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

page: 8
22
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by victor7
 


That wasn't a test invasion of Russia, that was Georgia attempting to reclaim territory that legally belongs to them that is being occupied by Russia. Also, do you really think that Georgia's military is the best that NATO has?




posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 03:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by victor7
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.


So wait, are you NOW saying that the claim that NATO was formed to invade China and Russia ISN'T true..?

Because that's what I'm saying.

You have to start with the fact before you start reaching conclusions.



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 03:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by FissionSurplus
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.


If you bother to go look at what was going on at the point that Clark saw that memo you'll see that:

A) The people that were planning that are long gone from governement, for the most part
B) Obama hasn't launch any wars, much less wars in Somalia and Lebanon. Yes the US was involved TO SOME DEGREE in what happened in Libya, but THAT was on the cards well before 2003, so not necessarily part of any other plan.
C) As has been admitted by the OP, Syria is not about to be invaded by the US.

I know why the neo-cons made everyone so paranoid, but avoid it and instead look at the facts.

Israel ACTIVELY lobbied for Romney because they want to attack Iran and KNOW Obama isn't the lapdog previous presidents have been.

At the same time, Obama wouldn't have been re-elected had he not killed OBL.

America doesn't want a dove as President or a weak foreign policy, not really.

It also doesn't want more foreign wars.

Obama straddles that line probably as well as anyone could.

I don't like it, but there you go.

Romney would've been more war, just like Bush.

Obama is another Kosovo/UN/"Humanitarian war" guy.

Expecting him to invade a lot of Middle Eastern countries is frankly paranoid.



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 05:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by longlostbrother
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?
From the beginning NATO was hotile toward Russia and if you believe in concept of puppet masters (TPTB), than they have knowned (back then when NATO was established) for sure NATO's fundamental purpose. - To start WW3 with Russia and China.



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 05:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fichorka

Originally posted by longlostbrother
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?
From the beginning NATO was hotile toward Russia and if you believe in concept of puppet masters (TPTB), than they have knowned (back then when NATO was established) for sure NATO's fundamental purpose. - To start WW3 with Russia and China.


Sorry, asking me to "believe in [a] concept" is not proof that NATO was created on the premise of invading China.

Here's a hint: There's NO EVIDENCE that NATO was created to invade Russia and China.

Believing that to be true, for whatever reason, is fine, as long as you don't go around claiming it's a fact based belief.

Believe in fairies and dragons if you want as well... I don't care... but don't claim BS you make up is factual.

And btw., you know what the bible says about TPTB I assume? Especially considering that's the source of that particular title?

And please, will you tell me how NATO felt about NATO member Germany in 1949?
edit on 11-12-2012 by longlostbrother because: (no reason given)
edit on 11-12-2012 by longlostbrother because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 06:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by longlostbrother

Originally posted by Fichorka

Originally posted by longlostbrother
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?
From the beginning NATO was hotile toward Russia and if you believe in concept of puppet masters (TPTB), than they have knowned (back then when NATO was established) for sure NATO's fundamental purpose. - To start WW3 with Russia and China.


Sorry, asking me to "believe in [a] concept" is not proof that NATO was created on the premise of invading China.

Here's a hint: There's NO EVIDENCE that NATO was created to invade Russia and China.

Believing that to be true, for whatever reason, is fine, as long as you don't go around claiming it's a fact based belief.

Believe in fairies and dragons if you want as well... I don't care... but don't claim BS you make up is factual.

And btw., you know what the bible says about TPTB I assume? Especially considering that's the source of that particular title?

And please, will you tell me how NATO felt about NATO member Germany in 1949?
edit on 11-12-2012 by longlostbrother because: (no reason given)
edit on 11-12-2012 by longlostbrother because: (no reason given)


Yep yep LLB! 8>D

History lesson time: NATO and the Warsaw Pact were just a case of inevitable frozen history. The Cold War labels were nothing new, just the latest slate of a system of opposing alliances that has been going on for over 3 centuries now, closing in on 4. The reason(s) they each took the postures that they did was that in the case of NATO, they couldn't (or at least wouldn't) get into the massive spending necessary to counter all those tanks and AIC's in a conventional fashion so they put their faith -at least intially- in a cheap and nasty solution called Massive Retaliation. AKA, nuke 'em into glass via the vast US nuclear superiority if attacked.

Of course from their standpoint, the Warsaw Pact only had all those tanks, AIC's and combat aircraft because initially that was the only counter threat they could offer to NATO's overwhelming nuclear superiority.

