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.

 

NATO to intervene in Syria, maybe.

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2012 @ 11:24 AM
link   

US warns of military option in Syria

AMERICA'S top military officer has warned Syria it might face armed intervention as international outrage grows over the massacre of women and children by tanks and artillery in the central town of Houla.

Read more: www.smh.com.au...



Source


I don't know why Syria has become this pain in the butt lately. Numerous other countries in the region were able to modernize and make moves towards democracy, except for a couple countries and Syria appears to be one of them.

Well since America needs something to do why not go in and fix that? Get a couple phone calls of approval from Canada, UK, Australia, call it a NATO 'backed' intervention.

It would take 2 weeks. They will just surrender. Don't you think?




posted on May, 29 2012 @ 11:41 AM
link   
I think there will definitely be intervention and it will not be pretty. Syria will not just lay down but NATO will prevail.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 11:43 AM
link   
It seems to me that the Middle East does not understand the need for democratic reforms so I will give you the reason for it.

When you have a kingdom, and a king, and no counterbalance in the form of a parliament, all the glory is expected to go into the king and royal family and they are supposed to inspire the people but the only way that can happen is if through conflict they gain some esteem.

You see when you have a structure that is military, and a central figure of a king on top, then that dates back to when territories warred against each other for conquest.

In todays world, the war is over. So your kingdoms are trying to exist in a world that no longer exists.

And you have no one to use your equipment against except your own people.

With a parliament it allows other people in your country to rise up and be great without conflict. IT allows commerce and free enterprise and through that you see Iran, which we nursed through the last 2o years into democratic reforms. You know how? With little bits of advice. Nothing more. They are smart people they knew what needed to be done. And look at them now. Their GDP and their annual income dwarfs Syria.

Iran from Wiki


GDP (PPP) 2011 estimate
- Total $990.219 billion[6]
- Per capita $13,053[6]


Syria

GDP (nominal) 2010 estimate
- Total $59.957 billion[3]
- Per capita $2,802[3]


13,000 per year as opposed to not even 3,000 per year.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 11:50 AM
link   
Syria had a fairly stable (if a bit hostile) government before this latest "uprising." This is yet another CIA created revolution, using al-Qaeda as their public face in the form of the Free Syrian Army (which is none of those.) The Islamists now in Syria that make up a large portion of the FSA are fresh off the boat from Libya and other fronts where Hadjis have been fighting US forces and more moderate Muslim governments in the name of global Jihad; funded and trained by our own government.

You mark my words: An Islamist Muslim Brotherhood government will result from this "revolution," just as it did in Tunis, Libya, and next month (you watch) Egypt. This has been planned for a very long time, and now the end game is in sight. Those scumbags commonly known as "Zionists" are going to betray Israel and unleash this multinational Muslim force on Israel in order to destroy her.

I have my sources.

edit on 5/29/2012 by OldCorp because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 11:57 AM
link   
All we are seeing is a racking up of the political word game.

There is no real appetite to directly intervene in Syria and the US has consistently made this clear in their actions and deeds. The European nations who led in Libya are also unenthusiastic about military intervention. The military challenges are different from Libya, not least access to convenient military bases, because although Turkey is a member of NATO their support to use bases is not guaranteed and it is doubtful the UK would allow their sovereign bases in Cyprus to be used / misused for overt military action. An exclusive US adventure off a carrier would not be a goer as the US policy seems bent on collaborative actions.

The military logistics aside, the politics of the Middle East plays against a Western intervention. Why not just let these nut-job regimes fall to pieces on their own? I think Assad and his cronies are doing a great job in guaranteeing their demise and countries like Russia and China are flogging a dead horse, IMHO. It is just a matter of time and unfortunately a lot of violence from all sides.

The fact that the UN is involved indicates the unwillingness of the West to take responsibility for Syria, and quite right so.

Regards



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 12:01 PM
link   
Philosophically between the Romans and the Greeks, or the Titans and the Olympians, where one would like to have an emperor, and one is an oligarchy, in a game of conquest, and war, then its nice to have an emperor.

You see then everyone competes as a nation.

When the war is over, then you need an oligarchy or democracy, so that business and commerce can thrive.

The game changes.

But now it is more competitive. Now people are competing individually against each other and the conflict is endless.

Until you get to the level above that which is somewhere far down the road.

So in essence the war is not over, the playing field has changed. And with competition comes social improvement. So that is how nations rise up through democracy and do much less well under communist rule. There is a lack of competition in communist rule.


So you have a choice in Syria, which is to share the wealth equally and make nice places where people can enjoy life without working, but on a meager existence but perhaps blissfully ignorant. Or you can go forward like the rest of the world towards the hope of a better life through progress.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by micmerci
I think there will definitely be intervention and it will not be pretty. Syria will not just lay down but NATO will prevail.


