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.

 

France: Military Action May Be Needed In Syria

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 01:20 PM
link   

France: Military Action May Be Needed In Syria


uk.news.yahoo.com

French foreign minister Alain Juppe said the UN-backed peace plan has been "strongly compromised" and that monitors should be on the ground in a fortnight, not three months.
Without quick progress, Mr Juppe said the international community would have "to move on to another step which we have already started raising with our partners, under Chapter Seven of the United Nations charter".
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 01:20 PM
link   
Russia has already pledged to protect Syria from outside intervention but that does not seem to deter France. This is quite a strange time to release a statement on the subject with President Sarkozy behind in the election polls in France.

Although conspiracy theorists on this website seemed to think Obama would be looking to jump into a conflict to extend his presidency without leaving office, perhaps it is indeed the French PM who is turning to this tactic. I also find it strange how a government which banned the burkha in public is suddenly quick to jump to the defence of a nation of people from that same ethnic and religious background.

uk.news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 01:26 PM
link   
Let France go do it then. Leave the US out of it. Really, the oil rich arab league needs to step up and handle their own problems.



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheGreatest


Russia has already pledged to protect Syria from outside intervention but that does not seem to deter France. This is quite a strange time to release a statement on the subject with President Sarkozy behind in the election polls in France.

Although conspiracy theorists on this website seemed to think Obama would be looking to jump into a conflict to extend his presidency without leaving office, perhaps it is indeed the French PM who is turning to this tactic. I also find it strange how a government which banned the burkha in public is suddenly quick to jump to the defence of a nation of people from that same ethnic and religious background.

uk.news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


Typical actions of a man wanting to hold on to power for as long as possible without taking into account the huge loss of life that would well ensue on top of those already subjected to death and torture.

It truly is a sad world we live in.



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarthMuerte
Let France go do it then. Leave the US out of it. Really, the oil rich arab league needs to step up and handle their own problems.


Agreed, but somehow I don't think that Sarkozy will get the backing he seeks from anyone on this.



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 01:31 PM
link   
Why would Russia vowing to protect Syria detour any one? It will not be a Total War , but most likely a Limited War between Russian Forces in Syria and Nato forces.

Also , Russia is out numberd .... 5 to 1.

Russia will become land locked very quickly. I doubt China will get involved as they know they dont have the Military power to support its Army abroad.

It would be impossible to win a War for Russia or China , simply because they dont have the Navies or Air power to compete with NATO.
edit on 26-4-2012 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by milkyway12
Why would Russia vowing to protect Syria detour any one? It will not be a Total War , but most likely a Limited War between Russian Forces in Syria and Nato forces.

Also , Russia is out numberd .... 5 to 1.

Russia will become land locked very quickly. I doubt China will get involved as they know they dont have the Military power to support its Army abroad.

It would be impossible to win a War for Russia or China , simply because they dont have the Navies or Air power to compete with NATO.
edit on 26-4-2012 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)


When is conflict ever a good thing? Think of the amount of casualties and deaths caused by the Afghan and Iraq wars combined, our enemy was and is a poorly equipped force of religious extremists. Russian forces are as well trained and as well equipped as any western nation and the blood shed would be catastrophic even in a small conflict.



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by milkyway12
Why would Russia vowing to protect Syria detour any one? It will not be a Total War , but most likely a Limited War between Russian Forces in Syria and Nato forces.


edit on 26-4-2012 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)


There are two ways of looking at it

a) Initially it will start as a limited war, but in half an hour it will turn into a total war of catastrophic proportions.

b) Initially Russia will help Syria with weapons, intelligence and spec ops support. However, if NATO up the ante then Russia might join in and declare no access areas to NATO. This would be a start of Total War and half an hour at most will what it take to blow lots of usefulness around the world.

Russian military not as well trained and equipped like NATO forces except for few special divisions. This factor will lead Russia to use nukes and WMDs in a hurry. Their military high command has said this many times before in the last year or so alone.



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by victor7
 


Believe it or not , it's harder than you think it is to start Total War in this day in age. We will most likely fight over resources or situations like these through military power.

Not total annihilation.

Total War will not begin unless Russia begins to threaten Nuclear War. NATO will not start Total War with Russia because NATO knows Total War is the destruction of most civilized life. Russia on the other hand, is a bit radical. So if anything , Russia will be the ones to start World War III simply because their military power is rather weak , but still effective.

While NATO has manpower , funding , technology , majority support of the world's nations and a very strong military backing.

This is the reason we are trying to contain Russia without containing them. Through a Missile defense shield. So we only have to worry about their submarines. We will NOT launch a nuke on Russia unless they launch first ,simply because we out perform them on every level and do not need to launch nukes in order to win. Russia does.
edit on 26-4-2012 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by TheGreatest
 

We have regime change in Syria specifically underwritten by US, France and the Gulf ArabStates. Of course France is going to puppet the US.

Of course no plan for a country’s ruination is complete without the help of the UN. Think Libya and Resolution 1973, the green light for a “humanitarian” blitzkrieg, regime change, razed towns, murder from air and ground on an industrial scale, including that of most of the country’s leading family, with small grand children and the butchering of Colonel Quaddafi, the country’s sovereign leader, his body still unaccounted for.

Russia and China feel the geopolitical pressure. Take a look at a Central Asian map. They have no choice but to draw a line in C.A sand there.

