'We are seeking bigger role for Russia than Americans' - Iraq defense committee chairman


Baghdad, Russia’s ally in its fight against ISIS, wants Russia to have a bigger role in the anti-terrorist campaign in Iraq than the US and may soon officially request to start airstrikes on its soil, the chairman of Iraqi parliament’s defense committee said.
"We might be forced to ask Russia to launch airstrikes in Iraq soon. I think in the upcoming few days or weeks Iraq will be forced to ask Russia to launch airstrikes and that depends on their success in Syria," said Hakim al-Zamili, Reuters reported.
"We are seeking to see Russia having a bigger role in Iraq... Yes, definitely a bigger role than the Americans," Zamili said.
The Iraqi official told RIA Novosti that the decision would depend on how efficient the Russian campaign in Syria proved to be.

Russia last week started carrying out airstrikes in Syria against the positions of Islamic State, a terrorist group originating in Iraq, which also grew a power base in neighboring Syria and launched a surprise offensive in Iraq, taking control of large parts of both countries.
Iraq is supporting the campaign by sharing intelligence with Russia through a communication center in Baghdad. Iran and Syria are also part of the center.
According to Zamili, the center’s role may be expanded to coordinate Russia’s future airstrikes in Iraq.
Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi told France 24 on Tuesday that his government would welcome Russian warplanes in Iraq.
Valentina Matvienko, the speaker for the upper chamber of the Russian parliament, which has the constitutional authority to green-light military operations in foreign countries, said that Russia may consider such a request.
Last week US Ambassador to NATO Douglas Lute voiced concerns about the possible deployment of Russian warplanes to Iraq, claiming it could complicate the situation.
“Whether it is political, airspace, US-Iraqi operations, it is just dramatically more complex when you have the Russian presence there, especially since we don't actually know yet what it is they intend to do,” he told an audience at the Carnegie Council.
“As a military alliance, we look at these complicating factors and we say, you know, things just got a lot messier.” 

We have just witnessed one of the most significant steps toward a one world economic system that we have ever seen.  Negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership have been completed, and if approved it will create the largest trading bloc on the planet.  But this is not just a trade agreement.  In this treaty, Barack Obama has thrown in all sorts of things that he never would have been able to get through Congress otherwise.  And once this treaty is approved, it will be exceedingly difficult to ever make changes to it.  So essentially what is happening is that the Obama agenda is being permanently locked in for 40 percent of the global economy.

Sadly, just like with every other “free trade” agreement that the U.S. has entered into since World War II, the exact opposite is what will actually happen.  Our trade deficit will get even larger, and we will see even more jobs and even more businesses go overseas.
But the mainstream media will never tell you this.  Instead, they are just falling all over themselves as they heap praise on this new trade pact.  Just check out a couple of the headlines that we saw on Monday…
Overseas it is a different story.  Many journalists over there fully recognize that this treaty greatly benefits many of the big corporations that played a key role in drafting it.  For example, the following comes from a newspaper in Thailand…

You will hear much about the importance of the TPP for “free trade."
The reality is that this is an agreement to manage its members’ trade and investment relations — and to do so on behalf of each country’s most powerful business lobbies.


These sentiments were echoed in a piece that Zero Hedge posted on Monday…
Packaged as a gift to the American people that will renew industry and make us more competitive, the Trans-Pacific Partnership is a Trojan horse. It’s a coup by multinational corporations who want global subservience to their agenda. Buyer beware. Citizens beware.
Over the past couple of decades, the United States has lost tens of thousands of manufacturing facilities and millions of good paying jobs due to these “free trade agreements."  As we merge our economy with the economies of nations where it is legal to pay slave labor wages, it is inevitable that corporations will shift jobs to places where labor is much cheaper.  Our economic infrastructure is being absolutely eviscerated in the process, and very few of our politicians seem to care.
Back in 1950, more than 80 percent of all men in the United States had jobs.  Today, only about 65 percent of all men in the United States have jobs.
Why aren’t more people alarmed by numbers like this?
And of course the Trans-Pacific Partnership is not just about “free trade."  In one of my previous articles, I explained that Obama is using this as an opportunity to permanently impose much of his agenda on a large portion of the globe…
It is basically a gigantic end run around Congress.  Thanks to leaks, we have learned that so many of the things that Obama has deeply wanted for years are in this treaty.  If adopted, this treaty will fundamentally change our laws regarding Internet freedom, healthcare, copyright and patent protection, food safety, environmental standards, civil liberties and so much more.  This treaty includes many of the rules that alarmed Internet activists so much when SOPA was being debated, it would essentially ban all “Buy American” laws, it would give Wall Street banks much more freedom to trade risky derivatives and it would force even more domestic manufacturing offshore.

The Republicans in Congress foolishly gave Obama fast track negotiating authority, and so Congress will not be able to change this treaty in any way.  They will only have the opportunity for an up or down vote.

The agenda of the globalists is moving forward, and very few Americans seem to care.





Russian warships have launched a total of 26 cruise missiles at Islamic State facilities, destroying all targets.

Russian warships have attacked Islamic State targets in Syria, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said Wednesday during a meeting with President Putin.

“Besides using aviation to destroy militants, this morning ships from the Caspian Flotilla were brought in, four destroyers launched 26 cruise missiles at 11 targets from the Kalibr Marine Base,” Shoigu told Putin in a meeting televised by Rossiya-1.

All targets were destroyed, Shoigu said. "The attacks showed that our missiles are efficient at long range, up to 1,500 meters [932 miles]," he added.
President Putin expressed his gratitude to the pilots operating in airstrikes against the Islamic State in Syria. "Special thanks is due to the pilots who are operating in Syria, as well as the sailors from the Caspian Flotilla for their use of high-precision weapons," he said.

Putin praised the Russian military operation against ISIL in Syria, but warned against early conclusions. "We know how difficult such anti-terrorism operations are, and, of course, it is too early to draw conclusions. But what has been done so far certainly deserves a highly positive assessment, both the work of the Ministry of Defense as a whole, the work of General Staff experts, and our officers, soldiers operating on the scene," he said.




The United States reportedly issued Israel an ultimatum this week: announce new settlement construction and Washington won’t veto a Security Council resolution declaring West Bank settlements illegal.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejected calls by senior ministers for construction in Jewish settlements in the West Bank in response to an increase in Palestinian terrorism, at a meeting of his security cabinet on Monday.
That was because the Obama administration had warned Netanyahu against announcing new construction over the Green Line in response to the uptick in terrorism, Channel 2 reported Tuesday.
The report cited senior sources in the Israeli government as saying that the White House told Netanyahu that the US wouldn’t necessarily veto a French-sponsored resolution at the United Nations Security Council.
Washington’s reported threat to not veto the motion at the UN came shortly after a Politico report which said US President Barack Obama had rejected multiple calls by a top Democratic senator that he speak out publicly against a Palestinian statehood resolution at the United Nations.
Obama’s refusal, the report said, “highlights how wide the gulf between the Obama administration and Israeli government has become.” The rebuff “unfolded in the context of a personal relationship between Obama and Netanyahu that’s become highly toxic, poisoning US-Israeli relations more widely.”



Also see: