Report: Over 10,000 US-NATO Troops Mass Ahead of Syria Invasion; Patriot Missiles Deployed in Turkey

reply to post by victor7


You forgot the part where it was claimed it was CREATED to invade China and Russia.

That's the claim.

reply to post by Fichorka


Sorry but that's not in ANY WAY proof that NATO was invented to invade China and Russia.

Is it.

Care to try again?

Originally posted by Morg234
US Navy Fighter-bomber? 8 Squadrons?

With 70 aircraft including ASW helicopters, AEW aircraft and electronic warfare, a US carrier has around 3-4 squadrons of F-18 fighters.

Todays carriers can carry quite a bit more then just 3-4 F/A-18 squadrons. I served 13 years in the Navy, and my last cruise was onboard the USS Ronald Reagan last year (during Japan's Tomadachi crisis).

I can't remember the exact number off the top of my head. I'm pretty sure there's about 4 or 5 F/A-18 C/D (Super Hornet) type Squadrons, 1 or 2 F/A-18 A/B (baby hornet) squadrons and 1 or 2 Marine F/A-18 Squadrons onboard a carrier.

I also served as an electronics technician at HS-6 "Screaming Indians" (HH-60 / SH-60F Helicopter Squadron) onboard the USS Nimitz during 2003 to 2007. Typically Helo squadrons bring about 6 to 7 aircraft.
Three are usually ready alert status tucked away on the Flight Deck, one or two in the hangar bay undergoing phase maintenance and 1 or 2 in the air at all times during cyclic ops.

Hope that helps.

reply to post by Rapha

It will be interesting to see if someone drops the Mother Of All Bombs (M.O.A.B) on Damascus and proves the Bible is true when Damascus is reduced to rubble.

Isaiah 17:1
...Behold, Damascus is taken away from being a city, and it shall be a ruinous heap.

Notice there is no mention of after death or radiation.

It also does not mention that it is destroyed by war.
The city, according to Isaiah, crumbles from neglect because people go out and work in the country earning an honest living, not living in luxury in a city (which apparently the author of Isaiah hates, and picks out Damascus as an example, being the largest city close to ancient Judea) at the expense of other's labors who are shortchanged by unfair business practices allowed in the current evil world, the one their god is going to replace with a more fair system where everyone works for their own food.

reply to post by zeeon


The C/D isn't the Super Hornet, and there is no such thing as a "Baby Hornet", and you're wrong on the numbers. They carry three Navy Hornet Squadrons, one Marine Hornet Squadron, one squadron for electronic attack (EA-6B), one for early warning (E-2C/D 2-4), a logistics support squadron (usually 2 C-2s), and a helicopter squadron.

That's 12 F/A-18E/F (Super Hornets), 36 F/A-18A-D (Hornet), four E-2C/D (Hawkeye), four EA-6B (Prowler), four SH-60, two HH-60 helicopters, and the occasional C-2 Greyhound for mail runs, now that the S-3 is out of service.

reply to post by longlostbrother


Test of invasion on Russia has already happened and somehow Russia responded well. The test was Georgia's invasion of S. Ossetia and Abkazia. All that was to check Russia's reaction to what happens if NATO and friends cook up something spicy on Russian borders.

Basically, its the acts that prove the intentions. After 1991 break up of USSR, NATO's motives have clearly changed towards Russia and its allies like Iraq, Serbia, Libya, now Syria, Iran and many others. Unlike USSR and its communist ways, Russia is non expansionist and has even refused common union with Belarus and Serbia. Who is expansionist right now is China, picking fights and tensions with Japan, Vietnam, India, S. Korea etc.

Why spent up trillions into war making and eventually making real war. Trillions can be used up in US and European economies which are in desperate need of several bail outs.

Could this not simply be a deterrent to keep Syria from using chem weapons ?
Or if chem's are used , could they simply be a NATO protection shield along Turkeys boarder , preventing any possible incursions into Turkey ?

I can't see the US wanting to invade Syria , don't think public opinion has been crafted to except such an act .

reply to post by hawkiye


What a giant, overblown, jump to conclusions.

Originally posted by victor7
reply to post by longlostbrother

 

Test of invasion on Russia has already happened and somehow Russia responded well. The test was Georgia's invasion of S. Ossetia and Abkazia. All that was to check Russia's reaction to what happens if NATO and friends cook up something spicy on Russian borders.

