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 and the United States are bracing for a naval confrontation

page: 1
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 07:18 AM
link   
Text

.

Peter Goodspeed: Power shifts push Mideast closer to war
Peter Goodspeed Dec 14, 2011 – 8:28 PM ET | Last Updated: Dec 15, 2011 8:43 AM ET


REUTERS/SANA/Handout
A Syrian pipeline carrying oil from the east of the country to a refinery in Homs was blown up on Dec. 8.

.Comments Email Twitter inShare.15.As Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad clings to power with the quiet backing of regional powers Iran and Russia, the Middle East may be sliding slowly into war.

Squeezed between the rebellions of a bloody Arab Spring and growing fears of a possible military response to Iran’s growing nuclear threat, the region is becoming increasingly unstable.

“I would be very surprised if it turned into a Russian-American war, but this could be a Mid-East war: Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran, Syria, Israel all having at each other,” said Jack Granatstein, military historian and senior research fellow at the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute.


Ramazan Gözen, an international relations expert at Abant İzzet Baysal University wrote this week in the Turkish newspaper Zaman, “A process of steadily sharpening polarization is being experienced … [and] it does not bode well…. In short, the polarization over Syria and Iran can turn into an uncontrollable conflict between the polarized countries and their supporters.”

fullcomment.nationalpost.com...




posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 07:22 AM
link   
I am surprised Syria moving chemical tipped missiles to the Turkish border didn't start the conflict, that should have been treated as an act of war. S&F

edit on 18-12-2011 by Twiptwop because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 07:27 AM
link   
You're right of course that all this is very volatile. Throw in Russia's need to show control at home due to the recent "kind of" elections. Plus, the US missile shield controversy, etc. Dangerous, indeed.

But I was really hoping to see your comments and opinions on the subject. What do you think the countries' actions will be? What kind of diplomatic agreement can be reached? What do you think the Obama and Hillary
goal is? Weaken Russia? Start a war?



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 07:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Twiptwop
 


Turkey is funding muslim brotherhood terrorists in Syria,that is an act of war.
Syria is doing the right thing and should make sure that Turkey ,Israel and GCC seize to exist if they are invaded and destroyed..



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 07:41 AM
link   
I just hope they go into war already. Enough with false propaganda
there is no democracy, every person has the freedom to choose
but are not free, Perhaps a war a wide scale never seen before can free
those who are prepared. I agree on depopulating the planet for one reason.
Simply because 7 billion people cannot feed off nature as in going around
and hunting with this many people. We should return to the old ways or
create a system where there's a constitution in which the military must obey
e.g. one that will order the take down of a president if non-constitutional behavior
or actions are shown.



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by foreshadower99
I just hope they go into war already.


I agree with this. Like 2 kids in the lunch room pushing each other.... Just start swinging already so it can be done with, and we can continue eating in peace.



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Twiptwop
I am surprised Syria moving chemical tipped missiles to the Turkish border didn't start the conflict, that should have been treated as an act of war. S&F

edit on 18-12-2011 by Twiptwop because: (no reason given)

How may i ask is that an act of war? As far as i'm concerned, Syria was arming their missiles with chemical warheads for needs of defence. They aren't harming anybody by transporting chemical tipped missiles to the border. If anything, that is a sign that they are expecting something big from the allies, whether it be an invasion or not.



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 07:49 AM
link   
as long as america pull back and britian doesn't get involved i dont give a # they can blow eachother to hell
edit on 18-12-2011 by akapapasmurf because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by daaskapital

Originally posted by Twiptwop
I am surprised Syria moving chemical tipped missiles to the Turkish border didn't start the conflict, that should have been treated as an act of war. S&F

edit on 18-12-2011 by Twiptwop because: (no reason given)

How may i ask is that an act of war? As far as i'm concerned, Syria was arming their missiles with chemical warheads for needs of defence. They aren't harming anybody by transporting chemical tipped missiles to the border. If anything, that is a sign that they are expecting something big from the allies, whether it be an invasion or not.


So you wouldn't have a problem with a country neighbouring your nation moving deadly missiles armed with chemicals to your borders, and aiming them at your people?



