Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 52

Thread: White House reassesses policy on arming Syria rebels

  1. #31
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Behind the Orange Curtain
    Last Seen
    01-30-15 @ 01:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    15,633

    Re: White House reassesses policy on arming Syria rebels

    Quote Originally Posted by Grand Mal View Post
    I don't know why it matters to anyone who doesn't live there. Let 'em sort it out among themselves. There's no way to impose a lasting peace- hell, there's probably no lasting peace possible, so just let the cage match happen and deal with whoever comes out on top. One looks pretty much like the others anyway.
    Well, you have a good argument.

    But what about Israels existence ?

    I suppose America's and the western world policy with dealing with the Middle East has been just keeping everyone in check and trying to keep a lid on everything.

    Obama made numerous mistakes in the Middle East and he really blew it big time when he threw Egypt's President Mubarak under the bus.
    Mubarak had to go but there was a better way of doing it and since Obama's administration is second rate, they didn't have the knowledge, experience or competency of doing it the right way.

    I noticed last week that the Obama administration is making the same mistakes they made before the 9/11/12 Benghazi attacks. Again there is no carrier CSG or Marines with a Amphibious Ready Group (ARG) in the Mediterranean Sea today. Why is it that the last eleven Presidents before Obama were always able to have a carrier and it's escorts and Marines on amphibious ships in the Mediterranean 24/7 and Obama doesn't ?

  2. #32
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: White House reassesses policy on arming Syria rebels

    Quote Originally Posted by APACHERAT View Post
    I don't think Putin would be a happy camper.

    Obama waited to long.

    What I'm hearing, the Russians are very likely to put combat troops in Syria wearing blue helmets and will call themselves "peace keepers." I think they did something like that a while back in Georgia.

    As we have seen over the past 4 years and 5 months, Obama isn't capable of making important quick serious decisions with in hours but it takes him months. Because of Obama's failed foreign policies in the Middle East, the Middle East is a basket case today. America is no longer the big boy on the block to fear in the Middle East. America is no longer a super power.

    What we will likely see in four or six years from now, is one big Muslim Shia - Sunni civil war war from the northern Israeli borders to the Iranian border. Thanks Obama.
    Heya Apache .....yeah we had this up early in another thread. Which technically is all tied to this issue.

    Moved by the Assad regime's rapid advance, the Obama administration could decide this week to approve lethal aid for the beleaguered Syrian rebels and will weigh the merits of a less likely move to send in U.S. airpower to enforce a no-fly zone over the civil war-wracked nation, officials said Sunday.

    White House meetings are planned over the coming days, as Syrian President Bashar Assad's government forces are apparently poised for an attack on the key city of Homs, which could cut off Syria's armed opposition from the south of the country. As many as 5,000 Hezbollah fighters are now in Syria, officials believe, helping the regime press on with its campaign after capturing the town of Qusair near the Lebanese border last week.

    Opposition leaders have warned Washington that their rebellion could face devastating and irreversible losses without greater support, and the warnings are prompting the United States to consider drastic action.

    Secretary of State John Kerry postponed a planned trip Monday to Israel and three other Mideast countries to participate in White House discussions, said officials who weren't authorized to speak publicly on the matter and demanded anonymity.

    While nothing has been concretely decided, U.S. officials said President Barack Obama was leaning closer toward signing off on sending weapons to vetted, moderate rebel units. The U.S. has spoken of possibly arming the opposition in recent months but has been hesitant because it doesn't want al-Qaida-linked and other extremists fighting alongside the anti-Assad militias to end up with the weapons.

    Obama already has ruled out any intervention that would require U.S. military boots on the ground. Other options such as deploying American air power to ground the regime's jets, gunships and other aerial assets are now being more seriously debated, the officials said, while cautioning that a no-fly zone or any other action involving U.S. military deployments in Syria were far less likely right now.

