Obama speeds up limited air strike, no-fly zones preparations for Syria *VIDEO*

Atrocity's were happening in Iraq,and Libya. For you to sweep aside those atrocity's,because of your bias for the United States,gives those who died in ANY of those country's,a silent voice. A meaningless voice.No atrocity's in Iran ? NONE in Syria? Please....................

reply to post by sonnny1



Atrocities? people teaming up and firing RPGs, AKs, Grenades at the government then what do you expect? The real atrocities happened to Iraqi people when 150,000 died as a result of civil war after US invasion, 500,000 wounded and millions were without jobs for years and years. Even now situation is shaky and new leadership is pretty much a dictatorship.

Instead of invading countries and provoking civil wars, try to get the what so called 'bastard dictators' assassinated. Not much difference between the Nazi Wehrmarcth SS and NWO Washington Hitlers. Anything they touch turns into suffering and sorrows to common person in already third world nations. Just like Nazi SS, now NWO SS policies are coming back to their own countries also where common families are a tight situation of sorts. EVILNESS!

Bias against US? Yes, for the 10% of its policies there is lots of negative bias as I mentioned before in someother thread.

Just breaking from AP, US calling Russia over helicopter supplies

US: Russia sending Syria attack helicopters

By BRADLEY KLAPPER
Associated Press

www.news9.com/story/18767577/us-russia-sending-syria-attack-helicopters

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Obama administration says Russia is sending attack helicopters to Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime and is warning about a dramatic escalation in the Arab country's 15-month conflict.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton says the delivery represents the "latest information." She says the U.S. is concerned as the helicopters "will escalate the conflict quite dramatically."

She is calling instead for Moscow to help the U.S. push forward a political transition plan for Syria.

(...)

it seems Turkey might join in if things get going

Clinton, as well, warned about a massing of Syrian forces near Aleppo over the last two days, saying such a deployment could be a "red line" for Syria's northern neighbor Turkey "in terms of their strategic and national interests."

"We are watching this very carefully," she said.

Yes Turkey has wanted Damascus sense ww1 and it seems it is full blown civil war now news.yahoo.com... form the link

Syria is now in a full-scale civil war, UN peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous said on Tuesday, as UN observers reported they were fired on as they tried to enter a town feared to be the focus of a new massacre.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Washington would find it hard to support the extension of the observer mission beyond next month if the government of President Bahar al-Assad's regime continued to show "contempt" for a UN-backed ceasefire that was supposed to go into effect from April 12.

hole new ball game, you wanted WW3 now you got it, how can i say that.... you will see

Originally posted by bekod
it seems Turkey might join in if things get going

Clinton, as well, warned about a massing of Syrian forces near Aleppo over the last two days, saying such a deployment could be a "red line" for Syria's northern neighbor Turkey "in terms of their strategic and national interests."

"We are watching this very carefully," she said.

Yes Turkey has wanted Damascus sense ww1 and it seems it is full blown civil war now news.yahoo.com... form the link

Syria is now in a full-scale civil war, UN peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous said on Tuesday, as UN observers reported they were fired on as they tried to enter a town feared to be the focus of a new massacre.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Washington would find it hard to support the extension of the observer mission beyond next month if the government of President Bahar al-Assad's regime continued to show "contempt" for a UN-backed ceasefire that was supposed to go into effect from April 12.

hole new ball game, you wanted WW3 now you got it, how can i say that.... you will see

No WWIII, just another tiny insignificant tinpot dictator about to get snuffed out.
The world won't war over this, the usual suspects will line up and protest until the final day when action is taken.

reply to post by TinfoilTP

No WWIII, just another tiny insignificant tinpot dictator about to get snuffed out.

Yes WWIII sounds to me your just fine having the rebels taking over in Sryia the same rebels that have ties to terrorists.

Why is everyone yapping WWIII here? Russia and China are not as crazy and psychopathic as the US, UK and others in their alliance. So peace out. Worst would be limited action and if Dictator has the right mind and ethics then he himself will pack his bags and spend rest of his days in asylum. End of the story.

Originally posted by victor7
Why is everyone yapping WWIII here? Russia and China are not as crazy and psychopathic as the US, UK and others in their alliance. So peace out. Worst would be limited action and if Dictator has the right mind and ethics then he himself will pack his bags and spend rest of his days in asylum. End of the story.

So your fine how Libya is now? or better yet Egypt? Sryia has a Russian Naval base which they have build it on 2009/2010.

Why you think there hasn't been intervention yet? its because America will be targeting that naval base, isn't a American century?

reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter


So what can Russia do to stop the US. Military action is not advisable given the tech and tally advantages that US has.

In WWII (this is my own analysis), the Germans advanced so fast because one of the main reasons was the Panzer tank was far superior to T-26 that Soviets fielded. Panzer could pick T-26 from far also and worst T-26 shell could not penetrate the Panzer. That's why so quick encirclements were taking place as Panzers would run a riot on the Soviet armor and Generals like Guedarian made their big names. There were many other main reasons also but on ground the story changed only when T-34 came into picture and that was not till the battle of Moscow. Soviets had a KV-1 heavy tank but far few in numbers and were not deployed for first few months until Leningrad outskirts.

