Message to US: get out of Iraq

by Original Quill Sun Jan 05, 2020 6:23 pm

Assoc. Press wrote:Iraq parliament votes to expel US military

The resolution's main aim is to get the U.S. to withdraw some 5,000 U.S. troops present in Iraq.

BEIRUT (AP) — Iraq’s parliament has voted to expel the U.S. military from the country.

Lawmakers voted Sunday in favor of a resolution that calls for ending foreign military presence in the country. The resolution’s main aim is to get the U.S. to withdraw some 5,000 U.S. troops present in different parts of Iraq.

The vote comes two days after a U.S. airstrike killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani inside Iraq, dramatically increasing regional tensions.

The Iraqi resolution specifically calls for ending an agreement in which Washington sent troops to Iraq more than four years ago to help in the fight against the Islamic State group.

The resolution 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.

The leader of Lebanon’s Hezbollah group says America’s military in the Middle East region, including U.S. bases, warships and soldiers are fair targets following the U.S. killing of Iran’s top general.

Hassan Nasrallah says evicting U.S. military forces from the region is now a priority.

The U.S. military, which recently killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani “will pay the price,” he added in a speech Sunday.

“The suicide attackers who forced the Americans to leave from our region in the past are still here and their numbers have increased,” Nasrallah added.

Pope Francis is calling for dialogue and self-restraint in his first public comments amid soaring tensions between the U.S. and Iran, after a U.S. airstrike killed Iran’s top general in Iraq.

During his Sunday noon blessing, Francis warned: “War brings only death and destruction.” He led the tens of thousands of faithful gathered in St. Peter’s Square in a silent prayer for peace.

Speaking off the cuff, Francis said: “I call on all side to keep alive the flame of dialogue and self-control, and to avoid the shadows of enmity.”

Francis had hoped to visit Iraq this year to minister to the Christian minorities that have been targeted by the Islamic State group. Vatican officials and local Catholic bishops in Iraq have voiced concern about the impact of any new conflict on the weakest and most marginal in Iraq.

___

3:55 p.m.

Iraq’s parliament has begun an emergency session and will likely vote on a resolution requiring the government to ask foreign forces to leave Iraq.

The resolution specifically calls for ending an agreement in which Washington sent troops to Iraq more than four years ago to help in the fight against the Islamic State group.

The resolution is backed by most Shiite members of parliament, who hold a majority of seats.

The request was put forward Sunday by the largest bloc in the legislature, known as Fatah. That bloc includes leaders associated with the Iran-backed paramilitary Popular Mobilization Units, which were a major force in the fight against IS.

Many Sunni and Kurdish legislators did not show up for the session, apparently because they oppose abolishing the deal.

At the start of the session, 180 legislators of the 329-member parliament were present.

3:40 p.m.

The leader of Lebanon’s Hezbollah group says the U.S. killing of a top Iranian general puts the entire region at the beginning of a “completely new phase.”

Speaking before thousands of supports at a rally in southern Beirut, Hassan Nasrallah has called the killing of Gen. Qassem Soleimani a “clear, blatant crime” that will transform the Middle East.

Sunday’s comments were his first public statements since Soleimani was killed by a U.S. airstrike in Iraq Friday.

The Shiite militant group is Iran’s key proxy and most successful military export. Nasrallah, who has been in hiding fearing Israeli assassination since 2006, spoke to supporters through a large screen via satellite link.

__

2:10 p.m.

The daughter of Iran’s Gen. Qassem Soleimani says the death of her father will “not break us” and the United States should know that his blood will not go for free.

Zeinab Soleimani told Lebanon’s Al-Manar TV — which is linked with the Iran-backed Hezbollah group — that the “filthy” President Donald Trump will not be able to wipe out the achievements of the slain Iranian leader.

In the short interview aired Sunday, Zeinab Soleimani said Trump is not courageous because her father was targeted by missiles from afar and the U.S. president should have “stood face to face in front of him.”

The young woman, who spoke in Farsi with Arabic voice over, said that she knows that Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah will avenge the death of her father.

___

2:00 p.m.

The U.S. has warned American citizens in Saudi Arabia “of the heightened risk of missile and drone attacks” amid soaring tensions with Iran.

A security alert message sent Sunday by the U.S. mission there said that in the past “regional actors hostile to Saudi Arabia have conducted missile and drone attacks against both civilian and military targets inside the kingdom.”

It warned that U.S. citizens living and working near military bases, oil and gas facilities and other critical civilian infrastructure are at heightened risk of attack, particularly in the Eastern Province where the oil giant Aramco is headquartered and areas near the border with Yemen.

___

1:55 p.m.

Britain’s foreign minister says it is trying to “de-escalate” a volatile situation after a U.S. drone strike killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani

Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab said on Sunday in an interview with broadcaster Sky News that Soleimani “was a regional menace.”

Raab added that the UK understood the U.S.’s “position” and “right to exercise self-defense.”

But Raab said the UK was discussing with top officials in the U.S. and Europe, as well as Iran and Iraq, about how to avoid a war, which he said wouldn’t be in anyone’s interests. Britain’s Defense Secretary Ben Wallace said late Saturday that he had ordered two British Navy warships, the HMS Montrose frigate and the HMS Defender destroyer, to return to the Strait of Hormuz amid the soaring regional tensions.

___

1:40 p.m.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman says that officials in the Islamic Republic plan to meet Sunday night to discuss their next step out of the nuclear deal and that it will be even bigger than initially planned.

Abbas Mousavi made the comment Sunday during a briefing with journalists after a U.S. airstrike killed Iranian Revolutionary Guard Gen. Qassem Soleimani.