This is real. The road to Damascus won't give a chit that Paul once [hypothetically] rode upon it.



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 02:55 PM
link   
NATO should intervene in Syria, and then go straight ahead to Israel and stop their crimes aswell. I've just seen a sick video on LiveLeak, where Assad's soldiers buried a man alive, allegedly because he had a camera on his phone. When that man said his shahada ("There's no God but Allah and Mohammed is his messenger and servant"), the Assad soldier replied: "Say there's no God but Assad!") According to the info on the video.

You can find the vide on LiveLeak, just search for "Syria" and sort by date. Pretty sick # going on there... and Turkey should take the opportunity and intervene, and gain even more respect in the region by the Sunni Arabs.



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by milkyway12
 




Russia will become land locked very quickly. I doubt China will get involved as they know they dont have the Military power to support its Army abroad.


Oh really they dont dont have the Military power to support its Army abroad? take a look.
Source



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Kemal
 




where Assad's soldiers buried a man alive, allegedly because he had a camera on his phone. When that man said his shahada ("There's no God but Allah and Mohammed is his messenger and servant"), the Assad soldier replied: "Say there's no God but Assad!") According to the info on the video


I have seen it but i dont believe its Assad Soldiers you know its pretty easy to fake such things right and for what reason again? NATO intervention.

The video didn't look convincing and how can you tell its a Assad Soldier? is it because the guy in the footages says the Assad soldier replied: "Say there's no God but Assad!") According to the info on the video?

These Rebels would do anything just so they would see a NATO intervention.

Remember This?

Source

I have to agree with Sergei Lavrov on that he was right when he said that.



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Kemal
 


OTAN should stick to being a defensive alliance, one which only responds when our home countries are directly attacked by the forces of another country.

Syria is in the Russian sphere of influence. OTAN has no place there.

And Sarkozy is an idiot, we're well rid of him.



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by milkyway12
 




Russia on the other hand, is a bit radical. So if anything , Russia will be the ones to start World War III simply because their military power is rather weak , but still effective.


Your calling the Russian military weak and radical?
you have to be joking, who was the radical one that started in Iraq over lies? killed saddam over lies that had WMDs? ties to Bin laden?

Who was planning to go to war with Afghanistan since 9/11? did you know that the plan to go with war with Afghanistan was in the plans way before 9/11 right?



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by LeBombDiggity
 


Indeed, I agree with you. But people are dying there, it's a fact that it's a mercyless and brutal civil war there. UN Peacekeeper troops should intervene there, whether they (at the worst case) fight with regime troops or oppositions. Don't forget that the dead women and children you can see are no fakes. Some claim it's the opposition militias that commit this crime, but to be honest, I don't think so, elsewhise the (Sunni) refugees would have told the media that it were opposition troops who slaughtered their relatives and friends. Then again, I don't really trust the MSM.

I've made a paper work about Libya and why the civil war/revolts broke out there (unfortunately it's in German, otherwise I would have uploaded so you can read the 15 pages!) and I indeed came to the conclusion that the West disputed the war there for several reasons. Surely this is the case as well, and Turkey is accused of training the opposition, but meh, if Assad really commits these crimes, I don't see anything wrong with this. Also, Turkey is a member of NATO, and Assad's troops have killed 3 people within the Turkish border (by shooting at refugees who cross the borders to flee to Turkey), one of them was a Turkish interpreter.

Also, it is claimed that Assad allied with PKK terrorists and that he left North Syria for them to fight the opposition. The PKK is a terrorist organisation, which caused way over 40.000 deaths since the 1980s in Turkey.



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 03:26 PM
link   
MAY be needed.... sounds to me like an acute grasp of the obvious.

There will be military action whether needed or not.
edit on 26-4-2012 by oghamxx because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by milkyway12
 





Believe it or not , it's harder than you think it is to start Total War in this day in age. We will most likely fight over resources or situations like these through military power.


Russian Army is hollow and badly trained except for few VDV type sections. Russian Navy is nearly non existent. Russian Air Force ill trained and equipped, very light quality layer, beyond that total turkey shoot.

Russian Strategic Rocket forces are only at near par with the US, although their satellites are now much few in number and there are holes in the radar coverage.

Taking all these factors into account, which arm of military would Russia respond through once it is a question of national defense. Answer is simple, missiles with nukes.

Strategic thought would say, it would be futile for Russia to fight with US or NATO at this point for a country like Syria. Makes sense when there is little gas in the tank then why plan a cross country vacation.

Russia will not involve unless China gives it diplomatic and military support. However, if R+C do not involve now then few months or couple of years down the road, they will be in the same situation as Syria is. US/NATO are relentless in their short and long term goals, totally unwavering except for small turns here and there.



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by victor7
 


Your sadly quite wrong on for claiming that the Russian military ill trained and Russian Navy is nonexistent where did you get that idea from?

Source

Russian Army is hollow and badly trained except for few VDV type sections. Russian Navy is nearly non existent.
You have to be joking me.

edit on 26-4-2012 by Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter
 


Parade, Marches and Wargames are one thing and real threatre action is another. Vrs NATO, Russia forces has big qualitative and quantitative gaps. Russia does have $600B odd rearmament program but due to high levels of corruption in its army, do not expect much upgrades. Only 10% of this budget goes to new technology based weaponry, rest will be new units with minor upgrades from last 10 years.
edit on 26-4-2012 by victor7 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join