Similar technology situation is Russia in today also. RuAF is not match for USAF with F-22s. You want to go nuclear and blow up the human progress of last 100 years? Go ahead but that would be insane and evil.

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
reply to post by TinfoilTP

 

No WWIII, just another tiny insignificant tinpot dictator about to get snuffed out.

Yes WWIII sounds to me your just fine having the rebels taking over in Sryia

the same rebels that have ties to terrorists.

Yes, give them their turn at the wheel so they can get snuffed out next when they show how inept they are at managing a country when they commit genocide on their own people. Once the Tyrants are gone and the radicals, maybe something from a more recent century will emerge to lead their nations instead of outdated barbaric repression.

Originally posted by victor7
reply to post by damingus

 

This report is baseless and just a speculation.

Russia does not have grit left to fight any major war let alone the WWIII.

Russia does not have any weapons for its own forces so from where the weapons for Syria will come from.

Russia will back off once all its diplomatic and political moves are exhausted.

Russia might offer asylum to Assad and family to remove him from power, given some friendly party takes to the helm in Syria. Assad is not a fool, he will take his billions and move to Moscow to retire in comfort and peace.

Make me no mistake Damascus will cease to be a city and ne'er be inhabited again . How do I know this to be true the same way I knew Egypt , Lybia and Sudan would have wars that ousted their governments . The bible wrote about it thousands of years ago . So for you scoffers keep on scoffing but remeber you read it here after it comes to pass and maybe the you will seek Jesus with all your heart and humility.

Originally posted by sonnny1

Originally posted by ludwigvonmises003
reply to post by sonnny1

 

I believe many of these deaths in Syria,can be attained to Maher al-Assad,and his security forces.

??? attained ? what are you saying ??

Maybe wrong choice of word........

I think the word you were looking for was "attributed". I.e. "I believe many of these deaths in Syria,can be attributed to Maher al-Assad,and his security forces. "

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
reply to post by TinfoilTP

 

No WWIII, just another tiny insignificant tinpot dictator about to get snuffed out.

Yes WWIII sounds to me your just fine having the rebels taking over in Sryia

the same rebels that have ties to terrorists.

I am. I'm just fine with whichever side wins winning it. It's an internal Syrian matter, a civil war. Not any outsider's business, nor is it our country to sort out for them.

Thed people trying to externalize it, and demanding help for one side or another from external sources are tho ones trying to spark WWIII, which just ain't gonna happen over Syria, no matter how badly you want it to.

reply to post by nenothtu


It was late,and I was extremely tired.....

You are correct sir..

Originally posted by victor7
reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter

 

So what can Russia do to stop the US. Military action is not advisable given the tech and tally advantages that US has.

In WWII (this is my own analysis), the Germans advanced so fast because one of the main reasons was the Panzer tank was far superior to T-26 that Soviets fielded. Panzer could pick T-26 from far also and worst T-26 shell could not penetrate the Panzer. That's why so quick encirclements were taking place as Panzers would run a riot on the Soviet armor and Generals like Guedarian made their big names. There were many other main reasons also but on ground the story changed only when T-34 came into picture and that was not till the battle of Moscow. Soviets had a KV-1 heavy tank but far few in numbers and were not deployed for first few months until Leningrad outskirts.

Similar technology situation is Russia in today also. RuAF is not match for USAF with F-22s. You want to go nuclear and blow up the human progress of last 100 years? Go ahead but that would be insane and evil.

edit on 12-6-2012 by victor7 because: (no reason given)

The main reason the Germans advanced so fast was a little thing called Blitzkrieg, or lightning war, which totally changed the way wars were faught, as before it was trench warfare.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Putin isn't stupid.
He wont risk millions of Russian lives over the very tiny minority ruling elite in Damascus IMO

China does things for China. Russia does things for Russia. Neither of give a flying rat's arse about the Shiites, the Sunni, Assad, protestors, Syria except for regional security and trade routes. And arms purchases.

en.wikipedia.org...

www.wired.com...


Did someone in this thread suggest that Russia will use nukes to support Syria? Exactly why would they do that? Because, there would really need to be a very good "why."

Originally posted by sonnny1
reply to post by nenothtu

 

It was late,and I was extremely tired.....

You are correct sir..

That just means you're living proof that "it can happen to the best of 'em"!

reply to post by Canadianpride420


There were several major reasons. Overall, Germans had good technical superiority and Blitzkrieg type warfare suited them well in the vast open areas of the plains where good technical maneuvers could be played out on the ground also. Lots of Russia planes were destroyed in the first few days. Where ever it was close quarters, like Moscow, Stalingrad, and to some extent even Kursk, the Russians were able to overpower the Nazis. In the initial stages Russians were badly trained to fight the Germans and surrenders took place easily. Stalin also poked lots of commie nose on his Generals' planning. One such event, on Stalin's orders a counterattack took place which resulted in the largest encirclement of any army in the history of warfare. Politicians need to be out of the technical areas and very much so in military matters.

Originally posted by Aeons

Did someone in this thread suggest that Russia will use nukes to support Syria? Exactly why would they do that? Because, there would really need to be a very good "why."

Aye.

Here is one such post.