*BREAKING* Russia Arms Syria With "Ship Killers": Missiles Threaten U.S. Navy Carrier

page: 15
90
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 26 2011 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bluesma
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 


I got points off for having a couple quotes: a short response, to the short post it responded to.....it was too much.
I will start to complain if you don't get reprimanded and points taken off for THIS one!


It's called tenure


And besides, I responded to what I quoted.




posted on Nov, 27 2011 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
CVN-79, a Gerald R Ford class carrier, almost became the next Enterprise, but was then named the John F Kennedy.

CVN-80 looks like it could end up being the next Enterprise though.

On the other hand the US Navy might be saving that name for something much more interesting and potent than a supercarrier.


There's some quote I'm screwing up that goes something like, "If you join the US Navy, you'll either serve on or with a ship called, 'Enterprise'".



posted on Nov, 27 2011 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

It's called tenure


And besides, I responded to what I quoted.


I responded too. So if we are here long enough we don't have to adhere to the rules anymore?
edit on 27-11-2011 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2011 @ 02:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Bluesma
 


That's right


But that is really the system at work anywhere. You have to establish yourself before you can assert yourself


EDIT: By the way, I got reprimanded for my "excessive quoting" as per your request. But as you can see, my post wasn't even modified by staff.
edit on 27-11-2011 by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi because: (no reason given)
edit on Sun Nov 27 2011 by DontTreadOnMe because: Mod Note: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.



posted on Nov, 27 2011 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by maloy
I doubt the anti-ship missiles will be all that effective for Syria, not that I believe there will be an actual conflict. US can position its carriers and the supporting fleet well off shore, hundreds of miles in fact. There is no need for them to move ships within sight of shore


Exactly. Here on ATS, tho, everyone gets all trembly and excited when this news was posted, thinking the US was just gonna park the freakin' carrier right off shore and well within the effective range of the missle system.



posted on Nov, 27 2011 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by BRAVO949
You are saying that the destruction of Syria is on the Israeli agenda, right?

Did you have a chance to read the Sept 2000 PNAC document calling for toppling Syria, Iran, Iraq?

How about the famous 1995 "Clean Break" document written by radical Zionists calling for the US to take down all of the Muslim nations that could challenge Israel?

Nothing happens in the Middle East without the hand of Israel somewhere behind it.



And nothing that happens in Israel happens with out the hand of those Middle Eastern nations behind it, DOES IT?

Its called helping allies



posted on Nov, 27 2011 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeboydUS
 


I always thought it odd that the one space shuttle named Enterprise was never launched.



If I had been in charge, the first functioning shuttle would have been named Enterprise; but then again I'm a Trekkie (I don't do the Spock ears or Red Shirt thing tho.)



posted on Nov, 27 2011 @ 05:28 PM
link   
This thread has been completely hijacked.....



Any updates on the situation with syria?



posted on Nov, 27 2011 @ 07:53 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 28 2011 @ 09:02 AM
link   
Well I've just seen breaking news that the UN's report has concluded that Syrian forces have committed crimes against humanity. If this is true, it could pave the way for some form of external military action, but I would hesitate to say a NATO campaign just yet, although it makes sense having just finished Libya, but I feel that Pakistan could be more of a thorn for NATO at present and a conflict in Syria would stretch them terribly. Although NATO could perhaps give Turkey the command for action against Syria. As for Russia providing Syria with equipment, they've been doing that for years, but it's one thing giving a country equipment and even training, it's another for that country to capable in executing the methods and tactics when the time is right. I think the US would be already well aware of what Syria can and cannot do and if they did get involved, would not allow one of their carriers to get even close to Syria for them to use it, not that a Carrier needs to get close to be effective anyway.



posted on Nov, 28 2011 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by OldCorp

Originally posted by jude11
I've seen a lot of posts stating that Russia will back down and that this is just saber rattling.

I don't think so. Russia is getting sick & tired of the US trying to dictate how the World should run as well as many other Countries are feeling the same way.

Still got a bad feeling about all this.


I think you're onto something brother. Russia has a new attitude as of late, and they don't seem to want to back down. Still, I doubt that they will get into a shooting match with the U.S. over Syria.

