Military Review

US press: Washington does not insist on the withdrawal of Russian troops from Syria

93

The American weekly Newsweek came out with noteworthy material on the Russian military presence in Syria. The material tells about the position of the American authorities today regarding the presence of the Russian military contingent in the SAR.


The author of the material, with reference to a representative of the US State Department, writes that the White House "does not insist on the withdrawal of Russian troops from Syria." At the same time, it is noted that the United States insists that the Iranian military leave the territory of Syria.

Describing its own military presence in the SAR, which is illegal from the point of view of international law, Washington says that “the main course remains unchanged - the fight against ISIS and Al-Qaeda (terrorist groups banned in Russia). At the same time, it is added that the United States "will continue to support the democratic forces in Syria." Today, such forces in Washington mean Kurdish detachments, some of which are involved in the exploitation of the Syrian oil fields by the Americans.

American political scientists, meanwhile, make it clear that for Trump the Russian military presence in the SAR is "not so important." The main message is this: if the Americans are not interfered with with Syrian oil, then the Americans do not really care what contingent Russia keeps in Syria.

Newsweek added that the US authorities are claiming an "additional target" in Syria:

This is the protection of oil fields.

Protection from whom? From the Syrian government? ..
Photos used:
Russian Ministry of Defense website
93 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Mavrikiy
    Mavrikiy 6 September 2020 15: 00 New
    +7
    Washington does not insist on the withdrawal of Russian troops from Syria
    Thank you. fool But the agreement with Assad is enough for us.
    At the same time, it is noted that the United States insists that the Iranian military leave the territory of Syria.
    Do not rush, we will plant a few missiles in Iran, and then fly home ourselves. repeat
    1. Snail N9
      Snail N9 6 September 2020 16: 06 New
      -13
      Why should they "insist", Russia is doing what the United States wants - it wastes its material resources there, which in the face of falling energy prices have no chance of replenishment
      1. krops777
        krops777 6 September 2020 16: 46 New
        +4
        Why should they "insist", Russia does what the USA wants - it wastes its material resources there


        This is how you look, for example, the demand for Russian weapons has sharply increased, more than 800 improvements on many types of weapons and gas wars, the Qatari gas pipeline to Europe is not yet destined to come true, and contracts for the development of fields in Syria, which are billions of greenbacks, and the strengthening of Russia in the near in the east, many things are generally not measured by money.
      2. Doctor
        Doctor 6 September 2020 17: 19 New
        -2
        Why should they "insist", Russia is doing what the United States wants - it wastes its material resources there, which in the face of falling energy prices have no chance of replenishment

        Exactly. As US Special Envoy for Syria James Jeffrey said recently: "My task is to turn Syria into a" swamp "for the Russians."
    2. Maz
      Maz 7 September 2020 09: 30 New
      0
      Only once or twice we fought with American armor and the mattresses no longer insist, and if we butt Israel like that once, it will generally shut up. Sorry the Supreme does not allow it yet. That would be fun.
  2. Terenin
    Terenin 6 September 2020 15: 02 New
    11
    US press: Washington does not insist on the withdrawal of Russian troops from Syria

    Thank you, "benefactors", crying only on what legal basis are you
    The US "will continue to support the democratic forces in Syria." Today, such forces in Washington mean Kurdish detachments, some of which are involved in the exploitation of the Syrian oil fields by the Americans.

    A-ah ??? Look in the eyes !!!
    1. cniza
      cniza 6 September 2020 16: 06 New
      10
      They are bandits from the big road and the impudence is already off scale ... Greetings! hi
      1. Terenin
        Terenin 6 September 2020 16: 25 New
        +5
        Quote: cniza
        They are bandits from the big road and the impudence is already off scale ... Greetings! hi

        Rather ... a b.a.n. dite from a large island ...
        Greetings Victor hi
        1. cniza
          cniza 6 September 2020 17: 09 New
          +5
          No matter how you say the essence does not change, the impudence of the United States is not seen at close range.
  3. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 6 September 2020 15: 04 New
    +1
    Benefactors striped ears !!! Do you allow? Well, thanks, dear ones. How are we without you?
    1. Nikolay Ivanov_5
      Nikolay Ivanov_5 6 September 2020 15: 43 New
      0
      Given the mandate of mattress makers in Syria, they are very lenient towards us.
  4. Jack O'Neill
    Jack O'Neill 6 September 2020 15: 07 New
    -8
    At the same time, it is noted that the United States insists that the Iranian military leave the territory of Syria.

