nations Responsibility to Protect " doctrine that started around the 1990's.

Responsibility to Protect


The Responsibility to Protect (R2P or RtoP) is a proposed norm that sovereignty is not an absolute right, and that states forfeit aspects of their sovereignty when they fail to protect their populations from mass atrocity crimes and human rights violations (namely genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and ethnic cleansing).[1][2][3] The R2P has three pillars:[4][5]
1.A state has a responsibility to protect its population from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing.
2.The international community has a responsibility to assist the state to fulfill its primary responsibility.
3.If the state manifestly fails to protect its citizens from the four above mass atrocities and peaceful measures have failed, the international community has the responsibility to intervene through coercive measures such as economic sanctions. Military intervention is considered the last resort.

While R2P is a proposed norm and not a law, its proponents maintain that it is based on a respect for the principles that underly international law, especially the underlying principles of law relating to sovereignty, peace and security, human rights, and armed conflict.[6][7]

R2P provides a framework for using tools that already exist (i.e., mediation, early warning mechanisms, economic sanctions, and chapter VII powers) to prevent mass atrocities. Civil society organizations, states, regional organizations, and international institutions all have a role to play in the R2P process. The authority to employ the last resort and intervene militarily rests solely with United Nations Security Council (UNSC).


The R2P was invoked and included in the UNSC resolutions dealing with Libya. I would surmise it came about when certain nations would intentionally block resolutions that were trying to deal with the pillars listed.



Libya 2011 -
Libya was the first case where the Security Council authorized a military intervention citing the R2P. Following widespread and systematic attacks against the civilian population by the Libyan regime, and language used by Muammar Gaddafi that reminded the international community of the genocide in Rwanda, the Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 1970 on 26 February 2011, making explicit reference to the R2P. Deploring what it called "the gross and systematic violation of human rights" in strife-torn Libya, the Security Council demanded an end to the violence, "recalling the Libyan authorities' responsibility to protect its population", and imposed a series of international sanctions. The Council also decided to refer the situation to the International Criminal Court.

In resolution 1973, adopted on 17 March 2011, the Security Council demanded an immediate ceasefire in Libya, including an end to ongoing attacks against civilians, which it said might constitute "crimes against humanity". The Council authorized member states to take "all necessary measures" to protect civilians under threat of attack in the country, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory. A few days later, acting on the resolution, NATO planes started striking at Gaddafi's forces.[34] NATO subsequently came under scrutiny for its behavior during the air strikes; concerns included the fact that the intervention quickly moved to regime-change and that there were allegations regarding aerial bombardments that may have caused civilian casualties.[35]


edit on 16-6-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: stumason




Some meet this minimum whole others have let it slip, especially over recent years with budget problems. Nobody "picks up the tab" if another member doesn't spend this target.
So where do they get their money then if the member states cant or wont pay ? Like who paid the bill for NATO operations in Afghanistan ?



posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 02:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
So where do they get their money then if the member states cant or wont pay ? Like who paid the bill for NATO operations in Afghanistan ?


NATO members who do not supply military assets support operations by helping to financially off set the cost. Those NATO countries who send military assets pay for it themselves (only article V invocation requires all alliance requirement to participate however that participation varies depending on the vent in question). Afghanistan and NATO revolved around article V being invoked by the US. Germany sent military early warning aircraft to the US to assist in the aftermath of 9/11. The needs for Afghanistan were worked out by the US in consultation with NATO.

You really need to get out of this mindset in terms of who pays for what. Not really sure why you are fixating on that.

* - NATO - FAQ's
* - NATO funding


Member countries make direct and indirect contributions to the costs of running NATO and implementing its policies and activities.

Highlights
•Indirect – or national – contributions are the largest and come, for instance, when a member volunteers equipment or troops to a military operation and bears the costs of the decision to do so.
•Direct contributions are made to finance requirements of the Alliance that serve the interests of all 28 members - and are not the responsibility of any single member - such as NATO-wide air defence or command and control systems. Costs are borne collectively, often using the principle of common funding.
•Within the principle of common funding, all 28 members contribute according to an agreed cost-share formula, based on Gross National Income, which represents a small percentage of each member’s defence budget.
•Common funding arrangements are used to finance NATO’s principal budgets: the civil budget (NATO HQ running costs), the military budget (costs of the integrated Command Structure) and the NATO Security Investment Programme (military capabilities).
•Projects can also be jointly funded, which means that the participating countries can identify the requirements, the priorities and the funding arrangements, but NATO provides political and financial oversight. The funding process is overseen by the North Atlantic Council, managed by the Resource Policy and Planning Board, and implemented by the Budget Committee and the Investment Committee.
•In 2014, at the Wales Summit, NATO leaders tasked further work in the areas of delivery of common funded capabilities, reform governance and transparency and accountability, especially in the management of NATO’s financial resources.


