Putin: Do you realize what you have done?

[GennGreymane]

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/09/28/putin...have-done.html

Russian President Vladimir Putin told the U.N. on Monday that those who supported democratic revolutions in the Middle East are to blame for the rise of a globally ambitious Islamic State.

"Instead of the triumph of democracy and progress, we got violence, poverty and social disaster — and nobody cares a bit about human rights, including the right to life," Putin said through a translator. "I cannot help asking those who have forced that situation: Do you realize what you have done?"

He told the United Nations General Assembly it would be an "enormous mistake" not to cooperate with the Syrian government to combat the extremist group.

"No one but President (Bashar) Assad's armed forces and Kurdish militia are truly fighting the Islamic State and other terrorist organizations in Syria," he said.

In an earlier speech at the U.N., President Barack Obama said it would be a mistake to think that Syria could be stable under Assad.

Acknowledging some of the criticism lobbed at Russia's proposal, Putin said his country is only proposing to help save the world from terrorism.

Read MoreObama at the UN: I won't hesitate to use force
"I must note that such an honest and frank approach from Russia has been recently used as a pretext to accuse it of its growing ambitions — as if those who say it has no ambitions at all. However, it's not about Russia's ambitions, dear colleagues, but about the recognition of the fact that we can no longer tolerate the current state of affairs in the world," he said.

He proposed a "generally broad international coalition against terrorism," likening the suggestion to the anti-Hitler coalition that brought together disparate interests to battle fascism in Europe.

Putin warned that international policy toward the region has led to an Islamic State with plans that "go further" than simply dominating the Middle East. And citing recent data about failures in successfully recruiting "moderate" Syrian opposition, Putin said countries opposed to Assad are simply worsening the situation.

"We believe that any attempts to play games with terrorists, let alone to arm them, are not just short-sighted, but hazardous. This may result in the global terrorist threat increasing dramatically and engulfing new regions," the Russian leader said.

On the subject of the ongoing civil war in Ukraine, Putin warned that NATO expansion could lead to other similar crises. He called for all sides in the conflict — which he said was sparked by a "military coup" orchestrated "by the outside" — to respect the Minsk agreements, or else risk more violence.

[Netherspark]

Putin, as delusional as ever I see.

"We believe that any attempts to play games with terrorists, let alone to arm them, are not just short-sighted, but hazardous. This may result in the global terrorist threat increasing dramatically and engulfing new regions," the Russian leader said.

I find this part hilarious, given that Putin is actively arming and supporting the biggest terrorist in the region - Assad himself.

[Cerilis]

I'm torn apart, I think in retrospect he's right, the west shouldn't have intervened to help the "rebells" in the Arab Spring at all (giving false hopes and stuff), on the other hand, those civil wars would probably have happened anyway, and then everyone and their dog would be like "Oh, why didn't you intervene!"
Ah well, I guess we can't peek in alternative timelines anyway.

[Deleted]

Putin, as delusional as ever I see.



I find this part hilarious, given that Putin is actively arming and supporting the biggest terrorist in the region - Assad himself.

Smart as ever.

The positioning of Russian aircraft in Syria gives the Kremlin an ability to shape and control U.S. and Western operations in both Syria and
Iraq out of all proportion to the size of the Russian force. It can compel the U.S. to accept a de facto combined coalition with Russia, Syria,
Iran, and Lebanese Hezbollah, possibly in support of indiscriminate operations against any and all regime opponents, not just I
SIS and Jabhat
al-Nusra. It may portend the establishment of a permanent Russian air and naval base in the Eastern Mediterranean. Russian forces have
prepared and trained to conduct close air support and possibly special operations in Syria, and may begin doing so within days

Hes entered into a new geopolitical gambit in the Middle East, Med and Eastern Europe. The kids got ambition.

[RogueLikeRalf]

Shooting the messenger in this case justified.