Basically, its the acts that prove the intentions. After 1991 break up of USSR, NATO's motives have clearly changed towards Russia and its allies like Iraq, Serbia, Libya, now Syria, Iran and many others. Unlike USSR and its communist ways, Russia is non expansionist and has even refused common union with Belarus and Serbia. Who is expansionist right now is China, picking fights and tensions with Japan, Vietnam, India, S. Korea etc.

Why spent up trillions into war making and eventually making real war. Trillions can be used up in US and European economies which are in desperate need of several bail outs.

Again, where's the proof that NATO was created to invade Russia and China. That that was part of the INITIAL plan.

That's the claim.

Originally posted by victor7
reply to post by longlostbrother

 

Test of invasion on Russia has already happened and somehow Russia responded well. The test was Georgia's invasion of S. Ossetia and Abkazia.

those 2 areas that used to bde part of Georgia and aer now pretty much part of Russia?

Yeah...that "invasion of Russia" by Georgia was so obviously a "test run"...

alternatively it's BS, and russia is just as imperialistic as it has ever been, but only interested in taking bite-sized chuncks of its neighbours at the moment so as to get training, experience, and not upset other "big players" TOO much....


Yeah - I think that theory fits the facts better.

Seems to me that Syria was on the drawing board as one of the nations to be taken down, as early as 2003, per General Wesley Clark back in 2007:



Every nation that we have heard about over the last few years that somehow started doing bad things out of the blue and are a sudden and immediate "threat" that needs to be dealt with is on that list.

Whether the numbers in the OP are inflated or not, whether there is hyperbole concerning how many troops, weapons, fighter planes, etc., keep in mind the basic fact that this is all planned way ahead of time!

Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater here.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Those areas have been fighting for independence since 1991 break up of the USSR.

US is wasting its resources in trying to play hostility towards Russia. To the intelligent only a small warning or clue is enough. Sadly in the DC, there are not too many intelligent folks at work.

reply to post by longlostbrother


Let's not split hairs here. When blocs and alliances are made then their goals and objectives change along with changes in the geopolitics and other prominent factors. NATO is at open hostility towards Russia. Only drunk and incompetent will deny this fact.

reply to post by victor7


They're at open hostilities? When did NATO and Russia start shooting at each other?

NATO may be trying to encircle Russia, and limit their influence, but they're far from open hostilities with them.

reply to post by Zaphod58


In geopolitics when you attack and destroy cities of any power's friends and allies, then that is also known as the open hostility. Again, let's not split hairs here. Russians know where they stand in the NATO books. Deploying missiles in Poland and very near to Russia is one example of constant antagonism. What is the need for that or for that matter encircling Russia to reduce its influence? Paranoia!

its gonna suck when everyone back home sets everything on fire.

Originally posted by hawkiye

Report: Over 10,000 US-NATO Troops Mass Ahead of Syria Invasion; Patriot Missiles Deployed in Turkey

www.thedai lysheeple.com

For the third time in as many decades the United States is massing soldiers and military assets on the border of a middle eastern country.

The USS Eisenhower, an American aircraft carrier that holds eight fighter bomber squadrons and 8,000 men, arrived at the Syrian coast yesterday in the midst of a heavy storm, indicating US preparation for a potential ground intervention.

While the Obama administration has not announced any sort of American-led military intervention in the war-torn country, the US is now ready to launch such action “within days…”

…If the US decides to interv

(visit the link for the full news article)

edit on 9-12-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)

I'm sorry, but ten thousand troops and a carrier group is not an invasion force. Unless there is a far bigger buildup, it looks like this is just some sort of attempt to scare Syria.

Originally posted by Max_TO
Could this not simply be a deterrent to keep Syria from using chem weapons ?
Or if chem's are used , could they simply be a NATO protection shield along Turkeys boarder , preventing any possible incursions into Turkey ?

I can't see the US wanting to invade Syria , don't think public opinion has been crafted to except such an act .

It probably is, but the doom porn people and anti-American crowd won't let that stop them from blowing this way out of proportion.

reply to post by Antonio1


There's not even a carrier group. The Eisenhower group is currently in the middle of the Atlantic on their way to Norfolk. The only carrier group in the region is Stennis, and she's on the other side of Iraq.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Antonio1

 

There's not even a carrier group. The Eisenhower group is currently in the middle of the Atlantic on their way to Norfolk. The only carrier group in the region is Stennis, and she's on the other side of Iraq.

Thanks for correcting me, you always got the right info Zaphod. So, this is even less of an issue than I thought it was.