Iraq’s prime minister told the US to start making plans to withdraw its troops from the country

In another thread a poster tried to claim - "Peace through Strength" as an example of Trump "Winning"

I responded as follows:.

What is referred to as the "Peace through Strength" doctrine - is a new label for an the Wolfowitz doctrine under Bush Sr. (1992)

"The document was widely criticized as imperialist, as the document outlined a policy of unilateralism and pre-emptive military action to suppress potential threats from other nations and prevent any other nation from rising to superpower" status.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfowitz_Doctrine

This doctrine has made us far weaker than the authors could have ever imagined. This doctrine is what losing looks like.

Iraq-Afghanistan - Libya - Syria -Yemen - the "War on Terror" in general are unmitigated disasters that have harmed this nation greatly.

 

Trump is being a bully and bullies only survive for short periods of time. Yes, the US has the largest military and the most nuclear bombs and this can make a guy with a tiny penis believe they are a powerful king. China, India, the EU, and others will eventually kick the US's ass in almost every category. Even today, if these other nations banded together, they can cause major issues for the US. Trump has created an adversarial scenario that will negatively impact the US for decades. The ironic thing about 'peace through strength' is this has been the case with all presidents since at least WWII...Trump inherited this 'strength' with the office...Trump did not create it! If anything Trump has abused it...

 

Trump is an Establishment wonk - who is doing the bidding of his Masters for the most part - Trump is the Front Man of a circus - the purpose of which is to keep the public entertained and in fear of "the other" - and distracted from the dirty deeds being done by those pulling the strings.

You are correct that nations are banding together - much of this is a function of the Trump admin waging economic warfare on most of the world at the same time.

These nations have also expedited their efforts to create an competitor to the US system of international payments.

Rather than wasting our resources fighting these regime change wars that have no or negative return on investment - we should be investing in technology, infrastructure and ramping up our economy to compete in the 3rd millennium.

 

I am not going to take the time to do the research. My recollection is that Israel has hit Syria a few times this past year, but not Iraq. If you think Israel has hit Iraq, you provide the proof. I don't think they have done that.

It was not a treaty. A formal treaty would be binding on any future administration. It was weak on verification. And, it wasn't permanent. And, if Iran was so concerned about the welfare of their own people, they would not be spending the billions of dollars we gave back to them on armies, weapons, and foreign interventions like their one in Yemen and elsewhere. And maybe they could have spent some of it better training their inept officers in charge of anti-aircraft missile defense so they wouldn't panic and shoot down a jetliner full of civilian travelers.

You and I don't know what the intelligence community knew. But past events that we do know of are a good indicator - the attack on our troops, and the attack on our embassy.

That is laughable.

And it is not "murder". The man was a soldier. He was engaged in hostilities against our troops and embassy people, and he got killed.

If you were a close follower of U.S. affairs and politics, you would know that there is ZERO chance of Trump being removed from office through impeachment. Zero. Everybody in the U.S. knows that. Trump knows it, the Republicans know it, and the Democrats know it.

Problems with Iran have NOTHING to do with the impeachment.

If Iran was on a peace mission, this would have all been discussed and arranged at lower levels first. So what you say is untrue. Soleimani would have been met at the airport by Iraqi government officials and maybe even an American diplomat if this was a peace mission. Instead, he was met by the Deputy Commander of the PMF, a Shiite militia group.

I don't believe any of that. Under our War Powers Act of 1973, the killing of Soleimani was legal. He was a soldier. He was directing operations against our people, and he got killed.

The U.S. can be an enemy. But it can be a good friend. Trump will be tough, but it's a tough world. He has offered friendship and good will to the people of Iran. Iran's leaders have taken Iran down a dangerous, destructive path. They alone bear responsibility for that. It doesn't have to be that way.

The U.S. does not want war with Iran either. President Trump is the type who does not like war. He has shown with North Korea that he will go to great lengths to have peace. This goes for Iran too.

The American people are peaceful and do not seek war. If violence is to end, it is not just up to the U.S. It is up to Iran as well.