    Any intervention could have wide-reaching ramifications for the United States and the region. It would bring the U.S. closer to a conflict that has killed almost 80,000 people since Assad cracked down on protesters inspired by the Arab Spring in March 2011 and sparked a war that has since been increasingly defined by sectarian clashes between the Sunni-led rebellion and Assad's Alawite-dominated regime.

    And it would essentially pit the United States alongside regional allies Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar in a proxy war against Iran, which is providing much of the materiel to the Syrian government's counterinsurgency and, through Hezbollah, more and more of the manpower.

    The administration has been studying for months how to rebalance Syria's war so that moderate, pro-democracy rebels defeat the regime or make life so difficult for Assad and his supporters that the government decides it must join a peace process that entails a transition away from the Assad family's four-decade dictatorship.

    They note that a no-fly zone, championed by hawks in Congress such as Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., would require the U.S. to first neutralize Syrian air defense systems that have been reinforced with Russian technology and are far stronger than those that Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi had before the U.S. and its Arab and European allies helped rebels overthrow him in 2011. And unlike with Libya, Washington has no clear international mandate for authorizing any strikes inside Syria, a point the Obama administration has harped on since late 2011 to explain its reticence about more forceful action.....snip~

    AP sources: US close to OK on arming Syrian rebels

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/middle...post1061910600

    Well, the Russians already have troops inside Syria. Which they sent at the beginning of the Conflict to Tartus, But now you know why they went ahead with the Shipments of the S300's. Russia would just luv us getting caught up with Syria. They outplayed Rice, outwitted her, outmaneuvered her, and truthfully she has weakened us in front of that Entire World Community.

    Oh and on the Russians sending Troops to Syria.

    Russian Anti-Terror Troops Arrive in Syria......

    A Russian military unit has arrived in Syria, according to Russian news reports, a development that a United Nations Security Council source told ABC News was "a bomb" certain to have serious repercussions.

    Russia's Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov denied reports that Russian special forces were operating inside Syria. He did say, however, that there are Russian military and technical advisors in the country.

    U.S. State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland said the U.S. government had not heard of the reports of Russian troops in Syria and declined to comment.....snip~

    Russian Anti-Terror Troops Arrive in Syria - ABC News


    And Nuland is outright lying. Which she really doesn't do a good job of with Team Obama. We knew in 2011 that the Russians sent Troops back then. More in 2012 as well. Plus their Anti Terrorist Troops.

  3. #33
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: White House reassesses policy on arming Syria rebels

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Doesn't seem to have stopped us in Libya, Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia.....

    yeah?


    [COLOR="#800000"]That doesn't mean it is Right nor the Right policy to be doing so[/COLOR]. Oh and because the Israelis were able to make that Raid. The Russians went ahead with the S300s. Plus they have their SA10s. So now I would have to Say Yeah.....evidenced.

    SA-10 to Syria.....

    In 1983 Moscow's improvements to air defenses in Syria, including the introduction of the long range SA-5 [with an effective range of over 250 km], reversed its declining position in Syria and seemed likely to enhance its credibility in the region. Militarily, the systems were designed to create a better integrated air defense system. While did not create an impenetrable Syrian air defense shield, they would exact losses in the event of Israeli airstrikes. Most important, their deployment complicated Israeli planning, particularly because these missiles can attack aircraft over Israel, Lebanon, and the Mediterranean. The Soviets continued to build up air defenses in Syria; their military presence had doubled to around 5,00O men and probably included elements of air defense units to man the SA-5 sites.

    In the 1990s Damascus sought to acquire Russian SA-10 and SA-11 air defense systems. During 2001 there were reports that Syria had taken delivery of the sophisticated Almaz S-300 `Grumble' (SA-10) SAM system, which it had been seeking to acquire from Russia for some time. Nevertheless, there was a further report that Syria had formed two independent Air Defense Regiments to deploy S-300 and SA-8 mobile SAMs. It was presumed that SA-8, a `point defense' weapon, was being deployed to protect the S-300. Israeli sources claimed in summer, 2001 that their air force had developed counter-measures against the S-300. In the event, these reports turned out to be unfounded, and as of 2013 Syria did not deploy the SA-10.

