Russia's parliament grants permission sought by Vladimir Putin to use military force

a reply to: dollukka

Putin may be ruthless and have other agendas.

However, I have no doubt that if he sets his mind
to destroy ISIS - and someone should - and not
a single pansy government in the world has
stepped forward to to it.
Well, more power to him.

People who think that everyone must
worship as they do or be killed,
who holds sex slaves in the name of their God,
rapes children- boys and girls - in the name of their God.
subjugates women and treats them like slaves - in the name of their God.
And thinks anyone who speaks out against their
lifestyle must die.
Well, enough said,
Putin is the only world leader man enough
to do the right thing and rid the world of
this spreading cancer.

Right now I don't care about his "other"
plans, because the rest of the world
has decided to allow the cancer to
spread out of political correctness
and tolerance. Tolerance for
sex slavery/pedophilia/misogyny

Putin is ruthless, yes
Putin can be dangerous, yes
but the Muslim cancer of
radical extremism and
call for death to those who
disagree with them are far
far more dangerous to the
entire world
to civilization as a whole.

Let Putin rid the world of a
growing cancer that the rest
of the world leaders are too
weak and ineffectual to take
care of.

Right now that is the most
important thing to do, rid
the world of the worst cancer
the world has ever seen in
terms of ideology.

Will this lead to WWIII,
sometimes an entire body needs
to have a medicine run through it
to rid it that kills non-cancer cells
when one has even a small cancer
to save the entire
body in the end from the destructive
and soul and body killing cancer.
Muslim extremism has become
that cancer invading the entire world.

If this below statement is correct and I've no reason to believe otherwise as yet, then it is clear that yes this has been planned for years and clearly Russia wants in with regards to the gas & oil. Assad refused to sign the pipeline deal from Qatar to Europe which bypassed Russia who was Europes' then main supplier of gas & oil. Assad said it was to protect Russian interests in Europe for the supply of natural gas. It seems to me that this was the main kick off point for getting rid of Assad.

According to retired NATO Secretary General Wesley Clark, a memo from the Office of the US Secretary of Defense just a few weeks after 9/11 revealed plans to "attack and destroy the governments in 7 countries in five years", starting with Iraq and moving on to "Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran." In a subsequent interview, Clark argues that this strategy is fundamentally about control of the region's vast oil and gas resources.

Assad then brokered a deal between himself & Iran Iraq for a pipeline which was a slap in the face for Qatar which resulted in Saudi bribes to Russia in an attempt to get Putin to change sides. Saudi warned Putin that

whatever regime comes after" Assad, it will be "completely" in Saudi Arabia's hands and will "not sign any agreement allowing any Gulf country to transport its gas across Syria to Europe and compete with Russian gas export

Like Saddam like Gaddafi and others before and after, I think Assad has been set up all for the Saudis

a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport

If the West's agenda wasn't completely evil, the memo in Wesley Clark's hand would have had plans to attack and destroy only 1 country in five years; Saudi Arabia.

But no. Money and total power wins.

the people that oppose Putin, or his way of governing, tend to wind up dead....so the Russian parliament has been turned into "yes" men. Putin can do what he wants, due to the fear that he has been able to instill in the rest of the Russian government

a reply to: dollukka

Soviets planes without transponders on entering inside borders etc supposedly mistakenly and sometimes not even responding when asked to identify...either those military planes are very poor and technology is bad on those.

well..if that is the norm...then I guess....the whole world could at any moment be invaded by the USA. Not to mention the fact that they are spying on everyone. Flying drones and stealth planes no one in the world can detect even.

But I guess we are safe...since the USA is the good guys. Though their track record with invasions is not really something to brag about...

anyway...this was probably a bit off topic. Dont mind me.

a reply to: dollukka

Air strikes? How is this any different than what all the other countries are doing. Hail mighty putin for stopping ISIS with air strikes. He talks about stopping them boots on the ground are required.

a reply to: Crumbles

He could have stated that he is going after ISIS in the request, just like he stated Ukrainian as a target. This time no target was mentioned just request to use military power abroad.. it is big difference. Its a broad request only time will tell how it will be used.
Interesting how people don´t see the point made instead starts "Hail Putin" campaign... like in History there were many outside Germany who hailed for Hitler before Hitler´s true face was exposed.

Russia begins Syria airstrikes: www.reuters.com...

This is a game changing act, in the historical and geopolitical context in my opinion. (Please do not construe/misinterpret any of this as me supporting or vilifying either side, as my opinion - just an opinion, not an assertion of fact - is that both the Eastern and Western powers are utilizing the region in proxy for their own somewhat disparate agendas long term.)

Russia is demonstrating the willingness to project military force far beyond its borders. It has always had the ability to do this, but this is a huge step to come forward onto the world stage militarily like this in a region considered external to their own back yard. How long they can sustain this economically is another question, but it is a clear message nevertheless.

For a long time there has been talk of Russia wanting to transition the geopolitical chess board from a unipolar world to a bipolar world, analogous to what we had during the Cold War. Between China putting pressure on the U.S. and its allies in the Pacific, and Russia doing the same in eastern Europe and now the ME, they are both altering the strategic balance of power, as well as attempting to influence the outcome of conflicts with which the West is directly involved militarily, politically, and economically. And they have deployed their ability to do this with surprising rapidity and agility.

Russia needs and desires access to the port of Tartus, and Assad is the key to securing said access, as they likely (probably rightly) fear his successor will be a more West-friendly regime. Just as they moved preemptively and resolutely to prevent the inclusion of Ukraine (at least with Crimea intact) joining NATO, they are now doing so to prevent the expansion of Western influence in the ME.

Meanwhile, the West wants a regime that is not in Russia's pocket in Syria. Both sides are exploiting the ISIS crisis - in my opinion - to work toward achieving these opposing long term strategic goals.The Saudis side with the West to counter Iran and retain influence over oil exports (and because of the long term protection guarantee in exchange for preferential oil access... though Saudi Arabia has recently also begun to exert its own regional military might as well in Yemen.) Iran, Syria, and Iraq side with Russia because they supply arms, and in Iraq's case, because ISIS poses a direct existential threat (as in Assad's case as well of course.)

It seems to me the goal of actually defeating ISIS is secondary to all concerned though, except perhaps to Syria and Iraq - the proxies in question. I could be wrong as always, but to my reasoning, what we are witnessing is a full blown proxy war unfolding with the same ostensible goal of defeating ISIS, but for opposing ultimate strategic ends.

Again, an opinion only.

Peace.

And it seems Russia is avoiding bombing ISIS targets. Not much of a surprise because it would likely do no good and force ISIS to make an example of the next Assad controlled town they take.

Call me crazy but I honestly think that Russian General was warning, not 'informing' the U.S. Embassy of the impending strikes. I honestly believe Putin had no intentions in letting the US know he was going to attack today. I believe the decision to warn the US, was a decision made by the general himself, and no one else. Definitely an agenda there, and it isn't just gaining influence and power in an area that is advantageous to the prosperity of Russia.

I believe Putin wants a war. And he wanted one today. Imagine if that general had not warned the US Embassy.

I guess then Putin will release the hostages...