This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Cold War 2.0 Has Begun … In Syria
We noted in February:
The U.S. is supporting the Syrian opposition (and see this), considering military options for ousting the Syrian government, American allies Britain and Qatar allegedly already have foreign troops inside Syria, and the U.S. has been planning regime change in Syria for over 50 years.
Indeed, the United States is fighting on the same side as 3 terrorist groups in Syria.
Even Pat Buchanan asks:
If its good for Al Qaeda, can it be good for us?
Indeed, terrorist rebels have been responsible for much of the violence inside Syria. And outside monitors have confirmed that the situation on the ground is much different than it is being portrayed in the Western media. (And according to the large German newspaper FAZ, those recently massacred in Hama were on the same side as Syrian leader Assad).
Russia has repeatedly stated that it would consider an attack on Syria as an attack on its national security. (And Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev said that if the U.S. invades the sovereignty of countries like Syria, it could lead to nuclear war. And see this.)
Now, Russia is selling attack helicopters to the Syrian government, and defending the sales because the U.S. is supplying rebels with weapons to fight against the government.
Cold War 2.0. And this time, China may participate.
Of course, Iran and Syria have had a mutual defense pact for years. So war in Syria could well drag Iran into a hot war.
»
- advertisements -
It was Bernanke's name on the purchase order
...delivery address:
Ben Bernanke
1913 Iownurasse Avenue
Secret Volcano Lair, XX, 66666
Aha! Got it: helicopters do exist. Thanks for clarifying.
and they're black.
Naw, their painted with nudies of Kim Kardashian, better ratings
OK, then a greenie on ya!
Yup! And in addition, we have a bunch of internet generals and intelligence agents briefing us on strategies, counter strategies strike forces, etc. And, these folks really believe they know what they're talking about too. You see, they are really government agents with a little free time this afternoon and are letting us all in on the latest secrets. SHHHH!
I read that, too, about the Russian helicopters. They are betting on the sheeple not to do verification research....
Beacon or Bacon.
definitely BEACON!
Korea... Vietnam... Afghanistan.... Syria...
As long as there are patriots willing to fight banksters wars it will keep on happening...
We will infiltrate, destroy and takeover any government that opposes our policies by any means necessary as we are the beacon for morality and democracy-God Bless the USA!
Idiot - Neocons don't give a rat's ass about America and Americans -They are globalists and Zionists. To them we are cockroaches -we are the goyim. Time for the liberation of America.
I'm not so sure it has been in America's best interest to overly involve itself in these gigs.
None of us have the inside intel, but I do not think Libya posed a threat to CONUS, nor does Syria.
The US needs to lead by example, not by Hellfire missiles.
Aerial- another tard who doesent even know what the fuck kind of viewes and policies are considered. Our policies? Dude, you must think Kurt Russell and Harrison Ford run the CIA or something. Fuckin A!
We will infiltrate, destroy and takeover any government that opposes our policies by any means necessary as we are the beacon for morality and democracy-God Bless the State of Israel and all their agents in the USA
Fixed it for you.
aerial view bleated:
We? Count me out, by jingo.
I think that was sarcasm
I'd bet on it.
Hey Aerial, RIGHT ON!!!!
The Russians barely have a working submarine, do they still pose a true nuclear threat to the US? They still have a lot of ground-based missiles, but if the silos are like everything else in that country, the people who work in them have probably removed all the copper wiring to sell as scrap so that they can buy vodka.
--
You really don't have a clue, do ya?
Silos? Yeah, they still use them, so does the US, what's your point?
The Russians have been fielding a completely new gen of more advanced missiles coming into service, that are built with materials and techniques to survive even an ABL laser-dwell, to boost to max-throw distance in tens of seconds and to deploy advanced countermeasures and evasion techniques, and support EMP, to get through any missile defense.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PL484ACD631E81A513&feature=player_deta...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Dq5rqFWeDdU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=1NZh2as9sOs
The US said when it built a missile shield in Alaska that it could only intercept a handful of missiles from a rogue launch.
It absolutely can not cope with anything remotely like what the Russians can salvo, and again, and again.