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 07:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Twiptwop
 


Was the chemical missile scenario ever confirmed? I'm not claiming it to be false but I do remember it being very questionable. Perhaps more information has been released, but it was far from definitive when I first heard about it around a week or so ago.

On topic, I wonder if this is being over hyped again. I don't see Russia and the United states battling it out in a Naval scenario. I would imagine their battles would be fought by proxy. A war between these two nations would be very ugly, and destructive.

I think we're a long way from a U.S./Russia war. Who knows what these maniacs have planned though, anything's possible.



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 07:56 AM
link   

edit on 18-12-2011 by ken10 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Twiptwop

Originally posted by daaskapital

Originally posted by Twiptwop
I am surprised Syria moving chemical tipped missiles to the Turkish border didn't start the conflict, that should have been treated as an act of war. S&F

edit on 18-12-2011 by Twiptwop because: (no reason given)

How may i ask is that an act of war? As far as i'm concerned, Syria was arming their missiles with chemical warheads for needs of defence. They aren't harming anybody by transporting chemical tipped missiles to the border. If anything, that is a sign that they are expecting something big from the allies, whether it be an invasion or not.


So you wouldn't have a problem with a country neighbouring your nation moving deadly missiles armed with chemicals to your borders, and aiming them at your people?

I would feel uneasy yes, but it is not an act of war! Syria is transporting/arming their missiles due to fears of what the allies might do. In Syria's case, it's better to be safe than sorry.



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by daaskapital

Originally posted by Twiptwop

Originally posted by daaskapital

Originally posted by Twiptwop
I am surprised Syria moving chemical tipped missiles to the Turkish border didn't start the conflict, that should have been treated as an act of war. S&F

edit on 18-12-2011 by Twiptwop because: (no reason given)

How may i ask is that an act of war? As far as i'm concerned, Syria was arming their missiles with chemical warheads for needs of defence. They aren't harming anybody by transporting chemical tipped missiles to the border. If anything, that is a sign that they are expecting something big from the allies, whether it be an invasion or not.


So you wouldn't have a problem with a country neighbouring your nation moving deadly missiles armed with chemicals to your borders, and aiming them at your people?

I would feel uneasy yes, but it is not an act of war! Syria is transporting/arming their missiles due to fears of what the allies might do. In Syria's case, it's better to be safe than sorry.


It is a direct act of aggression and should be treated as a declaration of war. To bring normal missiles to a border during a crisis would be understandable, to bring chemical weapons to the border is inexcusable and cannot be tolerated for one single minute.



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Twiptwop

Originally posted by daaskapital

Originally posted by Twiptwop

Originally posted by daaskapital

Originally posted by Twiptwop
I am surprised Syria moving chemical tipped missiles to the Turkish border didn't start the conflict, that should have been treated as an act of war. S&F

edit on 18-12-2011 by Twiptwop because: (no reason given)

How may i ask is that an act of war? As far as i'm concerned, Syria was arming their missiles with chemical warheads for needs of defence. They aren't harming anybody by transporting chemical tipped missiles to the border. If anything, that is a sign that they are expecting something big from the allies, whether it be an invasion or not.


So you wouldn't have a problem with a country neighbouring your nation moving deadly missiles armed with chemicals to your borders, and aiming them at your people?

I would feel uneasy yes, but it is not an act of war! Syria is transporting/arming their missiles due to fears of what the allies might do. In Syria's case, it's better to be safe than sorry.


It is a direct act of aggression and should be treated as a declaration of war. To bring normal missiles to a border during a crisis would be understandable, to bring chemical weapons to the border is inexcusable and cannot be tolerated for one single minute.

It is an act of aggression, however, as i said, it is for defensive reasons. With the US allegedly training troops on the Turkish border, supposedly getting ready for an invasion, if i were Syria, i would do the same thing, whether or not the claims are true. Put yourself in Syria's position instead of Turkey's for a second, what would you do if you were Syria facing these circumstances?



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by daaskapital

It is an act of aggression, however, as i said, it is for defensive reasons. With the US allegedly training troops on the Turkish border, supposedly getting ready for an invasion, if i were Syria, i would do the same thing, whether or not the claims are true. Put yourself in Syria's position instead of Turkey's for a second, what would you do if you were Syria facing these circumstances?