There are so many facets to this story it's incredible. I really have no idea how I'm going to fit all of the information into a 15 minute show. If I try to break it up into three 15 minute episodes, the fat lady will have sung by the time episode three airs. It's definitely going to be a challenge that's for sure.

Happy Thanksgiving.


I'm not too sure if Russia has a new attitude. I think its the Russian Elections that is driving the pissing contest in the geo political arena. Putin is selling his words to the Russians just the way every other politician does around the world.

How many times have we seen Russia and China oppose to the US/West/EU policies but they continue to make money as well? I wouldn't be surprised if they shook hands backdoor and divided the business deals (Weapons Sale) to different countries. China, Russia, US and EU have all been selling weapons like crazy to several countries in the ME and SE Asia. Create the market through fear and scare tactic and sell them the weapons. Let them destroy each other and rebuild the nations and repeat the cycle of selling the weapons again after a rebuilt country and political regime emerges. Common folks....nothing new here. It has always been that way throughout the Modern and Ancient civilizations.



posted on Nov, 28 2011 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by jude11
I've seen a lot of posts stating that Russia will back down and that this is just saber rattling.

I don't think so. Russia is getting sick & tired of the US trying to dictate how the World should run and many other Countries are feeling the same way.

Still got a bad feeling about all this. Russia is NOT the Country to Pi$$ off.


But I was told that the way to become more open and friendly to nations is by starting lots of wars and having many overseas military bases. I'm told Ron Paul is an isolationist moving to isolate the US through free-market trading practices, diplomacy, and not making so much war. What, are you going to tell me that the US playing police-man actually increases isolation?
edit on 28-11-2011 by seachange because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2011 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
On the other hand the US Navy might be saving that name for something much more interesting and potent than a supercarrier.


the name Enterprise is traditionally reserved for the first ship of a NEW class. The problem with the Shuttle was that we let NASA run the space program when it should have been the NAVY. Then it would have flown first


Don't forget that on Star Trek they do it right and let the NAVY run Starfleet Command

Did you know that when NASA flubbed that tether satellite mission on STS 75 that the NAVY was flying a successful tether satellite at the same time? And even shot lasers at it
edit on 28-11-2011 by zorgon because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2011 @ 09:45 PM
link   
i agree since there are more billionares in moscow than anywhere else in the world. the opinions expressed by the government i happen to be born under in no way reflects my opinion on the whole matter. the sad thing is many others here in america feel the same way and our selfish military leaders are going to force the american citizens suffer at the hands of the world when most here are against what they are doing even people in the military are against it. we dont own the world and our govt needs to get over itself.



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 04:18 AM
link   
I just got off the horn with NATO. The US is on it's own if it decides to do anything in Syria.

"NATO has no plans to take any action whatsoever, logistical or otherwise, in regards to Syria." - Official NATO Spokesman.

Individual members, like Turkey and the US, can take whatever actions they feel are in their national interest; but as far as the 28 members of NATO are concerned, no action will be taken under their banner in Syria.



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 04:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


But that is really the system at work anywhere. You have to establish yourself before you can assert yourself


EDIT: By the way, I got reprimanded for my "excessive quoting" as per your request. But as you can see, my post wasn't even modified by staff.


Well, I didn't specifically ask that it be done, but the inconsistancy called my attention, as I try to make sure I udnerstand exactly what the rules are. But they probably didn't modify it because I had specifically said in my case, would have prefered be asked to do it myself (as the rules say would be done) so that I could have cut out what was unecessary, and left what I felt was essential. I guess they were making an attempt to respect our requests, and well, you just can't please everyone all the time! I'm sorry if that ended up being problematic for you.
(apologies to all for the hijacking, will try to be less spontaneous in the future!)
edit on 29-11-2011 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 05:59 AM
link   
Can you blame Russia for protecting Syria?

The United States is financially on the verge of collapse and Russia knows it. By assisting Syria, Russia assures that the US will be drawn into a protracted and expensive war it can't win.

I guess they actually studied Reagans tactics after all.



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 06:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by ManlyHall
Can you blame Russia for protecting Syria?

The United States is financially on the verge of collapse and Russia knows it. By assisting Syria, Russia assures that the US will be drawn into a protracted and expensive war it can't win.

I guess they actually studied Reagans tactics after all.