    In general, it is strange that Russia and Syria itself do not insist on the withdrawal of the Iranian military from Syria. Syria is being bombed mainly because of the Iranian military.
    What is not news about the bombing of Syria, they bombed the Iranian military, and therefore, if the Iranians are escorted out, then they will not bomb Syria if nothing arrives from its side.
    1. Trapp1st
      Trapp1st 6 September 2020 15: 35 New
      +4
      it is strange that Russia and Syria itself do not insist on the withdrawal of the Iranian military from Syria.
      The Iranian military side by side with the Syrian in heavy battles, suffering losses, gain victory. What do you think Russia should replace the Iranians with? No thanks, there is a desire in front. Second, Iran and Russia have agreed to together restore normal life in the SAR, naturally Iran will receive what it needs for this and no air strikes (count acts of state terrorism) I cannot prevent this, rather, elements of Iranian air defense will appear in the SAR. Want to replace Iran?
      if the Iranians are escorted out, then Syria will not be bombed
      It is not at all a fact, they have no peace treaty, i.e. they are at war and all that.
  5. NEXUS
    NEXUS 6 September 2020 15: 08 New
    +6
    And on what basis can Washington even say something there, if only the Russian contingent is LEGALLY on the territory of Syria? How does the United States side with the internal affairs of another state?
    1. Jack O'Neill
      Jack O'Neill 6 September 2020 15: 11 New
      -3
      And on what basis can Washington even say something there, if only the Russian contingent is LEGALLY on the territory of Syria?

      They do not recognize the legitimacy of Assad, and therefore they do not care whether it is "legal" or not.
      1. NEXUS
        NEXUS 6 September 2020 15: 18 New
        +7
        Quote: Jack O'Neill
        They do not recognize the legitimacy of Assad, and therefore they do not care whether it is "legal" or not.

        And I do not recognize the legitimacy of Trump, the Queen of England, Merkel and Macron ... hence the proposal - NOT TO RECOGNIZE THE LEGITIMITY OF REGIMES HOSTING US.
        1. Same lech
          Same lech 6 September 2020 15: 20 New
          +1
          Eck at whom they swung ... they will declare you a terrorist and put you on the list of persons subject to arrest on the territory of Western countries.
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS 6 September 2020 15: 21 New
            +4
            Quote: The same Lech
            Eck at whom they swung ... they will declare you a terrorist and put you on the list of persons subject to arrest on the territory of Western countries.

            Let this all be smeared on bread and fed to Macron's dog ... yeah.
          2. boss
            boss 7 September 2020 19: 48 New
            0
            As well as sympathizers who are under control, protectorate, protection, in the process of forming a democracy with the involvement of amer (nato) troops.
            In short, the remaining list on the fingers can be counted
        2. Jack O'Neill
          Jack O'Neill 6 September 2020 15: 22 New
          -3
          And I do not recognize the legitimacy of Trump, the Queen of England, Merkel and Macron ... hence the proposal - NOT TO RECOGNIZE THE LEGITIMITY OF REGIMES HOSTING US.

          Who are you and who are they. Feel the difference.
          If you are the president, then your non-recognition will weigh something, but this is just an opinion, nothing more.
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS 6 September 2020 15: 24 New
            +4
            Quote: Jack O'Neill
            Who are you and who are they. Feel the difference.
            If you are the president, then your non-recognition will weigh something, but this is just an opinion, nothing more.

            Who are they? My opinion may also become the opinion of the public, which will be heard a priori, and not only in the Russian Federation, taking into account what the Anglo-Saxons and their puppet regimes have been doing and are doing around the world.
            1. Jack O'Neill
              Jack O'Neill 6 September 2020 15: 29 New
              0
              Who are they?

              The leaders of their states, not the last in the world.

              My opinion may also become the opinion of the public, which will be heard a priori, and not only in the Russian Federation, taking into account what the Anglo-Saxons and their puppet regimes have been doing and are doing all over the world.

