Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

75,000 US Troops Might Be Needed

chem weapons syria

  • Please log in to reply
45 replies to this topic

#31    MidKn13ght

MidKn13ght

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 101 posts
  • Joined:25 May 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fairbanks, AK

  • The world is MINE!!!!

Posted 20 November 2012 - 08:19 PM

umm? do we even have that many troops anymore??? with all the military cuts and the army seperating soliders like they are an elmo muppeter ..... ohhhh too soon???? lol :rofl:


#32    Corp

Corp

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,951 posts
  • Joined:19 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ottawa

Posted 20 November 2012 - 08:43 PM

The US Army has over half a million active personnel, plus another half million reserve and national guard troops. I don't think they're going to be cutting 93% of their soldiers. ;)

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth a war, is much worse...A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

#33    Coffey

Coffey

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 5,671 posts
  • Joined:09 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Norwich UK

  • "Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts." - Winston Churchill

Posted 21 November 2012 - 01:44 AM

View PostProfessor Buzzkill, on 20 November 2012 - 08:16 PM, said:

I for one would like to see the US get its hands on these chemical weapons and have them destroyed or removed back to america.

If there were african countries capable of using chemical weapons then i imagine there would be coalition involvement in those countries as well.

Whichever radical religious fanatic rules Syria, let them do it without the power of chemical weapons.

What is wrong with this stance?



Nothing wrong with what your opion of that is, it's more the facts around it that's the problem. We all heard this same old story with Iraq. Bush stated they HAD WMD's. He said it was a fact. Ther eis millions of youtube videos showing him lying about it.

The point with Africa is that the US pretends to be helping innocent people and overthrowing "tyrants" when in reality it only does it if they gain something. Ther eis nothing innocent or pure about the US goverments motives behind getitng into wars.

It's a sad truth. I would love the US goverment to use it's impressive military and it's enthusiastic troops. Sadly the men and woman who sign up to serve their country, the ones who think they are making a difference are being used by greedy selfish "people"... (obviously i woudl like to use a more appropriate word than "people") Very sad.

When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace.

#34    and then

and then

    Abyssus Abyssum Invocat

  • Member
  • 14,483 posts
  • Joined:15 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land's End

  • Because what came before never seems enough...

Posted 21 November 2012 - 02:29 AM

View PostCoffey, on 21 November 2012 - 01:44 AM, said:




Nothing wrong with what your opion of that is, it's more the facts around it that's the problem. We all heard this same old story with Iraq. Bush stated they HAD WMD's. He said it was a fact. Ther eis millions of youtube videos showing him lying about it.

The point with Africa is that the US pretends to be helping innocent people and overthrowing "tyrants" when in reality it only does it if they gain something. Ther eis nothing innocent or pure about the US goverments motives behind getitng into wars.

It's a sad truth. I would love the US goverment to use it's impressive military and it's enthusiastic troops. Sadly the men and woman who sign up to serve their country, the ones who think they are making a difference are being used by greedy selfish "people"... (obviously i woudl like to use a more appropriate word than "people") Very sad.
Assad has made the statement that his government would use chemical weapons on anyone who attempted to intervene from outside Syria - he said he would NOT use chemical weapons on his own people.  So obviously HE believes he has chemical weapons.  Even Russia told him to shut up about it.

  We've cast the world, we've set the stage,
  for what could be, the darkest age...
“This is like playing poker with a guy who cheated you twice before. You know who does that, a moron.

#35    Coffey

Coffey

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 5,671 posts
  • Joined:09 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Norwich UK

  • "Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts." - Winston Churchill

Posted 21 November 2012 - 01:41 PM

View Postand then, on 21 November 2012 - 02:29 AM, said:

Assad has made the statement that his government would use chemical weapons on anyone who attempted to intervene from outside Syria - he said he would NOT use chemical weapons on his own people.  So obviously HE believes he has chemical weapons.  Even Russia told him to shut up about it.


OR he is lying to scare people from getting involved.... He's in a sticky situation right now with the world watching, he has his back against a corner, so he will bark pretty loud.

Kinda like how North Korea does all the time. Yet the US doesn't run in there and grab their nukes....

When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace.

#36    Chooky88

Chooky88

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 311 posts
  • Joined:03 Jun 2005

Posted 21 November 2012 - 01:46 PM

View Postshaddow134, on 19 November 2012 - 11:55 PM, said:

I would hardly call Hezbollah Ragamuffins.
, and You're right. They are 'Scallywags!'


#37    Insaniac

Insaniac

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,061 posts
  • Joined:11 Dec 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:United Kingdom

Posted 22 November 2012 - 09:29 AM

View PostCoffey, on 21 November 2012 - 01:41 PM, said:

OR he is lying to scare people from getting involved.... He's in a sticky situation right now with the world watching, he has his back against a corner, so he will bark pretty loud.

Kinda like how North Korea does all the time. Yet the US doesn't run in there and grab their nukes....

...Which reminds me, why in God's name have the US not claimed North Korea's nukes? Seems hypocritical to me.

"He is wise in heart and mighty in strength. Who has hardened their heart against Him, and succeeded"? ~ Job 9:4

#38    and then

and then

    Abyssus Abyssum Invocat

  • Member
  • 14,483 posts
  • Joined:15 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land's End

  • Because what came before never seems enough...

Posted 22 November 2012 - 11:25 AM

View PostInsaniac, on 22 November 2012 - 09:29 AM, said:

...Which reminds me, why in God's name have the US not claimed North Korea's nukes? Seems hypocritical to me.
Probably because that regime can be bought off relatively cheaply.  Also, because it seems inherently stable for now and is not based on apocalyptic religious fervor.  As for hypocrisy - so?  Nations do what are in their interests, hypocritical or not.

  We've cast the world, we've set the stage,
  for what could be, the darkest age...
“This is like playing poker with a guy who cheated you twice before. You know who does that, a moron.

#39    ExpandMyMind

ExpandMyMind

    Telekinetic

  • Closed
  • 6,628 posts
  • Joined:23 Jan 2009

Posted 22 November 2012 - 11:40 AM

View Postand then, on 22 November 2012 - 11:25 AM, said:

Probably because that regime can be bought off relatively cheaply.  Also, because it seems inherently stable for now and is not based on apocalyptic religious fervor.  As for hypocrisy - so?  Nations do what are in their interests, hypocritical or not.

Nah, the real reason, in my opinion, is because once a country has nukes they are more or less untouchable (remember that the father was still alive when they first had them and the U.S. did nothing). The U.S. hasn't 'taken' them because they like the idea of Seoul still existing.


#40    and then

and then

    Abyssus Abyssum Invocat

  • Member
  • 14,483 posts
  • Joined:15 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land's End

  • Because what came before never seems enough...

Posted 22 November 2012 - 11:49 AM

View PostExpandMyMind, on 22 November 2012 - 11:40 AM, said:

Nah, the real reason, in my opinion, is because once a country has nukes they are more or less untouchable (remember that the father was still alive when they first had them and the U.S. did nothing). The U.S. hasn't 'taken' them because they like the idea of Seoul still existing.
True enough.  But I was thinking past the obvious and thinking of course, more about Iran's situation.  I'm not sure they will be so predictable or reasonable.  Take the conflict in Gaza for example.  Once Iran has a nuke they can push Israel and paralyze Israeli cities on a whim.  They can be relatively sure Israel will not go overboard with retribution and so be tied down and bled slowly.  While this may seem all to the good for one who supports the Palestinians I submit that it makes things much more dangerous in the region.  Eventually someone will miscalculate - just a matter of time.  Cornered wild animal?   Or psychopath, if you prefer that metaphor.

  We've cast the world, we've set the stage,
  for what could be, the darkest age...
“This is like playing poker with a guy who cheated you twice before. You know who does that, a moron.

#41    ExpandMyMind

ExpandMyMind

    Telekinetic

  • Closed
  • 6,628 posts
  • Joined:23 Jan 2009

Posted 22 November 2012 - 11:57 AM

View Postand then, on 22 November 2012 - 11:49 AM, said:

Once Iran has a nuke they can push Israel and paralyze Israeli cities on a whim.  They can be relatively sure Israel will not go overboard with retribution and so be tied down and bled slowly.  While this may seem all to the good for one who supports the Palestinians I submit that it makes things much more dangerous in the region.  Eventually someone will miscalculate - just a matter of time.  Cornered wild animal?   Or psychopath, if you prefer that metaphor.

Paralyze Israeli cities? How? Are you suggesting that Iran would actually use a nuke?

All it would do would be to even the playing field. Iran are not stupid and they do not want all out war.


#42    and then

and then

    Abyssus Abyssum Invocat

  • Member
  • 14,483 posts
  • Joined:15 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land's End

  • Because what came before never seems enough...

Posted 22 November 2012 - 12:53 PM

View PostExpandMyMind, on 22 November 2012 - 11:57 AM, said:

Paralyze Israeli cities? How? Are you suggesting that Iran would actually use a nuke?

All it would do would be to even the playing field. Iran are not stupid and they do not want all out war.
No, they wouldn't need to actually detonate a nuke to threaten Israel into submission.  The paralysis I speak of was just demonstrated.  For 8 days little or no commerce or schooling was done in Israel's south.  They were in bunkers and hiding just like the Palestinians.  A nation can only deal with such problems for a limited time and then they will do what is needed to change the situation on the ground.  The whole history of this conflict has been about one side pushing the other and the world having to come to the rescue to stop a bloodbath.  Escalation is normal and expected.  So what happens when one side goes too far?  Israelis want the land but they also want to live in the land - they want peace (most, anyway) and Iran wants to dominate the region and has openly said through Khomeini and Khameini that sacrificing millions of Iranians would be worth the goal of destroying the little Satan.  I guess the difference we have here is that I actually believe their rhetoric.  Iran MAY not want, today, an all out war.  but they could very easily miscalculate if they had a few crude nukes in storage.  After all, everyone KNOWS that no one would actually use one of those things again, right?  Until someone does......

  We've cast the world, we've set the stage,
  for what could be, the darkest age...
“This is like playing poker with a guy who cheated you twice before. You know who does that, a moron.

#43    Coffey

Coffey

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 5,671 posts
  • Joined:09 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Norwich UK

  • "Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts." - Winston Churchill

Posted 22 November 2012 - 12:53 PM

View PostExpandMyMind, on 22 November 2012 - 11:57 AM, said:

Paralyze Israeli cities? How? Are you suggesting that Iran would actually use a nuke?

All it would do would be to even the playing field. Iran are not stupid and they do not want all out war.

Exactly, evidence of this is the fact they haven't attacked anyone since the 1700's or soemhting like that. lol

The last war thye ahd was when Iraq attacked them and Iraq was pushed into it by the US. When Saddam was still the US's puppet, before he went against them when they wanted him to leave.


View Postand then, on 22 November 2012 - 12:53 PM, said:

No, they wouldn't need to actually detonate a nuke to threaten Israel into submission.  The paralysis I speak of was just demonstrated.  For 8 days little or no commerce or schooling was done in Israel's south.  They were in bunkers and hiding just like the Palestinians.  A nation can only deal with such problems for a limited time and then they will do what is needed to change the situation on the ground.  The whole history of this conflict has been about one side pushing the other and the world having to come to the rescue to stop a bloodbath.  Escalation is normal and expected.  So what happens when one side goes too far?  Israelis want the land but they also want to live in the land - they want peace (most, anyway) and Iran wants to dominate the region and has openly said through Khomeini and Khameini that sacrificing millions of Iranians would be worth the goal of destroying the little Satan.  I guess the difference we have here is that I actually believe their rhetoric.  Iran MAY not want, today, an all out war.  but they could very easily miscalculate if they had a few crude nukes in storage.  After all, everyone KNOWS that no one would actually use one of those things again, right?  Until someone does......


Such a biased view. ^

Israel goverment (nuts) do not want peace otherwise they would stop the fighting. (proven by how they keep getting involved with conflicts)
Israeli (sensible) people want peace.
Iranian goverment (again nuts, but not as nuts) don't seem to want war, hence why they haven't started any in a very long time.
Iranian people (sensible) have made it people they don't want war, in the same way the Israeli's don't.

Israeli goverment has a bad record of conflict and ATTACKING others. Iranian goverment is the oppisite. I don't understand why some people can't see this. Unless of course you are brainwashed by media and western religions.

The problem? The Israeli goverment.

Edited by Coffey, 22 November 2012 - 01:01 PM.

When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace.

#44    ExpandMyMind

ExpandMyMind

    Telekinetic

  • Closed
  • 6,628 posts
  • Joined:23 Jan 2009

Posted 22 November 2012 - 01:03 PM

View Postand then, on 22 November 2012 - 12:53 PM, said:

has openly said through Khomeini and Khameini that sacrificing millions of Iranians would be worth the goal of destroying the little Satan.

Where and when was this stated? Reference please.


#45    and then

and then

    Abyssus Abyssum Invocat

  • Member
  • 14,483 posts
  • Joined:15 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land's End

  • Because what came before never seems enough...

Posted 22 November 2012 - 02:58 PM

No reference forthcoming.  I simply don't remember where I read this but I recall reading the same statements more than once - so point to you.  However I did find some interesting quotes from the dear man http://www.shiachat....otes-on-israel/
He is STILL venerated above all other Shia leaders, so it should give an indication of their mindset.  This is just a statement of facts and in no way amounts to an anti Islamic rant.  An Iranian bomb will not be a good thing for anyone.  But the "good" seems to be a strangely malleable idea these days.

  We've cast the world, we've set the stage,
  for what could be, the darkest age...
“This is like playing poker with a guy who cheated you twice before. You know who does that, a moron.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users