@kevcvs57 saidKev, since both are eager to sign on, it is clearly ion both their interests.
Only because you cannot or will not correctly interpret what I posted
I said
“ No you haven’t though because you’ve failed to prove that the START agreement is somehow in Moscow’s interests to a greater degree than Washington’s interests. ”
I’ve highlighted the relevant section of the sentence feel free to try again earl.
simple as that.
@earl-of-trumps saidFinally, ne’er mind them it’s in all our interests.
Kev, since both are eager to sign on, it is clearly ion both their interests.
simple as that.
@no1marauder saidSurprise!
US troops in Syria fought against Assad's enemies, not Assad's forces.
The US formed a third and separate mercenary group to fight Assad.
The US was there clearly to destabilize Assad
@no1marauder saidBull.
My statement isn't "false" despite the small number of military actions, usually of a retaliatory nature, Wikipedia mentions.
US military intervention in Syria unquestionably bolstered Assad and weakened his militarily strongest foes.
Show me a time when the US attacked ISIS in Syria or el Nusra's Brigade (al Qaeda affiliate). It did not happen.
Also, US troops in NE Syria killed 100 Russian conscripts.
The post that was quoted here has been removedIf you don't believe me, why didn't you google it?
https://nypost.com/2018/02/13/us-reportedly-killed-as-many-as-100-russian-fighters-in-syria-attack/[WORD TOO LONG].
US reportedly killed as many as 100 Russian fighters in Syria attack
By Mark MooreFebruary 13, 2018 | 12:19pm | Updated
How's that for a memory
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
@earl-of-trumps saidThe USA were there just in case there might be oil. It's as simple as that.
Surprise!
The US formed a third and separate mercenary group to fight Assad.
The US was there clearly to destabilize Assad