Just Breaking on CNN, Strike on Syria Within Hours Without Congressional Approval

Originally posted by NotAnAspie

Originally posted by GargIndia
reply to post by victor7

 

USA has been able to arm-twist other nations on many occasions.

What Russia did in Libya is besides the point. Libya was not too important to Russia. It is logical for leaders to give away some to get some elsewhere. It is called diplomacy.

Despite what you people think, Russia or China or India are against anarchy and against nuclear war.

It is USA that is fighting a constant war against other countries.

China does have interest in Libya. I have trouble seeing why they let this happen. It bothers me that they did, but I don't pretend to understand it just yet. I don't know how much of a stake Russia had but if China has large energy deals, this could very well involve Russia in some way. Hell, it's Libyan oil. Lot's of high quality oil. Why would they have not gotten involved?

It bothers me... I'd like to hear more sides on that.

China must have received assurance that its contracts would be honored by post-Gaddafi government.
Russia did not have much economic stake in Libya, not enough to oppose the West.

Russia is too weak to do anything military. It is trying hard at the UN though.

China is too selfish and woke up only after Libya somewhat. Chinese military is also very weak vrs the US.

However, R+C would be on the target bloc later if they are not able to stop the Bully Train that started with Iraq 1991 Gulf War.

Russians have looted their own country and leaders took wrong decisions in the 90s. Other than Energy resources and few hundred nuke missiles, Russians have little to speak of. However, if Russia is destroyed in a first strike, it has the ability to destroy the WHOLE EARTH and that too via cheap and simple means. I am sure there are atleast half dozen Spetsnaz teams assigned this task alone.............of destroying the WHOLE EARTH if Rus Federation is nuked to dust.

Currently, US has the ability to launch a successful first strike on Russia and completely outwit its Strategic Rocket Forces i.e. destroy Russia in one hour or so.

It is the DEAD ARM mechanisms that stops one power from hurting the other. Although I also believe that US is not a country which would want to destroy another one just out of no reason. If that was the logic, then US would have attacked, nuked and overrun Russia in 1945 when US was the sole nuclear power in the world.

Originally posted by XcathdraThe same standard can be applied to Syria and Iran when it comes to Israel...

It's not going to stop.

The West started it. To think it is just going to stop by arguments is like saying the West is just going to stop being sneaky and that all countries won't eventually be speaking English. The Western Empire doesn't just take countries... they take continents.

They will *never* stop fighting this.

Originally posted by NotAnAspie
The West started it.

Started what?

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by victor7
Even now in Darfur a civil war is going on and it does not even gets a mention in the news. 250K people have already perished and more than 2 million displaced.

However, for Assad to use chemical on people is criminal and there has to be punishment for it. Also punishment for those who are instigating civil war in Syria for last two years. It is a MESS of selfish interests........ NWO agenda and many other objectives.

This is the part of the argument that drives me nuts...

Had the US gone into Darfur we would have been accused of meddling in another countries affairs. When we don't get involved we are accused of not caring about the plight of a certain group of people.

The internal issues in Syria have been going on for 29 months now, and the west stayed out of it until the report of chemical weapon use. Even then our reaction was to supply aid / support.

If people are going to argue its an internal issue, then why are they not calling on Iran and Russia to but out?

USA is already there - 5000 troops at Syrian border (Jordan) with additional UK troops.
I do not see any Russian troops. Russia has withdrawn its military personnel.

Your argument is hollow. US is acting directly as well as through allies to constantly pressure Syria.

Iran is Syria's ally, just like Jordan and Turkey are US allies.
You cannot object to Iran's presence in Syria, as it has a mutual defence agreement with Syria.

I repeat again that there is a war going on, a proxy war, that is very different from a civil war.

We must not throw a moralistic attitude here. The parties have vested interests that are far different from desire to help Syrian people.

Originally posted by victor7
Russia is too weak to do anything military. It is trying hard at the UN though.

China is too selfish and woke up only after Libya somewhat. Chinese military is also very weak vrs the US.

However, R+C would be on the target bloc later if they are not able to stop the Bully Train that started with Iraq 1991 Gulf War.

Russians have looted their own country and leaders took wrong decisions in the 90s. Other than Energy resources and few hundred nuke missiles, Russians have little to speak of. However, if Russia is destroyed in a first strike, it has the ability to destroy the WHOLE EARTH and that too via cheap and simple means. I am sure there are atleast half dozen Spetsnaz teams assigned this task alone.............of destroying the WHOLE EARTH if Rus Federation is nuked to dust.

Currently, US has the ability to launch a successful first strike on Russia and completely outwit its Strategic Rocket Forces i.e. destroy Russia in one hour or so.

It is the DEAD ARM mechanisms that stops one power from hurting the other. Although I also believe that US is not a country which would want to destroy another one just out of no reason. If that was the logic, then US would have attacked, nuked and overrun Russia in 1945 when US was the sole nuclear power in the world.

edit on 29-8-2013 by victor7 because: (no reason given)

Victor, you make a mistake that many armchair generals make - you take a scientific discovery as military capability.