Mousavi said the step would be greater than planned as “in the world of politics, all developments are interconnected.”

If taken, it would be the fifth step to break terms of Tehran’s 2015 nuclear deal with world powers, which saw Iran limit its enrichment of uranium in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions.

Mousavi did not elaborate on what that step could be. Iran previously has broken limits of its enrichment, its stockpiles and its centrifuges, as well as restarted enrichment at an underground facility.

___

12:15 p.m.

Major stock markets in the Middle East are trading down on fears of a conflict between Iran and the U.S. after an American drone strike killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani.

The Boursa Kuwait closed down 4%. The Dubai Financial Market closed down just over 3%. Riyadh’s Tadawul was down over 2% as trading continued. The Abu Dhabi Securities Exchange fell 1.42%.

Egypt’s stock exchange also fell 4%.

Meanwhile, oil prices continued to rise. Brent crude traded up 3.5% to $68.60 a barrel.

The U.S. killed Soleimani on Friday. Early Sunday, as Iran threatened “harsh retaliation,” President Donald Trump tweeted the U.S. was prepared to strike 52 sites in the Islamic Republic if any Americans are harmed.

___

11:50 a.m.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says President Donald Trump is “worthy of all appreciation” for ordering the killing of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani.

Netanyahu told his Cabinet Sunday that Soleimani “initiated, planned and carried out many terror attacks” in the Middle East and beyond. Israel has long accused Soleimani of being the mastermind of Iran’s belligerency in the region.

Netanyahu said Israel stood alongside the United States in its current campaign against Iran.

Netanyahu has been among the strongest voices against Iran’s Islamic rulers in recent years. The Israeli leader pushed hard against the nuclear deal Western powers signed with Tehran in 2015 and which Trump later reversed.

The United States killed Soleimani in a drone airstrike at Baghdad’s international airport early Friday. The Iranian commander was widely seen as the architect of Tehran’s proxy wars in the Middle East.

___

11:45 a.m.

The deputy leader of Lebanon’s militant Hezbollah group says the United States carried out a “very stupid act” by killing Iran’s Gen. Qassem Soleimani.

Sheikh Naim Kassem made his comments on Sunday after paying a visit to the Iranian embassy in Beirut where he paid condolences. He said the attack will make Tehran and its allies stronger.

Kassem told reporters “now we have more responsibilities” adding that the United States will discover that “its calculations” were wrong.

Heazbollah is a close ally of Iran’s and considered part of a regional Iranian-backed alliance of proxy militias.

___

11:40 a.m.

Iranian officials are criticizing President Donald Trump’s threats to target sites important to Iran’s culture.

Trump threatened Iranian cultural sites would be hit fast and hard if Tehran attacks U.S. assets to avenge the killing of a powerful Iranian general.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif wrote on Twitter Sunday that after committing “grave breaches” in the killing of Gen. Qassem Soleimani, Trump is threatening new breaches of international law.

Zarif wrote: “Targeting cultural sites is a WAR CRIME.”

Telecommunications minister Mohammad Javad Azari Jahromi compared Trump’s threats to the Islamic State group, Adolf Hitler and Genghis Khan.

“They all hate cultures. Trump is a ‘terrorist in a suit’,” Jahromi wrote on Twitter, warning that nobody can defeat Iran.

___

11:30 a.m.

Iraq’s Iran-backed militias say that some remains of the Iranian top general and Iraqi militant leader killed in the U.S. drone strike in Iraq were sent to Iran for DNA tests to identify their corpses.

The Popular Mobilization Forces said in a statement Sunday that the bodies of the two commanders as well as an Iraqi bodyguard were torn to pieces and mangled by the explosion of the American missiles near Baghdad’s international airport.

It said the test will take few days after which the remains of the Iraqi commander, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, will be brought back to Iraq for burial in the holy Shiite city of Najaf.

Al-Muhandis was closely allied with Iran for decades.

Iran has declared three days of public mourning over Gen. Qassem Soleimani’s death in the U.S. attack.

___

6:45 a.m.

The body of a top Iranian commander, who was killed in a U.S. drone strike, has arrived in Iran as the crisis between the two countries escalates.

Throngs of mourners carried Sunday the flag-draped casket of Gen. Qassem Soleimani off a plane in Ahvaz in southwestern Iran.

The U.S. drone strike targeting Soleimani in Iraq Friday also killed a leader of an Iran-backed Iraqi militia, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis.

President Donald Trump threatened to bomb 52 sites in Iran if it retaliates by attacking Americans.

The tensions take root in Trump pulling out of Iran’s nuclear deal with world powers. That accord soon likely will further unravel as Tehran is expected to announce as soon as Sunday another set of atomic limits the country will break.

https://www.boston.com/news/world-news/2020/01/05/iraq-parliament-votes-to-expel-us-military

Can there be any result, other than war?

by eddie Sun Jan 05, 2020 8:00 pm

They should get the hell out. What did war ever solve?

by Ben Reilly Sun Jan 05, 2020 9:04 pm

We should never have been there in the first place. But the Bush administration was aching for any reason, however so flimsy, to invade and topple Saddam Hussein.

And it was all about oil. U.S. meddling in the Middle East has always been about oil, and nothing else.

by eddie Sun Jan 05, 2020 9:08 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:We should never have been there in the first place. But the Bush administration was aching for any reason, however so flimsy, to invade and topple Saddam Hussein.

And it was all about oil. U.S. meddling in the Middle East has always been about oil, and nothing else.

