Should or should we not leave Iraq if its government insists?

1. 79

   Credence2posted 3 years ago

   A little background
   
   I am a bit disturbed that our Secy of State sees fit to have American troops play a role as an occupying army not acceding to the request of the host nation, this nation notin a state of war with the US.
   
   How do we justify it?
   
   Hopefully this article and the position taken by the US State Department is not just another Iranian IT hack...
   
   https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 … ike-pompeo

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Live to Learnposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      If requested, if negotiations to understand and attempt to mitigate objections fail then, yes. We should leave.
      
      But, let them know we spend time, money and blood to help. We won't be inclined to help if called.

      replyreport
   2. 60

      TessSchlesingerposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Certainly the USA should leave. They invaded Iraq on the pretense that they had weapons of mass destruction, destroyed the nation, caused havoc the Middle East, etc.
      
      No question.
      
      I worked for the Guardian (at a daughter newspaper) in the 90s. They are owned by the Scott Trust and have no allegiance to any boss. If they publish something, there's a good chance it's true. They do lean left, though.

      replyreport
   3. 85

      Eastwardposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Put me down for a yes. If we want to support democracy in the world, we need to leave when asked.

      replyreport
   4. 80

      Ken Burgessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Well, ultimately we are there, and have always been there, because of international corruption via the financial/corporate system.
      
      The American military is the strong arm, the enforcer, of the international corporations and BIS, IMF, WTO, and the military industrial complex which cannot make its billions if we are not off bombing other countries back into the stone age.
      
      Without our interference in an ever growing list of nations, the Petrodollar international economic system which America depends upon for the continued viability of its economy and its leadership position world wide would come to an incredibly quick end.
      
      At this stage in world history, China and its economic allies (Russia, Iran, half of all the Asian nations) would be quick to fill the void that America leaves behind, and should the EU be foolish enough to move in that direction and away from the U.S. they will learn relatively quickly that the high standard of living and economic boon they have enjoyed for the last half century would quickly deteriorate as they would be nothing more than a vassal state to the whims of China's interests.
      
      Unfortunately the answer to your question "how do we justify it?" is easy to summarize, because it is in the interests of the international corporations and financial allies (Saudi Arabia, UK)  that the American military is deployed on the behalf of.

      replyreport
      1. 79

         Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

         "Well, ultimately we are there, and have always been there, because of international corruption via the financial/corporate system."
         
         You are preaching to the choir, Ken. The question remains, if we know this why do we continue to tolerate and accommodate it?
         
         I am going out on a limb here. I really think that the economic and political power in the hands of financial/corporate system neither know or respect nation states of national boundaries. They are there to perpetuate themselves, solely.  Patriotism, nationalism, just like professional sporting contests here exists as a mere diversion for the masses. The world is their chess board, but you can't let the pawns realize that they are mere pawns, or they might make trouble.
         
         So, the Chinese, English or American billionaire have more in common with each other than any real loyalty to their point of origin or where it is they currently reside.
         
         So, for example, patriotism is not really going to motivate big business in America to invest here when labor can be so cheaply obtained elsewhere. So, "Made in America" is nothing more than a slogan.
         
         War is justified only in the interests of life and liberty. How many really want to risk and exchange their lives so that the corrupt few can line their pockets?
         
         These are the challenges of our time and it is why I support candidates that are willing to see and confront it. I need to have the status quo challenged and threatened, not merely accommodated.

         replyreport
         1. 80

            Ken Burgessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            It is interesting, the biggest threat to the very things you are concerned about, seems to be Trump.
            
            If nothing else his actions have proven to be very detrimental to the "globalization" efforts, from pulling out of the Paris Accord agreement, to challenging the authority of the WTO and China.
            
            His speech to the UN was the last thing they wanted to hear, talking about sovereignty of nations and the value of cultural differences.
            
