Iraqi army confirms withdrawal of foreign forces

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20200118-iraqi-army-confirms-withdrawal-of-foreign-forces/

It looks like with the US continually going against International law, other countries are trying to act within it for support.

Is this the beginning of total rejection of International law by the US and friends and how do people see a world without International law, certainly as far as the US and its allies are concerned, which this seems to suggest is the future.

 

Some serious Islamist propaganda OP and opinion above, how about we use the NYT as a source, article is longer, this below is Iraqs own PM, key note the emboldened.

Iraq’s acting prime minister, Adel Abdul Mahdi, who has said that his government would comply with Parliament’s order to expel American forces, seemed to soften his position on Wednesday.

In a speech to his cabinet, he suggested that Parliament’s decision might not be the final word, saying “If we reach the decision to get the forces out of Iraq, then this would be the decision of the Iraqi government.”


He also noted that if the government expelled the Americans, it would follow “an appropriate time line,” suggesting that any departure might not be immediate. He also reminded the ministers that “ISIS has begun to reorganize and plan invasions and attacks.”


https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/15/world/middleeast/us-military-iraq.html

 

So now the Iraqi's will be fighting their own war with their own troops.
Time for all those 'refugees' now in the US to return home and fight for their country.

 

One thing is certain, a world without international law will be a very dangerous world, and Bill Clinton should be thanked for it. He started it when he bombed Belgrade illegally and under false premises for 78 days. This is why Russia began building up its armed forces.

According to a French General with inside knowledge, the intervention was on Germany's initiative. This should have been obvious, since they facilitated the break up of Yugoslavia by supporting their former allies; Croatia and Bosnia to the detriment of the Serbs, who had suffered gravely from both of them in WWII.

Today the break down of international law is giving us a situation similar to that of Czechoslovakia at the start of WWII. At that time Germany grabbed part of the country without any objections by Britain so they could maintain peace. Today it's not Germany, but Turkey that's pursuing a might makes right policy and claiming Greek territorial waters. According to Erdogan and contrary to the laws of the seas, islands are non existent and have no rights. This means that all the natural gas in the Eastern Mediterranean belongs to Turkey and not Greece. You figure!

Anyway this involves Libya and what's going on there. There is a conference going on right now in Berlin. Let's see if they're going to maintain international law, or bow to Turkey's demands. Other than that, there are also battles going on between the Syrian army and the Turkish army and its 'moderate' FSA terrorists in Syria's Idlib - who again refuse to leave.

 

Yet according to Trump:

 

Did we or did we not invade and destroy Iraq? And was it, or was it not against the UN and international law?

 

If he would have done it in black Sharpie it might have worked.

 

well you havre shown your position. Anyone writing what you do not like you name call.

​

This is not opinion. You may have missed what has been going the last few weeks when the US murdered Soleimani and also Iraq's Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis. They got no permission from Iraq to murder these people who the people of Iraq and Iran thank for their work on getting ISIS out of Iraq.

You obviously do not know that the US army have already been asked to leave and that Trump's response was that he would freeze their money which they stupidly banked in the US. Trump was even demanding money for the extravagant Embassy you have built. Iraq has made it clear that if the US does not allow them to access their own money like it stopped Iran and Venezuela being able to do so, Iraq will be destroyed. The US does not have the legal right to stay in Iraq without the permission of their people. Trump has indicated if they act as a Sovereign State he will see they starve. Clearly there is no room for movement. The US as usual is relying on it being the more stronger and expecting due to that to do whatever it wants. The US is operating on Might is Right - arguably the very reason the UN was set up to replace.

Iraq has made it clear it will take this to the UN and that it does not see its ability to get rid of US military as being dependent on paying them money which it does not have. Soleimani and Muhandis were the key people keeping Iraq free of ISIS which the US knew when it murdered them. However there will be others to take their place.

 

your source is pure propaganda, even their own corporate logo states they "create new perspectives":



then there's also this:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_East_Monitor


realizing that you're probably partial to them because they are based in the uk, but isn't scotland hated by londoners? weird

 

It is the BBC who claim what you say. You cannot get a job in the BBC ME section unless you are pro Israel. Where the BBC is to the right on the ME, Middle East Monitor is to the left but that makes absolutely no difference about this story which has been reported many places. It is not uncommon when people do not want to address a story for them to blame the messenger.

