US Forces Exit Iraq(reuters.com) |
US Forces Exit Iraq(reuters.com) |
Kind of crazy to lead with this. Talking about the Americans victims (mostly military) and ignoring the local Iraqi victims (mostly civilians).
You forgot to add that in 20 years time, America will go back to Iraq to make a film about how killing Iraqis made thier soldiers feel sad.
This is standard US procedure.
Perhaps you will remember the Taguba report on Abu Ghraib, when a superior of his suggested he let it go because they were "only Iraqis".
I am curious what did the world gain from this?
For Israel, oil from Kurdistan: The revival of the Kirkuk-Haifa pipeline fell through but Turkey stepped in to enable transport.
For both, the neutralization of a regional actor. The chaos that also weakened its neighbors. Eventually, the destruction of Syria. A base and flight path to attack Iran.
Distracting people with the oil excuse gives cover to ppl who need it least.
Seems "he tried to kill my father, now there's an excuse to take him out and turn his country into a democracy in the region, and a US-aligned entity" explains most of it.
Much like Trump, it's pettiness and prestige and a notion of more points on the board. (Though Trump did in fact attack Venezuela for oil, or possibly more so just to publicly boast about taking their oil and seem strong to his fans.)
Downvote all you want, but the region had its first "nuclear" war in 2016 - with proliferation tracking "nukes" so really who cares. It blew itself up, it will blow itself up again.
Warrior cultures "Klingons" do not go to space, they go to heaven.
I am not even necessarily disagreeing with it (I lean very anti-Iran and slightly geopolitically neoconservative) but the tone is not at all neutral and makes no mention of the possible downsides of troops staying in Iraq after decades.
Although the Iraq war was based on a lie and caused tremendous suffering, it did demonstrate the US's willingness and capability to handle a brash dictatorship. In this sense, at least at a macro level, it has tempered (as opposed to emboldened) other dictatorships like Iran and North Korea.
Welp, sounds like it wasn't going to happen.
https://thecradle.co/articles/why-does-the-us-still-control-...
https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/us-control-venezuelan-oil-revenue-...
Classic Chappelle show skit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFERPDn3i0o
Although the loss of that school is quite saddening :/ poor girls
I remember a speech at the UN, with a certain vial being held..
Baath party is destroyed and no longer exists, political and underlying ethnic groups that propped it up are deeply marginalised and sidelined, political regime in place in Iraq is exactly the one America wanted to have there, and it WORKS: they have regular competitive elections (in the strictest sense of it: before the elections, no one can predict results in advance) and a well-functioning civil society where people can advocate for, or protest against things without it devolving to tribalism (not "Shia vs Sunni" riots or similar). Iraq as it currently is, is created by America and stands firmly on its feet.
2025 elections: Briefing: Iran media call Iraq election result victory for 'Resistance' <https://monitoring.bbc.co.uk/product/b0004xgt>
Amnesty International Report on human rights in 2025 <https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/middle-east-and-north-af...>
The last 5 years will be 5 chapters in history books
Perhaps the US are trying not even to acknowledge it. A reputable newspaper would normally include "the Department of War was contacted for comment" but maybe that's not appropriate for Reuters.
It reports on some reactions.
We have too many labels. That’s not good for a species which hates others based on different labels.
Edit: I should’ve expressed that this was a general thought triggered by the comment but it’s not a direct criticism of the person making it.
"Slightly geopolitically neoconservative" is the short way to describe that.
For instance:
> US forces leave country where 4,500 of them died in worst US war of 21st century
I am not even certain that this war was worse than the Afghanistan war. Perhaps the Iraq war was objectively worse, but since the sudden withdrawal in Afghanistan, leaving the Taliban in charge, I am not so sure which war was worse. I am not even sure how to qualify it, so Reuters stating this was the worst war is ... indeed a strange label to use. Wasn't Reuters indeed more objective in the past? And with that I mean objective at all times, not white-washing or black-washing.
I now finished reading the article and it indeed seems op-ed. The reader now thinks that the war against Iran must continue. I still fail to understand why the USA invaded the area. Other than some making enormous profits, of course. If 911 was used as a rationale, why was not Saudi Arabia attacked?
Now, there are certainly other axis along which you can judge a war.
Iraq was 4500 dead for one Texan trying to imitate daddy while listening to his CEO buddies.
Thank you for taking the time to clarify your position.
There was certainly an argument to be made about the oil factor. [0]
Also look up the Halliburton controversy with respect to conflict of interest in the administration.
Is that what the Iranian state media is telling you?
P.S. I have no idea what is Iranian state media or how to watch/read it.
So Iran with these partners and the population size and natural resources, its reasonable to say it is a regional power. And not a 'new' one, but has been for some time.