            You will see how badly they want him out, their plan is to cause a economic recession across the board in the U.S. starting around May, with the strengthening of China and the EU economies during this time, so that the continuation of "globalization" at the expense of individual rights, privacy and freedoms, as well as national sovereignty, can continue... Trump is an obstacle, as is America's Constitution, and they will both be done away with soon enough.

            replyreport
            1. 79

               Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

               So, how is Trump, as part of the billionaire class, any different than say Michael Bloomberg for instance. What keeps you believing that Trump is on "our side"?

               replyreport
               1. 94

                  wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  MAGA.  Very simply (and simplistically) put, MAGA.  The desire to follow other nations, to support their needs above ours, is not something that Trump subscribes to.  Certainly the EU, China, and all the other nations do, as do (for the most part) the Democratic candidates. 
                  
                  We see this in the US paying for NATO and the UN.  We see it poor trade agreements.  We see it in globalization efforts to reduce the US to the status and abilities of the rest of the world.  And Trump does not support it - that puts him on "our side".

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     Randy Godwinposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                     You tell 'em Dan! Trump has absolutely no need for more money and is only doing what's best for his realm and the peasants residing there.

                     replyreport
                  2. 79

                     Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                     Thanks for you explanation, while I don't see Trump as any different than any other "high roller", I respect your opinion.
                     
                     From a UN point of view, why should the will of one country dominate the others? I can understand the US being overcommitted to the defense of others with inadequate contributions from others as you say. Yet, the US does not have special rights to violate international law, yet be a member of an international law body. What would you say, if Russia or China takes the same sort of unilareral attitude in its international affairs? If America can do it, why can't they?

                     replyreport
                     1. 94

                        wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                        You may be right in your opinion, but...which "high roller" took NATO countries to task for not paying their share?  Which ones created trade agreements with the US getting the best end of the stick, or even an equal end?  Which ones have argued against the globalization wherein the US must support other countries that cannot do it for themselves?
                        
                        As far as the UN - that's the way it was set up.  The US isn't the only one with veto power, after all.  International law: I'm unaware of any international law, that the US is a signatory to, that we violate.  "Laws" passed that we disagree with, sure, but that is certainly our right, just as it is other countries that put their own interests first.  Somehow, when it comes to international rights, the US seems to always be left holding the stick - paying one way or another for someone else's problems.

                        replyreport
                        1. 60

                           Randy Godwinposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                           Which is why the US was respected by the world before Trump became POTUS. Being the richest and most powerful country in the world means making sacrifices at times, Dan.
                           
                           Look what has happened in Russia today. The PM and entire cabinet resigned, leaving Vlad to be dictator for life if he so chooses. I'll bet Donnie will be jealous as hell! 

                           replyreport
                           1. 94

                              wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                              You might think we were respected.  I don't - we got a nice show as long as we paid their bills, but that is not "respect" no matter how you cut it.  And as soon as Trump declined to make us the world's piggy bank we've seen the true colors.

                              replyreport
               2. 80

                  Ken Burgessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  I don't think he is on 'our side' out of an angelic nature.
                  
                  You go to the root of who he is, and when you do that you can get an idea for his motivations.
                  
                  Helping Americans and 'Making America great Again' is for totally selfish and ego driven reasons.
                  
                  When you can see it from that context, you understand why he IS good for Americans, better than any president we have had in decades... for America's sovereign interests, as well as for American workers.
                  
                  Long ago Congress humiliated and nearly destroyed his father, and this is a grudge he holds against that 'body' today. The gala event the 2011 WH Correspondents dinner where where Trump was the butt of jokes by President Obama and “Saturday Night Live” comedian Seth Meyers.
                  
                  Trump was so humiliated by the experience, the NY Times wrote that it triggered some deep, previously hidden yearning for revenge. “That evening of public abasement, rather than sending Mr. Trump away, accelerated his ferocious efforts to gain stature in the political world,”
                  
                  I believe this to be true... it takes a certain type of person that carries such a large ego, that deals with billion dollar transactions, and such people if properly motivated, can do the impossible.
                  