For the people who believe that the only truth is what comes out of the mouth of Pompeo and Trump and their media, here is an excellent video for you. It is Iran's foreign Minister. He begins by mentioning the protests in many countries there were against the killing of the man given the most credit for keeping ME countries free of the rule of Isis - that is General Soleimani. He goes on to discuss the JCOPA which the US broke. From around 19 minutes he starts to talk about the situation re Iraq wanting the US to remove its military. The United States as Guests in Iraq killed both a man who was in Iraq on a Diplomatic mission, a man who was a guest of Iraq and also 25 of Iraq's soldiers. This was total interference in the sovereignty of Iraq. What country would voluntarily allow a guest to stay who acts like this? Most countries would declare war. I understand Trump's action was legally an act of war.

Javid also repeats that Pompeo has said that the people of Iran will 'starve' unless they do what the US wants. This gives some idea of the total inhumanity on which the US is operating. Trumps team are the people who destroyed peace with Iran. They are the people who broke the deal Iran made with the Secretary of State and President of the United States. He also talks about how Trump has made it clear he is giving up on International Law. He mentions how Trump has said the US will not be following International rules of law on proportionality. In that the US is following Israel. Trump also of course openly shared his intent to commit other war crimes by destroying National Heritage sites.

Javid correctly says the only people celebrating the assassination of General Soleimani are Trump (and his backers) and ISIS.

Iraq is choosing to go the UN about its difficulties in getting the US Military out of Iraq. The UN will need to decide whether the US's actions are acceptable. By International law they cannot be.

I was in two minds about watching this video but having done so highly recommend it.

 

On the Left laws are treated somewhat differently. If you don't believe in a law then you don't obey
it as it's "unjust." So USA has immigration laws which are routinely flouted.
Never mind what Lincoln said about first obeying a law before you change it.
Having international laws is a whole new ball game. Israel is routinely accused of flouting them but
never the Palestinians.
Witness Iran being a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty. And China a signatory to the international
convention on the sea - and ignoring the case against them in the Hague.
So I wouldn't put much credence on any "international law."

 

That is so.
But what has that to do with sending the Iraqi refugees home so they can fight for their own country rather than hide in the US while expecting US soldiers to risk their lives and do the fighting for them?

 

I don't believe the Russians invaded Iraq. When did that happen?

 

How in hell can our pnac foreign policy of hegemony work if we abide by international law? And of course it can't!

Of course a sane foreign policy would want a stable ME because the world has to have their oil for energy. And yet we have destabalized that part of the world with wars.

We need a president strong enough to change foreign policy and get the hell away from the insanity of the pnac neocons .

Trump might try but I doubt it. He did run on doing this but he is surrounded by neocons since the people who opposed pnac have been ejected from govt by bush and Obama.

So we may have to wait for tulsi at some point in the future.

 

One thing is certain, a world without international law will be a very dangerous world, and Donald Trump should be condemned for striking willy nilly wherever he wants and at whomever he wants.

Bring our troops home.

.

 

Silly boy, like Pelosi, you get your presidents mixed up, you just described Obama.

 

Donald Trump is condemned for being the most horrible foreign policy President in history.

 

Disagree entirely, Obama's foreign policy left the USA in an awful position globally, possibly an irreparable one.

 

Silly Tim, you have missed the point again. The Obama 'whataboutism' remains pathetic.

 

CE, the Obama 'whatabousim' is 180 degrees off. Try again.

 

You not only get your presidents mixed up, you don't even know the meaning of 'whataboutism'. Allow me to explain so even a 5 year old will understand. 'whataboutism' would apply if Trump actually did what you you claim and I replied that Obama did it too. That's not what I posted. Trump did not strike willy nilly wherever he wants and at whomever he wants. He struck a terrorist who is responsible for multiple acts of war against us and he checked with his military advisers before doing it . Your boy Obama is the actual one who struck willy nilly wherever he wants and at whomever he wants simply based on the thousands of drone strikes he authorized. And yet you cry about one Trump drone strike.

 

Tim, you are talking out of your hat on topics I don't think you understand. What Obama did does not matter in regards to what Trump is doing or not doing. That is absolutely immaterial.

You can't excuse Trump by Obama: does not work that way.

Trump is a far greater danger and illegal killer than Obama, however, if you do want to go that way.

And the downplaying of injured soldiers is absolutely beyond the pale. No wonder the 'dislike' box is going up among the troops and officers.

 

It's not yet tweeted by Trump.

 

Twump the Tweeter don't count. Iraq says scat, Trump runs away,

 

Not sure about the "danger" part - but on the illegal killings Obama wins hands down. Trump does not even come close to the dirty deeds done by the Obama Admin ...

Libya, Yemen, Syria - record numbers of drone strikes - and record low transparency.

That said - at least Obama did not violate the Millennia old covenant that we do not do not Assassinate each others leaders.