    Russia has been harshly criticized by the West for reported deliveries of six S-300 air defense systems to Syria under a 2010 contract rumored to be worth $900 million. Moscow, however, has insisted that such deliveries would be legal under international law and has denied supplying Syria with offensive weapons that can be used to kill civilians.

    The only solid piece of evidence of an actual sale was a 2011 annual report by S-300’s manufacturer, the Nizhny Novgorod Machine Building Plant, which mentioned a contract for the missile systems for Syria. The report has since vanished from the plant’s website, but was cited by the respected Vedomosti business daily at the time as saying that the contract was worth $105 million and that an unspecified number of S-300 systems were slated for delivery between 2012 and early 2013. All other reports have been based on leaks by unnamed intelligence and diplomatic sources, including, in the prominent Russian daily Kommersant and the Wall Street Journal, which said in May 2013 that the deal included four S-300 batteries and 144 missiles and has a price tag of $900 million, with deliveries to begin, possibly, by late summer 2013.

    Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said earlier in the month that Russia would honor a deal with Syria to supply it with S-300 air defense systems. “Those who do not plan aggressive actions against a sovereign state have nothing to worry about, because means of air defense – and this is clear from the name – are a purely defensive system required to repel air attacks,” Lavrov said. He also said the deal was signed before Israel planes hit targets in Syria earlier in the month.

    The surface-to-air missiles would represent a major upgrade over Syria's current air defenses. But it it could take many months if not several years, before Syrian forces were able to effectively use the advanced Russian missile system. While the missiles themselves could be fielded in a few weeks, Syrians would have to be trained to operate the S-300, which would take much more time.....snip~

    SA-10 to Syria

    As you can see.....the Russians basically told us in a nice way to.....****-off.

  4. #34
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,082

    Re: White House reassesses policy on arming Syria rebels

    ......that's exactly what I'm saying. The Russians have sent in newer stuff to Syria. This is a perfect chance for us to test them.

  5. #35
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: White House reassesses policy on arming Syria rebels

    Quote Originally Posted by iguanaman View Post
    WTF are you talking about. Iran is a Shia country and they are the ones making a nuclear weapon. Sunnis are in the majority in Syria and so they are the natural leaders of any democratic govt.. Saudis are Sunnis too you know, should we put the smack down on them too?
    Yeah I am aware.....are you going to allow the Sunni Muslims to commit Genocide on the Shia and Zaydi. Annihilate them to extinction? Help them in subjugating them and destroying them.

    Here is one for ya......are the Sunni Muslims the natural inhabitants of Syria? So if 78 million Sunni Muslims migrated to Florida and then said Screw your government. We are taking over. Would you accept that is okay for them to do so?

    What else here has taken place is.....the Rebels wouldn't even accept an Election to take place. Nor would they Negotiate from the beginning.

    Yeah I know EXACTLY who the Saudi are.....are you tired of us getting stabbed in the back by those Sunni Muslims YET? Especially with the Saud.

    So now basically.....WTF are you talking about? Do you think the Sunni Muslims should be handed countries to rule that they cannot conquer on their own? Have you figured out yet why.....that the Sunni haven't been able to step up to the plate to handle things on their own? Why they are weak and cannot take this task upon themselves.

  6. #36
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: White House reassesses policy on arming Syria rebels

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Naturally. Some of his entire population are his allies. But that is irrelevant - we didn't say "if you use WMD on a greater than or equal to X percentage of your populace, then that is a red line". We said "the use of chemical weapons is a red line". Apparently when we said that we meant:








    You'll get no argument from me that the alNusra types are decent people, or that it's going to be anything shy of tribal warfare when they start achieving victory. The guy says he intends to eat the hearts of Alawites and I believe him.