              Namely, that only in Russia, but in that case hello problems.
              None of the authorities will support such an opinion, because it will be necessary to stop trading with the United States, England, Germany and France. Who will do this? Nobody in their right mind and memory.
              Therefore, such an opinion will simply be pressured so that there is no reason to reckon with it.
              1. NEXUS
                NEXUS 6 September 2020 15: 33 New
                +7
                Quote: Jack O'Neill
                The leaders of their states, not the last in the world.

                Yes? And who were Gaddafi and Hussein? Not the legitimate presidents of sovereign states?
                Quote: Jack O'Neill
                None of the authorities will support such an opinion, because it will be necessary to stop trading with the United States, England, Germany and France. Who will do this? Nobody in their right mind and memory.

                Until our leaders understand that capitalism, the dollar, the Bilderberg Club are all games on the enemy's field, we will extort and ask to trade with us. Why are the listed countries not afraid of losing trade relations with us, as we are with them?
                1. Jack O'Neill
                  Jack O'Neill 6 September 2020 15: 40 New
                  -6
                  Yes? And who were Gaddafi and Hussein? Not the legitimate presidents of sovereign states?

                  Not certainly in that way. They became enemies.

                  Until our helmsmen understand that capitalism, the dollar, the Bilderberg Club are all games on the enemy's field, we will extort and ask to trade with us

                  Thanks to such trading, you can write to VO. After all, your computer is not manufactured in Russia, i.e. from foreign components.
                  And software, especially logistics software. Without it, even a bottle of beer will not get into the store.

                  .And why the listed countries are not afraid to lose trade relations with us, as we are with them?

                  And what are they afraid of? They are less dependent on us than we are on them.
                  1. NEXUS
                    NEXUS 6 September 2020 15: 43 New
                    +5
                    Quote: Jack O'Neill
                    Thanks to such trading, you can write to VO. After all, your computer is not manufactured in Russia, i.e. from foreign components.

                    Seriously, what will happen if the Russian Federation stops supplying uranium, fine earth metals, titanium, etc. to these "advanced" countries? Are they less dependent on us?
                    1. Jack O'Neill
                      Jack O'Neill 6 September 2020 15: 44 New
                      -5
                      Seriously, what will happen if the Russian Federation stops supplying uranium, fine earth metals, titanium, etc. to these "advanced" countries? Are they less dependent on us?

                      Find another supplier.
                      1. Trapp1st
                        Trapp1st 6 September 2020 15: 45 New
                        +4
                        Find another supplier.
                        To become more dependent on China? That's still a perspective for them.
                      2. Jack O'Neill
                        Jack O'Neill 6 September 2020 15: 49 New
                        -4
                        To become more dependent on China? That's still a perspective for them.

                        And the price tag will rise because of the monopoly. But that's okay.
                      3. Trapp1st
                        Trapp1st 6 September 2020 15: 58 New
                        +2
                        And the price tag will rise because of the monopoly. But that's okay.
                        Well, if you think that if China decides how much and what to sell, i.e. plan the US industry, then yes. Well, if you think about it, it does not bode well for them.
                      4. Jack O'Neill
                        Jack O'Neill 6 September 2020 15: 59 New
                        -4
                        Well, if you think that if China decides how much and for what to sell, i.e. plan the US industry, then yes. Well, if you think about it, it's nothing good.

                        Agree. They have a very wide trade turnover.
                      5. Trapp1st
                        Trapp1st 6 September 2020 16: 00 New
                        +3
                        Will agree.
                        Of course they will agree, but in this case on Chinese terms, and under his careful supervision.
                      6. Jack O'Neill
                        Jack O'Neill 6 September 2020 16: 04 New
                        -4
                        Of course they will agree, but in this case on Chinese terms, and under his careful supervision.