Wake up idiot.
Plus try hundreds of these missiles on mobile on-road and off-road going TELs, and continent crossing rail cars totting ICBMs.
These exist right now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=t9_-rneUjmQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=5whB_bOUOic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=26kxcARLlOo
And try the world's largest SSBN nuclear sub classes, with enough punch in just one sub to decimate Europe, or the US, and set them back for 50 years - minimum.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=wMh0Av1Znek
You have the internet, right? Or is that just for trolling?
I'll let you get back to the vodka swigging.
Let us hear your opinion after something starts in the gulf and the Russian supplied, super-sonic sunburn anti-ship missles start flying out of Iran or elsewhere.
The ground missile forces were the only thing that worked well in the old
USSR.Their subs were more dangerous to their sailors than to the west.
I'm sure they still work well enough to take out most of the world if
they're pushed.Not to forget China ,or Pakistan for that matter.
This would go nuclear real quick.
We are not perfect either. A dropped wrench has punched a hole inside our silos with costly results in the past.
I noticed some fresh rails near the Little Rock Base and did some research, apparently they keep a few MX program left overs there.
The Soviets do have awesome vehicles capable of going anywhere they wish to launch.
There is just one constant though. We can build a hundred ton missile, throw a rock over the pole. The USSR needs a 400 ton monster to throw a bigger rock.
It does not matter if the damn thing comes through your chimney to take you out or simply cremates you wherever you are from 50 miles away before the 9.0+ earthquake gets to where you are.
When you have a few minutes, take a look at the "Satan" class ICBM that they are fielding now.
I'd bet they have streamlined and have some very functional nukes, subs, aircraft, and anti-aircraft weapons.
Do you think the Russian military industrial complex just rolled over and died?
They made pretty quick work of Georgia, seemed to have working equipment then.
And if you think Russia has no teeth, just look to China which is in Germany 1930-1940 mode (and this is a primary reason why the Russians are NOT letting their military become weak).
Moon bases and things called UFO... /true
aerojet let loose with:
Are you truly that naïve?
Naive I am not. They just finished a 2004 program where they built a Boomer that was truly... a beautiful war machine capable of threshing out death on a city/state scale.
If I were still building Seawolfs, I would have two following every Boomer the USSR has at sea. It would be expensive as hell, however cheaply bought if the hatches open and they are sunk DRT.
HungrySeagull said:
You do understand that the USSR hasn't existed for two decades, don't you?
LOL! Egg, meet face!
Or perhaps HungrySeagull has access to the same Chinese-made time machine that AnAnonymous has been using to import his so-called "US Citizenism" into 14th century Easter Island?
akak saying now in engrish here:
It part of master pran of French Indo-Chinese Antarctic citizenism brobbing up across entire space-time continuum. Entire pranet to be nothing more than crapped upon roadsides. That is the rurking menace of AnAnonymousism.
ROR!
Considering how shills for the Military-Industrial-Congressional complex have been repeatedly caught overstating the capabilities of so-called "enemies," I would submit that those who readily accept the "our enemies are powerful and ready to storm the rampants any moment" propaganda are the truly naïve ones.
If the pro-military people had been honest in the past, we would not have to doubt them in the present. Unfortunately, they have been more than willing to lie in order to further their goals. So why should we believe them now?
Having lived through the whole "duck and cover" era, with the Cold War and the endless propaganda about how eeeeeeeevil Communism is, and then seeing the time come when our country dismantled most of its manufacturing capacity and sent it to COMMUNIST China... Well, let's just say I'm less than inclined to get all worked up about whatever the latest so-called "menace" is. I'm quite sure that a decade or so from now they'll be the new manufacturing superpower, where all of the jobs are being shipped to, because the labor is just sooooo "cheap."
But hey, feel free to get all worked up in a state-approved "five minute hate" lather against the latest "enemy." What the heck, it can be fun to get all bent out of shape. I enjoy a good puppet show as much as anyone...
Elliot Eldrich said:
Yes.
True.
Good question. I see no reason to do so.
Same here.
