Iraq to vote on bill banning US military presence

It's probably going to pass. The question becomes: Will the US political class respect the sovereign will of the Iraqi people and their representatives? I think the answer is probably no. US politicians have zero respect for the sovereignty of other countries, even though the same politicians whine incessantly about violations, real or imagined, of US sovereignty. US refusal to respect Iraqi sovereignty will demonstrate, once again, the utter contempt of the US political class towards democracy and international norms.

 

They have already said they will not allow the US to invade Iran from Iraq

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20190516-iraq-wont-allow-us-to-attack-iran-from-its-territory/

 

Yeah, but since when do US politicians care about what anyone else says? They do what they like, when they like, and they don't care who it hurts or kills.

 

If they do...... I was listening to Sanders talk on I think CNN today. He said it was being sold like a game. If you liked Afghanistan and Iraq you are going to love this one...but he said an attack on Iran would be introducing the world to what perpetual war is really about and people born now would know nothing but war their entire lives. He said people just had no idea of the number of people who would be set off. He said this must not happen and it must be that this is decided by Congress as it must by law. He was reminded that in an 'emergency' the President could do it himself. He said no emergency.

 

I can’t wait for the US to pull out on its own.
I doubt Iraq’s wishes will be honored.

 

I would think if Iraq says you cannot attack Iran from Iraq and you do, you will also be at war with Iraq.

 

The best possible outcome: We give the thugs the finger, and for good measure, a bullet through the useless cranium of Muqtada al-Sadr, a disease on life.

 

President Trump has already declared that he does not want a war with Iran. (In any case, it really would not be in his best political interest, given the upcoming presidential race, in less than 18 months.)

The USS Abraham Lincoln was set to be deployed to the Middle East, anyway; its deployment was made just a couple of weeks early, due to tensions in the region.

Some hardliners in the Administration--John Bolton and Mike Pompeo leap to mind--evidently wish to engage Iran militarily.

But there is an apparent rift here, between the president and these advisors. The president clearly has said that he "hopes not," when asked if there will be a war with Iran.

Probably nothing short of the Iranians closing the Strait of Hormuz might lead to an actual war with the US.

 

It does seem to be a generally held view that it is Bolton and Pompeo who are determined to have this war. However if the interview you saw was the same as the one I did, Trump added things like saying if they were they would be sending a lot more soldiers and something else which I cannot remember. It sounded like he was not planning it but if he did decide to he would make it even bigger. People think Bolton and Pompeo are running the show, not Trump.

 

We pulled out of Iraq once, how did that turn out?

 

Given the principles of Islam, and their antithesis, the principles of liberty, war is inevitable; though a total economic and religious collapse under the dead weight of Islamic theocracy might do the trick and give the world an Islamic religion that recognizes the moral principle behind the political ideal of separation of religion and state. Honestly, I doubt it--state educated minds aren't likely to overthrow those who programmed them. But there is always hope reason will prevail and human beings will come to their sense. I'm not holding my breath.

 

Not really.
Iraq will just go to UN and complain and will be ignored.
And I’m saying it as someone who does want to pull out troops out of those shithole countries.

 

By the way, when Russia attacked Georgia it used the Black Sea Navy out of Sevastopol. Ukrainian government made all kinds of resolutions and demands to disallow Black Sea Navy to participate in the conflict. Russia didn’t care.
I doubt you care - if you don’t get to bash and hate the Yankees you are all right with all kinds of atrocities and human right abuses.

 

Much of what you said is correct, I believe.

However, as regarding the final sentence, above, I am not so sure.

That appears to imply that the advisors are in charge of the president, rather than the other way around.

And that, I believe, is enormously insulting to the president.

 

I hope that you are mistaken--at least, that there is no such war within my lifetime--but I can certainly understand how you have reached that conclusion. (After all, fundamentalist Muslims--whether Sunni or Shiite--seem to believe that all Christians must either convert or die.)

 

Maybe Iraq's resolution will be backed by
Russia, China, Iran, etc.
all who might feel benefit from a FREE Iraq.


Bravo Iraq
Go For It!



Moi
Support the troops.
Bring them home!

​

 

Yes, Russia, China, and Iran are certainly the exemplars of "free[dom]"...

 

Compared to Standard Oil ? or similar

It is about "self determination".
Remember. Heaven is not a democracy either.


Remember, they are the Democratically elected gov't
of Iraq under dominion.
And still lost.
Imagine that.
Now ask why?


Moi
Why Do They Hate

​

 

If Iraq wants us out,

See ya!

We should get out of Syria as well

 

If the Iraqis want us out we should get out.
However we should not let them become an exporter of terrorism nor should we allow them to persecute the Kurds.

 

So when do you leave for Iraq?

 

I think you mean not necessarily. I think that if the US launches an attack on Iran from Iraq, if the situation is too difficult for their own military to take you on you will see a significant amount of what the US will call 'terrorism' attacking the US infrastructure there.

The BBC were discussing this last night and like Sanders they believe it would create an explosive situation and would likely give rise to mass counter attacks by small groups, what the US would call 'terrorism' but what would clearly be people working to help a country under attack. They believed the ME would go up in flames and it could well also come to the West.

They too believed it was not Trump who was initiating this but Bolton and Pompeo. They seemed to believe that Trump liked to blow loud but not fight and that he may have found that worked in his business dealings but it was a very dangerous position to have when he has surrounded himself with hawks like Bolton and Pompeo. You may know that he is also supposed to be miffed about their desires to attack Venezuela. They, I think it was 6 people discussing, believed that Trump would give anything to have the Iran deal back. Funnily enough Zarif said Iran would be quite pleased to speak to Trump if he wanted to look into this possibility. At the time I thought it was a joke buy maybe not. I had heard Trump had been told that if he reneged on the JCPA and created sanctions Iran would be running to give them what they wanted in 2 minutes and he would be the hero and indeed almost as soon as he reneged of the deal, I remember him saying in quite a friendly way that he was ready to talk to Iran if they wanted. Iran's foreign Minister Zarif also does not believe this is what Trump wants. He believes the people wanting this are the 4 B's that is Bolton, Bibi, Bin Salmon and Bin Sayed Al Nahyem. However the BBC people all seemed to think Trump may find himself needing to support this war against what he really wants due to his prior aggressive stance against Iran. None of them thought this would be a good thing and as long as the UK keeps out of it which I really hope it does, then it will just be the US and the 4 B's and in that the US becoming even more isolated in the West and from everything I hear and contrary to what they are apparently saying in the US, likely tied up in battle in this area for a very long time losing many lives. It would also put the price of oil off the scale regardless of where it is being produced, something which oil producers will love.

 

None the less it could be true and appears to be quite widely felt. See my post above. Manipulation would be the word.

 

You are not world policeman. Trying that is what has got the world into the mess it is in today but I am glad you agree that if a country you are occupying asks you to leave, you should. Much safer as well, once they don't want you.

 

Mmm, two sides to this "worlds policeman" phenomenon.

On one side, invasions by allied countries across sovereign nations that place that worlds cop badge on mainly the US.

Then there is the flip side of- well if the US didn't lead such force who will? Do we need a world policeman? Well, do we need our own neighborhood cop? Of course we do.

Do we need to rely on the USA to make quick decisions of world security ? Well the White House has the intelligence at their fingertips so it has to be their call and that is the part that makes some of us insecure.

Its called blind faith. But I'd prefer that blind faith than the alternative...a world with no policeman.