Use the last link - It will give you a breakdown of each highlight listed above.


edit on 16-6-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Nikola014

Did you bother to read what he and the article said? There are no troops. They're prepositioning equipment. It's going into storage in those countries.



posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Nikola014

What is the big deal with sovereign nations deciding how military operations / alliances work inside their own borders?

Secondly it never would have occurred had it not been for Putin thinking he could resurrect the Soviet Union. Everything Putin is bitching about is a direct result of Putins actions.



posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

And what's the purpose for that? Why do you( i mean the US ) have to move your weapons that close to Russia when you know in just how delicate situation we're? But i guess you are right. The US is not moving their troops, they are just moving their military equipment!

I mean, it's very obvious what's the message behind this action.


What is the big deal with sovereign nations deciding how military operations / alliances work inside their own borders?

Nothing. You will just have to get used to not being the only powerful military force in the world, which means you can't do everything that you want. I mean just look at our history!!!
By moving your military equipment this close to Russia, I think it's pretty clear the message behind it, and that the US hopes for the Russian response.



Secondly it never would have occurred had it not been for Putin thinking he could resurrect the Soviet Union. Everything Putin is bitching about is a direct result of Putins actions.

Again with this theory? You've been blabing about it for so long now, and yet, the crazy Putin has not done a thing to even make you suggest that your theory could be even worth considering.

It's funny how you tried to blame it all on Putin. Yes, it's Putin's fault that the US has bases all over the planet. Yes, it's Putin's fault that the US has over 250 nuclear missiles in Europe.
edit on 16-6-2015 by Nikola014 because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-6-2015 by Nikola014 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 03:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Nikola014




As if Russia would be crazy enough to attack any member of NATO because that would mean you just attacked the whole organization.


Which is why the former soviet countries have been looking to join NATO...I know Ukraine wishes they would have been accepted back the last time they applied.

The mess in Ukraine would never have happened.



Why don't Russia have any nuclear missiles anywhere else but in their country?


Because Russia doesn't want them used against them if they ever decide to invade another country. Had Ukraine still had Russian nukes there would Putin have done what he did in Ukraine?

I should also remind you that not many other countries are that close to Russia militarily to host their nukes.



posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 03:13 PM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h


Which is why the former soviet countries have been looking to join NATO...I know Ukraine wishes they would have been accepted back the last time they applied.

The mess in Ukraine would never have happened.

If Ukraine had joined NATO before the Russia recovered and strengthened economically and military, I'm sure we wouldn't have had this conflict right now. But, because that's not the case, and because Russia is strong enough to oppose the west, this is why we have the current conflict. So you can say the blame is on both sides.



Because Russia doesn't want them used against them if they ever decide to invade another country. Had Ukraine still had Russian nukes there would Putin have done what he did in Ukraine?

Are you sure that's the reason? I wonder what's the American reason for having nukes in so many countries all over the world and what's their excuse for it...



I should also remind you that not many other countries are that close to Russia militarily to host their nukes.

Well, Russia could deploy their nuclear missiles in the few military bases that they have in other countries, but for some reason they are not doing so. I wonder what the reason might be. Maybe they do not want to control everything and play the almighty God...But, just my thinking.

edit on 16-6-2015 by Nikola014 because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-6-2015 by Nikola014 because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-6-2015 by Nikola014 because: my english sucks



posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 04:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Nikola014

The purpose is twofold. One because our allies in the area want it. The other is because if something DOES happen, we already have equipment in place, it's just a matter of moving troops to the equipment.



posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 04:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Silly you, what could happen? And between who? You already have anti-rocket system there...I mean, I'm not even Russian, but I'm worried because of all this.

On a more serious note, by moving your military equipment there, you are basically saying " Hey, we're seeing you as our enemy and we will treat as you as one", which will of course just provoke a response from Russia. As always, there's a huge difference between what's the west saying and actually doing. On one hand, they want to settle this with diplomacy and with economy sanctions without using military power, but on the other they are doing just the opposite. What a surprise.



posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 04:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h

Which is why the former soviet countries have been looking to join NATO..


What like Georgia? You got your USA educated man in and then gave hime the orders to join NATO. Didn't work out so now he's in Ukraine making trouble in Odessa



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join