A la 9/11...

by Guest Sun Jan 05, 2020 9:12 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:We should never have been there in the first place. But the Bush administration was aching for any reason, however so flimsy, to invade and topple Saddam Hussein.

And it was all about oil. U.S. meddling in the Middle East has always been about oil, and nothing else.

Do you know I am glad none of you lived in the 19030's and 40's/ Your attitude would have been not knowing that millions of people were being murdered, to say we should not be there.

That is what is so utterly appalling about the regressive left of today. They are literally willing to sit by and allow mass murderers like Saddam to continue in history and never be punished.

Think of the hundreds of thousands that Saddam murderer?

Do they not have a voice Ben?

Thank fuck some people stand up to mass murderers. All the left think about is in hindsight to use as a weapon to say it was wrong to take out a mass murderer.

Where the hell is your moral values? You like many are the kind of person that would literally walk on by whilst someone was getting beaten up.

We speak a good talk about standing up to bullies, but those advocating this, shy away from actual action

I am so glad trump took out this mass murderer and so are many of his victims

Hence why I dispair at the Neville chamberlain attitude of those who fail to see sometimes war is necessary to take out evil people
Its got fuck all to do with oil, as the US has more reservesthan the Middle east and out performs then in oil production

It has everything to do with having an ethical value to stop evil people, you are so blinded by bullshit Ben

by Ben Reilly Sun Jan 05, 2020 9:27 pm

Didge, look up the Project for a New American Century and its manifesto.

Here's another good article for you to read: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/mar/20/iraq-war-oil-resources-energy-peak-scarcity-economy

Wars aren't started for noble reasons; they're started over control of resources. Those who start wars find a veneer of nobility to justify their wars, because soldiers don't get very motivated by "we're going over there to kill people and take their stuff."

Wars are no different from robberies.

by Guest Sun Jan 05, 2020 9:39 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:Didge, look up the Project for a New American Century and its manifesto.

Here's another good article for you to read: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/mar/20/iraq-war-oil-resources-energy-peak-scarcity-economy

Wars aren't started for noble reasons; they're started over control of resources. Those who start wars find a veneer of nobility to justify their wars, because soldiers don't get very motivated by "we're going over there to kill people and take their stuff."

Wars are no different from robberies.

Oh for fuck sake, that is a left wing rag which buts into conspiracies

You failed to answer my main points

What do we do when there is mass murderers?

Your position is to do nothing

Wars are necessary to take down butchers

You would rather allow them to continue to murder people

What will you do to bring these people to justice?

How will you help the millions under oppression as they are in Iran and have many fighting against this?

cast them aside as you always do

The bullshit around oil, is not only laughable it has zero sense

You need to stop buying into bullshit conspiracies

Cowards are people that bemoan others who take action to take out people who are evil

by Guest Sun Jan 05, 2020 9:50 pm

I am so glad in Europe it is turning away from the far left

I imagine today if Jews , Roma, gays etc were being murdered, the left would sit back in silence and complain if countries actually did something to stop this

I despair at the cowardly unethical nature of the left. Which comes from a view of never actually ever suffering any view of hardship or oppression. They want to end oppression in their own countries but take no action to end it elsewhere.

It shows they are tribalism and essentially racist in thinking. In other words, fuck what happens elsewhere in the world. Its not their problem

Thank the fuck people are now waking up to this bullshit

Night

by Original Quill Sun Jan 05, 2020 9:56 pm

phil wrote:You failed to answer my main points

What do we do when there is mass murderers?

It's best that only people who have a personal interest, take care of the situation.

So there's your answer. Now, my question: What do we do when we get involved in perpetual war, in which we have no personal interest or stake?

by Guest Sun Jan 05, 2020 10:04 pm

Original Quill wrote:
phil wrote:You failed to answer my main points

What do we do when there is mass murderers?

It's best that only people who have a personal interest, take care of the situation.

So there's your answer. Now, my question: What do we do when we get involved in perpetual war, in which we have no personal interest or stake?

So given the chance of stopping the holocaust, you would have basically pulled the trigger

Its never a perpetual war, hence the bases for your argument is false

by Original Quill Sun Jan 05, 2020 10:20 pm

Thorin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

It's best that only people who have a personal interest, take care of the situation.

So there's your answer. Now, my question: What do we do when we get involved in perpetual war, in which we have no personal interest or stake?

Its never a perpetual war, hence the bases for your argument is false

So you say. Seventy-five percent of Americans don't believe you. They've been there, done that.

We've been in Korea for 70-years. And charm offensives between dueling fat men don't seem to work.

Seems like Korea is empirical evidence of a perpetual war. Iraq and Afghanistan are close seconds. Got any empirical evidence to back your claim that perpetual wars never happen?

by Guest Sun Jan 05, 2020 10:23 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Its never a perpetual war, hence the bases for your argument is false

So you say. Seventy-five percent of Americans don't believe you. They've been there, done that.

We've been in Korea for 70-years. And charm offensives between dueling fat men don't seem to work.

Seems like Korea is empirical evidence of a perpetual war. Iraq and Afghanistan are close seconds. Got any empirical evidence to back your claims that perpetual wars never happen?

Wow, now Quill wants to remove the defence of south Korea to be defenceless against a North Korean leader who is a mass murderer.

Have you actually asked the people of Sorth Korea Quill?

Once again quill exposing his racist tribalism, and now thinking Asians are not worthy of protection

Quill is turning out to be quite the racist xenophobe it seems

by Maddog Sun Jan 05, 2020 10:27 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:We should never have been there in the first place. But the Bush administration was aching for any reason, however so flimsy, to invade and topple Saddam Hussein.

