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

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? ..

Comments

[Mavrikiy]

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

Thank you. 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.

[Snail N9]

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

[krops777]

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.

[Doctor]

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."

[Maz]

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.

[Terenin]

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

Thank you, "benefactors", 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 !!!

[cniza]

They are bandits from the big road and the impudence is already off scale ... Greetings!

[Terenin]

Quote: cniza

They are bandits from the big road and the impudence is already off scale ... Greetings!

Rather ... a b.a.n. dite from a large island ...
Greetings Victor

[cniza]

No matter how you say the essence does not change, the impudence of the United States is not seen at close range.

[Mountain shooter]

Benefactors striped ears !!! Do you allow? Well, thanks, dear ones. How are we without you?

[Nikolay Ivanov_5]

Given the mandate of mattress makers in Syria, they are very lenient towards us.

[Jack O'Neill]

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.

[Trapp1st]

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.

[NEXUS]

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?

[Jack O'Neill]

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.

[NEXUS]

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.

[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.

[NEXUS]

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.

[boss]

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

[Jack O'Neill]

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.

[NEXUS]

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.

[Jack O'Neill]

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.

[NEXUS]

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?

[Jack O'Neill]

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.

[NEXUS]

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?

[Jack O'Neill]

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.

[Trapp1st]

Find another supplier.

To become more dependent on China? That's still a perspective for them.

[Jack O'Neill]

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.

[Trapp1st]

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.

[Jack O'Neill]

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.

[Trapp1st]

Will agree.

Of course they will agree, but in this case on Chinese terms, and under his careful supervision.

[Jack O'Neill]

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.

[Trapp1st]

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.

[Jack O'Neill]

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.

[Trapp1st]

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.

[Jack O'Neill]

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.

[Trapp1st]

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.

[Jack O'Neill]

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.

[Trapp1st]

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.

[Jack O'Neill]

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 ...

[Trapp1st]

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!

[Jack O'Neill]

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.

[Trapp1st]

They didn't do better with our engines.

Do not worry they have enough perseverance.

[NEXUS]

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?

[Jack O'Neill]

And what are they going to negotiate there? wassat

Money and goods, as is done in the market.

[NEXUS]

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.

[Jack O'Neill]

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.

[Trapp1st]

China needs production technology

China needs technology in China, not the United States.

[Jack O'Neill]

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.

[Trapp1st]

So what? China doesn't need advanced technology in China?

[Jack O'Neill]

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.

[NEXUS]

Quote: Jack O'Neill

Find another supplier.

Oh, what is it? 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.

[Jack O'Neill]

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?

[NEXUS]

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.

[Jack O'Neill]

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?

[NEXUS]

Quote: Jack O'Neill

What parts do we specifically do for the USA?

As an example, titanium products for their Boeing ... yeah ...

[NEXUS]

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.

[Jack O'Neill]

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.

[NEXUS]

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?

[Jack O'Neill]

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.

[NEXUS]

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?

[Jack O'Neill]

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.

[NEXUS]

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

[Jack O'Neill]

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.

[Liam]

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.

[Liam]

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.

[Liam]

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

[Trapp1st]

The second war was over the storage of weapons of mass destruction

Maybe under the pretext of storing weapons of mass destruction. The reasons were very different.

[Trapp1st]

They do not recognize Assad's legitimacy

Moreover, this does not prevent the sale of Syrian oil to the Syrian government.

[Was mammoth]

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?

[Same lech]

Protection from whom? From the Syrian government? ..

Of course.
And legitimacy, like pants, can be removed or left.

[tralflot1832]

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.

[rocket757]

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.

[cniza]

And it looks like they will not just send, but also escort ...

[rocket757]

Well, yes, the "guard is tired" it's time to end the debate!

[cniza]

And otherwise they are nothing and nothing from there ...

[rocket757]

It's hard to tear them off if they stick to your beloved! One must think, one must be smart.

[cniza]

Time will tell you for sure and the moment will provide ...

[Fedor Sokolov]

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]

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

Only Russian or Syrian, too, can you stay?

[Fedor Sokolov]

Well, if they don't mind the US theft of their native oil, they may stay.

[Trapp1st]

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]

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.

[cniza]

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 ...

[Same lech]

They have it there every day.

[cniza]

So, let them first deal with the descendants of former slaves in their own country ...

[Trapp1st]

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)

[cniza]

What? a good option...

[cniza]

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]

Well that's it! As if a mountain had been lifted from your shoulders!

[APASUS]

First time I hear that the Americans would guard oil when they are not asked

[PValery53]

"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]

And why did the pins decide that they could insist or not insist? Do they think they are the masters of Syria? Wait!