Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Russia arms Syria with powerful ballistic missiles: U.S. and Russia face off near Syrian border

page: 4
21
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 09:45 PM
link   
Note:

I'm sure there's other laws being broken, having to do with sovereignty, but I'm on a tablet atm and limited in being able to research what laws exactly forbd this.

There is also the R2P (responsibility to protect) which has been mis-used in the past to achieve goals under the guise of humanitarianism. It is b/c of these past abuses (and yes, also to protect their interests) that Russia and China are not budging now.




posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by curiouscanadian777
 


It's fairly easy to use the copy & paste functions...




I said "though it does coincide with their interests".


No... what you had said was:




Russia/China are not taking the stance they are "to shield Assad from International criticsm".

THEY are on the side of International law, even if it does coincide with their interests.





Yes, they are shielding Assad, and that is the ONLY reason for the vetoes and support. I've already presented as to the rational behind this.

As to Russia and China... I can only speculate that it doesn't really matter to them what the rest of the world wants to say about Assad. The only thing they care about is their interests. So yeah, I guess I may agree that they don't care to shield him. But they sure as heck do want to protect him.

I also agree that China wants to be on the side of International law. I wouldn't remove the possibility that the Russian government would go against international law though... the leverages at play aren't as great.



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS
 

In support of what Curious Canadian is saying about the Russian and Chinese vetoes in the UN when it came to Syria? Take a look back to see why this time they stood against the west.


As the intervention in Libya progressed China and especially Russia voiced regrets over having abstained, claiming that the NATO forces has overstepped their mandate for enforcing a no fly zone, escalating their action into one of enforcing regime change. Indeed that had become the objective, but how could the R2P principle be enforced without this? It was obvious enough that Khadaffi was prepared to continue to slaughter his people in a civil war to retain power. Nonetheless Russia and China complained rather disingenuously they had been duped by the West, claiming that the NATO allies were dishonestly converting R2P into a regime change instrument.

And then the spotlight switched to Syria, and immediately Russia declared that it would block any R2P resolution, because the West could not be trusted to stick to a limited mandate.

times.am...

See, its not about power in the region or religion either. It is about how they were lied to in regards to Libya. The west escalated their "Humanitarian corridor" and "no fly zone" into regime change. Now they (obviously) want to do the same thing in Syria. Thats why the vetoes from both China and Russia. Three times now.

Won't get fooled again.



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 10:05 PM
link   


See, its not about power in the region or religion either. It is about how they were lied to in regards to Libya. The west escalated their "Humanitarian corridor" and "no fly zone" into regime change. Now they (obviously) want to do the same thing in Syria. Thats why the vetoes from both China and Russia. Three times now.

Won't get fooled again.


No, Libya was a unique case because there was no interest China or Russia had in Libya. If there was, they would have used the veto power. China and Russia just didn't give a damn.
edit on 8-12-2012 by Cypress because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS
 


There will be wars and rumors of wars but the end is not yet but we sure are getting closer by the day.



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 10:19 PM
link   
patriot missile top speed, mach 5. iskander top speed mach 7.

it don't think you have to be a rocket scientist to figure out the answer.

i think at those speeds and the ability to drop on a target at 90 degrees, completely vertical, plus the ability to perform evasive maneuvers and release decoys makes this nearly impossible to intercept.



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Cypress
 

You missed the point.


No, Libya was a unique case because there was no interest China or Russia had in Libya. If there was, they would have used the veto power. China and Russia just didn't give a damn.

The interest on the part of any sovereign nation is to retain its sovereignty. All nations give a damn about that. Especially if the list of nations is growing.



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Cypress
 


I agree with you there. There was no 'civil war' in Libya, (just as there isn't in Syria) and I don't believe that Russia didn't know this.

If you have outside forces funding/arming the malcontents within your country, that is something quite different. (think foreign countries arming the Rep's to overthrow Obama and how that'd go over.)



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS
 

In support of what Curious Canadian is saying about the Russian and Chinese vetoes in the UN when it came to Syria? Take a look back to see why this time they stood against the west.


As the intervention in Libya progressed China and especially Russia voiced regrets over having abstained, claiming that the NATO forces has overstepped their mandate for enforcing a no fly zone, escalating their action into one of enforcing regime change. Indeed that had become the objective, but how could the R2P principle be enforced without this? It was obvious enough that Khadaffi was prepared to continue to slaughter his people in a civil war to retain power. Nonetheless Russia and China complained rather disingenuously they had been duped by the West, claiming that the NATO allies were dishonestly converting R2P into a regime change instrument.

And then the spotlight switched to Syria, and immediately Russia declared that it would block any R2P resolution, because the West could not be trusted to stick to a limited mandate.

times.am...

See, its not about power in the region or religion either. It is about how they were lied to in regards to Libya. The west escalated their "Humanitarian corridor" and "no fly zone" into regime change. Now they (obviously) want to do the same thing in Syria. Thats why the vetoes from both China and Russia. Three times now.

Won't get fooled again.

UNRES 1973 was drawn up in such a way that it would have been impossible to overstep its mandate. Read it; the Chinese and Russians did and they did nothing about it, despite these 'concerns' and despite the fact that they knew exactly what would happen.