NATO will not prevail, Canadians,Americans arent buying the propaganda.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 04:36 PM
link   
If Syria is seen as a place where Western interests are threatened, and NATO comes to the aid of the rebels, it could be World War III. At the sea port in Tartus, Russian nuclear subs are parked. Russia's reason for keeping the nukes there is to defend its only ally with access to the Mediterranean Sea.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 07:37 PM
link   
www.bbc.co.uk...


Mr Lavrov also repeated calls for an international conference to implement the peace plan drawn up by UN special envoy Kofi Annan.


Well we could have a G20 meeting if you want to.

I know that it may appear as if we are setting out to have all the fun by building golf courses for our top brass in Afghanistan so if you consider that if we give Afghanistan to NATO, then somewhere in there we could have a nice conference center. I wouldn't relocate the political side of NATO there but it could still be of use for strategic talks when needed.

You know if I could include Russia and China in there I would. But I can't in an official capacity. What I can do though is to say that we can use it for diplomatic purposes also. I am giving Russia and China Syria.

So in that situation, you should be able to have some type of presence in there, on the Mediterranean, for low level talks with the Syrian government and if you need to use those facilities to meet with anyone else in the region. Beyond that you will need to invest in Syria, and in doing so, be granted some hospitality there.
For instance if you can improve their irrigation, then they will be grateful to you.


The Group of Twenty Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors (also known as the G-20, G20, and Group of Twenty) is a group of finance ministers and central bank governors from 20 major economies: 19 countries plus the European Union, which is represented by the President of the European Council and by the European Central Bank.[3] The G-20 heads of government or heads of state have also periodically conferred at summits since their initial meeting in 2008. Collectively, the G-20 economies account for more than 80 percent of the gross world product (GWP),[4] 80 percent of world trade (including EU intra-trade), and two-thirds of the world population.[3] They furthermore account for 84.1 percent and 82.2 percent of the world's economic growth by nominal GDP and GDP (PPP) respectively from the years 2010 to 2016, according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF).


Yes thats us again.

But you see China is not in the G20. However we could hold a more official conference than this if you would care to host an event of any type and invite us.
I would suggest we first meet on economic development terms, so we can give some direction to the political bodies later on. The UN can continue to push forward a resolution to help Syria, and I would suggest that it recognizes the coalition as the support system for Syria.


IRAN AND AFGHANISTAN

The joint statement was issued on the last day of the two-day annual summit of the SCO, made up of China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. Iran, India, Pakistan and others attend the summits, but not as full members.

The six leaders also warned that "any attempts to solve the Iranian problem by force are not acceptable and lead to unpredictable consequences, threatening stability and security in the region and in the world as a whole".


etc...

And also Iran is under the protection of that coalition, and they do have permission to be in the nuclear club and to be treated as ordinary humans if you can imagine that.
You know why they did so well? Not just that they had some guidance they initially approached us in a very civilized manner and we were able to see that they are highly educated rational people.

So yes lets have a few conferences and in that way we can iron out some of the formal details.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Rocketman7
 


What's the formal language? Afghanistan will become a protectorate of NATO.

Which is a fair number of countries.

www.nato.int...

So it becomes a pressure release valve for an area of the world that is emerging into global economic standing.

And it will work to assist in stabilizing the region for commerce. All of Asia. Just by its presence.

And its not just America. Its a good portion of the free world.

Now you can harken back to where I said, if I am vague when directing the military, then I gave an example, and I was vague. So there is a difference between delegating responsibility, and vague direction.

You see that region is where heroine comes from that infects society in the free world. And if politically I am vague, its because its a rat's nest. So politically I want to be vague, and in that same way, the military needs a free hand since it is a rat's nest. So what we do, since we are guided by philosophy, you know thats why we get to make these decisions, so what we do is invest in our people in the military, and we help them to be virtuous, then we trust that whatever they do, they are using wise judgment.

Now you cannot say the same thing if you were to put just anyone on this since the lure of financial gain is so great, that people would be corrupted as they are everywhere else.

So rather than deal with this issue in our neighborhoods, its much better to deal with it at the source.

Now that does not mean that this is a vigilante movement into the hills and keep going until you make the papers, we don't want to hear much about it at all.

Because economically, and politically, and strategically, we want to just take that factor out of the equation.
And the military, will use that as part of their necessity for being there. To continue, to assist in the prevention of this widespread social ill.

Economically we are nation building as the IMF, and we are looking for economic opportunities as the G20.
And also, by being a supposed opposition, assisting China and Russia with firming up a coalition for the global balance of power.
And the reason we need that is to prevent monopolies, and corporate domination of industry leading to price fixing and all the usual games of conquest in high finance. We need to preserve the free market system, and isolate that from politics, by dividing politics into two major global bodies as opposed to one New World Order.

