America calls Putin's bluff over ISIS
 

"President Obama was clear that we intend to continue our efforts to degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL in Syria and to keep supporting the moderate Syrian opposition," the official said, using another name for ISIS.

While Russia has said that it is conducting military operations to wipe out ISIS, U.S. officials have questioned that aim given that many of its airstrikes have not targeted places ISIS is active. Instead, they have seen the effort mostly as a move to bolster close Moscow ally President Bashar al-Assad.

The latest U.S. assessment of Moscow's activity in western Syria indicates Russia has moved several ground combat weapons and troops into the area to potentially back up Syrian forces in the field planning to attack anti-regime forces, according to two U.S. defense officials.

The U.S. views the move as Russia "stepping up its ground activity" in Syria to attack those forces, rather than ISIS elements, according to one of the officials.

It's believed the Russians are positioning the weapons to be able to support a Syrian ground offensive, the officials said.

Obama authorizes resupply of Syrian opposition - CNNPolitics.com

A Dance to the Music of Time ...

These places just need nuked and forget it about it

America didn't call anyone's bluff. Russia is doing exactly what they are expected to do. Our goal is to defeat ISIS and remove Assad. Their goal is to keep Assad in power.

We just don't agree with their goals.

The United States needs to stay out of this. We have a habit of removing leaders we do not like and making bad situations worse.

rochard fails to get it.


again.

I hope this threat will be finished by any side

He does, you do NOT! You just follow the same failed "party line" started by all after Reagan.

What happened to the old proverb: " An enemy of my enemy is my friend"

Go Bashir and Vladimir and save the dumb Americans....and the rest can go and :321GFY:321GFY

Too bad the know nothing about the beauty of the porn

With any luck, Russia gets dragged into a ground operation and it will be the end of Putin.

There's no such thing as a moderate Syrian Leader. The country is split into many warring groups. This was identified as a reason not to intervene as there's no possible post war plan that's workable.

Putin realises this and would rather have his despot in power, than a repeat of Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and others, where the Americans thought they knew best.

Sure they did Dyna Mo and will the Israelis continue to confuse Syrian airspace for Lebanese now that the Russians have arrived? I highly doubt it. The dynamics all changed just this past Wednesday. It's a completely different ballgame now. Much more dangerous too. The stakes have been raised as they say and we are all on the table for it.

Normally you are blocked but I saw what you wrote because someone else quoted you.

As soon as Syria stared to have issues and we discussing what to do with Syria, I asked why Russia wasn't stepping up to the plate. Syria has always been in the Russian sphere of influence and under their thumb; It's up to Russia to step up and take control here. The United States and it's allies shouldn't sending in groups troops or even airplanes into Syria.

And again, the United States has a failed policy of replacing Middle Eastern leaders and trying to convert them over to democracy. This isn't working.

Let Russia handle this. It's their failed state.

This is all about oil. The whole region sits of a very valuable resource. Ruled by people who still believe in a Dark Ages philosophy. The delusion is that Western Style Politically Correct leaders can rule over them.

There isn't one "PC" correct country in the whole region, not even Israel, Turkey and Russia qualify.

They're all failed states, apart from Israel, only kept alive by the vast amounts of money poured into them for their oil, which they never found on their own. Once it runs out, the funding for their wars runs out with it.

The problem for us is the oil reserves are vital for our economies. Once the conventional oil is gone. The new reserves are expensive and hard to get at. So the West needs friendly despots, like the Saudi Royals, in these countries. to maintain our standard of living, along with China, India, Brazil, etc.

We have built a lot of economies on cheap oil fueling consumerism, and food production. When it collapses, more are effected than we think. Imagine food doubling in price and very few able to buy membership to a dating site. While starving people are on streets rioting, with guns.

Just a question: who are "we"??? Freeloaders from Easter Europe? The ones who used to get oil from the USSR almost for free ("Druzhba-2" pipeline)? You are kidding, right?