                        I don’t think so. As China has something to push, so does the United States. For example, manufacturing. It is very unprofitable for China if American companies move their factories to Germany or the same Taiwan. However, this is not profitable for the United States either, but it can be intimidated by the fact that within 10 years they will take the percentage of factories out of China.
                      7. Trapp1st
                        Trapp1st 6 September 2020 16: 10 New
                        +1
                        I do not think.
                        You don’t think, but the Chinese will definitely not miss such a gift from heaven. If the United States falls into resource dependence on China, they will make these industries controlled by China, this will mean a strong geostrategic loss and the end of the era of hegemon. Well, that's okay.
                      8. Jack O'Neill
                        Jack O'Neill 6 September 2020 16: 17 New
                        -3
                        You don’t think, but the Chinese will definitely not miss such a gift from heaven. If the United States falls into resource dependence on China, they will make these industries controlled by China, this will mean a strong geostrategic loss and the end of the era of hegemon. Well, that's okay


                        I think you are exaggerating.
                      9. Trapp1st
                        Trapp1st 6 September 2020 16: 18 New
                        +1
                        I think you are exaggerating.
                        I am simply considering the consequences of a hypothetical situation in which the United States has to ask to sell the resources of its main enemy.
                      10. Jack O'Neill
                        Jack O'Neill 6 September 2020 16: 19 New
                        -2
                        I am simply considering the consequences of a hypothetical situation in which the United States has to ask to sell resources from its main adversary.

                        As they say - if there is a product, then there will be demand and vice versa.
                      11. Trapp1st
                        Trapp1st 6 September 2020 16: 37 New
                        +1
                        As they say - if there is a product, then there will be demand and vice versa.
                        Market laws in a capitalist country. Do not forget that in China such issues are not solved by the oligarchy as we do, the Communist Party. And she has the interests of China and the Chinese people in the first place, everything else is already three times the third tenth.
                      12. Jack O'Neill
                        Jack O'Neill 6 September 2020 16: 51 New
                        -3
                        Do not forget that in China such issues are not solved by the oligarchy as we do, the Communist Party. And she has the interests of China and the Chinese people in the first place, everything else is already three times the third tenth.

                        There is enough currency in Shataty (I generally, not specifically about money), so they have something to trade. The same engines, only for these technologies you can sign a contract for years.
                      13. Trapp1st
                        Trapp1st 6 September 2020 16: 54 New
                        +1
                        The same engines, only for these technologies
                        The United States will not sell technologies to any country, especially to China, which can lead to technological parity not for anything and not when.
                      14. Jack O'Neill
                        Jack O'Neill 6 September 2020 16: 56 New
                        -3
                        The United States will not sell technologies to any country, especially to China, which can lead to technological parity not for anything and not when.

                        And they will not sell anything new. The same PW F100 can push. For the United States, this is already yesterday, but for China ...
                      15. Trapp1st
                        Trapp1st 6 September 2020 17: 00 New
                        +2
                        The same PW F100 can push. For the United States, this is already yesterday, but for China
                        But if modern engines are made exclusively from Chinese materials, which there is nothing to replace, then the Chinese will say, sell modern ones, otherwise there will be nothing to produce. They will buy a pair, copy it, produce it, then make their own only better, and say, thank you, we no longer need you. Go grow cotton in Silicon Valley. The curtain!
                      16. Jack O'Neill
                        Jack O'Neill 6 September 2020 20: 40 New
                        0
                        They will buy a pair, copy it, produce it, then make their own only better, and say, thank you, we no longer need you. Go grow cotton in Silicon Valley. The curtain!

                        They didn't do better with our engines.
                      17. Trapp1st
                        Trapp1st 7 September 2020 10: 18 New
                        0
                        They didn't do better with our engines.
                        Do not worry they have enough perseverance.
  6. NEXUS
    NEXUS 6 September 2020 16: 08 New
    +3
    Quote: Jack O'Neill
    Agree. They have a very wide trade turnover.

    For rare earth metals, China is the first, and we are the second. And the US industry needs rare earth metals, oh, how many and different. And what will they agree on there? wassat
  7. Jack O'Neill
    Jack O'Neill 6 September 2020 16: 18 New
    -2
    And what are they going to negotiate there? wassat
    Money and goods, as is done in the market.
  8. NEXUS
    NEXUS 6 September 2020 16: 19 New
    +5
    Quote: Jack O'Neill
    Money and goods, as is done in the market.

    In this case, China will deliver cancer to the entire US industry without breaking a sweat, because rare earth metals are needed in most high-tech industries. And there is nothing to replace them with.
  9. Jack O'Neill
    Jack O'Neill 6 September 2020 16: 23 New
    -4
    In this case, China will deliver cancer to the entire US industry without even sweating.