                  This is a case of 'the enemy of my enemy'... Congress and the Federal government at large had become the enemy of the American people, in terms of bad trade deals, an affordable care act that was not affordable and did not care, the repeal of Glass Steagall which led almost to economic ruin for the Nation, and did bring ruin to millions of Americans, etc.
                  
                  Trumps efforts to help America and Americans may just be his way of giving the big FU to those who harmed his family and his ego, when you boil it all down, and if so, who cares, just so long as we Americans are benefiting from it.

                  replyreport
   5. 80

      Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      In my opinion, I think we should leave. If a conflict or atrocities occur that concerns us in the region we could handle it as a "one-off ".  It's time to start looking for other options, options that take our military out of harm's way.  The Middle East has been warring for centuries, let them handle their own problems. It's time.

      replyreport
      1. 79

         Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

         Yes, indeed, it's time.....

         replyreport
2. 74

   Castlepalomaposted 3 years ago

   After killing millions poor Iraqis, mostly women an children and it costing financial tax prayer greater than the second world war. What other purpose would US troop stay in Iraqi unless they want to nuke and burn every lizard and living creature on the face of the country.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Live to Learnposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Is that you esoteric? What's with all the talk about nukes?

      replyreport
      1. 74

         Castlepalomaposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         The only country to used nuclear weapons, is the US. Bush Senior use nuclear weapons on Iraqi, it's how he won the war at record speed. But certainly this information would not leak out to the US media.  Or how the World Health Organisation covered up Iraq's nuclear nightmare | Nafeez Ahmed.

         replyreport
   2. 94

      wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      US troops want to stay in Iraq so they can nuke the country, killing themselves?

      replyreport
3. 0

   PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago

   Yes, we should leave if they want us to go  To me, that is a no brainer.

   replyreport
4. 79

   Credence2posted 3 years ago

   Thanks go to you all for helping me sort this out.
   
   We all seem to agree that the US should leave Iraq when requested by its leadership.
   
   What is it that Mike Pompeo and the Trump administration are actually saying to Iraq about its commitment to r spect its rights to sovereignty?
   
   We are suppose to be AMERICA. We are the Good Guys who simply do not get involved in forced military occupations on foreign soil.
   
   Doesn't sound much like "liberation" and bringing forth Democracy for The Iraqis to me.

   replyreport
5. 93

   Readmikenowposted 3 years ago

   I hate to point this out but an occupying force isn't in a foreign country by its request as US Troops are in Iraqi at the request of its government. The vote was a non-binding resolution with about 2/3 of the Iraqi parliament members not participating in the vote.  It's not a done deal.
   
   "The nonbinding resolution—passed Sunday with the backing of Shiite politicians—urges Prime Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi to rescind Iraq’s invitation to U.S. forces that helped rescue the country after Islamic State overran about one third of its territory in 2014.
   
   Mr. Abdul-Mahdi called on lawmakers to back the resolution, but it wasn’t clear how he would proceed. He resigned as prime minister last year and has since presided over a caretaker government.
   
   Mr. Trump balked at leaving Iraq without reimbursement."
   
   https://www.wsj.com/articles/iraqi-parl … 1578236473

   replyreport
   1. 79

      Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Mike, if the Iraqi government says to the US government and American troops, "leave Iraq" would not r sponsibl American officials accede to this request?
      
      We would not want to appear to remain in Iraq against the expressed will of its government and people, would we?
      
      Of course, if it comes down the that.....
      
      Trump wants reimbursement for what?  Is this some new form of shakedown? Clever, this Trump who does not really want to end the fireworks in Iraq, and uses the excuse of compensation due from Iraq to justify staying in the country against the will of the Government.
      
      It is classic Trump at its best.

      replyreport
      1. 93

         Readmikenowposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         Cred,
         
         A request for American troops to leave Iraq will need to be done by more than a non-binding resolution.  There is a protocol in place agreed to by Iraq and the United States. 
         