And it was all about oil. U.S. meddling in the Middle East has always been about oil, and nothing else.

We shouldn't have been there, but we don't really get much oil from Iraq. That's just an old worm out trope.

I guess in a roundabout way stable regimes are more likely to keep producing oil, but leaving them alone keeps the oil flowing pretty good too.

by Guest Sun Jan 05, 2020 10:35 pm

Maddog wrote:
Ben Reilly wrote:We should never have been there in the first place. But the Bush administration was aching for any reason, however so flimsy, to invade and topple Saddam Hussein.

And it was all about oil. U.S. meddling in the Middle East has always been about oil, and nothing else.

We shouldn't have been there, but we don't really get much oil from Iraq. That's just an old worm out trope.

I guess in a roundabout way stable regimes are more likely to keep producing oil, but leaving them alone keeps the oil flowing pretty good too.

Yes we should have been there, as the ethical thing to do is remove tyrants from power

Maybe you only care about commerce mate

Would you walk by every day and allow someone to be beaten up, when they did not wrong?

Of course not but you place geography as a reason to not do something

by Original Quill Sun Jan 05, 2020 10:51 pm

Thorin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

So you say. Seventy-five percent of Americans don't believe you. They've been there, done that.

We've been in Korea for 70-years. And charm offensives between dueling fat men don't seem to work.

Seems like Korea is empirical evidence of a perpetual war. Iraq and Afghanistan are close seconds. Got any empirical evidence to back your claims that perpetual wars never happen?
Wow, now Quill wants to remove the defence of south Korea to be defenceless against a North Korean leader who is a mass murderer.

Have you actually asked the people of Sorth Korea Quill?

Once again quill exposing his racist tribalism, and now thinking Asians are not worthy of protection

Quill is turning out to be quite the racist xenophobe it seems

You are evading the question. Korea is but an example, as are Iraq and Afghanistan. You are escaping down odd rabbit holes because you don’t want to face the real question. The question is: are you happy with perpetual war as your credo?

I take it that you have no answer. Perpetual war is the endgame of your theorem. You invade another person's country, kill his or her family, including babies, and you think they are just going to lay down arms and seek apologies.

It doesn't work that way. As long as you are there, killing his/her babies, you are going to be an obstacle to their way of life. You will be the enemy, and perpetual war will be your way of life.

by Maddog Sun Jan 05, 2020 11:00 pm

Thorin wrote:
Maddog wrote:

We shouldn't have been there, but we don't really get much oil from Iraq. That's just an old worm out trope.

I guess in a roundabout way stable regimes are more likely to keep producing oil, but leaving them alone keeps the oil flowing pretty good too.

Yes we should have been there, as the ethical thing to do is remove tyrants from power

Maybe you only care about commerce mate

Would you walk by every day and allow someone to be beaten up, when they did not wrong?

Of course not but you place geography as a reason to not do something

Things are no better there, and we have nothing to show for it except some dead soldiers, broken soldiers and a few trillion in debt.

We didnt even get the oil that the left constantly blabbers about. We just got the bill and a new crew of corrupt politicians that run the place.

And from the looks of it, it's going to now be getting much worse than it was over 16 years after we invaded.

I guess we helped forge relations between the Iraqis and the Iranians. They no longer hate each other. I dont think that was part of the plan though.

by Guest Sun Jan 05, 2020 11:11 pm

Maddog wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Yes we should have been there, as the ethical thing to do is remove tyrants from power

Maybe you only care about commerce mate

Would you walk by every day and allow someone to be beaten up, when they did not wrong?

Of course not but you place geography as a reason to not do something

Things are no better there, and we have nothing to show for it except some dead soldiers, broken soldiers and a few trillion in debt.

We didnt even get the oil that the left constantly blabbers about. We just got the bill and a new crew of corrupt politicians that run the place.

And from the looks of it, it's going to now be getting much worse than it was over 16 years after we invaded.

I guess we helped forge relations between the Iraqis and the Iranians. They no longer hate each other. I dont think that was part of the plan though.

Falsehood

many things are better for people

What matters is the quality of life for the majority of people

Why do you keep craping on about invasions, wars do not need invasions these days

What is needed is a trigger mechanism for people to rise up

The iraqis and iranians never hated each other, the shias and sunnis did

That is where you get this all wrong

Noight Maddog

by Cass Mon Jan 06, 2020 3:28 am

Maddog wrote:
Ben Reilly wrote:We should never have been there in the first place. But the Bush administration was aching for any reason, however so flimsy, to invade and topple Saddam Hussein.

And it was all about oil. U.S. meddling in the Middle East has always been about oil, and nothing else.

We shouldn't have been there, but we don't really get much oil from Iraq. That's just an old worm out trope.

I guess in a roundabout way stable regimes are more likely to keep producing oil, but leaving them alone keeps the oil flowing pretty good too.

Both of you are correct.

by Maddog Mon Jan 06, 2020 4:31 pm

Cass wrote:
Maddog wrote:

We shouldn't have been there, but we don't really get much oil from Iraq. That's just an old worm out trope.

I guess in a roundabout way stable regimes are more likely to keep producing oil, but leaving them alone keeps the oil flowing pretty good too.

Both of you are correct.

I'm correcter. Cool

by Vintage Mon Jan 06, 2020 4:42 pm

Many comments on here are correct, its not good to let tyrants have free rein but if you intend to remove them you have to have a plan to fill the void. When people grow up in a dictatorship, especially if they have a deep seated ideology or religion that also convinces them its the correct way to go , it never seems easy to develop a democratic way of ruling, you end up with a small group holding sway until they drop off the perch or are removed by their fellows and in the case of the middle east its complicated by religion.
It seems a lot of people mainly women found living with the Saddam regime was safer and freer, they could walk the streets dressed as they wished and go where they wanted much more easily than after he was removed.

by Maddog Mon Jan 06, 2020 5:01 pm

I think this resolution will apply to all countries. Might not be a bad idea, as it would include Iran too.

