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

reply to post by P12SOLD


Chapter VII article 50 and 51 disagree with your comment about whats legal and not legal in terms of Iraq.

Originally posted by P12SOLD

Originally posted by Paulioetc15
reply to post by P12SOLD

 

Anyway you see no problem with using nukes on another country, if this the mindset of your fellow country men and women, god help us all.

It's illegal to use it now unless the UN can agreed to use it. But as of now, it's illegal to use the nukes.

The UN is a joke. The second Iraq war was it not an illegal war and unsanctioned by the council of nations!!

The United States and Uk effectively ended all legitimacy for this organization because of their actions.!!

Interesting, it certainly does look like that. They're letting the false fall away as they reveal themselves in full. It's getting close now. Damn.

Originally posted by P12SOLD
The UN is a joke.

Well finally something we can agree on.

I say the US should pull out of the UN and NATO and cut all our funding for both and boot everybody from the UN out. That will save millions in unpaid parking tickets for NY alone not to mention saving the US hundreds of billions in Foreign aid and the disproportionate propping up of the UN.

The EU are all growed up now and don't need the US in their affairs either.

reply to post by Xcathdra

All wars the US has been involved in where action / death has occured on US soil. Just one of the many reasons the US would prefer to act quickly in order to prevent repeats. The list above runs from the 1700's - present day.

Thanks for that but I was talking more about things like the London bombings or European countries that had entire cities flattened.
The US "current" generations have seen nothing to match that and I hope they never do..

reply to post by MikeboydUS


good USA starts up a conventional war gives us time for evacuation of russian citizens .After evacuation is complete we will remove our gloves and launch our biological,chemical and nuclear arsenal (and torsional too land defence purpose)

Mr.Putin ,we believe you must put EMERCOM on full alert.We are at the brink of the greatest war ever that we can win in 16 hours.EMERCOM will enable it with the survival of the populous.

reply to post by SLAYER69

The EU are all growed up now and don't need the US in their affairs either.

The EU is grown up but judging by their levels of compliant and make childish violent rampage, it look like they need a babysitter such as the USA. That's why it some degree Europe never learn to control it's behavior like they did in two World Wars and not to mention communism were born in Europe.

Originally posted by Trustme333
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

All wars the US has been involved in where action / death has occured on US soil. Just one of the many reasons the US would prefer to act quickly in order to prevent repeats. The list above runs from the 1700's - present day.

Thanks for that but I was talking more about things like the London bombings or European countries that had entire cities flattened.
The US "current" generations have seen nothing to match that and I hope they never do..

Ehhhh not sure if I agree with that sentiment. Back in the day when those military encounters occured, especially the civil war and terrorism, the American people saw first hand the horrors of war.

As far as damage to the extent of the London bombing or the leveling of Drezden Germany. I would say that those images of entire cities leveled is a strong motivator for the US to be involved so it never occurs again. The 2 times the US tried to remain neutral and unengaged was an absolute disaster resulting in lives being lost first by inaction, then compounded by action late in the game.

As far as what Americans currently see, I would argue its worse now than it ever has been. With 24 hour cable news sources world wide we see it on tv all the time. Back in the day we saw it when the 6 oclock news came on.

reply to post by Trustme333


If war came "home" we would over react. Look at 9-11, we almost used nuclear weapons in response and that was just 3 buildings.

If someone flattened one our cities, I cannot imagine what we would do in reponse other than it being far worse than Dresden or Tokyo.

Originally posted by Trustme333
The US "current" generations have seen nothing to match that and I hope they never do..

More of this 2 dimensional flawed logic.

AND neither have the "Current" Russian OR European generations either

It's like arguing with a ball of lint...

reply to post by Xcathdra


I guess we'll just disagree then.
It's only my opinion so no harm done.

reply to post by USAisdevil


Lol always good for humor...

BTW Putin is not in charge of the Russian Military, President Medvedev is.

Why are you so caught up in using chemical biological and nuclear weapons in all of your posts? You do undestand that if those items are used by either side chances are you wont be alive to gloat about it.

Or are you going for matrydom?

Also can you show us the source you used when you stated in another thread that Russia armed Syria with chemical and nuclear weapons?

