Posted on 12/16/2024 4:43:49 PM PST by nickcarraway
I think there is. They might need to fight Ukrainian Nazi infiltration in Syria.
I assume they feel the same way about US troops?
The new "masters" of Syria have been doin' a whole lot of avoidin' of opposing armed groups...
Perhaps, but Syria was a client state of Russia, not the U.S. U.S. troops were never really welcome, while Russia troops had free reign. Assad was a Russia asset, and they had promised him, and Iran, that they would keep him in power.
correctomundo
There's No Reason for US Troop Presence in Syria
Our State Department pays better.
Who said there was? Russian troops as free reign in Syria, not U.S. troops.
I don’t think our State Dept. was paying anything. I am not sure what Russia was paying, but it was mostly they were defending Assad, and keeping him in power.
“I assume they feel the same way about US troops?”
That would make sense, since we were supporting the Syrian government by also fighting the Terrorists.
Call NATO, haha.
Well, Russia was really supporting Syria, as Syria was a client state of Russia. The U.S. has had a few incursions in Syria since 2013, mostly under Obama, and a little under Trump. But Russian troops were mostly given free reign.
I don’t think that’s feasible. Is NATO going to help the Turks kill all the Kurds?
“ They are considered among the Kremlin’s most strategically important military outposts.”
Were. They were considered among the Kremlin’s most strategically important military outposts.
Maybe so, but our stated purpose in Syria was to ‘fight the terrorists’, which was EXACTLY what Assad was trying to do, so it looks as though we didn’t help him much. You know what they say: “With allies like that, who needs enemies.”
Just to be clear Russia was Syria (Assad’s) ally, not the U.S. Yes, at one time, the U.S. was kind of Assad’s ally to. But Syria was Russia’s client state, and they were always promising them more weapons, and protecting their integrity.
Give me a break. Assad was only about protecting his own interests. He worked for Iran, so he had no problem with their terrorists, and no problem with Hamas, and Hezbollah. So, he only was against terrorists that threatened his personal power.
ISIS was an enemy of Iran, and eventually them/their successors were against Syria, so yes, sometimes he was against terrorists.
I only report what I’m told.
And you used to be "anti-war" when did you become the megahawk Mr. World Police?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.