[Gheld]

I'm torn apart, I think in retrospect he's right, the west shouldn't have intervened to help the "rebells" in the Arab Spring at all (giving false hopes and stuff), on the other hand, those civil wars would probably have happened anyway, and then everyone and their dog would be like "Oh, why didn't you intervene!"
Ah well, I guess we can't peek in alternative timelines anyway.

The ironic thing about the civil war is that Assad's side is the secularists (and the Islamists hate him for that). Sooo... arming the most fierce opponents of a secularist dictator so they can take him on... What the fuck did they think was going to happen?

[Independent voter]

Did Putin say anything about the Crimea or Ukraine? Putin told Charley Rose that he invaded Georgia, Crimea and Ukraine because of all the Russian nationals living in those countries, the same Russian nationals Stalin placed in those countries.

[Uzkin]

A valid question from Putin. Middle-East is in a worse shape than it's been in ages (if not ever) and its consequences are also spilling over to Europe e.g. in the form of the uncontrolled influx of refugees.

The main culprit for all this instability and massive humanitarian crisis is the United States. Bombing down the established power structures in a country and/or arming & supporting whatever groups that pick one's interest, hoping that everything will be just peachy afterwards? Yeah, not going to work, ever.

[Revi]

I find this part hilarious, given that Putin is actively arming and supporting the biggest terrorist in the region - Assad himself.

It's a proxy war, we (the west) are arming and supporting plenty of bad people too. Assad falls, who get's power? Al-Nusra, the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda? We've been arming them for a while now against Assad, and they want to turn Syria into a Muslim state with Sharia law.

Why? Number 5 in their 5 main goals: Cease any activity linked to attacking the West.

[Collegeguy]

Oh you mean that time when Obama wanted to arm and support terrorists, go to war with Syria and even navy personnel showed disgust. Ya, Putin might be kinda right about that.

[Ulmita]

It's a checkmate from Putin and i am glad.

Its about time to incinerate ISIS and any other extremist group. We can talk after for the transition of power in Syria.
End ISIS and then talk about Assad imo.

[zenkai]

US gets blamed if we go to war, we get blamed when we don't

[Flurryfang]

It's a checkmate from Putin and i am glad.

Its about time to incinerate ISIS and any other extremist group. We can talk after for the transition of power in Syria.
End ISIS and then talk about Assad imo.

You know people are going to forget about Assad, if Isis is ever defeated? The victory rush is going to make it so people would not care about assad...... and the horrible things he has done in this war.

Never... EVER! go into a fight, based on the "Lets fight the greater of 2 evils".

- - - Updated - - -

Putin: "Arming ISIS is bad."
Firespark: "Putin is delusional."

So I guess you think we should support ISIS?

Yeah.. Sure..
Assad is worse than ISIS and you dare to call other people delusional?

Hmm when it comes to power and impact, yes i do would say that he is right about Assad being more of a terroist then ISIS. Isis is very much a reginal problem, but they still treat most of their own groups very well. Assad has killed his own fucking people and that is a huge terror. It was his job to protect them and he did the opposite thing. ISIS is in war, Assad was not.

[Prokne]

He's partially right. The US invasion of Iraq caused the spread of al Qaeda to that country and subsequently the creation of the Islamic State from the super radical part of an already radical terrorist organization. The democratic uprisings got rid of the strongmen that kept the region stable, although oppressive for a large number of the people who live there, so that it was easier for ISIS to expand into weakened countries.

Putin would have us go back to the world of the Cold War where the US set up puppet governments headed by dictators so that we could have cheap gas and other foreign goods. It was good for the countries with power but not for the little people. He is a sort of dictator himself so of course he would agree with this plan.

[fengosa]

Asaad might be the lesser of two evils at this point but he's hardly without fault. The west gas been relatively non involved in this conflict and they've done little to diffuse or worsen the situation.

The biggest problem I have here is blaming the west and ignoring Asaad's contributions to the situation. He's been an awful leader and he's the one who put Syria in a situation where it could be overrun by terrorists. Putins trying to give him a pass.

[l0nglive]

US was secretly arming ISIS I believe.