Originally posted by USAisdevil
good USA starts up a conventional war gives us time for evacuation of russian citizens .After evacuation is complete we will remove our gloves and launch our biological,chemical and nuclear arsenal (and torsional too land defence purpose)

Are you truly that dense?

Seriously and you think the US and or NATO isnt capable of the same things?

Nothing to out of the ordinary here. When has there not been a carrier battle group near a region that is in conflict? It is standard operating procedure, and my guess it is merely a show of force to the Syrian President and more or less the Russians. From the Taiwan Staits all the way to the Balkans there is usually an aircraft carrier launching sorties or delivering aid. It remains one of the finest pieces of military hardware in the US arsenal, and the enemies hate it. A battle group can be deployed anywhere in the world at a moments notice and arrive in a matter of days. Hopefully with the carrier present, it gives Basher Asad a moment of pause to proceed lightly in purging his growing insurrection problem?

As said before, this is nothing new and rather standard. The US is not going to attack Syria without broad consensus among the UN Security Council members. When they start meeting in New York that is when I would think some sort of action is in the works. Similar to what took place in Libya and the no-fly zone in Iraq after the First Gulf War. Lets all relax here and just wait and see. No use sensationalizing stuff like this, and this is no Tom Clancy novel. The real world is rather boring and mundane. This is just the usual military posture of hurry up and wait.

Originally posted by Trustme333
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

I guess we'll just disagree then.
It's only my opinion so no harm done.

Its all good man.. I understand what your saying I just dont think people realize just how much conflict has occured in just the US mainlands.

Originally posted by Paulioetc15
The EU is grown up but judging by their levels of compliant and make childish violent rampage, it look like they need a babysitter such as the USA. That's why it some degree Europe never learn to control it's behavior like they did in two World Wars and not to mention communism were born in Europe.

But if an American mentioned that then most Europeans here at ATS would come unglued in their attempts to down play the role the US played in keeping the peace all these decades since the end of WWII!

Go figure

reply to post by SLAYER69


You have no civil defence capabilities.period. As for bioweaponry a very limited one.Chemical nothing compared to novichok-7 ,you cant even replicate substance 33.

reply to post by Xcathdra


martydom? nah. I have two private bunkers of my own. One in perm has food supplies for 30 years , the one in altai has 5 years. For post-apocalyse ,I got the vityaz all terrain vehicle.


But if peace and no war-then I got my Kombat-t98 , Bentley, Lada Niva too.

Why do the flag waving, war mongering fanbois infest every thread like this.

Stop the "my dad can beat up your dad" type crap. It ruins every discussion.

Originally posted by USAisdevil
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

You have no civil defence capabilities.period. As for bioweaponry a very limited one.Chemical nothing compared to novichok-7 ,you cant even replicate substance 33.

AND

In a Nuclear Holocaust nobody wins! PERIOD.

This is a lame argument. Nobody wins in a Nuclear exchange, Nobody! No matter how much you want to fantasize and or war game hypothetical scenarios.

reply to post by Xcathdra

we provided cchemical weapons advantage to syria:

In 1993, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) determined that the Soviet Union had played an instrumental role in developing Syria's chemical weapon defensive capability but had provided no direct assistance to Syria's offensive program. However, in 1996, Lieutenant General Patrick M. Hughes, Director of the DIA, told the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that a high Russian official, Anatoli Kuntsevich, "was implicated in a program to sell chemical weapons-related chemicals to Syria." Kuntsevich was formerly in charge of the destruction of the Soviet chemical weapon production complex, but was sacked by Russian President Boris Yeltsin in April 1994 for "numerous and gross violations." Hughes also noted that "it is unclear whether [Kuntsevich was removed].....due to his proliferation activities." In November 1995, the U.S. Department of State determined that Kuntsevich had "engaged in chemical weapons proliferation activities" and imposed sanctions, prohibiting him from conducting business with the United States for at least one year. Kuntsevich has reportedly admitted that "shipments of small amounts" to Syria did occur, but he stressed that they were approved by the Russian government. The Russian foreign ministry has denied involvement in the sale of chemical weapons to Syria.
www.wisconsinproject.org...

When did we provide nukes to syria