         Reimbursement for what??????? Have you ever seen the compounds, bases, storage complexes and more built by the United States?  The Green Zone alone is HUGE.  The United States answered the pleas for help from Iraq when 1/3 of their country was overrun by ISIS. NOW, because of the United States, they are back in control of their borders.  So, after all the money etc. spent to protect them from ISIS, they want the United States to leave?  Yeah, they need to kick in some serious cash and thank the United States for making in possible for them to not be overrun by ISIS.

         replyreport
   2. 79

      Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Mike,
      
      1. We, the US, decided to invade Iraq against the better judgement of many of us at the time. Did we not expect to incur debts of our own making as a result? In spite of what the neo-cons say, I am hard pressed to believe that the invasion was a totally selfless act of America's part.
      
      2. Trump should not be using this debt as a condition to keep American presence in Iraq when its Government request that you leave.
      
      You do become an occupying force when you station troops there against the will of the Iraqi Government. If if is decided by the IrAqi government that circumstances have changed.....

      replyreport
      1. 93

         Readmikenowposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         Again, there was a protocol agreed to when the United States set up in Iraqi. Only 1/3 of their parliament voted to have their Prime Minister "ask" the United States to leave.  It was done with a non-binding resolution.  This does not represent the will of the government since 2/3 of their parliament refused to vote on the resolution.
         
         What happened when obama left Iraqi too early?  ISIS is what happened.  Then 1/3 of their country got over run and they ran to the United States asking for help.  They got it and I don't think the United States should have to bear all the cost of them being free of obama created ISIS.  I wish you could see all of the buildings and complexes built by the United States there.  It's probably why 2/3 of their parliament refused to participate in the vote for a non-binding resolution.  They can't yet defend themselves against Iran, who could overrun them with no United States present in their country.

         replyreport
         1. 80

            Ken Burgessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Mike,
            
            What was ISIS/ISIL... who funded it?  Who weaponized it?
            
            The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) became the threat it was because U.S. foreign policy makers decide to take the risk of arming Islamist rebels in Syria, because Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad, is a key Russian ally.
            
            Benghazi was a direct result clandestine actions to ship Gaddafi's cache of surface to air and anti-armor rockets to the rebels in Syria, they were literally being shipped out the night the Ambassador was killed.
            
            The bulk of those Syrian rebels became ISIS thugs, There are essentially three wars being waged in Syria: one between the government and the rebels, another between Iran and Saudi Arabia, and yet another between America and Russia.
            
            Its a big stinking mess in the region and no one is more responsible for that than America, we have been meddling in Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Egypt since the end of WWII.
            
            Unfortunately for all involved we shift our focus, intent and direction from Administration to Administration making matters substantially worse, Carter was a clueless tool when it came to what America did overseas, Bush Sr. was ex-CIA director and knew all too well what was going on, his son on the other hand was almost as clueless to reality as Carter had been.
            
            And of course what went on during the Obama administration was the backstabbing of America's long term ally in Egypt, overthrowing Libya turning it into a lawless slave state, accidentally creating ISIS in the attempt to take down Assad in Syria, continuing to fumble around in Afghanistan and Iraq... but he makes a deal with Iran... just idiotic.

            replyreport
            1. 93

               Readmikenowposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               Ken,
               
               You forgot to mention the Sunnis vs Shia in the region.  Iran and Iraq are majority Shia, the minority of the Muslim world where Saudi Arabia are majority Sunnis, the majority of the Muslim world.  This is also a factor that plays into the problems in the middle east. They've been actively killing one another for centuries and continue that long honored tradition.
               
               I guess we can agree the attack on Benghazi was not the result of a YouTube video.  I'm sure you realize the United States has clandestine actions going on all over the world.  If enough troops had been dispatched at the hint of a problem, the ambassador would be alive today. obama and hillary proved to be the dynamic duo, for our enemies.
               
               When I was in the Army a sergeant had the perfect solution to the middle east problems. "Nuke 'em 'till they glow then shoot 'em in the dark."
               