Seth

 

I can see now that you were just talking about the recent happenings from the contractor. I was talking about killing of these people in Iraq prior to that. I can't get information at the moment because there is just pages and pages of the recent. However I do know that last year there were several attacks on theses groups In Iraq. My original point was that I do not have time, or ability due to searches being full up of recent things, to do research on the reason for the attack which included this American contractor but given that there had been several attacks on the people you said did the attack in Iraq it seemed a possibility to me that that could have had something to do with their attack which you claimed was totally un provoked. At least I would say to imagine as you appear to be doing that this came out of the blue is quite wrong. People were thinking it was the Israelis who were killing them. Perhaps it was yourselves. The important point is that these people had been under attack and being killed for several months. There was nothing unprovoked about this. Israel has been killing Iranians in Syria for years. Israel is given a free hand by the US to kill whoever it wants and as the people Israel kills are not considered human beings, there is no need to report this and let the people know.

It was an International Treaty. The fact that you may have other things going on in your home politics does not take away that it was an International Treaty and the US was one of the signatories. It was one which took twelve years to come up with, which Iran was keeping and which the US threw in the bin and started acting aggressively about - sanctions against a country which was keeping the International Treaty and threats of sanctions against countries which wanted to keep the International Treaty. The US President decided to act as Dictator of the world. In that he probably lost you Europe as allies. It is bad enough to show the word of an American President to the UN is worth nothing but then to try and make the rest of the world act in the unlawful way the US was in not acceptable.

what is this about

That is no excuse for going against an International Treaty signed by the President of the United States.

this is just usual propaganda. Iran is possibly the one country in the world which will not cow tow to give the US world domination. That I think is what the US cannot bear about Iran and her people. It is only since the United States has been helping Saudi Arabia create the worst humanitarian situation which the world is dealing with against the people of Yemen that Iran has been brought in trying to offer them some help. You clearly believe the people of the world have one choice - succumb to the control of the United States of America of die - how laughable from a country which was apparently killing people because they were not democratic. Since the attack on the Saudi oil fields they have pretty much stopped attacking one of the poorest countries in the world. The talks which were about to happen when Soleimani was murdered by the US were about continuing de-escalation. I suspect the US murdered him because they want to keep the killing going.

Oh please now you are sounding just like a kid calling the one you are fighting with names.

It is against International law to kill in the way the US did unless there is an imminent threat. Pompeo has admitted their was not imminent threat. This was an illegal attack

You need to go back to the previous attacks killing these people in Iraq. Then you will likely find the reason for the attack on the commander rather than picking an arbitrary point you believe is in your favour and saying 'we are the good guys now we can kill all of them'.

Yes, that is the tract Pompeo put on it. It remains that the PM of Iraq says that he was in Iraq for peace talks with the Saud's and that Trump had been informed of this. That you find laughable what the President of Iraq says clearly indicates that your position is so biased and your disrespect for the Iraqi government so strong as well as your own feeling of importance being so special that you can ignore what he said. To you only the American line from your extremist Government which it has admitted is a lie is true. Geesh.

You could argue it was a targeted assassination. However because there was no information of an imminent attack contrary to what Pompeo originally claimed, this does not come under what can legally be done. It was a terrorist attack on a man who according to the PM of Iraq, the US had been informed was going to talks on de-escalation. It was one of two terrorist attacks the US tried that day. The other being in Yemen. I do not think the US wants things de-escalated.

I would have said that myself but more recently from the US people are thinking this may have something to do with it. In this connection to do with Trump having sacked Bolton in order to get out of constantly moving towards attacking Iran and now Bolton saying he is going to be open to talking about Trump re impeachment. So Pompeo and Bolton both Christian Zionists wanting war against Iran for Israel. Bolton gone then threatens to give interesting material at any impeachment. Reports are that no one imagined that Trump would pick the offer of killing Soleimani but that he was pushed by his Hawkes including Pompeo. My point was that those people in the video I produced to you believe that Trumps concern about the impeachment process has led to a situation where he has basically lost all his clout and that the running of the US is now being done by extremists in his 'Team'.

as above

What I said was that the PM of Iraq said that the reason he was in Iraq was for a meeting with the Sauds to discuss de-escalation and that he had informed Trump of it. This is widely reported. Please do not say what I am saying is untrue when that itself is untrue.

It remains that according to the PM of Iraq he was in Iraq to meet the Saud's to discuss de-escalation and that Trump had been informed.

They have been meeting and talking de-escalation since the attack on the Saudi oil fields....not least because the Sauds did not think the US was going to get militarily involved and so thought it better to look after itself. This attack on Iran led by the Hawkes including Bolton possibly was the US making clear it did not want de-escalation. That is an anti de-escalation and anti peace move.

