Iraqi parliament votes to push US troops out

https://www.wsj.com/articles/iraqi-parliament-votes-in-favor-of-expelling-u-s-troops-11578236473

So....after years of fighting....years of young men and women dying in Iraq...the spur of the moment decision by the Liar in Chief hands Iraq to Iran....IDIOT!

 

The Wall Street Journal story you are linking to is behind a pay-wall.

This story, we can read for free.
Iraqi parliament votes for plan to end US troop presence
https://www.thenational.ae/world/mena/iraqi-parliament-votes-for-plan-to-end-us-troop-presence-1.960145
The most important quote to note is this -

"In attendance at the session were 173 of the 329 Iraqi MPs. It was backed by most Shiite members of parliament, who hold a majority of seats. Many Sunni and Kurdish legislators did not show up for the session, apparently because they oppose abolishing the deal."​

Which tells us that Iraq is far from united in wanting to kick American troops out - only the Shia community - allied to Shia Iran - wants to do that, because the Iraqi Shia political parties are under orders from Iran to take this opportunity to kick the Western troops out and hand Iraq over "lock, stock and 2 smoking barrels" to Iran.

It won't work because, "Iraq" per se, is somewhat of an artificial construct and can easily be split and its parts reallocated to different countries allied to the US and Western allies, even if the Shia part becomes part of Iran.



So the Iraqi government are already backing down, claiming that the parliament vote to expel foreign troops is not irreversible or confirmed as yet. They know that if Iraq splits, Iran will lose its chance to control most of Iraq.

However, if the Iraqi government really want to push troops out then the US should encourage those allied Iraqis from the Sunni and Kurdish communities to declare independence from Iraq, along the lines of the map, into

Sunnistan (with an eye to joining up to Sunni areas of Syria) and

Kurdistan (Kurds have always wanted an independent nation state so the Kurds are impatient to declare independence and have only not done so because the US didn't support that and wanted to hold Iraq together.)

In this 2013 video about Syria, Condoleezza Rice explains that what is at stake is the Middle East state system as we know it.


So if the US now judges that there is no advantage in having an Iranian controlled Iraq, then the US should indeed push for partition of Iraq as shown in the map.

Remember all of this has been foreseen by the free world's very own "supreme" or "paramount" leader Condoleezza Rice and I am only one of her most loyal followers. For the final decision as to what is to be done, the President should refer to Condi.

Have no doubt that if the President takes Condi's advice the outcome will be one which will favour the US and its allies and not the Iranian Mullahs.

In other words, Condi wins again!

 

Only 173 of 329 attended the vote to oust the US. Sunni and Kurdish politicians didn't even show up.

Only the Shiites are supporting this plan. They want the US troops out so they can hand Iraq over to Iran. It's a non-binding resolution which government has to approve.

Don't wet your bed too early OP.

 

The Shia are 60% of the people and the Iraqi Primeminister said he will follow the parliamemt decission. So what now?

 

It’s probably about time we let Iraq do whatever the heck it wants. They’ve had the opportunity to make something of themselves. If they want to be New Iran I guess that’s what they want. They can get back to uninterrupted slaughter of each other over the finer points of the Koran and if it gets out of their borders we can daisycutter them back into line along with Iran.

 

The world is overpopulated to a level it cannot sustain. What better way to help control the population than to get out of the Middle East and let them slaughter each other.

Win win!

 

Why are you assuming Western presence and interference acts to reduce the slaughter?

 

Your knowledge of the Middle East is sadly lacking. There was no Sunni/Shia slaughter until the US decided to invade Iraq. Sunni and Shia joined forces to attack the Invaders. Even during the Iraq/Iran war Shia pilgrimages into Iraq were allowed to take place across the border. Why do so many Americans not actually know what is happening in reality.

 

The man was a terrorist who killed many people.. to hell with Iraq...

 

The Dujail massacre was when? The Anfal genocide also predates US action. While not a Sunni/Shia religious dispute on average, the “finer points” of the Koran were certainly a factor.

Cool. Pilgrimages negate slaughter. Bizarre.

 

Fantastic. Get us out of that dumpster fire.

Another huge win for Trump if this happens.

 

I say we. Leave Iraq and syria. Destroy irans military and leave the area save a massive presence in the gulf. Let them have their third world wasteland.

 

that's just push the issue to next gen. even if you destroy iran military, they just recover after a decade or so... then what. plus what happen if we attack them, they attack Israel.

 

Doesn't matter. If they opposed the measure, they could have showed up to vote against it. They chose to basically abstain themselves. The Kurds, however, while needing to walk a tight rope given their relationship with the US, also held ceremonies mourning the death of General Soleimani and considered him a great friend who helped them out (when no one else would) against ISIS.
https://www.rudaw.net/english/kurdistan/050120201
Kurdish parties extend condolences to Iran on death of Soleimani

 

How do you propose that Iraq could actually require US troops to leave? Would you be suggesting that perhaps Germany might join forces with the Shias and try?