    Will not deliver.

    For rare earth metals are needed in most high-tech industries. And there is nothing to replace them with.

    Just like China needs production technologies, without which the same silicon, for example, is just ore, and technologies are already turning it into a processor.
  10. Trapp1st
    Trapp1st 6 September 2020 16: 32 New
    +1
    China needs production technology
    China needs technology in China, not the United States.
  11. Jack O'Neill
    Jack O'Neill 6 September 2020 16: 54 New
    -3
    China needs technology in China, not the United States.

    Well, AMD sold its first-generation Zen architecture to China. For the level of China, this is the top, but for AMD it is already an outdated percentage.
  12. Trapp1st
    Trapp1st 6 September 2020 16: 56 New
    0
    So what? China doesn't need advanced technology in China?
  13. Jack O'Neill
    Jack O'Neill 6 September 2020 16: 58 New
    -3
    So what? China doesn't need advanced technology in China?

    Needed, of course. But no one will sell the advanced ones to them, and what is outdated somewhere may be advanced for China.
  14. NEXUS
    NEXUS 6 September 2020 15: 45 New
    +2
    Quote: Jack O'Neill
    Find another supplier.

    Oh, what is it? laughing Well, you first look at who supplies fine earth metals, the same technological titanium not as a raw material, but as a finished product, etc. ... and then tell us what they will stir up with other suppliers ... yeah.
  15. Jack O'Neill
    Jack O'Neill 6 September 2020 15: 49 New
    -3
    Oh, what is it? laughing Well, you first look at who supplies fine-earth metals, the same technological titanium, not as a raw material, but as a finished product, etc. ... and then tell us what they will stir up with other suppliers ... yeah

    What parts do we specifically do for the USA?
  16. NEXUS
    NEXUS 6 September 2020 16: 03 New
    +3
    Quote: Jack O'Neill
    What parts do we specifically do for the USA?

    Titanium parts, as far as sclerosis-pipes of large diameters do not change me, and so on ...
    At the same time, the United States also does not have rare earth metals, but yes, it buys from us. And with China on this issue at the present time it is very bad.
  17. Jack O'Neill
    Jack O'Neill 6 September 2020 16: 07 New
    -3
    Titanium parts, as far as sclerosis-pipes of large diameters do not change me, and so on.

    Throw off the link to these pipes.

    At the same time, the United States also does not have rare earth metals, but yes, it buys from us.

    It is the metal itself that is bought, and the finished parts are already made at home. Usually. There is also the same China, Germany, Taiwan, Israel, where there are American factories for the production of certain products from metal purchased in Russia.

    And with China on this issue at the present time it is very bad.

    In what sense?
  18. NEXUS
    NEXUS 6 September 2020 16: 17 New
    +3
    Quote: Jack O'Neill
    What parts do we specifically do for the USA?

    As an example, titanium products for their Boeing ... yeah ...
  • NEXUS
    NEXUS 6 September 2020 15: 28 New
    +4
    Quote: Jack O'Neill
    If you are the president, then your non-recognition will weigh something, but this is just an opinion, nothing more.

    And by the way, enlighten the dark, on what basis, in general, did the United States and the coalition send troops to a sovereign country, which is not even on the same continent with them? Only about America's national security, there is no need to tell a fairy tale here. On what basis has Iraq been ripped apart twice? A sovereign state for a minute.
    1. Jack O'Neill
      Jack O'Neill 6 September 2020 15: 35 New
      -4
      And by the way, enlighten the dark, on what basis in general did the United States and the coalition send troops to a sovereign country, which is not even on the same continent with them?

      Are you talking about Syria? So I wrote above - they do not recognize the legitimacy of Assad, and therefore this state does not have a government, which means it is no longer sovereign.

      On what grounds have Iraq been thrashed twice? A sovereign state for a minute.