Ah. Like I said people did imagine that the US Regime would have lawyers trawling for a possible way they could claim it was legal

https://qz.com/1781294/the-legality-of-targeting-soleimani-depends-on-these-questions/

Oh please. Starve the people. Kill them by refusing to allow them to get needed medicines. Murder the General they most respect and expect the people of Iran to fall for that so easily.

​

When people or a country has lost the ability to self reflect which you are showing evidence of here....basically they are authoritarian, dictatorial and communication is impossible. The US is without question the aggressor against Iran having begun by tearing up an International Treaty which was 12 years in the making which Iran was keeping. Since then the US has put Iran under what is now being called a blockade which people are starting to identify with torture.,

even without actively killing, the blockade the US has put Iran under is considered an act or war. That was done by the US against an International Treaty.

I am not sure he wants war in Iran. That is arguably why he got rid of Bolton. However again I will repeat what has been suggested at the end of the video I left you. Trump is no longer running the US - his hawks, Pompeo and friends are.

 

Seth Bullock

Re the attacks on PMF in Iran last year I have now found some more information.

https://www.trackpersia.com/iran-backed-iraqi-pmf-blames-us-recent-weapons-depots-blasts/

Like I said I think you should be careful about claiming the attack which killed the American 'contractor' was unprovoked. They had certainly been being attacked.

Here is one from Press TV claiming it is Israel

https://www.presstv.com/Detail/2019...-in-Iraq-Yemen-unveils-new-air-defense-system

 

Pro Islamo Jihado Arabos often say that Israeli reports are not valid..

 

Here is another account of the attacks on PMF in Iraq

https://aawsat.com/english/home/art...-‘deter-aggressors’-after-attacks-against-pmf

 

Irrelevent. They certainly are often inaccurate though. Do you remember how Netanyhu told Congress that Iraq was on the verge of nukes to encourage the 2003 war. We were told the same lie. We were told that they were on the verge of creating WMD's which would hit us within 45 mins. All not true and so not valid.

 

Saddan Hussain R.I.P and Assad the butcher, both tried to build a nuclear reactor.
That's a fact.

 

Now if Israel can get America's Bunker Busters, and find a way to evade the Russian SAM's
then maybe Israel will take out Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities.

 

I suspect Iraq was afraid to fire WMD's at Israel. Certainly Iraq fired missiles but
these were "clean" and did not contain the chemical or biological agents we know
Iraq was working on.

 

Ok Seth Bullock here is another report on the attacks on the PMF last year. This one finds Israel responsible. The reality is these people were under attack several times last year from either yourselves or the Israelis or both.

https://mideastdiscourse.com/2019/0...n-popular-mobilization-forces-military-bases/

You believe Iraq has the right to murder the Israeli and possibly American top military in connection to these?

 

What happens if Trump gives notice to the UN and NATO that the US led effort will terminate on some future date? Effective on that date, the UN, NATO, and any other world organization takes over to fill the US void? The world must police some of the ME players, forever if necessary, but not led by the USA...

 

Ran across this today
The UK is abandoning its alliance with Trump as the United States 'withdraws from its leadership around the world'

• The UK is threatening to tear up its defense alliance with the US after President Donald Trump's Iran crisis triggered a rupture between the two countries.
• UK Defense Secretary Ben Wallace told The Sunday Times that the UK was looking to forge stronger alliances with other international partners that shared its priorities.

The comments came after Prime Minister Boris Johnson's government distanced itself from the attack that killed Soleimani, with UK Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab labeling it a "dangerous escalation" that risked a conflict in which "terrorists would be the only winners.https://www.businessinsider.com/uk-...thdraw-leadership-world-qassem-soleiman2020-1

Very harsh words from the only significant ally to join the "Coalition of the Willing". I dare say the reaction from most of the rest of the world that matters is not much better.

You can't expect other nations to be happy about abandoning the millennia old covenant against killing the diplomats of foreign nations. Its not like our nation - and these nations do not have Diplomats who have done worse. So is this the new norm now ? - or is it yet another example as "Do as we say - not as we do"

 

My worst nightmare! Last night I was reading that one of our new Defence people was having sleepless nights thinking that the US were going to move out and we would have to sort things out. I think it began with something like 'we are going to have to fight our wars without the US' and I thought OMG can you not think about not fighting wars. Have you forgotten we used to be interested in peace not war. In talking not fighting.