Very nice. Although nothing here addressed the point of my post, I admire your ability to build up a strawman and then mercilessly tear it to shreds. It's a very effective technique against those who don't understand logical fallacies.
In his comment, aerojet asked if Russia still posed a credible nuclear threat to the United States. The overburden of hyperbole aerojet employed suggested that he doesn't believe such a threat exists.
I would consider any nation capable of delivering a dozen nuclear warheads to targets in the United States a credible threat.
If you do not believe this is within the capabilities of the Russian military, please explain why.
I agree with you about the futility of the cold war, the insane propaganda, and the need for an imaginary enemy to justify the huge sums of money wasted on defense spending. Anyone can see that the current "war on terra" is just more of the same.
The point is that your comment is no more relevant to what I said than a discussion about topwater bass lures. As a strawman, though, it was nothing short of majestic.
IMHO, Russia does not actually pose a "credible nuclear threat" because they'll never actually push the button. You can have the biggest gun in the world, but it ain't worth spit if you ain't willing to actually pull the trigger. Get it? Sorry if I wasn't clear enough in my reply, I did try to clarify in my next reply to JeffB's comment, where I said:
"They won't blow up the world because that would be bad for profits, but it can be very good for profits if you can keep everyone frightened and freaked out and running for cover... while running a nice little shop selling survival gear on the corner, selling flashlights and MRE's, weapons and whatnot. IMHO it's all a big swindle, a charade, a humbug."
Being as this was posted a few hours before you wrote your reply, it was available for plenty of time for you to be able to read it. But you did have a very nice rant there about me doing a "strawman" thing, I have an appreciation for a good rant, I'd give that one a seven... it had a good beat.
So, again, in a nutshell, NO, Russia is NOT a credible nuclear threat, because they'll never use the weapons. They may as well be wooden mockups, bamboo replicas of cargo planes, for all of the actual threat they pose to us. And there's two very good reasons for that, the window-dressing reason being that "Mutual Assured Destruction" still exists - we have more than enough abilty to stage an utterly devastating counter-attack, and the real reason being that the people who own the planet don't wanna blow up their toys.
Elliot Eldrich said:
That's certainly a more rational point than the one made by aerojet, wherein the implication was that Russia would require sailboats and pack mules to deliver nuclear weapons. Perhaps we're at odds over terminology more than anything. I agree with you that mutually assured destruction is a good deterrent to war. That's why I consider Russia a credible nuclear threat: they could muster a successful nuclear counter-attack.
Yes, well, sometimes things like mowing the lawn, watering the garden, and talking with the neighbors takes precedence over the internet. Also, I tend to read the comments sequentially; if I'm inclined to respond to a comment, I'll generally do so before proceeding to the following ones. Call me old fashioned.
Your compliment is graciously accepted. Please also accept mine, as it is indeed genuine; one seldom sees such a well constructed strawman. I raise my glass to you, sir.
Based on your argument above (which I am not saying is necessarily wrong), NO nation will EVER pose a credible nuclear threat to any other, because the leaders of NONE of them would ever want to suffer the consequences of initiating such a strike.
If you disagree with that analysis, then based on what information do you conclude that the leaders of Russia will never use their nuclear weapons, while those of some other nation very well might?
And in the end it is not about communism at all. It is about christianity, capisto?
Whether we believe the military propaganda doesn't seem to be the critical issue here.
In this article George Washington's warning that Russia could well get involved in any war actions against Syria, and that there is a risk it could go nuclear. It looks to me as if aerojet is saying that's no big deal, Russia will be a pushover.
Are you of that opinion?
I'm of the opinion that the whole farce is a charade of one sort or another. Which is not meant to diminish the suffering of people in Syria. It's just the way it is, IMHO.
It's a lot like professional wrestling. People who say "it's fake" are misinformed, because what the wrestlers are doing in the ring is very physical and potentially very dangerous. Wrestlers who make mistakes while doing their stunts routinely get hurt, sometimes even killed, yet it doesn't change the incontrovertable fact that the outcomes of the matches are pre-determined.