      The first war with Iraq was due to the fact that he invaded Kuwait, and Kuwait asked for help from the UN. They tried to come to an agreement with Saddam, but it didn’t grow together, his PSV grew too much because of the Iran-Iraq war.
      The second war was over the storage of weapons of mass destruction and support for al-Qaeda.
      It's simple.
      1. NEXUS
        NEXUS 6 September 2020 15: 40 New
        +5
        Quote: Jack O'Neill
        Are you talking about Syria? So I wrote above - they do not recognize the legitimacy of Assad, and therefore this state does not have a government, which means it is no longer sovereign.

        That is, if the idea of ​​gouging any (any) country comes to the head of the US President, it is enough NOT TO RECOGNIZE the legitimacy of the leadership and go ahead ...
        Quote: Jack O'Neill
        The first war with Iraq was due to the fact that he invaded Kuwait, and Kuwait asked for help from the UN. They tried to come to an agreement with Saddam, but it didn’t grow together, his PSV grew too much because of the Iran-Iraq war.

        WHAT SIDE TO THESE SHOWS US? On another continent of the country ... tell me what mattress inventory, oil, etc.? So for a minute, Bush was kissing Hussein passionately before and everything was acknowledged.
        Quote: Jack O'Neill
        The second war was over the storage of weapons of mass destruction and support for al-Qaeda.
        It's simple.

        Are you talking about the test tube that Powell was shaking at the UN? wassat
        1. Jack O'Neill
          Jack O'Neill 6 September 2020 15: 46 New
          -3
          That is, if the idea of ​​gouging any (any) country comes to the head of the US President, it is enough NOT TO RECOGNIZE the legitimacy of the leadership and go ahead ...

          Well, actually - yes.

          WHAT SIDE TO THESE SHOWS US? On another continent of the country ... tell me what mattress inventory, oil, etc.? So for a minute, Bush passionately kissed Hussein before and everything was recognized

          Such that Kuwait asked for help, including from the United States.
          Saddam was beneficial to Bush only as a counterbalance to Iran. The war is over, good Saddam is over.

          Are you talking about the test tube that Powell was shaking at the UN? wassat

          And her, including.
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS 6 September 2020 15: 49 New
            +2
            Quote: Jack O'Neill
            Are you talking about the test tube that Powell was shaking at the UN? wassat

            And her, including.

            Can you remind me of what Powell squeezed out of himself after that when two million Iraqis had already been sent to the next world?
            1. Jack O'Neill
              Jack O'Neill 6 September 2020 15: 50 New
              -3
              Can you remind me of what Powell squeezed out of himself after that when two million Iraqis had already been sent to the next world?

              I don't remember, since it was a long time ago.
              1. NEXUS
                NEXUS 6 September 2020 16: 05 New
                +3
                Quote: Jack O'Neill
                I don't remember, since it was a long time ago.

                Don't remember, or don't you want to remember? wassat So they remembered about the test tube and appeal to the UN, but what happened next - I remember - I don't remember here? wassat
              2. Jack O'Neill
                Jack O'Neill 6 September 2020 16: 10 New
                -2
                Don't remember, or don't you want to remember? wassat

                I don’t remember exactly. This is the very beginning of the 2000s, in general I went to school.


                So they remembered about the test tube and appeal to the UN, but what happened next - I remember - I don't remember here? wassat

                Well, yes.
              3. Liam
                Liam 6 September 2020 16: 24 New
                -1
                Quote: NEXUS
                - I remember, I don't remember here?

                You have no idea what you are writing about ... I remember the test tube ... I don’t remember the rest ...




                The UN Special Commission for the Disarmament of Iraq (UNSCOM) was established on April 3, 1991 in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution # 687.

                On April 6, 1991, Baghdad formally recognized this resolution. The nuclear disarmament of Iraq was entrusted to the IAEA, and all other areas of disarmament were transferred to the jurisdiction of the UN special commission.

                On June 9, 1991, the first UN commission of inspectors went to Iraq. On June 28, 1991, the head of the special commission announced for the first time that Baghdad was hindering the activities of inspectors.

                In 1992-1994, the Iraqi leadership periodically refused to admit UN inspectors to a number of facilities. In June 1994, UN specialists completed the destruction of most of the chemical weapons and equipment for their production. Iraq demanded that the work of the special commission be completed by October 10, 1994, this demand was ignored.

                On July 1, 1995, overwhelming evidence forced Baghdad to acknowledge the offensive nature of its biological weapons program.