Why do people have to be policed? Why should the US who has fought more wars and probably killed more people than anyone ever have freedom and others not. The US has forgotten how to negotiate. All it knows is killing and of course with Iran there would be no issue going on now if the US had not gone against an International Treaty it signed and bullied most of the world to do the same against their will.

 

Well you read that in a more positive light than me. I haven't heard Boris and Raab doing this. Last I heard they were saying they were on the same page as Trump. In the article I read I thought they saw this as an opportunity for the UK to take on the US's role.

 

There is no rationale for what Trump does and Trump should be a separate discussion from what to do about the ME and other world issues. My point is the US, or any other singular nation, cannot be expected to be the world's police. IMO we need some form of world law or world coalition that spreads the policing across all nations...like the UN. The US is in a strange position in which we want a broad coalition to deal with issues like the ME, but the US also does not want to be part of a coalition because the US will go down it's own path. Why does the US have veto power with the UN...IMO because the US will never be a team player. What would the US government do if Texas tried to take over New Mexico? Ask a similar question like what will happen if Russia tries to take over Ukraine? There is no world law or world order or world government to keep all the member states in line. The result is perpetual regional wars. The idea that all the nations on Earth are going to volunteer to be team players is a joke. Whichever nation has the military and/or economic might at any given point in time will try to make the rules. Today that is the USA but in the near future it will be another nation proclaiming their power and actions are correct...

 

Good points.

Unless we learn from out mistakes and as we are discussing on another thread the need for a new way to deal with the Dollar's Reserve position may offer that.

 

IMO the answer is some form of world government. However, nations like the US refuse to be team players. So if we don't have a world police department then forever and always nations will be fighting each other. And at any given point in time the nation who has the most nuclear weapons or economic power , etc. will act as the ruler. A simple example how screwed up things are it's obvious to me that the world will be better off with zero nuclear weapons...but there's no chance whatsoever that the US and power-hungry others will give up their nuclear arsenal! Those without nuclear weapons will acquire them and those who want more power will build the most of them...like the USA. I think it is guaranteed that the US will be involved in the world's skirmishes for decades to come...

 

We can't learn from our mistakes if we don't think we made any mistakes...

 

Yup - it is like they have no regard for the long term consequences of the the precedents they are setting or the short and long term economic damage. Damage to the tune of 8 Trillion dollars through the Bush -Obama era - spent on the basis of regime change wars/ the war on terror.

Total Military Spending was 300 Billion in 2000 - jumped to 900 Billion dollars during Bush - and topped 1 Trillion under Obama. Had we maintained 2000 spend levels (increasing with inflation - 5 x the amount we need to be spending for homeland defense) we could have diverted 500 Billion/year x 16 years - 8 Trillion - to things like infrastructure, technology, ramping up economy to compete in the 3rd millennium and any number of other things.

Instead "rah rah cis boom bah" - what did we get for this money ? we threw that money down the toilet to pad the pockets of the international financiers that dictate foreign and domestic policy.

Trump "Mr. Anti war" has doubled down on military spending - and we are in the midst of new arms race - this time including space and the doomsday clock is redlining.

Go Tulsi

 

Well the people who do not think that mistakes have been made are the people who the changes have to be made for.

 

I was thinking about this today. You obviously never do that if you aren't thinking war war war and he does like to boast about how you have by far the best military. I know I have also read that there has been a massive increase in deaths caused by the US since he took over - in particular in Yemen where Obama was managing to get the Saud's to hold back in some places, Trump has changed all that - though how much is just him going against whatever Obama did, God knows.

 

Well we do have the climate emergency. We are going to either become extinct or learn to work together for that. I accept it could go either way but it is one hell of a demand for us to come together and to stop war. The US's wars for instance apparently cause more pollution of the planet than a great many countries in total. Then the UN obviously must be changed and become democratic. No countries getting extra vetoes and it must have some clout. The climate emergency could bring us together. It could be what does it once it at last gets through to sufficient people.

Apart from that we seem to be heading for some kind of a repeat of the mentality of the 1930's and obviously if we go for world war given the climate situation, it will be the end of humanity. Its going to be a difficult few years finding where we go. Mark Blyth, economist at Brown University says most economists believe we are headed for fascism but he believes what will save us will be the climate emergency which he sees the fossil fuel criminals having to pay for. I worry it may be too late by then.