Of course, I dont think foreign influence in Iraq is going to end anytime soon, even if the US leaves.

by Maddog Mon Jan 06, 2020 5:04 pm

Vintage wrote:Many comments on here are correct, its not good to let tyrants have free rein but if you intend to remove them you have to have a plan to fill the void. When people grow up in a dictatorship, especially if they have a deep seated ideology or religion that also convinces them its the correct way to go , it never seems easy to develop a democratic way of ruling, you end up with a small group holding sway until they drop off the perch or are removed by their fellows and in the case of the middle east its complicated by religion.
It seems a lot of people mainly women found living with the Saddam regime was safer and freer, they could walk the streets dressed as they wished and go where they wanted much more easily than after he was removed.

Not to mention the resentment that foreign troops cause by hanging around.

Even countries with populations that are usually supportive of Anericans, grow weary of our troops.

by Original Quill Tue Jan 07, 2020 2:33 am

US General in Baghdad, in charge of US troops, writes a letter to Iraqi military saying we will respect Iraqi sovereignty and withdraw. Penatgon responds...whoa, perhaps not!!!

Whose in charge here?

by Original Quill Wed Jan 08, 2020 11:43 pm

Iraq wants the US out of the ME. The US has been told to get out by Syria and Afghanistan. The Taliban is taking over there. Even Israel refused to assassinate Soleimani when that option was presented to them. Now Israel backs away from Trump after he kills the General.

No one wants the US in the ME. Time to tuck tail and run.

by nicko Thu Jan 09, 2020 5:50 am

"Israel backs away", who told you that ?

by Original Quill Thu Jan 09, 2020 4:14 pm

nicko wrote: "Israel backs away", who told you that ?

MSNBC. Israel is playing a delicate game here. They are of course aware that the President has been impeached. So they don't want to appear too cozy with him. They are noticeably quiet right now. Do you hear anything?

Israel has had many opportunities to knock out Soliemani, but backed off because it was viewed as too extreme. They have the impulse control that Trump lacks.

by Guest Thu Jan 09, 2020 4:40 pm

nicko wrote: "Israel backs away", who told you that ?

Mate Quill is clueless on Israel and is based more around his own paranoia

The amount of times I have to correct him on history shows Quill holds a warped a bias line

Hence its pointless asking someone who does not even read israeli media, no matter whether left or right wing

by Original Quill Thu Jan 09, 2020 4:50 pm

Thorin wrote:
nicko wrote: "Israel backs away", who told you that ?

Mate Quill is clueless on Israel and is based more around his own paranoia

The amount of times I have to correct him on history shows Quill holds a warped a bias line

Hence its pointless asking someone who does not even read israeli media, no matter whether left or right wing

Nonsense. You are simply unable to discuss the subject. So, typically, you resort to argumentum ad hominem.

Message to US: get out of Iraq Avatars-000192723144-istnbe-t500x500

Message to US: get out of Iraq Avatars-000192723144-istnbe-t500x500

by nicko Thu Jan 09, 2020 6:16 pm

Sorry Quill, Israel backed Trump, Publicly !

by Original Quill Fri Jan 10, 2020 4:07 am

nicko wrote: Sorry Quill, Israel backed Trump, Publicly !

And quietly.

by nicko Fri Jan 10, 2020 5:52 am

So they did back Israel, Quietly or not , you were wrong !

by Original Quill Fri Jan 10, 2020 3:46 pm

nicko wrote: So they did back Israel, Quietly or not , you were wrong !

I was right. Politics is a relative science. Israel spoke in such faint voice that it was almost a rebuke on Trump.

All the more pronounced as Israel is normally like your dog on a leash, looking back, urging you to run faster. This time it was reduced to a whimper, tail tucked to protect its anus.

by nicko Fri Jan 10, 2020 4:38 pm

That's rubbish Quill !

by Original Quill Fri Jan 10, 2020 5:18 pm

nicko wrote:That's rubbish Quill !

The world is a lot more complicated than your simple interpretation of it, nick. There are no absolutes in politics. All is relative. Look at the Republicans...they used to curse and spit on Russians. Now they are practically Russian agents.

Israel is well practiced in the art of politics. Moreover, they know the ME even better that do we. They measure their adjectives and adverbs, to give indication of 'hot' and 'cold' in their responses.

What you saw in Israel's response to the assassination of Qasem Soleimani was a tight, tempid smile. Ordinarily, you would see speeches being given, heads of state congratulating each other, parades, awards and endless cheer-leading.

What you saw from Natanyahu was...nothing. A flat pancake. This is because Israel, much more versed in ME politics that the US, and certainly more than the impeached President Trump, knew that assassination of Soleimani was an act of war on a nation state. Israel had, themselves, considered killing him, and rejected it as far too dangerous.

Keep in mind that the US is already otherwise at war with Iran...economic war. Iran feels it is justified in an asymmetrical sense, to return fire. All that the US has done--despite your cheerleading--is open themselves to counter-attacks.

The other shoe will drop.

by Guest Fri Jan 10, 2020 5:26 pm

nicko wrote:That's rubbish Quill !