So don't worry about things "going nuclear" because I assure you that all of the puppets in this particular show are all having their strings pulled by the same people, and the outcome has already been pre-determined by the puppeteers. They won't blow up the world because that would be bad for profits, but it can be very good for profits if you can keep everyone frightened and freaked out and running for cover... while running a nice little shop selling survival gear on the corner, selling flashlights and MRE's, weapons and whatnot. IMHO it's all a big swindle, a charade, a humbug.
OK, fair enough.
But what if... there isn't a single cabal in total control of every country of consequence in the game? What if different power brokers/countries have different interests and are pulling in different directions, trying to shape events to their own advantage?
I'm not convinced the outcome is a foregone conclusion that all the players have previously agreed upon and will unerringly be carried out by their minions to its predetermined conclusion.
Not saying it's absolutely impossible, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it, much less my life. In fact it looks more like a power struggle to me.
Perhaps we'll find out soon enough, for better or worse.
You don't need to have all of the players previously agreeing upon an outcome to acheive a predetermined conclusion. You simply need to be able to pull the appropriate strings to obtain desired results from carefully screened selected personalties. Sort of like how you don't use a hammer to turn a screw, or a screwdriver to hammer a nail.
Ever been to one of those pizza places that has a gigantic old-fashioned pipe organ, with a couple of dozen "novelty" keys that makes things like klaxon horns go off, or a tamborine hit, or a slide whistle? That's what I see with these politicians, rigid little human novelty sound effects that go off whenever their button is pushed by their owners, and then they do an entertaining little song and dance, and it's all ultimately as relevant and effective as a sneeze in a hurricane. The organist decided to toss in this particular effect at this time, and we're supposed to respond as if it is somehow meaningful but guess what? It isn't meaningful at all.
I can understand that point of view to a certain extent. I guess we differ, though, on how that applies in this particular instance.
It seems to me you see this along the lines of a professional wrestling match where the outcome is predetermined and the fighters put on a choreographed show, albeit with a little impromptu grandstanding here and there.
I see it more along the lines of professional gamblers who have some inside info on a football team and maybe some influence over a couple of players who will pull up lame just before game time. These gamblers have a decided advantage, but the outcome is not automatic. The gamblers on the other side may have some players in their pocket as well, perhaps even a referree willing to help them out a bit. Or maybe some unknown player or players are going to rise up and have a career day against all odds.
It appears that's where we differ. China and Russia look like wildcards to me that may not stand down and let the puppeteers in the west have their way on the world stage. At least not in this instance. I see the possiblity that the west will overplay its hand and drag us into a nightmare they never foresaw. Or perhaps, worse yet, a massive war is part of the choreograph. Some claim they like such big conflagrations as they can play both sides, lending money at exhorbitant rates to desparate politicians in a life and death struggle, so that they can purchase weapons from the puppeteers' companies.
Perhaps the death toll might even be seen as beneficial, or at least a necessary evil. Many are claiming that the world population is already too large for a stable earth environment, and a little culling could be good for mankind.
Bottom line for me is that I don't see the Russian and Chinese warnings and saber rattlings as an insignificant sideshow to be ignored. I don't deny the possibility, but once again, I wouldn't bet my life on it.
"Of course, Iran and Syria have had a mutual defense pact for years. So war in Syria could well drag Iran into a hot war."
Hmm. Maybe that's the objective. Easier to justify an attack on Iran under these circumstances. Or maybe the idea is to wait for Iran to move against the western powers' puppets first due to its obligations to Syria and then use that as the justification.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTfOB_TBBew
Dumb All Over
Maybe we'll get lucky and they will hit a nest of Globalist Banksters somewheres--since they are the world's enemies. With 7 billion enemies it is only a matter of time.
One well placed NUKE at the Bank of international settlements and the world WILL change for the better. Lob a few cruise missiles at whatever else the Rothschild's own for added effect.
Excellent and well-considered argument! .. I think you may well be onto something crucial here ... well spotted!
Make that Fukushima please.
I still stand by what I said last year. A few weeks of radioactive fall out is easier to bear than a ongoing infectious sore that now threatens the very Nation that built the thing.