    Now, the only way (that I know of) to stop them from going overboard with that is for the US to be able to draw a credible red line stating "at this point in the human rights abuses, US forces will start attacking you, and we know where you are." But we just blew up our own credibility with regards to those kinds of threats.



    Dude we're in the middle of WWIV right now, and looking to kick off WWV here in the next 10-15 years . Keep up.

    Seriously, however, if you want Sunni groups to understand that the US is a credible threat for deterrence purposes, then we have to prove that we are so with regards to Assad.



    Yup. And what do you think that they learn every day that goes by that we don't make good on our threat against Assad? They learn that the US is weak and its' warnings can be discounted.
    Yes Christians and even other Sunni all backing Assad. Why do you think that is? Moreover from the beginning the Red Cross and Amnesty validated the Rebels massacring Christians. Moreover that Red line stands in affect for the Rebels as well. Which they have used the Chemicals too.

    Well in truth with what we let happen in Yemen and several other places. The same argument can be said that we have done nothing about the Sunni. As a matter of fact we gave Selah Blanket Immunity.....even tho he was committing crimes against Humanity.

    Actually to prove to the Sunni.....all we need do. Is stop giving the Children weapons.

  7. #37
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Behind the Orange Curtain
    Last Seen
    01-30-15 @ 01:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    15,633

    Re: White House reassesses policy on arming Syria rebels

    Quote Originally Posted by MMC View Post
    Heya Apache .....yeah we had this up early in another thread. Which technically is all tied to this issue.

    Moved by the Assad regime's rapid advance, the Obama administration could decide this week to approve lethal aid for the beleaguered Syrian rebels and will weigh the merits of a less likely move to send in U.S. airpower to enforce a no-fly zone over the civil war-wracked nation, officials said Sunday.

    White House meetings are planned over the coming days, as Syrian President Bashar Assad's government forces are apparently poised for an attack on the key city of Homs, which could cut off Syria's armed opposition from the south of the country. As many as 5,000 Hezbollah fighters are now in Syria, officials believe, helping the regime press on with its campaign after capturing the town of Qusair near the Lebanese border last week.

    Opposition leaders have warned Washington that their rebellion could face devastating and irreversible losses without greater support, and the warnings are prompting the United States to consider drastic action.

    Secretary of State John Kerry postponed a planned trip Monday to Israel and three other Mideast countries to participate in White House discussions, said officials who weren't authorized to speak publicly on the matter and demanded anonymity.

    While nothing has been concretely decided, U.S. officials said President Barack Obama was leaning closer toward signing off on sending weapons to vetted, moderate rebel units. The U.S. has spoken of possibly arming the opposition in recent months but has been hesitant because it doesn't want al-Qaida-linked and other extremists fighting alongside the anti-Assad militias to end up with the weapons.

    Obama already has ruled out any intervention that would require U.S. military boots on the ground. Other options such as deploying American air power to ground the regime's jets, gunships and other aerial assets are now being more seriously debated, the officials said, while cautioning that a no-fly zone or any other action involving U.S. military deployments in Syria were far less likely right now.

    Any intervention could have wide-reaching ramifications for the United States and the region. It would bring the U.S. closer to a conflict that has killed almost 80,000 people since Assad cracked down on protesters inspired by the Arab Spring in March 2011 and sparked a war that has since been increasingly defined by sectarian clashes between the Sunni-led rebellion and Assad's Alawite-dominated regime.

    And it would essentially pit the United States alongside regional allies Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar in a proxy war against Iran, which is providing much of the materiel to the Syrian government's counterinsurgency and, through Hezbollah, more and more of the manpower.

    The administration has been studying for months how to rebalance Syria's war so that moderate, pro-democracy rebels defeat the regime or make life so difficult for Assad and his supporters that the government decides it must join a peace process that entails a transition away from the Assad family's four-decade dictatorship.