Mate he talks such trash all the time about Israel

The one nation that has continually stood up to tyrants and mad mullahs in the Middle east

Its because of Israel that Saddam and Assad never obtain Nuke weapons

Even Iran secretly made a huge sighed of relief, when Israel took out Saddam's Nuke facility

The majority of Israeli's would simple giggle at what Quill comes out with

I see the US voted to give Israel over 3 billion again, for defence, which also is paid back in technology developed by Israel

Its a winning partnership

by Original Quill Fri Jan 10, 2020 5:53 pm

Thorin wrote:
nicko wrote:That's rubbish Quill !

Mate he talks such trash all the time about Israel

The one nation that has continually stood up to tyrants and mad mullahs in the Middle east

Its because of Israel that Saddam and Assad never obtain Nuke weapons

Even Iran secretly made a huge sighed of relief, when Israel took out Saddam's Nuke facility

The majority of Israeli's would simple giggle at what Quill comes out with

I see the US voted to give Israel over 3 billion again, for defence, which also is paid back in technology developed by Israel

Its a winning partnership

You see, nick. This Message to US: get out of Iraq 3408175593

is more of the cheerleading that we would expect to see had the killing of Soleimani not left Israel aghast. You heard nothing like that out of even Natanyahu. What you heard is a rather pregnant silence.

Israel has to live there...suffer the consequence... Trump lives in a world of the alt.right, where conspiracies abound.

by Guest Fri Jan 10, 2020 6:02 pm

Iran is pulling back from its latest confrontation with the US because it fears President Donald Trump, a top Israeli analyst asserted on Thursday.

Ehud Yaari, a veteran Israeli journalist and expert on the Middle East, wrote at the Israeli news site Mako that Iran was “reluctant to continue to clash with the US” and “taking a step back or maybe just a time out.”

The reason, said Yaari, was that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was “scared of Trump.”

“Although he mocks him, he also fears him,” Yaari noted.

The signs of this, according to Yaari, were everywhere. Following the assassination of Iran’s Quds Force chief Qassem Soleimani last week, Iran was “satisfied” with firing missiles at US bases “intended as much as possible to avoid inflicting casualties.”

Missiles fired at a US base in Iraqi Kurdistan, he pointed out, “missed completely” and “at least one missile was launched without an explosive warhead.”

Moreover, Yaari said, “Iran has instructed Shi’a militias in Iraq not to make good on their threats for now to launch a terror campaign against the 5,000 American soldiers in the country.”

Even Kataib Hezbollah, the pro-Iran group whose leader was killed along with Soleimani, was “now calling for ‘de-escalation’ instead of revenge,” Yaari added.

Along with this, Iraqi Shi’as were proving to be increasingly uncomfortable with Iran’s attempt to serve as their patron, meaning Khamenei must “exercise caution.”

“In short: the roar of threats being heard from Tehran should be heard without too much anxiety,” Yaari says. “When the Iranians talk about 80 American dead as a result of the missile fire, they know very well that they are clinging to lies.”

https://www.algemeiner.com/2020/01/09/israeli-analyst-iran-is-taking-a-step-back-for-fear-of-trump/

by Guest Fri Jan 10, 2020 6:05 pm

To Deter War With Iran, U.S. Should Use Its Asymmetric Edge: Air Power

The U.S. MQ-9 Reaper drone strike that eliminated top Iranian military leader Qasem Soleimani on January 3 was a measured, timely, and appropriate combat action. It occurred after 18 months of restraint by the Trump Administration in the face of a series of increasingly provocative Iranian violations of international law—the seizing of oil tankers in international waters; attacking of other oil tankers; the shooting down of an unarmed American drone in international airspace; and the direct attack on Saudi Arabia’s oil infrastructure. The important task now is how the U.S. should be postured to focus on what comes next.

President Trump set a “red line” with Iran—no U.S. casualties—warned Iran not to cross it, and when they did, he acted boldly as promised to defend American personnel and interests. He did so after eleven Hezbollah Brigade attacks on facilities occupied by U.S. personnel who were conducting security training for Iraq’s military. On December 29, 2019 U.S. Air Force aircraft bombed five bases of the Iranian-backed Shia militia Kata’ib Hezbollah, killing twenty-five. On December 31, 2019 members of the Hezbollah Brigades—under the direction of Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al Muhandis, a senior member of Kata’ib Hezbollah—initiated attacks against the U.S. embassy in Baghdad.

Over the course of this same time period, compelling intelligence indicated—according to the Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Miley—that the “size, scale, and scope” of impending attacks planned by Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al Muhandis on U.S. personnel in the region, demanded that the U.S. neutralize the co-commanders of these premeditated attacks. Taking this action dealt a major blow to Iran and the paramilitary groups in Iraq that it supports, as well as demonstrating to Iranian leaders that there are consequences of their malign activity.

Soleimani was the architect of Iranian expansion designed to create a Shia crescent from Iran to Iraq through Syria into southern Lebanon. He was instrumental in keeping Syria’s Assad in power when his regime was on the verge of collapse, and Soleimani was the key figure in getting Russia involved in the Syrian conflict—a factor that led to further bloodshed and instability in the region. He also orchestrated the Iranian infiltration deep into the governments of Iraq and Lebanon; he personally led the recent crackdown on demonstrators across Iraq who are rejecting Iran’s influence in Iraq’s politics reportedly killing over 1,000 with 20,000 injured since October 1, 2019; and he is directly responsible for killing over 600 U.S. military personnel in Iraq. Retired General David Petraeus, a previous commander of American forces in Iraq, referred to Soleimani as, "our most significant and evil adversary in the greater Middle East."