Even spackos on the internet knew that Gaddafi would have been gotten rid of following that resolution. None of them even read it, they just used their conspiracy powers.

China/Russia only cared about the idea that it was okay for the UN to authorise international military action in support of democratic movements in undemocratic countries, and it doesn't take a genius to work out why that worries them so much.

Now they're having the same problem with Syria. They're willing to veto a resolution on Syria because it actually matters to them. Not because the were lied to or because the West and the Arab League broke non-existent promises on Libya (someone get me a violin).



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Soshh
 


(someone get me a violin).

So, then... you won't mind when they come over here and violate our national sovereignty then will you. Or do I hear the double standard horn sounding again?
edit on 8-12-2012 by intrptr because: spelling



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by Soshh
 


(someone get me a violin).

So, then... you won't mind when they come over here and violate our national sovereignty then will you. Or do I hear the double stander horn sounding again?

Without knowing anything at all about this fictional scenario I’m hardly able to decide whether or not I’d agree with another country “violating our national sovereignty” am I? So go on make an effort chop chop.



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS
 


Don't think the patriot can but our planes with the laser built into the nose can..I know we have some land based laser system also



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by curiouscanadian777
 


International Law is not the same thing as Domestic Law. Each country is sovereign state and as such there is no authority outside of political pressure to enforce it. The only countries with the power to challenge the US are the members of the security council which pose a MAD (mutually assured destruction) threat. They were able to proceed with foreign policy because the vested interest of any countries that require consideration were not great enough.

Now back to the original topic, I really don't have much to add outside of what has been said already. If Russia were to send armaments to assad they wouldn't be so bulky or expensive. Russia over the last 20 years historically has a number of remnants from the Soviet era they would sell before sending anything remotely advanced.



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by chrismarco
 


There was only one YAL-1A airborne laser, and it's been cancelled. It is sitting in Arizona in the boneyard, all packed up.

As for the Iskander v Patriot, the Iskander is extremely hard to intercept, but not impossible. Yes it's faster than the Patriot, but the Patriot actually has a slight advantage, because the Iskander HAS to fly towards it, so it's a closing engagement. If it was going away, the Patriot would be at a huge disadvantage. The Patriot won't be able to stop all of them, maybe not even most of them, but the Iskander isn't the world changing weapon that is going to dominate the battlefield either.



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by randomname
patriot missile top speed, mach 5. iskander top speed mach 7.

it don't think you have to be a rocket scientist to figure out the answer.

i think at those speeds and the ability to drop on a target at 90 degrees, completely vertical, plus the ability to perform evasive maneuvers and release decoys makes this nearly impossible to intercept.


This is not a particularly effective statistic, the Patriot is not fired from behind the iskander but rather towards it as it would be incoming.



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by Cypress
 

You missed the point.


No, Libya was a unique case because there was no interest China or Russia had in Libya. If there was, they would have used the veto power. China and Russia just didn't give a damn.

The interest on the part of any sovereign nation is to retain its sovereignty. All nations give a damn about that. Especially if the list of nations is growing.


Yes maintaining sovereignty is national interest #1 for any state or government; however, that has nothing to do with whether or not China and Russia veto in the security council over Libya and Syria in this case. They knew exactly how the US was positioning itself for Libya and the reason they didn't veto is because they didn't have any eggs in the basket. China and Russia don't care about any other countries sovereignty other than their own and improving on their own interests.



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 11:21 PM
link   
One other thing to remember is that counties who manufacture such arms will not supply their most advanced versions for export. The arm for export is always a downgraded version. So we really don't know how capable it really is, do we?



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Soshh
 

Sorry, I meant to say double "standard" not double "stander". You know the reasoning-- Its okay for us to invade and conquer other nations but not okay for other nations to do it to us? Isn't that why we are over there... to fight the war on terror for what they did to us on 911? Or is it burkas and WMD...

We are off topic here. Nice dodge by the way.



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Cypress
 

Ask them after we add Syria and Iran to that growing list. See how their stance has changed as things develop.



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 11:58 PM
link   
That Syria might attack Turkey with this missile or for any reason is absurd. Turkey is NATO. Syria's military knows it would be suicidal to launch even one missile against them. With all the forces arrayed in the region just spoiling for a fight?

Really...

Lets see. If they haven't already, Patriot missiles are to be installed along the northern border of Syria.

The Eisenhower carrier task force has just arrived off the coast of Syria with thousands of troops, dozens of fighter bombers and thousands of bombs and missiles of their own.

The UK and France are seeking to lift the blockade for arms shipments to the insurgency in Syria across its borders with neighboring countries.

The UK and France are also building a "coalition government" (government in exile) so as to authorize it to replace the one in Damascus.

The rhetoric about the use of chemical weapons is at a fever pitch which is designed to further demonize the Syrian government and therefore justify all these escalating measures against that beleaguered nation.

Meanwhile the nation of Syria has done nothing to any nation around it, even now. It knows how desperate its plight is and still they remain in control, non threatening to its own people, the nations around it or the world at large.

In fact, the ones that are threatening another country in the middle east are the US, Nato, and its Arab allies. They have Syria surrounded and wage aggressive guerrilla war as we speak as they tighten the military noose around Syria's neck.

In the name of peace we wage war.






top topics



 
21
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join