               So, what could be done to end global terrorism? I don't think it will happen in my lifetime.

               replyreport
               1. 59

                  Live to Learnposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  Personally, I think the perfect solution would be to develop technology to get us off of fossil fuels. This would significantly decrease their ability to generate funds to wage war and ensure little interest by other countries.
                  
                  Or, just go by old Jewish wisdom. Don't sell weapons to heathens.

                  replyreport
                  1. 74

                     Castlepalomaposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                     I actually agree with you kitty. Even with old Jewish wisdom, the Zionist is a different story.
                     
                     We already have all the nature technology to switch over to clean healthy energy living. Welcome to my lifestyle.
                     
                     The wealthiest only know war and synthetic coded for their own greed disease and Centro banking.
                     
                     How many hit on the head lessons does the public need to learn, to move from suffering to happiness.

                     replyreport
                  2. 93

                     Readmikenowposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                     In my life time and YOUR life time we will not get off of fossil fuels.  They do more than provide energy.  They are used in the manufacturing of many other things.  Look at your computer and realize all of the plastic, metals, etc. require fossil fuels. Do you realize the United States is energy independent?  We actually export oil to other nations.
                     
                     "Here is a list of more than 6000 products made from Petroleum. You'll be amazed at how many of these items you use regularly!"
                     
                     Here are just a few.
                     
                     Hygiene & Accessories:
                     
                     Deodorant
                     Clothes & Shoes
                     Lipstick & Mascara
                     Sun Glasses & Eyeglasses
                     
                     Automotive:
                     
                     Fan Belts
                     Motor Oil
                     Gasoline
                     Tires
                     
                     At Home:
                     
                     Refrigerators
                     Toilet Seats
                     Detergents
                     Dishwashers
                     Telephones
                     
                     https://www.iagc.org/importance-of-fossil-fuels.html

                     replyreport
                     1. 94

                        wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                        Good point.  Although I don't date back to the 20's and 30's when plastics began to come on line, I do remember when they began to take over our lives in the 50's.  Our world has changed enormously due to the plastics industry, which uses those fossil fuels as their base.  It is not possible, at this time, to remove plastics from our lives and maintain any form of what we now enjoy as a lifestyle.

                        replyreport
                     2. 59

                        Live to Learnposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                        You aren't telling me anything I don't already know. However, finding viable alternatives should be a priority in our research budget and concern for petroleum profits should not deter the effort.
                        
                        Finding an alternative in just one sector (automotive) would essentially destroy the money the middle east gains access to for arms purchases.

                        replyreport
                     3. 79

                        Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                        Of course, we cannot make such a transition tomorrow, but a long journey has to begin with the first step. Without stripmining America, more sources in North America or outside the hot spots in the Middle East would be preferred.
                        
                        Maybe, we need to get some of our vaunted technical know how to the task, raising this goal to the all out effort we committed ourselves to in putting a man on the moon.
                        
                        How does everybody else on earth acquire the energy they need yet are not at the epicenter of this geopolitical quagmire?

                        replyreport
                        1. 94

                           wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                           "How does everybody else on earth acquire the energy they need yet are not at the epicenter of this geopolitical quagmire?"
                           
                           When whole villages use less power in a year than you do in a month it isn't difficult.  Americans are energy hogs and most of us do very little to combat that; it is viewed just as a necessary expense to be alive.

                           replyreport
                           1. 79

                              Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                              Understood, but what about Europe, Australia, New Zealand, having standards of living comparable to ours?
                              
                              Maybe, it is time to reassess the idea of inexpensive energy. The Europeans pay a lot more for gasoline than we do, for example...

                              replyreport
                  3. 79

                     Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                     Here is a time where we agree about the solution, but the people behind the petrodollars are not about to have the spigot shut off without a fight.
                     
                     This may well be a benefit to pursue alternate sources just to take some of wind from these people's sails, if nothing else.

                     replyreport
               2. 79

                  Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  So, Mike, do you really advocate a military solution as suggested by the Sergeant?
                  
