It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

BREAKING: Syria, Russia To Send Ships To Mediterranean

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 05:02 AM
link   
Well MSM has gone on about 4 US ships in the Med. They wont say anything about the US subs. I wonder if they have one or two off syrias coast.




posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 05:05 AM
link   
reply to post by earthling42
 


The way out of this financial crisis is to balance the budget, state debt will lower over time while the economy grows, no war is needed for that but the will to get the house in order.

I agree with you 100%.
Now, back to reality.
You really think that's going to happen? Really?
I wish I could. But I can't.
I don't see USA digging their way out of debt without war.
Will this be the protagonist for WWIII? Russia intervening in Syria?
I don't know - but again I hope not.

peace



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 05:15 AM
link   
It is clear that foreigners are fighting in Syria with the backing of certain countries, this cannot be seen as a civil war.
The aim is to oust Assad and the socalled rebels will want to turn Syria into an islamic state.
Think about it, will they be friendly to the west? they will have control over the largest pile of chemical weapons that Syria has.
Russia is an ally to Syria, and i welcome every step they take to protect and support Syria, so the foreign powers who are fighting in Syria against syrians won't get help from the west who has its own reasons to intervene.
Moreover, Iran has reached out a hand to the west to build on a better relationship, why is this not accepted?



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 05:34 AM
link   
US needs oil, it´s the biggest importer of crude oil and oil products. China needs oil and it needs it a lot and is second biggest importer in the World. Russia is quite independent when it comes to oil and has 8th largest oil reserves, largest natural gas reserves, it´s intrests is keeping oil prices high.



Youtube
This what happens in the Syria is all about oil and who controls it. And this oil which has been found in Syria offshore plays a big role in this conflict. The problem with this incident is that this can easily spread to concern Lebanon too as they found oil from their offshore too but is unable to pump it at the moment and Israel is said to have a ability "steal" their oil


On July 5, acting Lebanese Energy Minister Gebran Bassil announced that for the first time ever, Israel could, intentionally or as a result of its legitimate gas extraction operations in the Mediterranean Sea, steal Lebanon’s share of this commodity. Three days later, Bassil visited the Lebanese president, the acting prime minister and the speaker of parliament to ask that they quickly hold two extraordinary cabinet and parliament sessions in order to pass the remaining laws needed for Lebanon to begin awarding international companies exploration rights in Lebanon’s economic zone in the Mediterranean. This is the only way for Lebanon to safeguard its offshore resources and prevent them from being appropriated by others.

Lebanon - Israel conflict

The game is ugly and more you look at the details more uglier it gets.
edit on 29-8-2013 by dollukka because: (no reason given)

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



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 05:51 AM
link   
reply to post by silo13
 


War wont help the US debt any. War is now more costly than ever with fewer lives lost.... Perpetual war is not helping our economy thus far, and continuing it is nothing more than idiocy...

This was a problem with the Romans too... perpetual war eventually destroyed them economically.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 06:22 AM
link   
This is bad news, even here where I work they're having emergency meetings regarding the situation, seriously, that is bad, they never did that to either Iraq or Afghanistan, Libya anywhere, in fact the last time that happened was the 7/7 attacks in London and before that 9/11, but they're having meetings about the situation in the Middle East, not even Syria.

Talking to my father last night, he said the situation is bad and there's a lot that people don't know about what's going on behind the scenes and to be honest would be awful for the average person to know without then being worried sick. Now he's worked in MOD for 35 years and never once said that.

I guess me thinking nothing can happen might actually bite me in the ar$e, bite us all in the ar$e. Let's all hope and that's all we can do, that the worse case scenerio truly is beyond reach.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 06:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Senduko
Honestly guys, at first I was really thinking it might get to something. But WW3 is not gonna happen ( atleast now ).

At this point America is losing its allies; Obama doesn't have to support of the people nor the congress. The UN aside.

I hope i'm not wrong, but this will end with a fizzle instead of a bang. e


They have delayed because their evidence is flawed. Syrian Army rebel sympathizers gave the chems to the rebels so in a sense Syrian Army AND the Rebels participated. What they have as proof is intercepted communications of Syrian Army Rebel sympathizers planning and gathering the chemical weapons. They realize this now and don't want to admit mistake in blaming Assad regime. It could go deeper but the facts don't support their recent words (John Kerry).



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 06:51 AM
link   
I think the warships are just a show of force by Russia.

They wont attack each other, both countries are permanent members of the UN and one attacking the other would violate Chapter 1, article 1 of the UN charter so short of a full scale global war its not worth doing.

Russia are excercising their right as a UN member to maintain a military presence in the area while the crisis is ongoing, just the same as America do.

It wont kick off from Russia sending some Naval assets down there but I think it puts more pressure on the US to think carefully about their next move. I dont see Russia backing down from this one



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 07:35 AM
link   
Now America should answer this. With there own Hunter groups for Submarines, and Anti-Sub Ships and Planes. We dont need to be pushed around, Although I strongly disagree with any military strikes in Syria. I wonder if Satellites could be used to hunt Subs and track Destroyers, I would think so.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by silo13
Russia said they were going to 'stay out of it' - or so said another thread here on ATS...
All we can do is hope they stick to their guns. (/sarcasm)

It's my opinion there's no way 'out' of the current world wide financial crisis - than war. Meaning - regardless if Obama has support or not, allies or not? War is coming. Now? I don’t know. When? Inevitable. IMHO.

