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.

 

Afghan War: NATO Builds History's First Global Army

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Never before have soldiers from so many states served in the same war theater



This is the title of an article by Rick Rozoff

Link

A global army, right... Amazed by what I read inside the article, I need to know ! Is this for real !? My exact thoughts at that moment in time.

My findings of the nations involved that are allies of NATO/ISAF



  1. United States
  2. United Kingdom
  3. Germany
  4. France
  5. Italy
  6. Canada
  7. Poland
  8. Turkey
  9. Romania
  10. Australia
  11. Spain
  12. Albania
  13. Belgium
  14. Bulgaria
  15. Croatia
  16. Chzech Republic
  17. Danmark
  18. Estonia
  19. Greece
  20. Hungary
  21. Iceland
  22. Latvia
  23. Lithuania
  24. Luxembourg
  25. Norway
  26. Portugal
  27. Slowakia
  28. Slovenia
  29. Armenia
  30. Austria
  31. Azerbaijan
  32. Bosnia and Herzegovina
  33. Finland
  34. Georgia
  35. Ireland
  36. Macedonia
  37. Montenegro
  38. Sweden
  39. Ukraine
  40. Australia
  41. Republic of Korea
  42. Malayasia
  43. Mongolia
  44. New Sealand
  45. Singapore
  46. United Arab Emirates
  47. Jordan
  48. Switzerland
  49. The Netherlands
  50. Tonga ??
  51. Colombia


That is a big list isn't it ?

Never before has there been a bigger joined force in history working on a common goal. The Germans have engaged a combatant role for the first time since the nazi defeat.



Link.

It must mean the guy in the article is right.

There is however a claim he makes I think is bothering me a bit.Is NATO really showing us the first signs of a global government or is this an example of what can be done when we cooperate with each other.

In my opinion This is not a sign of incoming doom of a global government, but a result of NATO that finally has succeeded to do what they initially have been created for.

Yes you read it right... I'm not supporting this article cause I see it from a different perspective and that is that these are the fruits of successful cooperation.

What do you think and why do you think so ?

Kind regards Sinter.




posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 01:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 


Funny, they still claim US is not an empire with hidden borders lol...

I'm sick of people still falling for US war strategies.

It is a war strategy to hide your borders, it is called deception. The less your enemy knows about your, the better.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 02:01 AM
link   
now do you think it is WW3, look at who we are fighting,see world wide terrorist list, or planning to fight, NK PAK IRAN, possibly China, if we fight NK.
edit on 19-12-2010 by bekod because: word edit



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 02:07 AM
link   
A global army that would eventually fight under the U.N. banner, perhaps? Possibly but I like Webster Tarpley's theory that Afghanistan war was started for the U.S. to take advantage of the opium fields there and also to expand NATO beyond its primary borders. Now, NATO is in Pakistan, despite Pakistan's initial objections. NATO will bring chaos to Pakistan enough that Pakistan will not be able to side with China (like some people believe it naturally would) if war were to break out.

I do not believe this is a sign of cooperation because Afghanistan isn't exactly a war most nations would CARE to fight. What are the countries involved besides the U.S. getting out of this? I don't believe countries would ever band together and fight for justice without some ulterior motive. If that were true, the U.S. would've helped Europe fight off Hitler sooner than later. Also, I am sure the U.S. isn't the only country with soldiers stationed in other countries.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 02:49 AM
link   
Odd.. Surprised to see malaysia listed.. Though expected singapore as its a u.s puppet state.. What a waste all those countries joining americas illegal / immoral war .. UN should be disbanded ..



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 02:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 


s&f.

I think that is exactly what it is. cooperation. they see this as the frontline in the war on terrorism.

many others see it as the frontline to war on peace.

only time will tell who is right

I see it as the frontline to keeping the status quo. the question is: is the status quo a good thing in todays age or a bad thing?



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 03:04 AM
link   
reply to post by DevilJin
 


Well. a global army under NATO flag. Might be a good thing, if I didn't know any better.

You say you don't think cooperation is the key here. That leaves us with only few options.
Ulterior motives...

I've read some of his article ( Webster Tarply ) And the funny thing is that before I learned about conspiracies etc.
I had already concluded for myself that the poppy fields had to be the main or at least one of the main reasons to go there. I came to it because of a short news flash that said that the Taliban had made it illegal to grow the herb, along with a long and tumultuous history of drug trade and the wars because of it by our governments of the day.

His article about it confirmed my ideas. Imagine how shocked I was reading it.

But... What about all of the other nations ? They can not all have a slice of that pie, can they ? So there must be more to it.

Maybe Oozzysm is right and The US shows how far the boundaries of the empire actually reach.

Cause that would make your suggestion of disabling Pakistan to back up China a lot more logical and I don't even want to think of the reason for them to to do. It can only mean that they expect to fight a war against China sometime in the future. A global allied army, Strategical positions in the region disabling expected allies.
If this would be the case, I would assume there is plan and the plan includes a war scenario with China.

Still there is Russia who did not lose any of its ambitions.

I'm not holding my breath all hell breaks loose. For the time being I will favor the corporation option.
edit on 12/19/2010 by Sinter Klaas because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 03:11 AM
link   
You think NATO was designed to invade sovereign countries that didn't wage war on another country? (hint, even if you buy the official story, Al Qaeda was not the ruling regime in Afghanistan.. and the Taliban had NOTHING to do with 9/11)

Nice. Sounds more like a NAZI-type theme to me, but who am I?

Hey, NATO, NAZI... the first half is the same in both.. Whoda thunk.
edit on 19-12-2010 by FalselyFlagged because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-12-2010 by FalselyFlagged because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 03:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 


What amazes me is the fact that , as you list. there are 51 countries fighting against an unorganised bunch of cave dwelling rag heads with no descent weapons apart from AK's. IED's and camels . but they are loosing,,,,

That is just not right and seems planned..
Keep the war going while the crops flourish and the oil pours...



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 03:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 


What amazes me is the fact that , as you list. there are 51 countries fighting against an unorganised bunch of cave dwelling rag heads with no descent weapons apart from AK's. IED's and camels . but they are loosing,,,,

That is just not right and seems planned..
Keep the war going while the crops flourish and the oil pours...


Wanna know the true story? The war was PLANNED to be a boondoggle, from the start.

Don't believe me? Think about this: Who ran the intelligence operation for the Mujahideen in the Afghan/Russian war? Who were the ones literally planning and organizing the war effort and were able to defeat the Russians (for Christ sakes, the Russians are no joke when it comes to warfare), with simple arms and untrained fighters? It was the CIA. The CIA KNEW FOR A FACT that all it takes to win a war is consistency in insurgency. That's all it takes. As long as the insurgency keeps fighting, even with minor, low risk attacks, they can ALWAYS out wait an invading force. The CIA learned this first hand and knew it as an absolute truth.

But guess what, never ending wars make bookoo bucks for contractors and give added power to the intelligence machine. They wanted a losing, neverending war with low enough casualties to keep public support. It has worked out great for them. This was all a plan. There is no way to deny it by saying the CIA was ignorant.

And BTW... If the RUSSIANS can't beat the Afghans, then who the hell can? The Russians had basically NO rules of engagement, compared to our relatively pussyfoot rules of engagement. They tortured openly, slaughtered whole towns to weed out insurgents, etc. The USA has done terrible attrocities, but nothing compared to the Ruskies, especially when they laid nearly MILLIONS of mines. So if the RUSSIANS couldn't beat the Afghans, then how the hell can we?

Like I said, it was planned to be a boondoggle. They pulled the wool over our eyes.
edit on 19-12-2010 by FalselyFlagged because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 03:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by FalselyFlagged
You think NATO was designed to invade sovereign countries that didn't wage war on another country? (hint, even if you buy the official story, Al Qaeda was not the ruling regime in Afghanistan.. and the Taliban had NOTHING to do with 9/11)

Nice. Sounds more like a NAZI-type theme to me, but who am I?