                  As long as there is duplicitous behavior among the major parties: the greedy corporatist, the phony Sultans, Kings and Princes, playing devout Islam for their masses, but in bed with American capitalists as the two are not compatible, we are not close to resolving things.
                  
                  We will just wear ourselves down like we did in Vietnam, and the public will get weary of endless war and mobiliZation. Because, while you can kill people, you can't kill martyrdom or a persistent idea.

                  replyreport
                  1. 93

                     Readmikenowposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                     "while you can kill people, you can't kill martyrdom or a persistent idea."
                     
                     All I can say to that is AMEN! I consider this phrase to be an indisputable truth.

                     replyreport
            2. 79

               Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

               So, outside the international/corporate interests, why are we really there?
               
               As you say, this is a quagmire being exacerbated by America rather than ameliorated.
               
               Obama stood out of the way while the Egyptian people brought down Mubarak. Was Khadafi really any better? Assad was a bulls eye waiting happen, why is it Obama's fault?
               
               I am not interested in getting involved in civil wars no more than we wanted foreign parties involved in our own.
               
               While we cannot completely wean iurselves from Middle East commerce, I believe that more determined research on alternate sources of energy is smart both to defang the oligarchs and their source of ill gotten gain, and to avoid exploitation of all the rest of us.
               
               You are right, we have been meddling. I don't have anything good to show for it, as it has been a fool's errand. You don't see China or Russia squandering its national treasures in such fruitless ventures among people that have not changed over close to a millennium. That is one reason why China will get ahead.
               
               In many ways, the US has made its own bed and will now have to lie in it.

               replyreport
               1. 93

                  Readmikenowposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  Well, Russia is a big player in the middle East as they have thousands of troops in Syria as well as Iran. So, they are also involved.
                  
                  China has problems with Hong Kong protesters as well as Taiwan who just elected a woman who told China to pound salt to a China's reunification offer.  They have lots of internal strife. 
                  
                  Yeah, we will have to deal with this for generations.

                  replyreport
               2. 80

                  Ken Burgessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  The Government, the politicians that sold out, those pulling their strings, (the Military Industrial Complex, Energy companies, etc.) are the ones to blame, not the American people who will pay the price for those betrayals.
                  
                  And Trump is the hand grenade we threw into their den of corruption that is causing havoc and exposing them for what they are for any American willing to open their eyes to see.

                  replyreport
                  1. 74

                     Castlepalomaposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                     I find this nationalism Government more dangerous than Religion.
                     How can an Unethical Billionaire Trump can show us the enlightenment way to mastering life. The more I try to understand nationalism, the more I understand anarchy individualism and it's most peaceful ways.

                     replyreport
         2. 79

            Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

            OK, as long as the Government in its entirety says sthat we can stay, that's fine.
            
            I only presented a hypothetical regarding a situation where the Iraqi Govt said in no uncertain terms, Get Out!!
            
            But as quick as you are to blame Obama for what you believe is mishandling of our military forces in Iraq, I blame Bush and the Republican War hawks for putting us there under false pretenses in the first place.
            
            For every dollar spent in this fiasco, how many have been wasted?

            replyreport
            1. 93

               Readmikenowposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               You are right.
               
               So, we can agree our screwy situation in the middle East has not had just one stand-out player.  It has taken a team effort of United States presidents.
               
               The Arab mind works different from mine and yours.  They perceive things differently.  They think in terms of generations of conflict. So, I don't see an easy solution.

               replyreport
               1. 79

                  Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  Your right, there is not an easy solution that is why further engagement should be a thing that we avoid and not relish. We can bring all our materiel and manpower into the region in an attempt to control events, but they will just wait us out.....

                  replyreport
6. 0

   Onusonusposted 3 years ago

   Of course we should leave if they want us to. But we should get our money back first. Not that it matters because they're just going to spend it on some other useless military venture.

   replyreport