I hope I'm wrong.

peace


Im not sure a war is going to be of any assistance with the global economy - diverting labor and capital into weapons and armaments is not going to increase the wealth of the people, nor is it going to defray the debt or interest costs of governments.

You may of course have been implying a different meaning, that war is going to be a consequence of the global economic decline, and I would say that is probably a reasonable conclusion.

War is not good for any economy, it is always bad - unless you are not in the conflict and are selling weapons to those who are engaged in war.

It is a common misconception that is often held in the US that war is good for the economy, during both WWI and WWII the US did not enter these wars for many years, and was able to supply weapons and products to the nations that were at war. It was this wartime economic boom that made war good for the US. Being involved in war is destructive to an economy, wealth is turned into munitions and other things that do not increase the prosperity of people, and acts of war destroy capital.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amagnon
War is not good for any economy, it is always bad


It seemed to work for Germany.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 07:57 AM
link   
This conflict has alarming possibilities for escalation - this is a very dangerous area, and the parties invloved own ballistic missiles.

The possibility of Syria, Iran or even Russia striking back against oil assets in the region is real, it is in fact the strategy that has been planned by Iran - and lets face it, its a devastating play. Global strategic oil reserves do not last very long at all, maybe a couple weeks if really rationed out.

With missile strikes against oil refineries and ports in Saudi, Iraq, Kuwait, and Qatar - and by mining and closing Hormus, and threatening tankers in the Suez - that would be end game for the west. It would result in immediate sell offs of equities, followed by bond collapses, rising interest rates which would crush business and real estate prices.

Not only that, it would lead to food and gasoline shortages, it would cause immense pressure on people who are already suffering economically. In addition, all the cash that would be withdrawn from income producing assets would be converted into commodities, and commodity speculation - further driving up the price of oil, gas and food.

This kind of sharp inflation in user goods always leads to people trying to protect themselves by buying gold, silver and other durable assets and commodities - leading to hyper-inflationary pressures.

If the west pushes too hard, and Iran and Syria respond in this way - the world that we know is going to vanish like mist in the morning sun.

In my opinion - even if you think that this is a low possibility, you should prepare - at least a minimum of buying some additional gasoline, food and some silver and gold to store.
edit on 29-8-2013 by Amagnon because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 08:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Amagnon
 


Nice quick edit


I was intrigued about "Reagan blowing up chernobyl"

Would you care to expand on that?



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 08:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Amagnon
 


I think you hit the nail on the head!

The real question in all of this is what will happen if Syria or Iran launch a counter strike against neighboring countries.

If that were to happen i dont think anyone could disagree when i say things wold get real messy real quick!



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 08:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Xeven
 


It is my opinion that a chemical weapon was supplied to the terrorists by the US govt, and if it was used - it was used under the supervision of the CIA assets in the region.

There are a number of leaked emails and other evidence supporting my opinion - they are floating around the net and arent too hard to discover if you spend an hour or two trying to get to the bottom of the accusations.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by expatwhite
reply to post by Amagnon
 


Nice quick edit


I was intrigued about "Reagan blowing up chernobyl"

Would you care to expand on that?


Some of the material related to the CIA work on Chernobyl has been declassified - but the conclusion that it was done by the Reagan regime is still controversial, so I decided to remove that snippet as it might have caused some to bounce off the top of my post


The US was in the habit, during the cold war of supplying faulty equipment and software to Russia to undermine it. That is public record, and it lead to many problems in Russia that were used as examples of the inefficiency created by communism - when in fact it was CIA sabotage. This was a source of propaganda against the USSR.

Chernobyl was definitely under the same kind of attack, and there is quite a deal of speculation and lots of evidence that Reagan specifically targeted Chernobyl with the intention of causing a nuclear accident. If you have a look around the net Im sure you run into a more comprehensive analysis of the evidence related to that particular theory.

EDIT: For myself I find the evidence to be pretty compelling, and it fits in extremely well with the other kinds of sabotage they were involved in. So I think that it can be treated as being a true account, even without declassified documents explicitly spelling it out.
edit on 29-8-2013 by Amagnon because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 08:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Amagnon
 


I do not think that there is any credibility to the story that the US had a hand in this nuclear accident, if so, it would say a lot about the US in a negative way.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Amagnon
 


Thank you Amagnon

Whilst i think that is total nonsense, i appreciate the reply and i will be off trying to track down more info on that. I don't doubt the US sold the Russians some rubbish, either directly or through third parties, but i cannot see them deliberately targeting a nuclear plant for explosion. Just for the simple reason, if ever proven, it would be seen as a nuclear attack on Russia and would open up the realistic possibility of retaliatory nuclear strikes. I am off to research this a bit more, thanks for opening up this line of enquiry for me

Regards



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by earthling42
reply to post by Amagnon
 


I do not think that there is any credibility to the story that the US had a hand in this nuclear accident, if so, it would say a lot about the US in a negative way.


I find nothing positive to say regarding the way that the US has conducted its foreign policy over the last 100 years. The US regime has been a murderous, criminally depraved terrorist organization for over 100 years, I wonder what things you might have to say that would paint it in a different light?



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 08:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Amagnon
 


Earthling42 vs Amagnon 0-1

Good question....




top topics



 
9
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join