No Negotiation: China and Russia Walk Out of UN Security Council Meeting: “This Isn’t An Exerc

libertyjam

Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
2,901
No Negotiation: China and Russia Walk Out of UN Security Council Meeting: “This Isn’t An Exerc

No Negotiation: China and Russia Walk Out of UN Security Council Meeting: “This Isn’t An Exercise”

http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-ne...ouncil-meeting-this-isnt-an-exercise_08282013
Mac Slavo
August 28th, 2013
SHTFplan.com
Comments (334)
Read by 81,432 people
(not all links have been reproduced)

earthonfire

As Jerome Corsi warned earlier today, “this is one of the most serious moments that we’ve ever faced in world history.”

Events are happening quickly and as it stands, the United States, Britain and other western allies are preparing a missile strike on Syria.

Russia has been the most critical opponent of the possibility of mid east military action, but now China has also stepped in.

Russia and China have stepped up their warnings against military intervention in Syria, with Moscow saying any such action would have “catastrophic consequences” for the region.​

BBC via Zero Hedge

And moments ago the Interfax new (sic) agency announced that China and Russia have left the negotiating table in response to a proposal for Britain’s David Cameron on pending intervention in Syria.

UN-SECURITY/COUNCIL-RUSSIA-CHINA DUBAI. Aug 28 (Interfax)

Russian and Chinese representatives have left the UN Security Council session that discussed the draft resolution on Syria proposed by Great Britain.​

We could be days away from the start of a conflict the likes of which the world has never seen before.

The United States and Britain are pushing forward with plans to execute a “brief and limited” strike on Syrian targets, but all signs suggest it will turn into much more than that. In January of 2012 the United States positioned 100,000 soldiers off the coast of Iran, and just last weekend it was reported that hundreds of US soldiers and intelligence assets had moved into Syria ahead of the attack.

In response, Syria has warned it will immediately target Israel with Russian supplied advanced weaponry. Syria’s closest ally in the region, Iran, has echoed the threat and warned that it, too, will turn its military capabilities on Israel.

This is a game changer. Any response by Israel against Arab nations would turn the entire middle east against the U.S. led coalition.

According to a report from the LA Times, that’s exactly what Israel intends to do.

“We are not part of the civil war in Syria, but if we identify any attempt whatsoever to harm us, we will respond with great force,” Netanyahu said after huddling for a second consecutive day with key Cabinet members to discuss the possible ramifications of a U.S. strike against Syria.​

Armies are mobilizing, and that includes Russian troops, who are reportedly now being deployed in Syria to help Assad defend against “rebel forces,” which adds additional strength to the 160,000 Russian troops mobilized in the region earlier this summer. Furthermore, the Russian Navy deployed nearly its entire Pacific fleet to the Mediterranean in May.

Moreover, after a meeting with Saudi Arabia in which the Saudi head of intelligence directly threatened Vladimir Putin with terrorist attacks during the coming winter Olympic games in Russia if they didn’t let the U.S. move forward with their plans in Syria, President Putin has reportedly responded with the threat of a massive counter-strike against the Saudi Arabian monarchy.

This isn’t an exercise.

The writing is on the wall.

The militaries (sic) of the most powerful nations on Earth are preparing to engage.

If President Obama initiates a missile strike on Syria, however limited in scope, it could set the whole world ablaze.
 
So the Anti-War Peace Candidate with a Nobel Peace Price Award, is the one pushing forward to start WWIII?
 
This is madness. And this would be considered "having a heart" according to Hannity?
 
If the Russian's shoot down military equipment about to launch an attack on Syria and/or the Chinese dump a sizeable UST position to hurt the USA that way - WW3 will erupt into all out conflict.

If I were the Eastern block, this is what I would do first. It would show just how serious they are at protecting Syria and Iran.

The US military is at it's weakest point in a long, long time. There is war exaustion in America - including it's armed forces.

China could save it's military for it's future larger influence by simply crippling America's credit markets.
 
This is madness. And this would be considered "having a heart" according to Hannity?

Your post got me curious about the Hannity forums, so I wandered over there to take a look at what the neocons are saying. Turns out they are all mixed up because they can see that the route of interventionism is leading to a disaster, but that clashes with concept of world policeman that they love. It is clear that people are coming around though and ditching the neoconservative philosophy. We are winning the debate and Ron is yet again being proven right. These are the teachable moments where we help Republicans realize that we need a small and limited government to go with the low taxes they normally endorse.
 
Your post got me curious about the Hannity forums, so I wandered over there to take a look at what the neocons are saying. Turns out they are all mixed up because they can see that the route of interventionism is leading to a disaster, but that clashes with concept of world policeman that they love. It is clear that people are coming around though and ditching the neoconservative philosophy. We are winning the debate and Ron is yet again being proven right. These are the teachable moments where we help Republicans realize that we need a small and limited government to go with the low taxes they normally endorse.

They wont connect the dots and say ron was right.
 
They wont connect the dots and say ron was right.

I no longer care if they give Ron Paul his due, I gave up on that idea a long time ago. As long as they get some of his principals down, let them think it was thier own thoughts that got them there.

I can get my mother-in-law to agree with just about everything that Ron Paul advocated as long as I dont use his name in the conversation.

I dont understand the blind hatred, but its there with alot of neo-cons, so its best just to stick to the principles of liberty and dont source the information if it leads back to Ron.
 
I can get my mother-in-law to agree with just about everything that Ron Paul advocated as long as I dont use his name in the conversation.

I dont understand the blind hatred, but its there with alot of neo-cons, so its best just to stick to the principles of liberty and dont source the information if it leads back to Ron.

It's not just neo-cons. It's those whose information is limited to quick media segments and red team/blue team echo chambers. They have been told to hate Ron, and even Rand. Yet if Rachel Maddow or Mark Levin says the exact same thing that Ron has said in the past, then it is all good.

The cognitive dissonance is too much if you point out that it is the same position that Ron has held all along.
 
I no longer care if they give Ron Paul his due, I gave up on that idea a long time ago. As long as they get some of his principals down, let them think it was thier own thoughts that got them there.

I can get my mother-in-law to agree with just about everything that Ron Paul advocated as long as I dont use his name in the conversation.

I dont understand the blind hatred, but its there with alot of neo-cons, so its best just to stick to the principles of liberty and dont source the information if it leads back to Ron.

Televised propaganda. Yes, it's that powerful.
 
This is really no laughing matter. Still, what the hay.

dynamonkey.jpg
 
After a thread about this the other day I was remembering what my Grandmother told me about the Civil War. She was like a generation after so she heard the stories handed down one step away. First thing she pointed out was that back then the reasons for the war were something other than what they taught us. All about freeing the slaves was something she thought was new. At least as the main reason. At least where she was.

Anyway the point I wanted to make was another thing she tried to impress upon me. She said about every family lost someone. Some families many. If you compare the losses compared to Vietnam it was like ten to one. And the thing she said was that the total population of the United States then was very small compared to now (Now was back in the sixties then.).

So it was like every family had some family member killed. This new war could be a lot different. We have a chance that within hours of the beginning of the war that the immediate survivors have not only lost all of their family members but lost everyone they have ever known.


P.S. Some time remind me to tell you about my dream of, The Night the Stars Fall.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top