If I were Syria? I would realise that the slaughter of my own people, the attempts to intimidate surrounding nations and other provocative actions I made were the reasons why we are looking at a potential invasion. If I were Syria? I would get rid of Assad, offer formal apologies and reparations to those nations I have threatened and do my hardest to get back in the good books.
edit on 18-12-2011 by Twiptwop because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Twiptwop

Originally posted by daaskapital

It is an act of aggression, however, as i said, it is for defensive reasons. With the US allegedly training troops on the Turkish border, supposedly getting ready for an invasion, if i were Syria, i would do the same thing, whether or not the claims are true. Put yourself in Syria's position instead of Turkey's for a second, what would you do if you were Syria facing these circumstances?


If I were Syria? I would realise that the slaughter of my own people, the attempts to intimidate surrounding nations and other provocative actions I made were the reasons why we are looking at a potential invasion. If I were Syria? I would get rid of Assad, offer formal apologies and reparations to those nations I have threatened and do my hardest to get back in the good books.
edit on 18-12-2011 by Twiptwop because: (no reason given)

Fair call mate, fair call

Have you listened to the uncut western interview with Assad? He goes into detail that it isn't really him who ordered the military to kill civilians. He stated that it is in the Syrian constitution that the President doesn't order them to do so. I have to mention though, that with everything that has happened in Northern Africa/ME, it is only precautionary and smart to make these moves (arming missiles/transporting them) just in case if TSHTF. You know, all this is like drugs for the US/NATO, once they try it once, they can't stop. So i am presuming that Syria is expecting something, and thus, getting ready for war with foreign countries. Either way, they are going down next.



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Twiptwop
 


##snip## Assad doesn't order
the slaughter of the people, the constitution of Syria is made
so that any attack on the country will be retaliated against.
Current we are seeing not protestors but people who want to
bring sharia law as seen in Libya, Egypt and Tunisia. It's like
mass groups of Muslim radicals who are stirred up to change the
state to a sharia one, that could happen any other country to.

Are we going to change Britain or America cause they have an ethnic
minority wanting to change the state to a sharia one and call it a civil
war? Educate yourself, don't buy to false crap. Stop being inert.
edit on 18-12-2011 by foreshadower99 because: (no reason given)

edit on Sun Dec 18 2011 by DontTreadOnMe because: We expect civility and decorum within all topics - Please Review This Link.



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 08:27 AM
link   
no one wants to make the first real move. if Turkey moves they also got Greece to deal with.



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by foreshadower99
 


Thanks for the clarification on the Syrian constitution



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by daaskapital

Originally posted by Twiptwop

Originally posted by daaskapital

It is an act of aggression, however, as i said, it is for defensive reasons. With the US allegedly training troops on the Turkish border, supposedly getting ready for an invasion, if i were Syria, i would do the same thing, whether or not the claims are true. Put yourself in Syria's position instead of Turkey's for a second, what would you do if you were Syria facing these circumstances?


If I were Syria? I would realise that the slaughter of my own people, the attempts to intimidate surrounding nations and other provocative actions I made were the reasons why we are looking at a potential invasion. If I were Syria? I would get rid of Assad, offer formal apologies and reparations to those nations I have threatened and do my hardest to get back in the good books.
edit on 18-12-2011 by Twiptwop because: (no reason given)

Fair call mate, fair call

Have you listened to the uncut western interview with Assad? He goes into detail that it isn't really him who ordered the military to kill civilians. He stated that it is in the Syrian constitution that the President doesn't order them to do so. I have to mention though, that with everything that has happened in Northern Africa/ME, it is only precautionary and smart to make these moves (arming missiles/transporting them) just in case if TSHTF. You know, all this is like drugs for the US/NATO, once they try it once, they can't stop. So i am presuming that Syria is expecting something, and thus, getting ready for war with foreign countries. Either way, they are going down next.


I had no idea of these interviews, where can I find them? If what you say is true, then I will have no choice but to retract my previous statements with an apology to yourself.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join