They aren't protecting Syria. The whole scenario of Russian warships delivering missiles and technical aid to Syria was bogus from the start. The whole story was hype based on hype. Ask yourself why a Syrian News Agency would want to report a deployment of Russian warships heading for Syrian waters? Conspiracy theorists simply jumped on the bandwagon and embellished the story into Russia coming to assist Syria.

The last Russian warship in the Medeterranean returned to the Black Sea after exercising with NATO assets on the 19th November. It never went anywhere near Syria.

Yes the Russians are deploying to the Med on exercise. December 2011 or January 2012 will see the real and not conspiracy theory fantasy deployments.

rt.com...


The mission is set to start in early December, when the Admiral Kuznetsov begins its journey in the Barents Sea, accompanied by another vessel of Russia’s Northern Fleet, the heavy ASW ship Admiral Chabanenko. The group will then skirt the European continent from the west and enter the Mediterranean through the Straits of Gibraltar.

Later, they will be joined by frigate Ladny of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet. It will travel through the Bosphorus, with a stop-over in Malta’s Valletta.

Admiral Kuznetsov will be carrying eight Sukhoi Su-33 all-weather fighters, two Kamov Ka-27 anti-submarine helicopters and several brand new Mig-29K fighters. The Mig fighters were built for India’s air force and are supposed to be “tested” during their first assignment.


www.barentsobserver.com...
edit on 29-11-2011 by tommyjo because: Additional info added



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 06:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by OldCorp
I just got off the horn with NATO. The US is on it's own if it decides to do anything in Syria.

"NATO has no plans to take any action whatsoever, logistical or otherwise, in regards to Syria." - Official NATO Spokesman.



This is nothing new. Even during operations in Libya Rasmussen stated that intervention in Syria was not being considered by NATO.

From May 2011

www.bloomberg.com...


NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen told Italian news agency Ansa that the military alliance has ruled out an intervention in Syria. Rasmussen made the comments before the start of a NATO ceremony in Rome.


It has been repeated several times since then.


In Tripoli, Libya, where NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen announced the end of the NATO campaign that helped oust longtime leader Moammar Gadhafi, the NATO leader said Syria's leadership will face no such threat.

"NATO has no intention whatsoever to intervene in Syria," Rasmussen told reporters. "I can completely rule that out. Having said that, I strongly condemn the crackdowns on the civilian population in Syria."


articles.cnn.com...:MIDDLEEAST



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 08:04 AM
link   
Ficticious Russian warships sparked the imagination of the conspiracy blogs and websites. Imagine what the actual Northern Fleet Kuznetsov Battle Group and Black Sea Fleet Frigate Ladny deployment will spark in their imagination?

Wait until they see the footage of MiG-29K Fulcrums being flown from the Kuznetsov during this upcoming deployment? No doubt they will be claiming that these are fighter aircraft deliveries for the Syrian Air Force?

MiG-29Ks being tested from Kuznetsov. The standard Russian aircraft carrier deployment is Su-33 Flanker and Su-25 Frogfoot.These are Indian Navy MiG-29s being tested.



No doubt they will be busy working on fantasy stories to exaggerate the routine planned Russian Navy deployment? The Russian carrier battle group has to leave the Mediterranean eventually so for the conspiracy theorists it has to have left something behind in Syria. The blogs will be going into a frenzy when the Kuznetsov enters the Mediterranean.

Our sources at conspiracyfantasyland.com


Some ten cargo ships were involved in the transport of the aircraft which were transferred by floating pontoon to the Kuznetsov once inside the Mediterranean. The non-carrier variant MiG-29s and Su-27 were then flown off in a one shot mission using the ski-ramp. The earlier missions in the western Mediterranean were assisted by air-to-air buddy-buddy tanker refuelling from Kuznetsov's Russian Navy Su-33s. The delivery of up to one hundred fighter aircraft has obviously upset NATO/NWO/UN plans for direct intervention.


Will it be more S-300s? Perhaps S-400s. Another 'delivery' of advanced anti-ship missiles? How about tactical nuclear weapons? The mind boggles what their imagination will come up with.

edit on 29-11-2011 by tommyjo because: Additional info added





new topics
top topics
 
90
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join