Iraq to vote on bill banning US military presence

No Iran was always going to become strong in Iraq with the destruction of Saddam. The desire to create sectarian violence in Iraq and hence stop Iranian Influence came from the Saud's. The US has created so much destruction to the world and to itself by a) believing that religion was what to encourage - both in the US and abroad and its continuing love affair to the country which created Islamic terrorism - to some extent they both go together.

 

If Obama had not pulled the US security force out Iran would not have been able to take over. The war had been won, the Constitutional Republic government had been established, all groups were represented (Sunni, Shia, Kurd, Christian, women, ...), and the nation was safe/stable/secure. The lessons of history are clear. Obama gave away the only democratic Muslim state in the ME.

 

Obama had the gift of gab, but not the gift of governing.

 

The Iraqi Government does not resemble the Government of Iran. And Iran has been a royal pain for a very long time. The men working for the Shah were largely exterminated. The Shah actually had a modern form of Government, much like Jordan has. There were of course complaints that the Shah resisted the form of government now in power in Iran.

When the Shah was the authority, we had about the same problems with him as we do with the King of Jordan

 

Huh? What ?

I don't see it that way but let's just be glad for the part we do agree on.

 

Err, help from Sunnis? WTH are you going on about?

 

No, I think you are allowing your partisanship to interfere with your thinking. I was receiving medical treatment which had me awake a great deal of the night and I used to listen to BBC News24 a lot and they had quite a few programs on Iraq - and this was before Obama. I can remember one where they were talking to some British experts and they were talking about how it was no longer controllable and had to a great extent given Iraq to Iran. I cannot remember too much but that definitely got through. Think of it, you regime changed a Sunni Government in a country which was majority Shia and chucked all those who were working in it out of office. The US's other mistake was believing they could do a Ataturk on Iraq. They believed that if they came in ruthlessly against (what in any case was a secular society - one of the reasons Al Qaeda hated it) they would destroy Islam there and get them resurrected into democracy. That is what they thought Ataturk had done in Turkey. It never occurred to them that Bernard Lewis who was in on discussions could have got things wrong and that they might instead move away from the secularism they had been living under and more towards Islam!!

https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Bern...isn't+an+obstacle+to+democracy...-a0124862963

It is true that things did get worse after the US left but contrary to what you say that is because those in power chose to leave the sunnis out.

You just should stay out of countries which are not your own and most certainly do not understand. If you do not understand who you are attacking you do not have much chance of beating them. This has been a repeated mistake of the US something which all the money and weapons in the world cannot make up for.

 

I was in Iran in 75 or 6 and heard the Iranians tell me first hand what they thought of the Shah and how they intended on getting rid of him.

What does this have to do with anything which is being discussed. US problems with Iran come very much from US silliness with Iran and as people in this thread have said are not Trumps own position. I was reading an article this morning which suggested the reason he had Pompeo and Bolton on board is not because they are of like minds but because most of the Republicans had the hump with him and would not work with him. Listening to Trump talking yesterday I think he may have got an idea on what is going on so hopefully talk of war with Iran is going to calm down like that with Venezuela has. Maybe..... (he gave no sign of acting as he has with respect to Israel either.....)

 

I understand your point, but don't forget that Israel is a nuclear power. An all-out assault on Israel by any power or combination of powers in the area would result in the use of those weapons if necessary.

 

I think one of the craziest parts of the US demands is that Iran stop supporting it's own army - the US having declared the Revolutionary Guards terrorist and demanding Iran stop supporting terrorists!

 

Am I? Either you did not know or just forgot. Here's a refresher. If you care to rebute my findings with a link of your own please do.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...g-because-iraq-doesnt-want-them-there/247174/

Former Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, for instance, is a hugely pro-American politician who believes Iraq's security forces will be incapable of protecting the country without sustained foreign assistance. But in a recent interview, he refused to endorse a U.S. troop extension and instead indicated that they should leave.

 

US troops are assigned to NATO. NATO does not need the US congress's approval.

 

So why did Bush agree to a pullout of US troops by 2011?

 

What I said is still true, and you had no idea of it.

You need to learn how to research things as opposed to always saying "I don't know" and "I don't understand".

From 3 December 2014.

US troops in Iraq will get immunity from prosecution, bolstering fight with Isis
Ambassador Stuart Jones says Iraq’s prime minister has given ‘the assurances that we need from the government’ on privileges for growing number of troops

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/04/us-troops-in-iraq-will-get-immunity

The US has reached an agreement with Iraq on privileges and immunities for the growing number of troops based in the country, helping in the fight against the Islamic State (Isis) militant group, the new US ambassador said on Thursday.

Stuart Jones said prime minister Haider al-Abadi has given assurances that US troops will receive immunity from prosecution. Under Iraq’s former prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, the issue was a major sticking point, ultimately leading to the decision to withdraw all remaining US troops in late 2011.

“That was a different situation and those troops would have had a different role,” Jones said.

“We have the assurances that we need from the government of Iraq on privileges and immunities,” he said. “It’s in the basis of our formal written communications between our governments and also based on the strategic framework agreement that is the legal basis of our partnership.”

 

Huh, what ?? Look at all the stats from Iraq after the surge. Iraq had a murder rate lower than Brazil which hosted the Summer Olympics. AQ had been defeated and the remnants fled across the Syrian border. The constitutional republic was working with participation from all the relevant groups. Iran was lurking on the eastern border just as Stalin was lurking in Europe but our security forces prevented their encroachments. And then Obama gave it all away in Iraq.

 

I'm talking about history. Specifically the history of the Iraqi surge.

 

The BBC ?? Come'on. They lean very far left. I've accurately portrayed the conditions which existed in Iraq after the surge. Read some books where the history is accurately documented. I can provide a list.

 

He negotiated what he could on the SOFA and relied on future administrations to extend the time period that the security force would be there. Obama/Biden failed to do this either out of stupidity or corrupt political motivation.

 

We can only speculate on that and as much as I dislike the policies of Israel and the U.S. I feel they are not quite so stupid as to introduce nuclear confrontation. Consider that although the U.S. & Israel are thick as thieves (like no other) there are still nuclear powers on the other side with their toes nudging the line in the sand who will (no doubt) remind the unholy duo that they all have nukes of their own.

 

So Bush ASS-U-ME'd the next administration would follow through? Obama started campaigning on pulling the troops out of Iraq before Bush left the WH. Why didn't Bush renegotiate the agreement before he left office?

 

So are you saying congress plays no role at all when it comes to war as long as it is a NATO war?

 

Not arguing that, but it seems as long as it is a NATO war, congress doesn't have a say or at least that was the case with Libya. Obama refused to go to congress for even an authorization.

 

Which makes the likelihood of war with Israel low. In my opinion, Israel would not hesitate to use her nukes if her survival were at stake. I think everyone in the region knows it.

So let's get our troops out of Syria and Iraq.

 

I told you that I would like to maintain a congenial stance by being glad for the part we agree on. Why do you now want to destroy that?

The U.S. lied about WMD's - fabricated proof in several instances - tried (unsuccessfully, thanks to Saddam himself) to infiltrate the UN inspection team with CIA spies - illegally invaded Irak - raped the women - tortured the men - murdered the men, women, and children - obliterated some of humanity's most important artifacts & museums - installed death squads - and brought more bloodshed than Saddam ever caused ..... which still rages to this very day.

You owe Irak an apology for the death of more than a million innocent men, women, and children as well as owing great sums of money in restitution. Now fold your hands, bow your head, search your soul, and pray.