The action to eliminate Soleimani needs to be put into the context of a three-part strategy—to constrain Iran’s malign activities; roll-back Iran’s influence in the region; and ultimately deter further Iranian aggression. The deterrent element is especially important. Securing interests through peaceful influence is in America’s long-term interest. To deter Iran, its leaders need to believe the U.S. will use its power. This is akin to pushing back on a bully. At some point, a counteroffensive is required, or the abuse will continue.

Looking forward several perspectives are key. First, leadership matters—Soleimani is not replaceable in the short term. He was Iran’s top terrorist, an influential military persona, and leader of Iranian revolutionary ideology. As the strategic mind driving much of Iran's strategy, less adept Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps subordinates will take over his roles. This turn of events creates opportunity and U.S. decision calculus should capitalize on this fact to exploit mistakes made by Soleimani’s replacement.

Second, American leadership must prepare their next steps by building the confidence of the Congress and the public and then reinforcing it. Some on the national stage are pandering fear—fear of potential Iranian reaction to Soleimani’s death. The fear of possible consequences should not outweigh the logic that forceful action is sometimes necessary to defend U.S. and allied personnel and to shore up the value of deterrence. The Trump Administration needs to convincingly explain these facts in order to garner the American people’s support as well as that of international friends and allies to build a coalition to constrain Iran’s bellicosity. The reality is that taking no action would have increased the odds for further Iranian aggression. It is important to grasp the nature of deterrence. We will not deter Iran through inaction. Although no sane individual wants to see open warfare between the U.S. and Iran, the best way to avoid that outcome is to convince Iran’s leadership that continued aggression against the U.S. and her allies will come at an increasingly high cost on their part.

Third, at any point in time, the U.S. can impose devastating effects on Iran. Such operations will not be easy and would incur risk, but they are wholly attainable. Iran, on the other hand is a weak nation without the material resources required to pose a similar threat to the U.S. That is the principal reason why it relies on terrorism and proxy forces. Iran’s leaders need to fully understand this relative military balance. Those leaders must be made to realize that continued violence against U.S. personnel will result in the rapid application of force against key elements of their regime.

Fourth, America’s security leadership must move beyond anachronistic military conventions that associate warfare with large numbers of soldiers on the ground as its primary element. With proper application, the effects of lethal force with modern aerospace power—our asymmetric advantage—supplemented by offensive cyber operations can result in the collapse of Iran’s economy, negation of their military, denuding of their nuclear programs, and choking of their regional influence. Iran’s critical oil refining capacity, oil distribution network, and power grid can all be rendered ineffective by these means in short order without any U.S. boots on the ground in Iran.

Fifth, there must be clarity about the character of conflict with Iran if pushed to do so by further aggression against U.S. personnel. Dealing with Iran militarily should not follow the flawed strategies applied over the last 19 years in Afghanistan and Iraq. Those strategies involved deploying hundreds of thousands of ground forces in the region to conduct prolonged occupation, nation building, and counterinsurgency operations—none of which are applicable to Iran. Rather, any action necessary in Iran should be modeled after the decisive take-down of Iraq applied in Operation Desert Storm in 1991 using aerospace power for 43 days. Only 4 days of that operation used ground forces to reoccupy Kuwait and that will not be required in an Iranian effort. We have to stop equating strategy with the number of U.S. boots on the ground. Large numbers of U.S. ground forces in the Mideast plays into Iran’s hands and does lead to unnecessary and unwanted “endless wars.” Rapid accomplishment of desired effects should be the goal.

The best way to deter Iran now is to supplement the power projection capability of U.S. air forces in the region by forward deploying fully armed and loaded stealth B-2 bombers, F-22s, and additional stealth F-35s to the region—the Mullah’s will get the message. Peace through strength is key to deterring open conflict with Iran—projecting fear or appeasement is not.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davedeptula/2020/01/06/how-to-deter-war-with-iran-meeting-the-challenge/#161f921d66dd

by Original Quill Fri Jan 10, 2020 6:23 pm

nicko wrote:That's rubbish Quill !

You have to ask yourself, Why would Iran shoot down a Ukrainian airliner leaving it's own airport? We are making too much of the conflict between the US and Iran, and not considering other possibilities.

The Ukrainian 737 was the 10th aircraft to depart the Tehran airport that morning. No other aircraft were shot down...obviously it was a defect in the aircraft. Likewise, obviously Ukraine would not have allowed the plane to take off if they were worried about an SA missile.

If Iran wanted to shoot down an aircraft, they would do it is some field of battle, or in Israel, where some message would be associated with the act. But...their own airport? What, were they in the throes of some self-hate? If it were a stray missile, why weren't the nine other aircraft shot down?

Absurd.

by Guest Fri Jan 10, 2020 6:28 pm

https://twitter.com/BNONews/status/1215354885924847616?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1215354885924847616&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Felderofziyon.blogspot.com%2F2020%2F01%2F0110-links-pt1-glick-donald-trump-and.html

Definitely a missile

by Original Quill Fri Jan 10, 2020 7:20 pm

The Iraqi Parliament has voted to expell not only US troops, but all troops. The US has refused to do so. This, then, transforms the presence of foreign troops into a hostile occupation.

Which, in turn, appears to align the Iraqis with Iran. So, we have the shi'ites against us. We have the ISIS sunnis against us. And the Saudies are responsible for 9/11. If they don't want us there, and we don't want us there, what are we doing there?

by Guest Thu Jan 16, 2020 3:20 pm

The U.S. military resumed its joint operations with Iraq on Wednesday—less than two weeks after Iraq’s parliament voted to expel all American forces from the country. There was a 10-day pause in operations following President Trump’s decision to assassinate Iran Gen. Qassem Soleimani in Baghdad. That strike provoked fury in the Iraqi government, which accused the U.S. of violating its sovereignty by carrying out airstrikes on its soil. Two U.S. military officials told The New York Times that joint operations had restarted and were aimed at preventing ISIS from gaining any momentum from the pause in operations and stifling any propaganda victory it might claim. It’s not clear if the Iraqi government approved the resumption of joint missions. U.S. officials, including Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, have dismissed calls from Iraqi officials for American troops to leave for good.