USA had no capability in 1945 to destroy USSR. It is the most foolish statement.

---------

Russia has enough SSBNs that can launch from protected waters to respond to a nuclear first strike. You would be confused to think that Russia's missiles are all silo based. Russia has a significant mobile force mounted on trains and land vehicles. While such weapons are visible from satellites, a moving weapon is harder to target in advance.

Coming back to Libya, it is always a game of cost/benefit. Russia calculated that the cost of opposing West was higher than the benefit in case of Libya.

However Syria is a different case. Syria has a Shia government which is friendly towards Russia. The relationship between Syria and Russia has much deeper institutional basis than any that existed with Libya.

Originally posted by victor7
Russia is too weak to do anything military. It is trying hard at the UN though.

China is too selfish and woke up only after Libya somewhat. Chinese military is also very weak vrs the US.

However, R+C would be on the target bloc later if they are not able to stop the Bully Train that started with Iraq 1991 Gulf War.

Russians have looted their own country and leaders took wrong decisions in the 90s. Other than Energy resources and few hundred nuke missiles, Russians have little to speak of. However, if Russia is destroyed in a first strike, it has the ability to destroy the WHOLE EARTH and that too via cheap and simple means. I am sure there are atleast half dozen Spetsnaz teams assigned this task alone.............of destroying the WHOLE EARTH if Rus Federation is nuked to dust.

Currently, US has the ability to launch a successful first strike on Russia and completely outwit its Strategic Rocket Forces i.e. destroy Russia in one hour or so.

It is the DEAD ARM mechanisms that stops one power from hurting the other. Although I also believe that US is not a country which would want to destroy another one just out of no reason. If that was the logic, then US would have attacked, nuked and overrun Russia in 1945 when US was the sole nuclear power in the world.

edit on 29-8-2013 by victor7 because: (no reason given)

Ah, but that was an entirely different set of war weary people back then... who also had newfound reasons to be looking up. They already felt in control just by having the first nukes, they had a rebounding economy and new monetary situation to look forward to. They did not see any reason to keep up the immediate destruction but they did think ahead to keep their foot in doors around the globe.... and that path to hold the control that they think rightfully belongs to the US, is still very much there.

I tend to think that those in high positions look at the fact that the control of global economics could fall out of their hands on their watch....and it causes them to make completely soulless decisions in modern times.

Just think of the pressure to be one of the top US officials in the know of how much waste this country makes and how much debt there truly is.... and they could go down in history as the one to see it fall apart on their watch.

It's strange... Obama reminds me of Tutankhamen in more ways than one... and he risks the fall of an empire if he doesn't stay on the elites plan. i really think the pressure got to him, because there are too many numbers behind it. Even if it doesn't fall apart in his term, if he drops the ball, that could be the point that changes the game. These are desperate people and you can sense their desperation watching them.

I don't think the US could win a large regional war without pulling out weapons that would be considered war crimes. They did it in Japan and said they wouldn't do it again, but they've used chemicals and other means they hypocritically condemn.

Why?.... They needed to.

In a conventional war... there is no reason to credit them with some supernatural strength.

It is dangerous to do so.

"Coming back to Libya, it is always a game of cost/benefit. Russia calculated that the cost of opposing West was higher than the benefit in case of Libya. "

Russian leaders and diplomats wanted to Veto the UN resolution on Libya. By the 5' 5" tall, panty wearing Medvedev overrode and said "we need to follow the moralistic grounds and if G is killing people who are peacefully protesting then he should be put under some control. Also, the wording of the resolution tricked the puny idiot by saying "all necessary means to be employed to stop G's forces from hurting the civilians". In real sense it event meant using nukes if needed.

Regarding 1945, General Patton wanted to attack SU and with nukes at hand they would have cleared whole standing armies. Russians were broke in the nuke department just like they are "pretty much" broke now in the Stealth department both offensively and defensively.

We also do not know what secret technologies US and Russia have that we do not know about. But simple other means which are soon going to land in the hands of bastards like North Korea, Iran and Pakistan and others WILL make the world extremely dangerous place. These simple means can shut down whole countries in a short period of time and that includes super military powers like US. Scarrrrrrrryyyyyyyyy!!!

reply to post by victor7


If General Patton wanted to do something, that does not mean he was right, or other people thought it could be done?

There are always good reasons why something did not happen. You are trying to make one person a hero, and all others fools. The reality is always different.

The US did not have enough weapons at hand to destroy "entire standing armies" as you suggest.

If the US was so powerful, Korea would not be divided today.

Originally posted by victor7
"Coming back to Libya, it is always a game of cost/benefit. Russia calculated that the cost of opposing West was higher than the benefit in case of Libya. "

Russian leaders and diplomats wanted to Veto the UN resolution on Libya. By the 5' 5" tall, panty wearing Medvedev overrode and said "we need to follow the moralistic grounds and if G is killing people who are peacefully protesting then he should be put under some control. Also, the wording of the resolution tricked the puny idiot by saying "all necessary means to be employed to stop G's forces from hurting the civilians". In real sense it event meant using nukes if needed.

