Iraqi parliament votes to expell all US troops and disarms its citizens

The vote still needs the approval of the Iraqi government, which has permitted a U.S. presence in the country to help combat the Islamic State.


Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi told parliament that Iraq was grateful for the assistance the U.S. has provided in fighting ISIS, but he is now recommending that the 5,200 American troops stationed there permanently leave the country.


Abdul-Mahdi said President Trump called him to ask for help in mediating with Iran after the U.S. embassy in Baghdad was attacked.


Soon after, the U.S. launched the drone strike that killed Soleimani and also claimed the life of Iranian-backed Iraqi militia leader Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis.


Sunni and Kurdish members of parliament boycotted the session, but Shiite parties, many of them Iranian-backed, had enough votes to pass the resolution.


Look for the checks from Iran deposited in all of those bank accounts....

I thought Iran was broke?
Instead of taking care of their people with the oil money from China the great Khomeini told his people they would have to lump it a few years back so Iran could keep pressing into other countries with their terrorist acts. Its on Twitter where he said it go look it up.

How many people here can't afford to see a doctor because we have wasted trillions of dollars doing something no one can explain.
Sorry not going on a sidetrack issue with you. People being able to get or not get medical care is a whole different ball of wax with its own problems that have not a damn thing to do with foreign policy. Hell, I had a nurse call me the other day on behalf of the clinic to say I needed to schedule surgery right away to have my gallbladder taken out, because "that is what they do when you have gallstones". I told her no thank you, I may have to spend another twenty bucks on some herbs that are melting them stones away.
 
We should use this as a means to remove all military, diplomatic and governmental personnel, funding, and sssistance from Iraq. Permanently.

The only thing we should leave is a note informing the Iraqi Government that ANY attack on ANY US asset Which can be traced back to the Iraqi nation will be met with extreme military retaliation that will destroy the Iraqi nation and Government entirely.
 
The vote still needs the approval of the Iraqi government, which has permitted a U.S. presence in the country to help combat the Islamic State.


Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi told parliament that Iraq was grateful for the assistance the U.S. has provided in fighting ISIS, but he is now recommending that the 5,200 American troops stationed there permanently leave the country.


Abdul-Mahdi said President Trump called him to ask for help in mediating with Iran after the U.S. embassy in Baghdad was attacked.


Soon after, the U.S. launched the drone strike that killed Soleimani and also claimed the life of Iranian-backed Iraqi militia leader Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis.


Sunni and Kurdish members of parliament boycotted the session, but Shiite parties, many of them Iranian-backed, had enough votes to pass the resolution.


Look for the checks from Iran deposited in all of those bank accounts....

I thought Iran was broke?


They have 150 billion dollars from obama that they use to spread terrorism...

We have 21 trillion in debt you refuse to pay for.
 
The vote still needs the approval of the Iraqi government, which has permitted a U.S. presence in the country to help combat the Islamic State.


Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi told parliament that Iraq was grateful for the assistance the U.S. has provided in fighting ISIS, but he is now recommending that the 5,200 American troops stationed there permanently leave the country.


Abdul-Mahdi said President Trump called him to ask for help in mediating with Iran after the U.S. embassy in Baghdad was attacked.


Soon after, the U.S. launched the drone strike that killed Soleimani and also claimed the life of Iranian-backed Iraqi militia leader Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis.


Sunni and Kurdish members of parliament boycotted the session, but Shiite parties, many of them Iranian-backed, had enough votes to pass the resolution.


Look for the checks from Iran deposited in all of those bank accounts....

I thought Iran was broke?


They have 150 billion dollars from obama that they use to spread terrorism...

We have 21 trillion in debt you refuse to pay for.
Well we'd better insist that our legislative and elected officials get everyone that has utilized the military around the globe for protection to pay their fair share of that then.
 
Just for clarification.

It was not everybody in Parliament, just a little less than half. The Shiite coalition supported by Iran with the money that Obama gave them.

Second it was a non binding resolution. Really doesn't mean jackshit.
 
Just for clarification.

It was not everybody in Parliament, just a little less than half. The Shiite coalition supported by Iran with the money that Obama gave them.

Second it was a non binding resolution. Really doesn't mean jackshit.
Yup all the shites and none of the others represented there kind of a dead give away what's on the horizon for poor lil ole Iran terrorism.
 
The vote still needs the approval of the Iraqi government, which has permitted a U.S. presence in the country to help combat the Islamic State.


Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi told parliament that Iraq was grateful for the assistance the U.S. has provided in fighting ISIS, but he is now recommending that the 5,200 American troops stationed there permanently leave the country.


Abdul-Mahdi said President Trump called him to ask for help in mediating with Iran after the U.S. embassy in Baghdad was attacked.


Soon after, the U.S. launched the drone strike that killed Soleimani and also claimed the life of Iranian-backed Iraqi militia leader Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis.


Sunni and Kurdish members of parliament boycotted the session, but Shiite parties, many of them Iranian-backed, had enough votes to pass the resolution.


Look for the checks from Iran deposited in all of those bank accounts....

I thought Iran was broke?


They have 150 billion dollars from obama that they use to spread terrorism...

We have 21 trillion in debt you refuse to pay for.
Well we'd better insist that our legislative and elected officials get everyone that has utilized the military around the globe for protection to pay their fair share of that then.

You let me know when that happens. The other problem is none of this has been for their protection.
 
You let me know when that happens. The other problem is none of this has been for their protection.
Well you are correct in a sense on the ones who lost the last world war. Apparently some of those think they want a repeat event. Could happen I suppose but keep in mind Russia allied with America to save themselves in the last one. That is probably why you have all these peeps now having fitz over president Trump warning president Putin about terrorist plans in his neck of the woods. There is always that option of emptying out some bank accounts of those found to be complicit with terrorist too. That would probably pay a hell of a chunk of that debt in a hurry.
 