Read it at The New York Times

So much for all the bluff and bluster eh?

by Original Quill Thu Jan 16, 2020 7:08 pm

phil wrote:The U.S. military resumed its joint operations with Iraq on Wednesday—less than two weeks after Iraq’s parliament voted to expel all American forces from the country.

Nonsense. Who is the adversary in these "joint operations"? As you go on to describe, it is ISIS. But the impeached President Trump pulled out of the combat against ISIS, saying that Iraq has been "liberated".

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/03/13/have-iraq-syria-been-liberated-isis-president-trump-says/

The Iraqis say the same thing:

Business Insider wrote:Iraqi Prime Minister Hadir Al-Abadi declared military victory over the Islamic State in Iraq on Tuesday, just hours after Iranian President Hassan Rouhani announced that Iranian-backed forces had driven the terror group out of Syria. See, "ISIS has been defeated in Iraq and Syria".

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/isis-military-defeat-iraq-syria-2017-11

This was late 2017, and the US pullout of Syria in late 2019 indicates that, even in Syria, the impeached president feels the same way: there is no longer an enemy to these joint operations.

There is no purpose to be served by the US military occupation of Iraq. It is just ‘boot-strapping’ to justify an illegal take-over.

by Guest Thu Jan 16, 2020 7:31 pm

How is it nonsense?

You just pulled up two old articles

Clearly the view made in the Iraq parliament was all bluff and bluster

No yanks have left

Yet again you got it wrong

No war with Iran

No third world war

And no US troops forced to leave Iraq. Who in fact are fighting alongside Iraqi forces against ISIS

by Original Quill Thu Jan 16, 2020 7:59 pm

Thorin wrote:How is it nonsense?

You just pulled up two old articles

Clearly the view made in the Iraq parliament was all bluff and bluster

No yanks have left

Yet again you got it wrong

No war with Iran

No third world war

And no US troops forced to leave Iraq. Who in fact are fighting alongside Iraqi forces against ISIS

There is no ISIS, anymore. Impeached President Trump has assured us that ISIS is defeated. The Iraqi Prime Minister has declared the same in Iraq. The Iraqi Parliament has asked, and now insisted that American troops vacate Iraq. The troops have no purpose in being there.

Likewise, there is no war with Iran. And, there is no third world war...knock on wood. There is no joint operation with Iraq, not even a joint purpose. By international law, if a nation wants foreign occupying forces to leave, they should do so.

by Guest Thu Jan 16, 2020 8:11 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Thorin wrote:How is it nonsense?

You just pulled up two old articles

Clearly the view made in the Iraq parliament was all bluff and bluster

No yanks have left

Yet again you got it wrong

No war with Iran

No third world war

And no US troops forced to leave Iraq. Who in fact are fighting alongside Iraqi forces against ISIS

There is no ISIS, anymore. Impeached President Trump has assured us that ISIS is defeated. The Iraqi Prime Minister has declared the same in Iraq. The Iraqi Parliament has asked, and now insisted that American troops vacate Iraq. The troops have no purpose in being there.

Likewise, there is no war with Iran. And, there is no third world war...knock on wood. There is no joint operation with Iraq, not even a joint purpose. By international law, if a nation wants foreign occupying forces to leave, they should do so.

1. Yes there is still ISIS

2. And you believe trump now?

3. There is and always has been a joint operation with iraq, its why allied troops are there

4. No troops have left

5. No attacks by Iraqi forces on US troops

6. No WW3

7. Iran has backed down

8. Iraq's claim, was bluff and bluster, just like iran

Conclusion, Quill gets it wrong on every single issue and point since this has started

by Original Quill Thu Jan 16, 2020 8:54 pm

Thorin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

There is no ISIS, anymore. Impeached President Trump has assured us that ISIS is defeated. The Iraqi Prime Minister has declared the same in Iraq. The Iraqi Parliament has asked, and now insisted that American troops vacate Iraq. The troops have no purpose in being there.

Likewise, there is no war with Iran. And, there is no third world war...knock on wood. There is no joint operation with Iraq, not even a joint purpose. By international law, if a nation wants foreign occupying forces to leave, they should do so.

1. Yes there is still ISIS

2. And you believe trump now?

I follow the age-old tradition of substantiation. I have nothing to substantiate not believing Trump on this one...especially when the Prime Minister of Iraq says the same thing. Even with denial, you've got to have predication.

phil wrote:3. There is and always has been a joint operation with iraq, its why allied troops are there

With a president who ran on the platform of 'pulling out', I believe him when he says there is no more to do here. I've always said that. There is no purpose in Iraq.

phil wrote:4. No troops have left

5. No attacks by Iraqi forces on US troops

6. No WW3

7. Iran has backed down

8. Iraq's claim, was bluff and bluster, just like iran

Conclusion, Quill gets it wrong on every single issue and point since this has started

Ergo: Our job is finished. Nothing left but to toast our success, pack up and board a couple of C-17's for McGuire AFB…good job, mate.

Message to US: get out of Iraq C_17_mcguire_air_force_base

Have a beer on me. Message to US: get out of Iraq 2097912929

by Sponsored content