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 Seizes Arsenal Of US Weapons In Georgia

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 06:31 PM
link   
Yeah,

I saw the link to the story on Drudge and was so disappointed.

Some M16's and old model bolt action rifles?
en.wikipedia.org...(rifle)

Blah... I was expecting some good stuff.

Not even a real story.




posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 06:59 PM
link   
As far as I know, the US arms sales to Georgia have been done openly, it's not quite a case of subterfuge being uncovered.

The military relationship Bush has been pushing with Georgia is not secret, even though I agree it's a dumb idea that backfired.



posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 07:31 PM
link   
Hurm,I expect the Russians will come across alot more catches as they get closer to the capital.



posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by infolurker
Some M16's and old model bolt action rifles?
en.wikipedia.org...(rifle)


"Old model bolt action rifles"? Gus, those are sniper rifles that the US military uses.



posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by jerico65
 


If they are M40A3's then yeah.





The article didn't mention which variant.



posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 10:13 PM
link   
But are they from the humanitarian aid coming in? Seems no one can or will answer that. Sounds like pre-existing weapons to me.



posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 

Georgia sent the 3rd most troops to iraq for the last how many years now,,, honestly did people think they used slingshots, of course they have american arms



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 01:33 AM
link   
I don't believe these particular seized weapons had anything to do with the "humanitarian aid" being sent in. I see what you guys are getting at, and so do the Russians. They are concerned about exactly what is coming in on those military planes, and are urging future supplies to be delivered on civilian vessels.



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 02:03 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


There is a big difference between selling arms to an ally and arming rebels. A better analogy to Iran and the insurgents would be Russia, it's "peacekeepers," and the two breakaway provinces. Supporting an insurgency in a sovereign country is pretty much considered an act of war by said sovereign country and it's allies. Selling arms to an ally is considered good diplomacy and security, on the other hand. It's pretty dishonest to make the comparison you made.



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 02:48 AM
link   
Who cares the US and Georgians have been fighting side by side since the Iraq war. WHo do u think give them weapons to fight the terrorist? Russia? I know Georgians don't make their own weapons.

[edit on 16-8-2008 by amfirst]



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 03:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by saturnine_sweet
There is a big difference between selling arms to an ally and arming rebels.


Rebels against what? The will of Dubya to go invade a sovereign country after misrepresenting evidence and lying all over the place to get the US in war it can't win? Oh, THOSE rebels. Yeah. Uh huh.


A better analogy to Iran and the insurgents would be Russia, it's "peacekeepers," and the two breakaway provinces. Supporting an insurgency in a sovereign country is pretty much considered an act of war by said sovereign country and it's allies.


Ahh no. All things considered it was the exact analogy I wanted to make. Just because you have allowed yourself to be conditioned into accepting the words "insurgents" and "rebels" as some righteous way of referring to natives fighting invading foreigners, doesn't give you the right to assert that misconception on me. And then worse, suck me into your falsified argument.

Iran is supporting Iraqi "insurgents" to a similar extent that the US would support ass-kickers if say, Russia invaded Mexico or Canada. I suppose you'd call all those fighting that invasive force insurgents too? Yep. Uh huh.

The US deviously has been supporting anything they can get their hands on to subvert Russian sense of unity in their own territory. Yeah Ukraine and Georgia might be separate "states," but they share way more in common geographically with their Russian counterparts than they do with the west, other than a democratically elected government. Maybe. The point is, they are in the same general area, and have a mutual interest to protect it and its resources from western predators.


Selling arms to an ally is considered good diplomacy and security, on the other hand.


Yeah, when KBR, Halliburton, General Dynamics, Boeing and the rest of them are the ones doing the considering. But ask a person who cares about people first, that question. Selling weapons is about money, political control, and the exploitation of populations for gain at the expense of innocent human life. Let's call a spade a spade, true to the hearts.


It's pretty dishonest to make the comparison you made.


Dishonest no. I believe every word of what I have said. I did not lie. But I sleep well at night. You and Bush probably don't.



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 03:45 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


Your point being?