    They note that a no-fly zone, championed by hawks in Congress such as Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., would require the U.S. to first neutralize Syrian air defense systems that have been reinforced with Russian technology and are far stronger than those that Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi had before the U.S. and its Arab and European allies helped rebels overthrow him in 2011. And unlike with Libya, Washington has no clear international mandate for authorizing any strikes inside Syria, a point the Obama administration has harped on since late 2011 to explain its reticence about more forceful action.....snip~

    AP sources: US close to OK on arming Syrian rebels

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/middle...post1061910600

    Well, the Russians already have troops inside Syria. Which they sent at the beginning of the Conflict to Tartus, But now you know why they went ahead with the Shipments of the S300's. Russia would just luv us getting caught up with Syria. They outplayed Rice, outwitted her, outmaneuvered her, and truthfully she has weakened us in front of that Entire World Community.

    Oh and on the Russians sending Troops to Syria.

    Russian Anti-Terror Troops Arrive in Syria......

    A Russian military unit has arrived in Syria, according to Russian news reports, a development that a United Nations Security Council source told ABC News was "a bomb" certain to have serious repercussions.

    Russia's Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov denied reports that Russian special forces were operating inside Syria. He did say, however, that there are Russian military and technical advisors in the country.

    U.S. State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland said the U.S. government had not heard of the reports of Russian troops in Syria and declined to comment.....snip~

    Russian Anti-Terror Troops Arrive in Syria - ABC News


    And Nuland is outright lying. Which she really doesn't do a good job of with Team Obama. We knew in 2011 that the Russians sent Troops back then. More in 2012 as well. Plus their Anti Terrorist Troops.
    Obama and those he surrounded himself with are too incompetent. Obama is to slow, he's trying to make decisions that should have been made more than six months ago.

    John Kerry ! Probably a whole lot better than Hillary Clinton. But Kerry has some problems, the lack of respect by many in the world.
    Not really sure what the Muslim world in the Near and Middle East think of Kerry. But Russia, China and Vietnam look at Kerry as a former ally who backed stabbed his fellow troops while they were still on the battlefield. He may have been an ally but also a traitor to his own country. And most governments don't respect or trust a former traitor even if he was a former ally.

    Putin doesn't like Obama and he sure doesn't respect Kerry.

    Russia does have a forward naval base in Tartus, Syria. It's been a Russian naval base going back to the 1970's but when Obama became POTUS the Russians have been building up the base. It's able to support a large number of ships. Last I heard their were 12 Russian warships now based out of Tartus. It was almost a year ago that Russian Marines landed in Tartus to beef up security.

    With 30,000 Russian citizens living in Syria to protect, Russia doesn't need much of an excuse to send in combat troops under the disguise as peace keepers.

    BTW: Have you heard that China's PLA-Navy has had subs and intelligence ships operating with in U.S. territorial waters off of Guam ?

  8. #38
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,082

    Re: White House reassesses policy on arming Syria rebels

    Quote Originally Posted by MMC View Post
    Yes Christians and even other Sunni all backing Assad. Why do you think that is?
    For many, Stability > Bloody Chaos. Just as has happened in Egypt and elsewhere, Islamist takeover after Assad will mean violent repression of minority groups.

    Moreover from the beginning the Red Cross and Amnesty validated the Rebels massacring Christians. Moreover that Red line stands in affect for the Rebels as well. Which they have used the Chemicals too.

    Well in truth with what we let happen in Yemen and several other places. The same argument can be said that we have done nothing about the Sunni. As a matter of fact we gave Selah Blanket Immunity.....even tho he was committing crimes against Humanity.

    Actually to prove to the Sunni.....all we need do. Is stop giving the Children weapons.
    No. The Sunni have plenty of weapons. What they need (to respond in manners that we would both prefer) is a healthy amount of fear. That they currently lack.

  9. #39
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: White House reassesses policy on arming Syria rebels

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    ......that's exactly what I'm saying. The Russians have sent in newer stuff to Syria. This is a perfect chance for us to test them.
    Well.....why shouldn't the French and the Brits. Who jumped off both feet into the frying pan here. Let them handle it. They were going to give weapons to the Rebels anyways. Which I will lay odds down Right now, that both have sent weapons to Syria.