Hey, NATO, NAZI... the first half is the same in both.. Whoda thunk.
edit on 19-12-2010 by FalselyFlagged because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-12-2010 by FalselyFlagged because: (no reason given)


Nato was designed to keep the peace after WW2 ( or so they say ) although a Nazi vibe indeed comes up every so often.

The Talibans only connection with 9-11 was that they got flamed for not cooperating with US demands( or so they say )

Please don't assume to know what I or others think. For me you're way off.
A star for your second reply though.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 03:42 AM
link   
reply to post by FalselyFlagged
 


What was Russia's motive for invading Afghanistan actually ? I've got an idea but I never really tok a deeper look on it.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 03:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 


Exactly. So how does a group that was created to "keep the peace" get used for starting wars with sovereign nations that didn't invade anybody?

Isn't the opposite of what they were created for then?
edit on 19-12-2010 by FalselyFlagged because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 03:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
reply to post by FalselyFlagged
 


What was Russia's motive for invading Afghanistan actually ? I've got an idea but I never really tok a deeper look on it.


Because at that era in time, all Central Asian countries had strong communist movements. Basically, opportunists around the world realized that they could start a communist movement and get full backing and financial / arms support for their regime from Moscow. There was a communist coup in Afghanistan and Russia went to bat for them to keep them in power. The true Muslims saw communism as against the will of Allah. CIA funneled arms, tranining, and intelligence to the Mujahideen (freedom fighters then, "terrorists" now).

Thats the lead up to Afghan war in a nut shell.

BTW I suggest watching Rambo 3 if you haven't seen it already, where Rambo was actually fighting with the Mujahideen. It's hilarious. And also theres a movie called "The Beast Of War".... About Russia fighting the Afghans. Best war movie EVAR. And hilarious because you can pretend that the Russians are Americans and it was filmed yesterday, cause they are speaking English.
edit on 19-12-2010 by FalselyFlagged because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 04:14 AM
link   
reply to post by FalselyFlagged
 


Yes it is contradicting Anyway the way they act falls in line with other events and theories around which make NATO only part of a bigger picture.

And I knew this explanation. I was hoping you knew something else.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 04:25 AM
link   
Overall I think it is a good thing that we are working together and not destroying each other. I did see one concerning point in the paper:



Part of the purpose of the war in Afghanistan, which was started four months after the founding of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization in June of 2001, is precisely to install U.S. and NATO military forces in Central Asia to sabotage attempts by China and Russia to develop common security, energy, transportation and other projects.


However it is a good thing that this has been acknowledge. Hopefully now we can stop killing them too. There are a lot of complex relationships around the world and it is good to see some transparency and review getting applied with a lot of resources available.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 07:06 AM
link   
reply to post by kwakakev
 


For know I hope you are right cause that will be my favorite option.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas

Never before have soldiers from so many states served in the same war theater





  1. United States
  2. United Kingdom
  3. Germany
  4. France
  5. Italy
  6. Canada
  7. Poland
  8. Turkey
  9. Romania
  10. Australia
  11. Spain
  12. Albania
  13. Belgium
  14. Bulgaria
  15. Croatia
  16. Chzech Republic
  17. Danmark
  18. Estonia
  19. Greece
  20. Hungary
  21. Iceland
  22. Latvia
  23. Lithuania
  24. Luxembourg
  25. Norway
  26. Portugal
  27. Slowakia
  28. Slovenia
  29. Armenia
  30. Austria
  31. Azerbaijan
  32. Bosnia and Herzegovina
  33. Finland
  34. Georgia
  35. Ireland
  36. Macedonia
  37. Montenegro
  38. Sweden
  39. Ukraine
  40. Australia
  41. Republic of Korea
  42. Malayasia
  43. Mongolia
  44. New Sealand
  45. Singapore
  46. United Arab Emirates
  47. Jordan
  48. Switzerland
  49. The Netherlands
  50. Tonga ??
  51. Colombia





Strangely enough, in my travels to Iraq I have seen troops from the following countries.

Georgia
United Kingdom
Australia
Romania

and a few others I couldn't identify. Why would they send them to Iraq though, guards or something more?
edit on 19-12-2010 by Stop-loss! because: I grew up a screw up




top topics



 
4

log in

join