Russian warships set sail to Mediterranean amid possible Syria evacuation

[Neville Thompson]

Syrian wrote:

<quoted text> The Russians have been "extracted" by plane. One Russian cruiser can take out the entire American fleet with just one nuclear weapon in about 5 seconds. I'm sure the US military is fully aware of that fact. The exact same thing almost happened 50 years ago during the Cuban missile crisis.

You are very correct,if this bloody conflict doesn't get finished soon then we will have an emotional mind game of warfare between Russian and the US Naval force Commanders in close proximity to each other with their toys of mass eradication .

[Neville Thompson]

Think of the Syrian war no different to that of what we have with other countries like the US and NZ,it called the ANZUS treaty, meaning that we support each other in wartime so why wouldn't Russia would have one with Syria as other countries do and it would be no less legitimate as ours with the US so why can't Russia live up to it's international obligations and support President Assad much like the French in Mali ??

[Jay]

ocxz wrote:

<quoted text>
As a french taxpayer, i am so relieved to learn that our navy warships ACTUALLY travel armed.
I was upon the impression that these ships were disguised cruise ships featuring jacuzzis where raunchy french sailors were having a ball with female crew members while i was sweating my arse out paying 50 % overall tax.
Thank god for foreign "intelligence".

France and Britain restructured their naval assets, they utilize one aircraft carrier for operations. The aircraft carrier is half British staffed and half French including assets. Cost savings. You'll be surprised to know to the French soldiers in Mali have real bullets and the planes and helicopters supporting them have real missiles too. Lol.

[George]

Neville Thompson wrote:

<quoted text>
The problem for me to understand that is the Russians would have to comply with voting rules in the UN of having no connection with the parties involved in the Syrian conflict in bringing down their vote that they can't be seen to be bias otherwise they could lose their seat in the UN.

Exactly and they were never allow that loss of power.

[Dimitri100]

Neville Thompson wrote:

<quoted text>
Dimwit you are a dickhead seeing you can only spam in one sentence hehehehe

.

Idiotneville talking bollocks as usual, what a dumb jackass. Hehehehe.

[George]

Dimitri100 wrote:

<quoted text>.
Idiotneville talking bollocks as usual, what a dumb jackass. Hehehehe.

I can see how Neville came to the conclusion as to who you are.

[Dimitri100]

George wrote:

<quoted text>
I can see how Neville came to the conclusion as to who you are.

.

Jackassgeorge/jay/neville all the same jackass talking bollocks.

Jackass talking bollocks...has an apt ring to it. Hehehehe.

[George]

Neville Thompson wrote:

<quoted text>
Dimwit you are a dickhead seeing you can only spam in one sentence hehehehe

You are right he makes no sense at all, just babble.

[Syrian]

Neville Thompson wrote:

<quoted text>
The problem for me to understand that is the Russians would have to comply with voting rules in the UN of having no connection with the parties involved in the Syrian conflict in bringing down their vote that they can't be seen to be bias otherwise they could lose their seat in the UN.

They can't lose their "seat" in the UN by voting against a resolution.

[Syrian]

Neville Thompson wrote:

<quoted text>
You are very correct,if this bloody conflict doesn't get finished soon then we will have an emotional mind game of warfare between Russian and the US Naval force Commanders in close proximity to each other with their toys of mass eradication .

The West has absolutely no interest in any "real" war with Russia or China. They wage war now by attempting "regime changes" via instigating, fueling and supporting rebellions.

[George]

Syrian wrote:

<quoted text> They can't lose their "seat" in the UN by voting against a resolution.

I think Neville is saying that if Russia takes up arms with Syria nd joining in the fight with boots on the groun they stand a chance of loosing the seat by going agains the majority vote

[George]

Syrian wrote:

<quoted text> The West has absolutely no interest in any "real" war with Russia or China. They wage war now by attempting "regime changes" via instigating, fueling and supporting rebellions.