He gets making bad situations worse.

And now that Iran is about to re-enter the oil market, the US announces a dramatic drop in oil production is coming. Nothing like driving up oil prices before the holidays. :1orglaugh

There is barely any oil there. Putiput is just protecting his butt-buddy Assad in exchange for a military base in the middle east.

He also did it to mend relations with the countries that matter, but they still told him to fuck off.

My question: ISIL, daesh, whatever, has killed tens of thousands, committed every atrocity known to man, tortured, raped, murdered children, elderly, civilians; destroyed priceless history, cost hundreds of billions.

They are able to do so because Saddam Hussein was violently and carelessly removed from power at a cost to US taxpayers of over $1 tril. In the vacuum left behind, they grew and prospered. They were aided by the deliberate creation of instability in Syria by the US,extra-legally, with the dubious aim of removing a "bad man" who has committed 1/100th of the atrocities that the current NK leader has committed.

This policy of ending arab states creates a Pyrrhic victory. Afghanistan is the longest war ever engaged in by the US. There have been no real victories. Expenses have topped the GDP of all but a few nations.

Are we better off than when Saddam was in power? Was there no longer term, more stable solution?

Below is my post from another thread, you are bang on regarding Saddam:thumbsup


I am not a big fan Putin except on this one.... Americans ( as usual) wimped out and the Europeans going Muslim in one generation anyway (about 2 mil will be there in the next 24 months and then the female folk will show up...) none of these two did learn from history, and thus they will repeat it.

Putin knows, because he can read a map, that should ISIL wins Syria and Iraq ( Europe will fall all on its own so he does not care), El Baghdadi, just has to cross some of the Muslim republics between Irag, Syria and Russia to be at the soft underbelly of Russia itself. Putin is smart to see that and has balls to do something about it.

The rest of the so called civilised world does not see it...Its too bad... So lock up your daughters...they will soon be shopping for the 72 virgins for each martyr.. So the price will go up. Putin also knows that out of 30 thou of ISIL fighters about 1/2 are Chechens and others from the Russian underbelly ( that makes about 15,000) and ALL what the Americans and the Europeans talk about is the 300 or so of their citizens...fuck me with that math.

BTW:

Mohammad Reza Pahlavi... come back all is forgiven,
Muhamar Gfhaddafy....come back all is forgiven
Saddam Hussain....come back all is forgiven
Hosni Mubarak ... come back all is forgiven
Abidine Ben Ali ...come back all is forgiven

Bashar Al Assad don't go we'll forgive you...

I don't agree. They have a lot of glorious victories in Afghanistan. Here is one of the recent success stories: Afghanistan bombing: "Even war has rules" | MSF UK :thumbsup

To describe Obama as full of BS is to grossly unestimate his hypocrisy.

Meanwhile somewhere in Caspian Sea:



Russian fleet has attacked Syrian territory with cruise missiles from Caspian Sea (check up the map). Officially only ISIS objects were the target, but I guess that CIA-trained rebels had some spectacular fireworks last night...

yes meanwhile.. this

I just don't understand one thing. Those cruise missiles passed through two whole countries (Iran and Iraq) at low altitude before they hit Syria and no protests from those governments? Honestly I don't know how the international law works in such cases.

Sovereignty in central asia? :1orglaugh Might is right. Who cares what Tajikistan thinks.

Iran :2 cents:

Iran is cool with Russia on this issue, They support Russia in their assault on ISIS.

So is Iraq, A good section of their country has been taken over by ISIS.


"Senior Iraqi parliamentarian says he wants Russia to take over the lead from America in fight against Islamic State jihadists"
Russia 'may start bombing Isil in Iraq as well as Syria' - Telegraph

It was done with previous agreement with both countries. I am expecting Russians will soon go to bomb terrorists in Iraq too.

Iraqis saw that in a few days it was done more damage to terrorists then with all that fake engagement from western countries in previous years so they will ask for help,just like Syria did.