Each side saw their own strategy as an essential defensive position in other words.
edit on 11-12-2012 by HabiruThorstein because: grammar
edit on 11-12-2012 by HabiruThorstein because: spelling



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by victor7

Originally posted by Snoil


If the West interferes, I'll bl;ame two people for not taking this fire from a flame to a simmer, Obama, and Putin. Putin needs to stop pretneding the hero and be one for real for his ally, and Obama needs to make sure he doesn't get invested in the 'legacy' trap by finally winning a war.

Damascus needs to be saved, if we as people can't do that, why bother?


Please do not expect Russia to get into the military mess just because Assad could not give up some of his powers right away and work towards increasingly more democratic and economically viable country. Russia is in no shape to fight even Turkey let along the whole of NATO. Russia is getting sucked from inside by folks near and dear to Putin and his United Russia party.

Also, someone mentioned importance of Syria for naval base and force projection. I wonder if Russia is able to project force right next to its own shores and sealines. Nyet! Russians institutions have been looted by its own people. Like Pakistan and North Korea, only defense for Russia are its nukes.
edit on 10-12-2012 by victor7 because: (no reason given)


I hadn't thought of it that way-thanks for the commentary and I do mean it. I'd still like to see some diplomatic pressure which Putin can do. Russia is strong enough to at least make the West listen in front of microphones from around the world.



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fichorka

Originally posted by longlostbrother
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?
From the beginning NATO was hotile toward Russia and if you believe in concept of puppet masters (TPTB), than they have knowned (back then when NATO was established) for sure NATO's fundamental purpose. - To start WW3 with Russia and China.


In my understanding, NATO's purpose was to contain USSR and its agenda of expansionist communism and if matters heat up start a war and even a world war with communist powers. Other than manpower, China had nothing to talk about and even now its air force is paper thin in terms of quality and training.

I do not believe in communism and hence NATO was right in its policy of containment and was ultimately proven right. However, after 1991, NATO did not calm down but on the contrary got into more aggressive mode and even heated up military matters in various nations allied to Russia. Seems the ultimate goal of NATO is to remove Russia from the map of the earth and then focus on China until it is also removed. That is stupidity and will be proven well in the course of time.



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Antonio1
reply to post by victor7
 


That wasn't a test invasion of Russia, that was Georgia attempting to reclaim territory that legally belongs to them that is being occupied by Russia. Also, do you really think that Georgia's military is the best that NATO has?


The goal was to test Russian reaction to encroachment on its lands by former CIS nations who are now friendly to NATO and West. Russia has openly said that any hot war with NATO nations will be immediately dealt with the nukes as Russia does not have capability to fight prolonged land war with two dozen nations.

Trust me, if any NATO nation goes hot on Russia, then next thing we will see are Iskander and Topol-Ms giving some nuclear cough syrup to any and all NATO nations. It will happen so fast and keep on happening continously, that common folks around the world would 'just not care' until their city is finally also blown up in the madness.



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
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.


You are right about the type models - my bad. The E/F type model is the Super Hornet. However, yes the A/B/C/D models are lovingly called Baby Hornets by the community.

As I stated in my post, I wasn't an F/A-18 guy. And I'm pretty sure we agreed on the number of H-60's.
To be honest, it seemed like a lot more when your onboard the ship, but yeah in hindsight you are correct about the number of F/A-18 squadrons. I stand corrected.



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Signals
reply to post by jhn7537
 


The Syrian Government has every right to expel foreign terrorists and rebels trying to overthrow them....

We have no right to intervene.


But the US did in Serbia when the Serbs tried to expel Muslim terrorists and rebels from their land. The Serbs are just doing what any natives have always done, fight for their land' just as the Indians did, the Mayas, the Aborigines, etc. Now the Syrians are fighting against the Arab invader... which the US is supporting,



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by alfa1
 


good work. there are man blogs out there copying from one another. it is important to double check the roomer mill



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gomar

Originally posted by Signals
reply to post by jhn7537
 


The Syrian Government has every right to expel foreign terrorists and rebels trying to overthrow them....

We have no right to intervene.


But the US did in Serbia when the Serbs tried to expel Muslim terrorists and rebels from their land.


the US was almost 300 years from existing whenthat happened in the 1490's!!



Now the Syrians are fighting against the Arab invader... which the US is supporting,


Seems unlikely, since that happened in the 600's - go read about the battle of Yarmuk....




posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by victor7

Originally posted by Antonio1
reply to post by victor7
 


That wasn't a test invasion of Russia, that was Georgia attempting to reclaim territory that legally belongs to them that is being occupied by Russia. Also, do you really think that Georgia's military is the best that NATO has?


The goal was to test Russian reaction to encroachment on its lands by former CIS nations who are now friendly to NATO and West.


those 2 areasweer not russian lands tho - they were Georgian, and russia supported the local's to separaet from Georgia.

Did you mis that small factoid??