You see in the NWO it leads to giant corporations, monopolies and a lack of innovation and a lack of opportunity. We have just finished fixing capitalism, hurray for us, we all deserve a kudo for that. It is now in a state of nature whereby supply and demand are the dominating market factors.



edit on 9-6-2012 by Rocketman7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rocketman7


Economically we are nation building as the IMF, and we are looking for economic opportunities as the G20.
And also, by being a supposed opposition, assisting China and Russia with firming up a coalition for the global balance of power.
And the reason we need that is to prevent monopolies, and corporate domination of industry leading to price fixing and all the usual games of conquest in high finance. We need to preserve the free market system, and isolate that from politics, by dividing politics into two major global bodies as opposed to one New World Order.

You see in the NWO it leads to giant corporations, monopolies and a lack of innovation and a lack of opportunity. We have just finished fixing capitalism, hurray for us, we all deserve a kudo for that. It is now in a state of nature whereby supply and demand are the dominating market factors.



edit on 9-6-2012 by Rocketman7 because: (no reason given)


So why just two global bodies and not 3? We don't want the 3 body problem. What that is is where you have too many variables to predict the outcome to a reasonable degree of certainty.
And since we are managing a planet with nuclear capabilities, yet we need at least two governing bodies, under these circumstances thats the safest alternative. But we are not talking about another cold war. We are talking about people being able to feed themselves. Through the capitalist system we have all come to enjoy, and as such we all have to make compromises. I have had to. I have had to accept the oil economy as a fact of life at least for now. Without oil you cannot drive to work. That is where the rubber hits the road.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Rocketman7
 


Also the reason we built this coalition is because America and Britain and a few other countries invaded the sovereign country of Iraq after UN inspectors under my supervision, had just gone through Iraq with a fine tooth comb, destroyed what scud missiles they found, and declared Iraq weapon free.
You see. I was also in talks with Saddam and he was of course looking for a way out and cooperating fully.

So George wanting to finish what his daddy started disregarded my moral authority, and launched an invasion.

And you can't just continue to play this dangerous game when the world as a whole has human rights such as the right to life liberty and freedom and the pursuit of happiness. People in the region need to be able to sleep at night. And of course for economic reasons since I am one of the main economists. I saw what happened with Microsoft.

But you know thankfully I am not a one man army. Thankfully through networking we have a global consensus and we keep good relations. And although the newspapers do proclaim daily that it is the economic end of the world, we live in the most prosperous era in written history.

and the future looks bright because there are bright people at the top. And, more importantly, we have installed systems that help them to work because being bright alone will not get things done.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Rocketman7
 


Yes thankfully also they don't put me in charge of the lightning bolts because there wouldn't be any left.
Its global politics and global politics is like that so I understand the reasons but just don't agree with them.
An oligarchy is like that. You can't always have things your way.

So we could do some economic planning soon and see where we are at in the big picture.

From where I sit, what I see economically is what I had worked towards. The culmination of a plan.
And that goes back to when I partnered up with Alan Greenspan, and we came up with these silly unconventional ideas for greatly increasing the economic level of the modern world.

We have gone from wondering how we were going to feed people in Asia, and dropping food packets from the air all over the world, zombie wars in Rwanda and all of that, to what you see today. Which is you right now, can order something from China on-line, and it will come to you, and it will be affordable and well made.
And not just from China, but from anywhere in the world. And for the most part, if it is within your budget, accept that as just a part of your daily life.

But when you do, you spread the wealth, and you create jobs globally, and you increase the economic level of the world. So I was asked can this woman get a job with her social networking skills?
And the thing about capitalism is that it decides those things itself, by supply and demand.
And real capitalism usually does not mean surfing the web and becoming rich. And so America has to adjust to the fact that although you have been able to do that for the last 15 years, thats a not a permanent way to make a living. As the industry levels out you see you have to go where the jobs are and that sometimes means a change of career. So if it still seems as if things are not improving on the job market in America, it is because you have forgotten how to be real capitalists.
You know what people are doing here? Starbucks reduced their locations, and numerous large chain coffee shops did the same, and for some reason, a plethora of people felt that now was the time to open a coffee shop. Since after the boom, people over built and some retail space is reasonable now.

And so there are now more coffee shops here than there has ever been and surprisingly enough, people seem to be going to them. And they are succeeding. Opening them up beside each other and across the street and just everywhere. SO you see you never know but its driven by the fact that people feel they can do that.
And if they can't do what they might usually do, then they try something else. I am not suggesting that is your solution. I am suggesting your instincts for survival should be kicking in any time now and you should be seeing some grass roots efforts at capitalism like in the days when you used to be good at it.
edit on 9-6-2012 by Rocketman7 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
1

log in

join