The United States is now the largest producer of oil in the world. Oil is no longer a concern.

I wondered the same thing - and considered if cruise missiles were steered on a different course - and that held until I saw the launch videos, which show ballistic missiles. CNN is now reporting that both Iraq and Iran approved the overflights.

The material coming out of the US government during the past several days seems to lack credibility and defy logic. All of it looks like an emotional outburst against the Russians. It's a tough thing for this veteran of overseas service during the Cold War to say this, but it really has the palpable feel of propaganda. I get the strong sense that the US administration's agenda in Syria and what we are really tactically doing has not been even approximately given to the American public. We've gotten into bed with some nasty bedfellows, people who murder Christians for sport. Just as in the case of the Doctors Without Borders incident, I think we will get several versions of our government's propaganda as situations force its story to change, and we may really never know how and why our tax dollars have been spent in Syria. The most important point is that the Russian intelligence services - and probably all of the others - do know what we've been up to - it's only the US public paying for all the napalm that's been left in the dark. The administration's strategy seems to be nonstop discrediting of the Russians, fair or foul, so that when and if some embarrassing disclosures come out, the American public will be conditioned to disbelieve it. As more of the truth comes out, CNN and the others may not even run it.

Agreed. We can only hope some benevolent entity has a plan, but based on "mission accomplished" I doubt it.

If WW2 had been managed as badly as this operation in Syria, it would be the worst clusterfuck in history. And would still be going on to this day. Imagine, if you will....

"Franklin D. Roosevelt was clear that we intend to continue our efforts to degrade and ultimately destroy Nazi occupation in France and to keep supporting the moderate French Resistance," the official said, using another name for La Résistance française.

While England has said that it is conducting military operations to wipe out German occupation of France, U.S. officials have questioned that aim given that many of its airstrikes have not targeted places Nazis are active. Instead, they have seen the effort mostly as a move to bolster close British ally Chief-of-State Philippe Petain.

The latest U.S. assessment of London's activity in western France indicates England has moved several ground combat weapons and troops into the area to potentially back up French forces in the field planning to attack anti-occupation forces, according to two U.S. defense officials.

The U.S. views the move as England "stepping up its ground activity" in France to attack those forces, rather than Nazi elements, according to one of the officials.

It's believed the British are positioning the weapons to be able to support a French ground offensive, the officials said."

word! you got that right

:2 cents::thumbsup

No. Those are not ballistic ones. Those a cruise missiles. Look at that video again. You can see there multiple launches of "Калибр НК" (SS-N-27 "Sizzler" by NATO classification):

http://www.ausairpower.net/V-MF/Club...verview-ES.jpg

The flight altitude of those are only 10-15 m above the surface. So I wonder how Iran and Iraq were ok with that...

Umm.. Personally I won't be happy if one of those motherfuckers will fly over my house...

I've experienced that (Tomahawk missile) that was hitting TV station several hundred meters from my place. 16 people killed (journalists).

It was retaliation for Serbian TV that didn't want to air 6 hours of NATO program during day, that was requested from USA during war time.

Anyway, I just wanted to post video immediately after explosion but it was not possible to find it in 10 minutes of search and it was available all around before. Perfect example how medias are controlled when you have a puppet regime on power.

I saw that video on TV during the US agression against Serbia.

freedom of press and democracy at its finest :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh and they make fun of the great firewall of china but in reality the US gov is full natzi right up there with north korea :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

do I believe a single thing the US media says about syria? FUCK NO!!! :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

More details: Russia fires cruise missiles from warships into Syria and Russia in Syria: Cruise Missiles Fired From Caspian Sea - Bloomberg Business.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh how true :thumbsup

:eatme:eatme:eatme:eatme:eatme:eatme

Potentially game-changing oil reserves discovered in Israel | Fox News

In Asia we call it mining sideways.

LOL!! Man do people love oil. They'll do fuckin' anything for it.