Regarding 1945, General Patton wanted to attack SU and with nukes at hand they would have cleared whole standing armies. Russians were broke in the nuke department just like they are "pretty much" broke now in the Stealth department both offensively and defensively.

We also do not know what secret technologies US and Russia have that we do not know about. But simple other means which are soon going to land in the hands of bastards like North Korea, Iran and Pakistan and others WILL make the world extremely dangerous place. These simple means can shut down whole countries in a short period of time and that includes super military powers like US. Scarrrrrrrryyyyyyyyy!!!

edit on 29-8-2013 by victor7 because: (no reason given)

Any country as developed as Iran could luck up and come up with something even the US hasn't thought about as far as weapons are concerned.
The risk of needlessly angering them is more dangerous than it is to not constantly try to babysit their tech and constantly poke sticks at them to get them riled up. The West has no respect for other cultures and they come in disrespecting them, ultimately hoping to eliminate the culture itself and winds up making it even more extreme... and often on purpose. It would be wiser to attempt developing respectful relationships and instead of wasting money on war endeavors, learning how to save and keep the guard up in our own country and give the population something to believe in.... a little true integrity.

They need to pull military and intelligence endeavors out of those countries and start locking up our own government criminals. They need to go to the negotiating table and tell them to leave israel alone if Israel will go back to UN borders...and if they do, they will leave middle east countries alone. israel needs to comply or suffer consequences. They need to phase out oil dependency and find a way to regulate corporate greed. They need to do it across the board and work with their Asian partners to regulate labor laws and corporate endeavors in all sectors so that companies can't exploit. The private sector cannot rule the governing body from behind closed doors. rather than being currency obsessed, government should allow and encourage the populations self sufficiency through resourcefulness and all should push for a culture of discipline and education, but with freedom of thought and equality and a global network voting system.

And what is their plan? Play daddy to all those countries that might sneak up on them and to suck all the oil out of the ground, destroy the environment.

Such examples we have... so mature. Such tough talkers... oh but they know of the big bad world. The one that men like them screwed up. That "real" world that will never change.

ok, I'm pissing myself off now.

Our government is full of idiots.

Now the UK is out of the equation, the French must be delighted to replace them and be Obama's right arm, a second chance to go Arab-bashing, hoping to bomb a hospital, like they did in Tripoli, and start their 'special relationship' with the States.

Diyarbakir Air Base in Turkey went to "Orange" status alert today. That alert is used when threat of attack is considered high.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Possibility an order from the white house could follow ?

reply to post by mclinking


Tides could turn. Even through the vote for no military action the PM could take a difference stance.

reply to post by deviant300


It's possible. Chuck Hagel was supposed to be in Turkey the other day, and I'm sure he briefed Turkish officials as to what was going on. They may go on alert for a few days, just to get people used to seeing them on alert, before any attack comes.

Hmmm. Parliament votes to stay out of Syria.

Now all we need is some sort of attack on a NATO member and the vote would mean nothing.

Stand by for the trigger mechanism to be activated..... maybe?

I wouldn't be surprised.

Just saw this.....

Looks like Turkey has some serious details/intel on the attacks.

Anadolu Agency (AA) reached detailed list including information about the chemical attack as well as the names of Syrian army troops who were on duty during the attack in Damascus.

Source

Originally posted by GargIndia
reply to post by victor7

 

If General Patton wanted to do something, that does not mean he was right, or other people thought it could be done?

There are always good reasons why something did not happen. You are trying to make one person a hero, and all others fools. The reality is always different.

The US did not have enough weapons at hand to destroy "entire standing armies" as you suggest.

If the US was so powerful, Korea would not be divided today.

Like I said before, US does not go around attacking and destroying other countries for no reason. Iraq 2003 was an exception.

In Korea in 1953, I think Russians already had nukes by 1949 and H-Bombs by early 50s. Hence messing with them was a wrong idea at that time and that too in their backyard.

Russia is exhausted today or rather looted out by its own people. Other than diplomacy or suicidal nuclear exchange, Russian government has little to speak of. No wonder when NATO ships started to enter the Black Sea in 2008 Georgian war, the Russians rightly stopped their ops and any plans to go all the way to Tblisi to change the government. I doubt Russia can even mobilize 6 complete divisions at 24 hour notice. Recent exercises i.e. snap drills were just an outward show to fool others. Today's Russia is merely a regional power with rag tag military handled and managed by corrupts and drunks.

reply to post by victor7


1. Testing a bomb does not mean creation of an arsenal. US had a tremendous lead in nuclear weapons.

US might be having 10 nukes for each one possessed by USSR during Korean conflict. So you cannot say fear of Soviet nuke was a factor. If that was the case, US would not have intervened.

2. The weakness and strengths of Russia are well known and understood. There were serious structural problems that led to fall of USSR. Those problems are not going to disappear overnight.

Having said that, USA has been giving up ground faster than expected in the last few years. The 'Arab spring' and other rebellions popping up is very much a sign of reduced American power.

3. "USA" a peaceful country? Not even worth answering. If you want to live in a world of make-believe, I cannot help you.