                In 1995-1997, Iraq continued the tactic of obstructing the activities of UN inspectors. In mid-June 1997, in response to the active actions of the inspectors, Baghdad turned to the UN Security Council with a demand to cancel the mandate of the special commission. On June 21, 1997, the UN Security Council voted for a resolution threatening Iraq with new sanctions if it refuses to cooperate with the UN. The work of the inspectors continued.

                On February 23, 1998, during a visit to Iraq by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, a Memorandum of Understanding was signed. In accordance with it, in the spring of 1998, the special commission conducted a large-scale check. The head of the special commission, Richard Butler, spoke about the possibility of lifting sanctions on Iraq in the fall of 1998. However, on September 9, 1998, the UN Security Council upheld the sanctions.

                On October 7, 1998, French experts discovered traces of VX nerve gas in samples from Iraqi missile warheads. On October 31, 1998, Iraq stopped cooperating with the special commission, its workers were urgently evacuated.

                The US aircraft carrier was redeployed to the Persian Gulf. On November 16, 1998, Iraq allowed UN observers to return.

                From December 17 to 20, 1998, the United States carried out a series of missile and bomb attacks on Iraq, the operation was named The Desert Fox.
                On January 11, 1999, the Iraqi parliament announced the termination of the implementation of the UN resolution.

                On December 17, 1999, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution # 1284 on the replacement of the composition of the special commission in Iraq and its renaming into UNMOVIC.

                In 2000-2002, Iraq refused to admit UN inspectors into the country, demanding the lifting of economic sanctions
                .
      2. Liam
        Liam 6 September 2020 15: 46 New
        +1
        Quote: NEXUS
        It is you

        This is about it ..


        Politics, 18 Jun 2004, 16:15

        Vladimir Putin: Saddam Hussein's regime was preparing terrorist attacks in the United States and the world


        The regime of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was preparing terrorist acts in the United States and beyond, Russian President Vladimir Putin said in Astana today.


        According to him, after the events of September 11, 2001. and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, the Russian special services had repeatedly received information that "the official bodies of the Saddam regime are preparing terrorist acts on the territory of the United States and beyond."

        Vladimir Putin noted that all the information received by the Russian special services was passed on to American colleagues, and US President George W. Bush personally thanked the head of one of the Russian special services for the information provided, which he considered very important
        .
      3. Liam
        Liam 6 September 2020 16: 02 New
        -1
        Quote: NEXUS
        about that test tube

        No, about it

        Gas attack in Halabja - the use of chemical weapons by the Iraqi authorities on March 16-17, 1988 against the civilian population of the city of Halabja, after it was captured by Iranian troops and their allied Iraqi-Kurdish Peshmerga units during the Iran-Iraq war. At the same time, on March 16-17, 1988, Iraqi aviation subjected the city to a chemical bombardment using various toxic substances: mustard gas, sarin, herd, VX gas. The number of victims, who belonged almost exclusively to the civilian population, ranged, according to various estimates, from several hundred to seven thousand people; usually the figure is five thousand dead and twenty thousand injured. Among the dead, the percentage of children is especially high, since the density of the gases used is higher than the density of the air, so the gas spread along the ground
    2. Trapp1st
      Trapp1st 6 September 2020 15: 43 New
      +6
      The second war was over the storage of weapons of mass destruction
      laughing

      Maybe under the pretext of storing weapons of mass destruction. The reasons were very different.
  • Trapp1st
    Trapp1st 6 September 2020 15: 38 New
    0
    They do not recognize Assad's legitimacy
    Moreover, this does not prevent the sale of Syrian oil to the Syrian government.
  • Was mammoth
    Was mammoth 6 September 2020 17: 12 New
    +1
    Quote: Jack O'Neill
    They do not recognize the legitimacy of Assad, and therefore they do not care whether it is "legal" or not.

    US elections are coming soon. Maybe we should recognize them as illegitimate? wink
  • Same lech
    Same lech 6 September 2020 15: 13 New
    +1
    Protection from whom? From the Syrian government? ..