Sorry I just read his post again, and he is saying that Russia cannot show bias by siding with Assad in the conflict. They can express an opinion about not removing Assad as part of a deal and vote against a resolution that states that but they cannot show bias that has affected their vote

[Syrian]

George wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry I just read his post again, and he is saying that Russia cannot show bias by siding with Assad in the conflict. They can express an opinion about not removing Assad as part of a deal and vote against a resolution that states that but they cannot show bias that has affected their vote

The US, the UK, France, Russia, and China have the right to their opinions and positions on any world conflict or issue. The entire purpose of the UN is to have the differences of nations addressed in a diplomatic forum, instead of settling their differences through conflict and bloodshed.

[Dimitri100]

JackassGeorge talking bollocks, any country with a veto CANNOT lose it's seat regardless.

I did not name you JackassGeorge for nothing,
you are a dumbass. Hehehehe.

[George]

Dimitri100 wrote:

JackassGeorge talking bollocks, any country with a veto CANNOT lose it's seat regardless.
I did not name you JackassGeorge for nothing,
you are a dumbass. Hehehehe.

Go back inthe corner and play with your balls.

[George]

Syrian wrote:

<quoted text> The US, the UK, France, Russia, and China have the right to their opinions and positions on any world conflict or issue. The entire purpose of the UN is to have the differences of nations addressed in a diplomatic forum, instead of settling their differences through conflict and bloodshed.

.

I think it comes down to the guranteed vote cannot be used to stop other countries involvement in the war and that country can participate. In other words if Russia stopped the security counsel from sending troops into Syria then Russia joined Assad, that would be illegal, would it take Russias vote away, I do not know.

[Jay]

Syrian wrote:

<quoted text> The US, the UK, France, Russia, and China have the right to their opinions and positions on any world conflict or issue. The entire purpose of the UN is to have the differences of nations addressed in a diplomatic forum, instead of settling their differences through conflict and bloodshed.

Then why doesnt the entire security council change seats out for other member states, we get 2 spots that float but the arms sales countries get to control permanent seats? AS Russia and China have openly admitted selling arms to Syria recently an end to the conflict would cost them money.

[Dimitri100]

George wrote:

<quoted text>.
I think it comes down to the guranteed vote cannot be used to stop other countries involvement in the war and that country can participate. In other words if Russia stopped the security counsel from sending troops into Syria then Russia joined Assad, that would be illegal, would it take Russias vote away, I do not know.

.

JackassGeorge talking bollocks again.

If Russia vetos a resolution to send troops into Syria,

It will be illegal for any country or countries to send troops into Syria.

Example...Iraq war was an illegal war and if the ICC was a fit and proper Institution, T Blair and G W Bush would have been convicted and would be in jail by now.

I suggest to Jackassgeorge, post what you know...not what you think.

[Jay]

Dimitri100 wrote:

<quoted text>.
JackassGeorge talking bollocks again.
If Russia vetos a resolution to send troops into Syria,
It will be illegal for any country or countries to send troops into Syria.
Example...Iraq war was an illegal war and if the ICC was a fit and proper Institution, T Blair and G W Bush would have been convicted and would be in jail by now.
I suggest to Jackassgeorge, post what you know...not what you think.

Your surprising right on Iraq! I'm shocked Dimitri what's gotten in to you? What have you done with the other Dimwit who doesn't know anything?
Canada did not participate in Iraq with any land forces or violate Iraqi airspace because it was not sanctioned by the UN.( Ps. Sunshine exchange officers don't count )
Bush telephoned our Prime Minister and he publicly stated we would gladly send forces if the UN sanctioned the action. The UN did not so techniquely it was an offensive action that was illegal. Regardless there's no one on earth that would dare arrest the US president, if he was way wrong the congress would impeach him..

[Dimitri100]

Jay wrote:

<quoted text>
Your surprising right on Iraq! I'm shocked Dimitri what's gotten in to you? What have you done with the other Dimwit who doesn't know anything?
Canada did not participate in Iraq with any land forces or violate Iraqi airspace because it was not sanctioned by the UN.( Ps. Sunshine exchange officers don't count )
Bush telephoned our Prime Minister and he publicly stated we would gladly send forces if the UN sanctioned the action. The UN did not so techniquely it was an offensive action that was illegal. Regardless there's no one on earth that would dare arrest the US president, if he was way wrong the congress would impeach him..

.

As I said, the ICC is not a fit and proper Institution.

You're still talking bollocks jackassjay.