    Is it due to the French being incompetent and not being able to handle those Russian Migs? It was their people who got caught inside Syria. It was the French who Officially recognized the Rebels before anyone else did.....and they didn't seem to worry about Islamists. Why Not let the French show the World that they can actually do something on their own for a change? Meaning from the 19th Century and on up to now. Rather than just talk with their mouths.

    Now anyone will be able to send Weapons to Syria.

    U.N. Security Council set to blacklist Syria's Nusra militants.....

    The U.N. Security Council is set to blacklist Syria's Islamist al-Nusra Front on Friday as an alias of al Qaeda in Iraq, a move that will subject the group to sanctions including an arms embargo, travel ban and assets freeze, diplomats said.

    It's unlikely members of the Security Council's al Qaeda sanctions committee will object to the proposal submitted by Britain and France, diplomats said on condition of anonymity. All 15-members of the sanctions committee must agree for Nusra to be listed.

    Nusra, one of the most effective forces fighting President Bashar al-Assad, last month pledged allegiance to al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahri. The U.S. State Department designated Nusra as a terrorist organization in December.

    Experts have long said Nusra is receiving support from al Qaeda-linked militants in neighboring Iraq. The group claimed responsibility for deadly bombings in Damascus and Aleppo, and its fighters have joined other Syrian rebel brigades.

    Syria had initially asked for Nusra to be designated a new terrorist group, but Britain and France countered with a proposal to instead list it as an alias of al Qaeda because there were concerns about the Syrian evidence supporting its request, said diplomats, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

    Either way the group was listed, it would still have been subjected to the same sanctions.

    Islamist militants have emerged as the most potent of the anti-Assad rebel groups.

    The Islamist element of the Syrian conflict poses a quandary for Western powers and their Arab allies, which favor Assad's overthrow but are alarmed at the growing power of militant Sunni Muslim fighters whose fiercely anti-Shi'ite ideology has fueled sectarian tensions in the Middle East.....snip~

    U.N. Security Council set to blacklist Syria's Nusra militants

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/middle...post1061910600
    Last edited by MMC; 06-11-13 at 04:10 AM.

  10. #40
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: White House reassesses policy on arming Syria rebels

    Quote Originally Posted by APACHERAT View Post
    Obama and those he surrounded himself with are too incompetent. Obama is to slow, he's trying to make decisions that should have been made more than six months ago.

    John Kerry ! Probably a whole lot better than Hillary Clinton. But Kerry has some problems, the lack of respect by many in the world.
    Not really sure what the Muslim world in the Near and Middle East think of Kerry. But Russia, China and Vietnam look at Kerry as a former ally who backed stabbed his fellow troops while they were still on the battlefield. He may have been an ally but also a traitor to his own country. And most governments don't respect or trust a former traitor even if he was a former ally.

    Putin doesn't like Obama and he sure doesn't respect Kerry.

    Russia does have a forward naval base in Tartus, Syria. It's been a Russian naval base going back to the 1970's but when Obama became POTUS the Russians have been building up the base. It's able to support a large number of ships. Last I heard their were 12 Russian warships now based out of Tartus. It was almost a year ago that Russian Marines landed in Tartus to beef up security.

    With 30,000 Russian citizens living in Syria to protect, Russia doesn't need much of an excuse to send in combat troops under the disguise as peace keepers.

    BTW: Have you heard that China's PLA-Navy has had subs and intelligence ships operating with in U.S. territorial waters off of Guam ?
    I heard the same.....12 ships and that's not counting any subs around there or in Club Med. Plus a couple mind-sweepers. Last time they sent 300 Troops and some tanks. According to the Russians. To protect their people and interests.

    The Sunni Clerics are calling it for what it is.....A Religious War.
    Last edited by MMC; 06-11-13 at 04:08 AM.

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •