Report: U.S. carrier sent to Syrian coast as tensions flare, page 15

Pages: << 12 13 14 15 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 51 times

reply posted on 27-11-2011 @ 12:42 AM by Flint2011

reply to post by thoughtsfull

BY today's standards, conventional warfare is completely redefined and would still be immensely rapid resulting in major death. The rules of engagement change like we use toilet paper. Think how they would change in such a massive event.

I appreciate your response though. Insightful and keen. Star for you my friend.

reply posted on 27-11-2011 @ 12:47 AM by Flint2011

reply to post by P12SOLD

Indeed, but Germany still would have had it's behind handed to it eventually, just would have been a longer and harder war.

reply posted on 27-11-2011 @ 05:26 AM by thoughtsfull

reply to post by Flint2011

Thanks for the reply.. I really do understand what you are saying about the changes to conventional warfare.. however I do cling to the hope that those at the top will retain some semblance of sanity in the midst of things and not resort to total war.. Tho I do admit that it is just hope.

reply posted on 27-11-2011 @ 11:47 AM by Flint2011

reply to post by thoughtsfull

Don't get me wrong, I am right there with you, Just stating how warfare would be if it goes down in my best opinion. I am not a mongering war lover. I wish the whole lot would just knock it off so the rest of us can live in peace.

reply posted on 27-11-2011 @ 03:06 PM by kykweer

Originally posted by milkyway12
reply to post by icepack

You may want to do a bit of research on Economic Mobilization and War Economy.

We would be one of the Richest nations once again if a Major war breaks out.

Most civilians dont know this , but we have nearly 60 facilities for war production ready to be activated for manufacturing war materials.

America isn't dumb. We have already prepared for war before war happens. Not because we want it to happen , but because it would be negligent not to prepare for a total war scenario.

I was also told they could house nearly 70 million US citizens in fortified Nuclear/Bomb/Missile shelters , and have a seperated network to house 4 million US military personnel.

If you take Military Operational Studies / Diplomacy , you will learn LOTS of interesting information that you actually cant get off the internet. A lot of it is Military manuals / Informational book for military personnel at the War College.

And don't forget war will solve americas job crisis. No more social grants for unemployed, people would be forced into productivity and not sit at home feeling sorry for themselves. War would lead to a new generation of hard work and appreciation not only economically but socially.

reply posted on 27-11-2011 @ 03:38 PM by thoughtsfull

Originally posted by Flint2011
reply to post by thoughtsfull

Don't get me wrong, I am right there with you, Just stating how warfare would be if it goes down in my best opinion. I am not a mongering war lover. I wish the whole lot would just knock it off so the rest of us can live in peace.

Sorry.. didn't mean to come across as tho I was accusing you of anything

I am of the opinion that those at the top (on all sides) are following a path that appears to me will end in either internal issues at a global level or the next big one..

My fear as a parent of a couple of teenage boys (18 and 19) is that it will be the next big one *shakes head* so I too look at things that might actually happen based on how they have acted in the past rather than get all worked up in the worst case doom scenarios. So I really have appreciated your comments

I have my fingers nose and toes crossed that I am utterly wrong and that somehow we end up with the next version of the industrial revolution that will bring back jobs and stability to the world..

I know that is quite a pipe dream.. but I have to try and find some hope in this madness..

reply posted on 27-11-2011 @ 07:36 PM by Flint2011

reply to post by thoughtsfull

NO worries, just stating where I am on things. I have a 12 year old daughter. I am fortunate to have her but I never wanted children for this exact reason but destinty had different plans. I worry about the same exact thing every day. I agree with the end result options you noted as well. It's just too much.

No offense taken and none intended.

reply posted on 28-11-2011 @ 09:49 PM by anthaltie

i cant believe they actually named a carrier after and idiot. if the carrier reflects the brain power of whom its name is dirrived its sure to be sunk.

reply posted on 29-11-2011 @ 01:53 AM by Freeborn

reply to post by kykweer

And don't forget war will solve americas job crisis. No more social grants for unemployed, people would be forced into productivity and not sit at home feeling sorry for themselves. War would lead to a new generation of hard work and appreciation not only economically but socially.

Well, that's ok then....if that's the case who really cares about the pain and misery caused by the millions of deaths?

reply posted on 29-11-2011 @ 02:57 AM by Bluesma

Originally posted by anthaltie
i cant believe they actually named a carrier after and idiot. if the carrier reflects the brain power of whom its name is dirrived its sure to be sunk.

LOL! I know, it is a rather unfortunate name! They were selling on board some very nice sweats and caps, which I usually like to buy because we can't find the same quality for such cheap prices here in France, but I just couldn't get comfortable with wearing Bush on my chest or head.

reply posted on 17-12-2011 @ 12:49 PM by mkgandhas

interesting. What are the implications??

reply posted on 17-12-2011 @ 06:49 PM by newyorkee

Originally posted by MikeboydUS

Amidst calls for all US citizens to leave Syria, the USS George H.W. Bush has arrived off the coast of Syria in clear defiance of Russian warships sent to help deter NATO from any action in Syria.

A perfect storm is brewing in Eastern Europe and the Middle East, with Russian President Medvedev threatening US installations in Poland, the delivery to the US Air Force of new 30,000 lb super bunker busters, Israel preparing for strikes on Iran, and Turkey providing sanctuary for rebel Syrian forces.

The stage is being set for a major conflict in the region, one that would provide a massive stimulus to the US/EU economies, but will NATO call Russia's bluff or will Russia back Syria and Iran militarily, leading to a wider war that could spiral out of control?

news.yahoo.com...
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 24/11/11 by MikeboydUS because: url

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -
It is the perfect storm...but IMO,yes, Russia will always go against NATO/UN. NATO/UN can not intercede in asia as done in the 50´s -70´s. Reason why North Korea is so important. I think it´ll be something new and on a mass scale very quickly. Another form of mass movements for a farce cause to revolt maybe...squeeze every last drop before you move on to th nest fase by keeping civil unrest at a high. Dismiss it abroad by stirring it up at home. The people think its significant when really its just well timed. We see a world movement of civil unrest and fail to see recent CIA involvement in the ME. ¿Whats the big picture? Is russia and china really in on it or are there separate sides?

Asia is next. Look at South Korea now.
Russia is not going to tolerate any treading near its neck of the woods. Lets not even mention china.

The Middle East is the only stage to play with actual boots on the ground. Bigger contracts when bombs and aid are being shipped together. You always need Africa before you can conquer asia...Imperialistic truth. The west moved first in this situatiuon. It will eventually provoke/awaken the red dragon.