Interesting explanation of what they actually voted on-
994DA1E8-E34D-4AE3-A077-D43D96C61197.jpeg
6395C9AD-13AA-4742-9CE2-599CB3A0833F.jpeg
D1DA1BF4-DA0F-4403-B2A7-0CDC7F4DED65.jpeg
 
You let me know when that happens. The other problem is none of this has been for their protection.
Well you are correct in a sense on the ones who lost the last world war. Apparently some of those think they want a repeat event. Could happen I suppose but keep in mind Russia allied with America to save themselves in the last one. That is probably why you have all these peeps now having fitz over president Trump warning president Putin about terrorist plans in his neck of the woods. There is always that option of emptying out some bank accounts of those found to be complicit with terrorist too. That would probably pay a hell of a chunk of that debt in a hurry.

What we do has nothing to do with protecting anyone. I entirely about controlling them.
 
You let me know when that happens. The other problem is none of this has been for their protection.
Well you are correct in a sense on the ones who lost the last world war. Apparently some of those think they want a repeat event. Could happen I suppose but keep in mind Russia allied with America to save themselves in the last one. That is probably why you have all these peeps now having fitz over president Trump warning president Putin about terrorist plans in his neck of the woods. There is always that option of emptying out some bank accounts of those found to be complicit with terrorist too. That would probably pay a hell of a chunk of that debt in a hurry.

What we do has nothing to do with protecting anyone. I entirely about controlling them.
No that is the worlds Islam and China's communist you are talking about that takes all things by force and we are not an Islamic nation and to my notion we will never be one.
 
Trump's Biggest Nightmare! "Punish" him by making it easier for him to withdraw American troops from a Middle Eastern country.

How will they torture Trump next? By greenlighting construction of a new Trump hotel and casino in downtown Baghdad?

Read the fine print. It was only the Shiite MPs who showed up to vote; the Sunni and Kurdish members, totaling not quite half the chamber, boycotted despite threats from Iranian-sponsored militias that anyone who declined to support the measure would be considered a traitor. And that’s not all:

The legislation threads a fine needle: While using strong language demanding that the government “end any foreign presence on Iraqi soil and prevent the use of Iraqi airspace, soil and water for any reason” by foreign forces, it gives no timetable for doing so.

It would end the mission approved in 2014 that gave the United States the explicit task of helping the Iraqi forces to fight the Islamic State. That agreement gave the Americans substantial latitude to launch attacks and use Iraqi airspace. But the measure would leave in place the Strategic Framework Agreement, which allows an American troop presence in Iraq.​

All today’s vote did is attempt to formally withdraw Iraq from the coalition to defeat ISIS. If Iraq leaves the coalition then the reason for allowing U.S. troops to be stationed in the country — defeating ISIS — evaporates. It’s an indirect way, in other words, of signaling that Americans (and other foreign troops) should leave. And it’s not even binding law. It would become law if the Iraqi prime minister, Adel Abdul Mahdi, signed it, which he’s given every indication of doing. But there’s a catch:

Lawmakers responded by passing a nonbinding resolution calling on the government to end the foreign troop presence in Iraq. The United States and Iraq cooperate under a strategic framework agreement whose cancellation requires binding legislation. Iraq’s caretaker government is not legally authorized to sign such a law, Iraqi legal experts said.​

Why is Abdul Mahdi part of a “caretaker government” in the first place? Because: He’s Iran’s boy, and Iraqis have grown tired of being governed by Iran’s boys. He came to power, and was protected while in power, due to the efforts of the now smoked Qassem Soleimani, who brokered the deal that installed him as PM and then leaned on various political factions inside Iraq to stick with him. That didn’t sit well with Iraqis who already resent Iranian domination; two months of mass protests followed and eventually forced Abdul Mahdi to resign. He remains in office for the time being while the country tries to figure out how to form a new government that’s acceptable-ish to all factions.

So today’s resolution was championed by an Iranian stooge and ratified by Shiites who are either allied with Iran themselves or too fearful at a fraught moment to defy Iran’s demands that the U.S. be rebuked. Media coverage that fails to note those sectarian wrinkles in the politics of the vote is as skewed as some of the reporting last week alleging that “demonstrators” attacked the U.S. embassy in Baghdad. Those weren’t demonstrators, they were militiamen backed by Iran and led by a guy who himself ended up painted across the asphalt next to Soleimani in Thursday night’s airstrike.

Why such weak tea of a "resolution"? Iraqi Shiites don't have the power to get overly aggressive on Iran’s behalf. The more emphatically they side with Tehran against the U.S., the more of a divide forms with Iraqi Kurds and Sunnis. We've had several months of mass protests against Iranian hegemony over Iraq, with even plenty of young Shiites participating. If they push Iran’s agenda too hard, the protesters might get even more pissed off and the country even further destabilized. So they gave their Iranian masters a half-measure.

To be honest, even the Shiite don't want the United States to leave much more than the Sunnis and Kurds do. Losing U.S. military support — and money — makes preventing the revival of ISIS that much harder. Having American troops nearby provides a political counterweight to Iran’s influence. The American presence helps maintain a certain balance of power, Iraqi Shiite leaders, who are Arab, do not share the Persian Shiite Leaders desire to rule politically. Ayatollah Sistani has no desire to be a political ruler. The Americans in country give them much more room to maneuver than they’d have if Iran could do as they please in Iraq. With us there, Shiite leaders play both sides to some extent. They know full well that with US gone, Iran would turn them into a vassal state.
 

Forum List

Back
Top