 

Stick around and you will get your answer. The rough outlines of it should become apparent soon enough.

 

USA is a democracy and bound to contracts. USA is in Iraq because invitation by the iraqi government from 2015. If the iraqi government takes the invitation away and asks the USA to leave, USA with no doubt will follow that demand. And i have no doubt you would not oppose that, since it would hurt the very principles your nation stands on.

 

You're just adding evidence to the claim that you lack knowledge of the Middle East. The population in Anfal are Sunni. Do you even know that Saddam was Sunni? You have no understanding of the situation in the Middle East or of the conflicts between Iraq and Iran. The Dujail massacre occurred due to the assassination attempt on Saddam, nothing to do with religion

 

Yes I’m well aware Saddam was Sunni. That would be why I pointed out his conflict with the Kurds was not a Sunni/Shia one. That’s also why I included the Dujail massacre which was a Sunni/Shia divide.

If you will read my original response you will notice I used the language “finer points of the Koran”, not Sunni/Shia conflict. It was intentional because I know how narrow minded most people are on the subject. You are demonstrating that perfectly.

 

LOL. Why don't you list these "finer points of the Koran" that have lead to the "uninterrupted slaughter between Iraq and Iran".

 

Please read my posts for content. I never mentioned slaughter between Iraq and Iran. My comment was in reply to those who say Iraq wants to be a Iranian vassal State. I’m talking about people of all middle eastern countries slaughtering their own people/“countrymen”. That’s why I specifically mentioned the killings I did. Iraq killing “Iraqis”.

Think a bit about what everyone in the Mideast hates about the Kurds and why. Especially the why. That will lead you back to the finer points of the Koran as interpreted by most actors there today.

 

Actually, your reference to the "finer points of the Koran" shows you are clueless about the whole Shia/Sunni division in the Islamic world. It has nothing to do with any fine points in the Koran. It has to do with the following:

A) Political legitimacy: The Shia rejected and reject the legitimacy of the caliphs who ruled the Islamic caliphates believing that they were usurpers and that proper authority rested in the family of Ali, the prophet's son-in-law and (according to the Shia) his designated successor. While initially an intra-Arab political division, Shia Shia Islam became a perfect tool for the Persians who had been conquered by the Arabs to reject what they considered foreign rule without rejecting "Islam". Which is why Shia Islam became most popular in regions which had been under Persian rule before the Arab conquest.

B) Role of Reason in deciding issues of faith, role and place of "consensus" and the subjective nature of truth. The main theological differences between Shia and Sunni Islam are as follows:
1- The Shia believe that "reason" is a principal source for discerning Islamic law. The Sunni reject that view.
2- The Shia believe that the consensus of scholars in each point in time is what matters in deciding the proper interpretation of religious scripture. The Sunni believe that the consensus of opinion among the prophet's companion is deciding and that new interpretations are basically heresy.
3- The predominant Shia school of thought in Iran, the Jaffari school, views truths to be subjective (dependent on time, place etc) and changes. Indeed, Shia jurisprudential thought is strongly affected by a view of reality that sees the material world as basically the "form" (and not the essence) of reality and views the role of properly trained Shia scholars to involve discerning the essence of such truths in the form they take during each time or period.
4- The Shia have a religious hiearchy and don't believe that scripture can be properly interpreted or understood by laymen. In this regard, they are like Catholics, except they don't have a single "Pope". (The office of "Supreme Leader of the Revolution" under Iran's constitution is a political office, albeit one meant to ensure the Islamic and Shia character of the state). Rather that any single "pope", any student of Shia philosophy that finishes the educational curriculum and manages to write his dissertation and is accepted by "mujtahids" or "Ayatollahs" as having attained the rank of a "mujtahid" is then able to give independent judgment on legal and religious issues. In this regard, he will have complete academic freedom once he has attained this rank to dispense of independent judgment on issues of religion and law. The people are free to choose their 'source of emulation' among these various "Ayatollahs' but can't pick up scripture and read into it whatever they decide can be read into scripture as the Shia are basically not literalists and don't want any literal attitudes towards scripture.

 

All that, and you are left admitting in point B that division is based on fine points of either following the Koran literally or using subjective interpretation fitting circumstances.

Semantics.

Almost every conflict in the region goes back to a religious point. Can you prove otherwise?

 

Yes, I can prove otherwise. Religion has been one of the covers for many of the conflicts but the actual conflicts have often been about very different things.

 

Ok. Prove otherwise.