It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by murch
just read this on RT:
That’s exactly the point that I’m making. General Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has opposed a military intervention into Syria, into Iran precisely for this reason. That once you start these kinds of interventions, especially in those countries, you’re going past a point of simple combat. You’re threatening the danger of nuclear war. Because President Putin and others have made very clear they will not agree to a UN Security Council [resolution] for such intervention. The military right now is saying ‘NO, NO, NO! Don’t stick us in another one of these situations, we don’t want this, and if you do, this thing could escalate to an actual nuclear war, and we’re opposed to this.’ So I would say that the military right now is probably more sane and more thoughtful in defending the interests of the United States than President Obama is at this moment.
From Lawrence Freeman executive intelligence review.
Originally posted by Erectus
So lets do this. Maybe it's time for the US to mobilize its reserve fleet (70 ships), refit the mothballed fleet (with its' several carriers), pull our thousand M113s out of storage to go with our 6,000+ Bradleys and Abrams, activate the reserve army, call up the inactive reserves, institute the draft, put ship and weapons construction on 24 hour shifts, double our efforts on the black projects, get the space planes back into orbit with their secret payloads, and settle this sh** once and for all. Maybe we'll get lucky and have a few allies help out.
The war to end all wars. Don't stop until China and Russia can't feed themselves without a handout. Then get ruthless.
‘US has no moral right to lecture Russia on weapons’
13 June, 2012
Russia’s state-owned defense export company, responding to claims made by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, said it is not supplying attack helicopters to Syria, while a Russian expert said the US has no moral authority to lecture to Russia.
The sole intermediary agency for Russia's export and import of defense-related products, Rosoboronexport, refusing to comment directly on the statement made by Hillary Clinton, did offer that the company does not supply military equipment to foreign countries that fall under international sanctions.
"Rosoboronexport as a state intermediary of the Russian Federation does not supply to foreign countries weapons and military equipment in breach of the UN Security Council requirements and other international agreements," an official representative of Rosoboronexport told Interfax-AVN on Wednesday.
Meanwhile, Konstantin Makiyenko, deputy director of the Center for Strategies and Technologies Analysis, said the US has no moral right to lecture Russia on weapons supply to Syria, adding that the helicopters Clinton was talking about likely underwent maintenance in Russia.
"Even if we assume that combat helicopters are now indeed being passed to Syria, this action would not at all contradict the current norms of international law dealing with weapons trade," Makiyenko told Interfax-AVN on Wednesday.
The Russian analyst went on to say that the United States, which provides military weapons to many global hot spots, has no right to lecture Russia on the subject.
The US "sells huge amounts of weapons to the repressive Saudi regime, which took part in the tough suppression of peaceful Shiite protests against the despotic regime in Bahrain," Makiyanko said. "Systematic suppression of the opposition takes place in Saudi Arabia. The US has no moral right to lecture Russia on who should get weapons and who should not."
Robert Bridge, RT
Originally posted by murch
I guess that all that is needed is for China to be accused of supplying arms and that will allow US/NATO intervention.
Wish UN meant something.