Trust me,


no - you've shown yourself to be biased and mostly wrong.



if any NATO nation goes hot on Russia


Just as well none are planning to then, isn't it.



, then next thing we will see are Iskander and Topol-Ms giving some nuclear cough syrup to any and all NATO nations. It will happen so fast and keep on happening continously, that common folks around the world would 'just not care' until their city is finally also blown up in the madness.


You find that warmongering nonsense funny?

edit on 11-12-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by jhn7537

So are you suggesting that Syria shouldn't be stopped?


stopped?

stopped from doing what exactly? ..and before you spew any MSM propaganda at me, I would like you to tell me what any SYRIANS have told you.

you can converse with SYRIANS on twitter with the help of google translate.

Ask the people of Aleppo how they feel about rebels, FSA, or american intervention meddling in their country.



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 06:27 PM
link   
Here is something I found that goes along with what I was saying earlier about the Old Testament Bible quote about Damascus.

For the first time in all my years in the Levant, I saw how corrupting the peasant and the bedouin found the city. Arab tradition said that every other generation brought a wave of reformers, religious zealots, from the desert to purify the city. It had happened in Saudi Arabia many times, lasting until the luxury of city life corrupted that generation’s sons. I wondered whether it would happen in Syria.
Aleppo: How Syria is Being Destroyed
This is the same sort of point of view you see in the Isaiah quote. It has nothing to do with a war destroying the city, it is about people going back to the farm and leaving the corrupting influence of city life.



posted on Dec, 12 2012 @ 02:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by Gomar

Originally posted by Signals
reply to post by jhn7537
 


The Syrian Government has every right to expel foreign terrorists and rebels trying to overthrow them....

We have no right to intervene.


But the US did in Serbia when the Serbs tried to expel Muslim terrorists and rebels from their land.


the US was almost 300 years from existing whenthat happened in the 1490's!!



Now the Syrians are fighting against the Arab invader... which the US is supporting,


Seems unlikely, since that happened in the 600's - go read about the battle of Yarmuk....



Hi Aloysius, everything else aside, I am pretty sure he was referring to what the US did (officially a NATO operation, but it was almost exclusively the US under Clinton) back in the 90's when we bombed Serbia on trumped-up charges of genocide. The KLA and their ilk were far more criminal than say the Branch Davidians, and we had no business doing what we did to Serbia, who had been ally of the US in BOTH world wars. Clinton jumped at the opportunity to get the Lewinsky affair out of the headlines, and got a few lefties from the EU to trump up some reasons to go at Serbia. As a US citizen, I found the entire operation to be a reprehensible abuse of Presidential authority and a cowardly lack of oversight on the part of Congress.



posted on Dec, 12 2012 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by HabiruThorstein
 


You have an interesting version of history my friend...

wiki - Bosnian Genocide

I think those men and boys who were killed would disagree about the charges being trumped up.
edit on 12-12-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 04:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by HabiruThorstein
 


You have an interesting version of history my friend...

wiki - Bosnian Genocide

I think those men and boys who were killed would disagree about the charges being trumped up.
edit on 12-12-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)


I gotta go with HT on this.

Not trying to cause offense, but I don't view Wikipedia's regurgitation of the MSM story as the final say on what happened. I'm not saying the Serbs killed 0 civilians,but there was no genocide going on. They were trying to run the KLA and it's supporters into the ground, but they were no more agressive about it than say the Allied victors were in Germany. The famous photo in Time showing what looked like a labor camp pretty much secured support for the attacks on Serbia in the US. However, when people dug into it afterwards, it turns out the picture was just people working in an open field as free as can be and the reporter took the picture from behind a fence to make it look like a prison scene.

The KLA killed plenty of civilians in terrorist attacks before the Serbs truly struck back. And when the Serbs did so, they used the logic of total war, not of peacetime. It wasn't clean or pretty but it certainly wasn't genocide. The MSM story will remain the accepted history for most people, but serious researchers into this have over the time since, proved the justifications the west/US used to be very much trumped up.

Don't take my word for it, do your own research. I was fooled initially, I now feely admit I was wrong in retrospect. And don't believe everything you read in Wikipedia.
edit on 13-12-2012 by Snoil because: (no reason given)
edit on 13-12-2012 by Snoil because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by victor7
 


Russia encroached on Georgian land, the invasion was even more B.S. than America's invasion of Iraq in '03. Russia launched an unprovoked war of aggression after Georgia attempted to reclaim territory that is internationally recognized as legally belonging to their country. And whats this B.S. about "nuclear cough syrup"? Come on dude, NATO would nuke the crap out of Russia if they started willy-nilly nuking NATO members or allies. No one would win such a war. You sound like one of those nut jobs from the fifties who thought we could survive a nuclear war unscathed.





new topics
top topics
 
22
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join