    Of course. smile
    And legitimacy, like pants, can be removed or left.
  • tralflot1832
    tralflot1832 6 September 2020 15: 17 New
    +3
    Until they get it for the mustals like in Somalia, they will not leave. And preferably with corpses on camera, they only understand this language. Or, as an ambassador to Libya, they took his life in exactly the same way as the martyr of Gaddafi. There was no vaunted air covaleria. repeat
  • rocket757
    rocket757 6 September 2020 15: 26 New
    +2
    US press: Washington does not insist on the withdrawal of Russian troops from Syria
    what will happen if they start to insist? not children, it seems, should know the direction where they will be sent again.
    1. cniza
      cniza 6 September 2020 16: 04 New
      +3
      And it looks like they will not just send, but also escort ...
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 6 September 2020 16: 18 New
        +2
        Well, yes, the "guard is tired" it's time to end the debate!
        1. cniza
          cniza 6 September 2020 17: 07 New
          +3
          And otherwise they are nothing and nothing from there ...
          1. rocket757
            rocket757 6 September 2020 17: 15 New
            +2
            It's hard to tear them off if they stick to your beloved! One must think, one must be smart.
            1. cniza
              cniza 6 September 2020 17: 21 New
              +3
              Time will tell you for sure and the moment will provide ...
  • Fedor Sokolov
    Fedor Sokolov 6 September 2020 15: 28 New
    0
    The message is simple, do not bother us from stealing Syrian oil and we will continue to tolerate your legitimate presence in this country.
  • Trapp1st
    Trapp1st 6 September 2020 15: 40 New
    +1
    Washington does not insist on the withdrawal of Russian troops from Syria
    Only Russian or Syrian, too, can you stay?
    1. Fedor Sokolov
      Fedor Sokolov 6 September 2020 15: 45 New
      0
      Well, if they don't mind the US theft of their native oil, they may stay.
      1. Trapp1st
        Trapp1st 6 September 2020 15: 47 New
        0
        will not mind the US theft of their native oil
        Well, while they are happy to buy their own oil from the United States on the cheap, apparently this is why everything is calm in the fields of the Kurds.
  • askort154
    askort154 6 September 2020 15: 53 New
    +3
    Washington does not insist on the withdrawal of Russian troops from Syria

    After leaving the arena of the USSR, the "exceptional" got a new drug -
    "permissiveness on planet Earth". And they greedily revel in it.
    1. cniza
      cniza 6 September 2020 16: 02 New
      +5
      Quote: askort154
      Washington does not insist on the withdrawal of Russian troops from Syria

      After leaving the arena of the USSR, the "exceptional" got a new drug -
      "permissiveness on planet Earth". And they greedily revel in it.


      In my opinion, they had a deep overdose ...
      1. Same lech
        Same lech 6 September 2020 16: 04 New
        +2
        They have it there every day. smile
        1. cniza
          cniza 6 September 2020 16: 09 New
          +4
          So, let them first deal with the descendants of former slaves in their own country ...
          1. Trapp1st
            Trapp1st 6 September 2020 16: 14 New
            +2
            so let them first deal with the descendants of former slaves in their own country
            I suggest that white Americans stay for 250 years as slaves of blacks, well, to get even and forget)
            1. cniza
              cniza 6 September 2020 17: 05 New
              +3
              What? a good option...
  • cniza
    cniza 6 September 2020 16: 02 New
    +3
    At the same time, it is added that the United States "will continue to support the democratic forces in Syria."


    You would have sorted out and put things in order in your country, assistants ...
  • NF68
    NF68 6 September 2020 16: 11 New
    +2
    Well that's it! As if a mountain had been lifted from your shoulders!
  • APASUS
    APASUS 6 September 2020 18: 22 New
    0
    First time I hear that the Americans would guard oil when they are not asked
  • PValery53
    PValery53 6 September 2020 20: 28 New
    0
    "Washington does not insist on the withdrawal of Russian troops from Syria"
    - And even if he insisted? - Russia does not even obey America at all. But it is high time for Russia to insist on the withdrawal of Amer. troops from Syria. And America will have to leave Syria, because the ruler of Syria "did not ask" her there!
  • Prisoner
    Prisoner 7 September 2020 07: 41 New
    0
    And why did the pins decide that they could insist or not insist? Do they think they are the masters of Syria? Wait!