[Prokne]

Asaad might be the lesser of two evils at this point but he's hardly without fault. The west gas been relatively non involved in this conflict and they've done little to diffuse or worsen the situation.

The biggest problem I have here is blaming the west and ignoring Asaad's contributions to the situation. He's been an awful leader and he's the one who put Syria in a situation where it could be overrun by terrorists. Putins trying to give him a pass.

True. If Asaad had have been a better ruler, his people wouldn't have started a civil war against him and ISIS wouldn't have had a place to start and grow.

I don't think using Asaad is the best answer to getting rid of ISIS. Right now we don't give much of any aid to either side so we should just fully support the factions we agree with so that they can effectively fight Asaad and ISIS at the same time. Asaad also has to fight ISIS and ISIS has to fight everyone else. Add in Turkey, Jordan, and Iran (won't happen but we should really ally with Iran against Sunni extremists), and ISIS has too much to handle. When they are gone, the war will be one on one with one side having all the stuff they got to fight ISIS and their territory against Asaad, who gained nothing.

[RogueLikeRalf]

I think it is a bit unfair to only blame the US the people are shit not what the US did technically .-.

[Rennadrel]

The problem is that had the American governments over 50 years ago tried to put puppets in power in the Middle East that would have all provided them a shit ton of oil, we probably wouldn't have these issues. We wouldn't have Iran as an Islamist ruled state, and we wouldn't be seeing all this turmoil related to it as well.

Syria is is a two pronged problem, get rid of ISIS and you still have Assad ruling with an iron boot up people's ass. You remove him from power, odds are an Islamist militant will get elected just like what has happened in Gaza and Iran, all thanks to meddling by America. It's a sticky situation to be in, because you can't support Assad to be against ISIS and you can't support the latter to be against Assad. The world posers need to come together and agree that both problems need to be dealt with at the same time, it has to be a war on two fronts because we have no other choice. I think if you can get rid of both threats, the refugee crisis will be averted and we can start sending people back. Action needs to be take quickly and aggressively. It's time to start carpet bombing ISIS and the other extremist groups into oblivion.

- - - Updated - - -

I think it is a bit unfair to only blame the US the people are shit not what the US did technically .-.

Iran never would have been a state under Islamic law had the American government not launched a coup d'etat against their elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953. He was the leader who nationalized the Iranian oil industry, and was elected in 1951, only to be deposed 2 years later. Thanks to the American government, the Shah took over and was basically a dictator and was imprisoning and torturing people with the SAVAK secret police. After the Ayatollah Khomeini was exiled for speaking out against the Shah, unemployment would spike in Iran in the late 70's and the Ayatollah would return to Iran in 79 after strikes and attacks that would force the Shah Mohammed Pahlavi to flee the country. Upon his return, Khomeini would create two referendums which would make Iran an Islamic Republic and a theocratic government.

So yep, thanks to some smart Americans, that is why Iran is dangerous and why so many others are as well. Islamic law has been toxic on many countries apparently

[Independent voter]

Iran never would have been a state under Islamic law had the American government not launched a coup d'etat against their elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953. He was the leader who nationalized the Iranian oil industry, and was elected in 1951, only to be deposed 2 years later. Thanks to the American government, the Shah took over and was basically a dictator and was imprisoning and torturing people with the SAVAK secret police. After the Ayatollah Khomeini was exiled for speaking out against the Shah, unemployment would spike in Iran in the late 70's and the Ayatollah would return to Iran in 79 after strikes and attacks that would force the Shah Mohammed Pahlavi to flee the country. Upon his return, Khomeini would create two referendums which would make Iran an Islamic Republic and a theocratic government.

So yep, thanks to some smart Americans, that is why Iran is dangerous and why so many others are as well. Islamic law has been toxic on many countries apparently

1953, the Iranian government was going communist. Middle class and richer Iranians, leaders of the Shiite church asked the US to help prevent the communist takeover as it was widely known the US was anti communist.

Barely any shots fired, which tells me few Iranians were fans of communism.