Of course weapons from NATO countries are in Georgia. Georgia is, was, in line to enter NATO, along with Ukraine, in the 2012/14 period. To enter NATO military forces must be equipped with NATO's standardized equipment. This has been happening in Georgia, Ukraine, in the Baltic States and Slovakia, both of which are to enter into NATO in 2010...

So why the surprise at western military equipment being found in Georgia, it is public domain information...


My wrong, reading other map legend, so to put things strait:

-Baltic States, Slovakia, Romania and Bulgaria entered NATO in 2004.
-Georgia and Ukraine to enter NATO in 2008/2012 period.

Again, sorry for earlier wrong info...

[edit on 16-8-2008 by NorthWolfe CND]



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 05:10 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


It's not a matter of conditioning. It's a matter of the reality of international politics. I was not talking about personal opinions regarding Iraq; I was talking about the way the politics surrounding such things work. Big difference. You interjecting your personal interpretation and trying to spin this event into something it is not is very dishonest and misleading.



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by princeofpeace
 


That was my point exactly!!
Been trying to say this for the last while!!



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 09:41 AM
link   
As many before me have said..

If the U.S. by itself, with Israeli help, or with NATO help decided to invade Iran, I wonder who the manufacturer of all the weapons caches would be. Russia?

This goes for Iraq as well, which was heavily outfitted by the Soviet Union. All caches we find there typically are 80% russian weaponry.



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by saturnine_sweet
 


No is not dishonesty to make comparison when the tagging of who is an ally and who is the enemy is dictated by personal preferences when it comes to private agendas and warmongering efforts.

That is where the dishonesty comes from, we should thanks the biggest dishonest men in earth right now our own president.

I call his babbling about how who is a bully or an enemy as hypocrisy.



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Snap
Not surprised at all. Russia could invade just about ANY country and seize a large cache of American weapons. We are the biggest manufacturer and supplier of weapons in the world.

Exports for 2000-2007 in millions of US dollars.
USA - 52,789
Russia - 43,661
EU - 36,140

Military spending in Billions of US dollars.
USA - 528.7 (That is half of the entire planet's military spending)
UK - 59.2
Russia - 34.7
China - 49.5
India - 23.9


United Kingdom is the biggest arms dealer in the world not America...

www.abc.net.au...
www.timesonline.co.uk...
www.guardian.co.uk...
www.business-roadmap.co.uk...

I could post a hundred more links but i can't be bothered



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 11:54 AM
link   
This site has some interesting stuff about the weapons and situation. Many who post are Russian/European. It gives a different slant than I see here.

www.militaryphotos.net...



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
reply...

Well, I guess either Israel or the US have not sold Georgia anything too powerful, or Russia's counter attack might not have gone so well. Either that or Georgia was too afraid to use them.



The 'Big' weapons systems (for defense, you know) would only come into Georgian hands After they were assimilated into NATO.


i pretty certain that that armory list of rifles, ammo and other stuff used by the 'ground pounders' is about the highest technology that the President of Georgia was afforded... until after the stunt he pulled on Ossetia -> now he will be given the next tier of weapons based on the 'trust' he nurtured with the western empire with the surprise attack on civilians in S. Osettia



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 01:23 PM
link   
Hmm, well it appears we have a report of an attempted weapons smuggle into Ossetia:

Russian troops prevent arms smuggling to South Ossetia

en.rian.ru...


Russian troops detained two cars carrying ammunition via a humanitarian channel into the Georgian breakaway republic of South Ossetia, a senior Russian military official said Saturday.

Col. Gen. Anatoly Nogovitsyn, deputy chief of the Russian General Staff, said that on Friday afternoon Russian troops stopped two cars with civilian and military people.

"A gun shot erupted during the inspection as a result of which one car was damaged and the other managed to flee the scene of the incident," he said.

Nogovitsyn said that the damaged car contained 19 grenade launchers and a box with cartridges and grenades.


But that report is pretty vague. I suppose those "military people" were Georgian? I have seen no news saying that the US has tried to get arms in through "humanitarian" channels.

[edit on 16-8-2008 by TrueAmerican]



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join