It was also a diplomatic incident since he didn't inform the Iraqi government or get their approval for the visit first. So he inadvertently treated them like a subject nation instead of a sovereign equal.
To be fair, it pretty much is.
I don't really agree, Iraq isn't Afghanistan. Their government is not kept afloat by US aid, and while US support in the war against ISIS was crucial, overall their military isn't dependent on the US for its existence. While US influence in Baghdad is probably still significant, Iran's influence is probably greater, and by now enough relatively independent Iraqi political factions have formed and gained influence that I don't think any foreign nation can be said to control the country.
Also, US forces are in Iraq as a result of Baghdad formally requesting them when under severe threat in 2014, rather than a result of an invasion and occupation as in 2003.
edit- missed Jephery's bottom'd post, I basically agree with them
Kaputa on
+7
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
It was also a diplomatic incident since he didn't inform the Iraqi government or get their approval for the visit first. So he inadvertently treated them like a subject nation instead of a sovereign equal.
To be fair, it pretty much is.
Its pretty debatable how much influence the US has left in Iraq. We left the door open for Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, and Iran to peddle influence within it, and no elected official is going to win by sucking up to the US.
Iran probably has more troops under its control in Iraq than we do at this point.
The lack of US influence in Iraq is another reason why the Iraq War was completely pointless though. I don't think the Bush admin thought beyond "it'll be a capitalist democracy, and we're the biggest baddest capitalist democracy, so we'll pull the strings."
I feel that the head of government of a country flying into another country to visit the military bases the first government has there unannounced and it resulting in nothing more than a "diplomatic incident" is pretty indicative of the relationship, regardless of whatever you think "influence" means.
Trump's position with regards to Iran continues to be incoherent outside of whatever Obama did was bad.
+16
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
like, wow yeah it isn't Afghanistan. And the troops there are there by invitation. But Iraq has always been regarded as a thing to do whatever they want with by a certain part of the military/foreign policy establishment, and the Iraqis are well aware of that.
It hasn't been treated as a sovereign equal, though in fairness it isn't completely treated as a subject nation.
Trump does not really have firm foreign policy other than do something then wait to see if fox TV and various right wing talking heads start yelling at him and then slowly walk it back if they do.
The 120-day timeline is the military "trying to please the President and not get everyone killed," one Pentagon official told CNN. "They should probably take longer if you ask me."
Daniel Dale (Toronto Star reporter on DC goings on and man we watch on twitter trying to hold on to his sanity in the face of following Trump around and watching him do things) had a whole twitter thread on Trump's cabinet meeting today. Most of which seemed to be about Syria and Afghanistan. It's surreal and Trump sounds even crazier then usual.
Trump thinking doing a decent job in a war should be easy if he gives them a bunch of money is both depressing and expected.
I'm more flummoxed by him fixating on a general's personal aesthetics so much.
Alexander the Great, Hannibal, Scipio Africanus, Julius Caesar, John Churchill, Eric Lutendorf, all military geniuses, all rather homely. A winning smile and a hot bod have fuck all to do with competency in the real world.
No matter where you go...there you are. ~ Buckaroo Banzai
Trump thinking doing a decent job in a war should be easy if he gives them a bunch of money is both depressing and expected.
I'm more flummoxed by him fixating on a general's personal aesthetics so much.
Alexander the Great, Hannibal, Scipio Africanus, Julius Caesar, John Churchill, Eric Lutendorf, all military geniuses, all rather homely. A winning smile and a hot bod have fuck all to do with competency in the real world.
Excuse me?
+1
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Trump thinking doing a decent job in a war should be easy if he gives them a bunch of money is both depressing and expected.
I'm more flummoxed by him fixating on a general's personal aesthetics so much.
Alexander the Great, Hannibal, Scipio Africanus, Julius Caesar, John Churchill, Eric Lutendorf, all military geniuses, all rather homely. A winning smile and a hot bod have fuck all to do with competency in the real world.
Look at what he says. He thinks life is like TV and movies.
+19
Options
BlackDragon480Bluster KerfuffleMaster of Windy ImportRegistered Userregular
Trump thinking doing a decent job in a war should be easy if he gives them a bunch of money is both depressing and expected.
I'm more flummoxed by him fixating on a general's personal aesthetics so much.
Alexander the Great, Hannibal, Scipio Africanus, Julius Caesar, John Churchill, Eric Lutendorf, all military geniuses, all rather homely. A winning smile and a hot bod have fuck all to do with competency in the real world.
Excuse me?
Yeah, the real one had dark hair, was short for the time, and had a truly spectacular schnoz. A lot of emissaries mistook Hephasteion (who was far more conventionally handsome) for Alexander when meeting him for the first time.
No matter where you go...there you are. ~ Buckaroo Banzai
I feel like there is some Chinese fable or proverb about the foolish emperor who selects his generals based on how they appear, not how they fight.
If there wasn't one before, there will be soon.
(There's another saying you may be familiar with: "history is written by the victors." IMO, it's looking more and more likely that it will be... in Mandarin.)
like, wow yeah it isn't Afghanistan. And the troops there are there by invitation. But Iraq has always been regarded as a thing to do whatever they want with by a certain part of the military/foreign policy establishment, and the Iraqis are well aware of that.
It hasn't been treated as a sovereign equal, though in fairness it isn't completely treated as a subject nation.
To be fair, Iraq kind of is a subject; when the US pulled out and ISIS rose up the iraqi army collapsed like a wet paper bag.
Trump thinking doing a decent job in a war should be easy if he gives them a bunch of money is both depressing and expected.
I'm more flummoxed by him fixating on a general's personal aesthetics so much.
Alexander the Great, Hannibal, Scipio Africanus, Julius Caesar, John Churchill, Eric Lutendorf, all military geniuses, all rather homely. A winning smile and a hot bod have fuck all to do with competency in the real world.
Look at what he says. He thinks life is like TV and movies.
I've heard this said before, to the point that it's almost a meme- but it really is true.
We are being governed by that brat with special powers from The Twilight Zone.
like, wow yeah it isn't Afghanistan. And the troops there are there by invitation. But Iraq has always been regarded as a thing to do whatever they want with by a certain part of the military/foreign policy establishment, and the Iraqis are well aware of that.
It hasn't been treated as a sovereign equal, though in fairness it isn't completely treated as a subject nation.
To be fair, Iraq kind of is a subject; when the US pulled out and ISIS rose up the iraqi army collapsed like a wet paper bag.
I feel like there is some Chinese fable or proverb about the foolish emperor who selects his generals based on how they appear, not how they fight.
I'm pretty sure Sun Tzu would have an aneurysm if one of the mandarins said that to him.
If the US tried to command Iraq to do something, they would laugh in the president's face.
Ok we helped them beat ISIS, but that worked out perfectly for the Shia majority, as they can now brutalize the Sunnis without question, on accusation of being ISIS terrorists and sympathizers.
The fighting was largely confined to the Sunni west and north of the country, while ISIS was stopped outside of Baghdad, which is in the border region between the Sunni and Shia regions, so the Sunni regions are devastated while the Shia regions are intact.
At this point, I dunno what the US is doing in Iraq. Are we just there to make sure if the Sunnis revolt against the Shia, they get kicked in the balls again?
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
+1
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Afghanistan is an occupied nation, as Japan and Germany used to be. But controlling Iraq has been the plan since at least the 90s, and it happened. This talk of "influence" ignores that Iraq's industry is in large part reliant on the US and the West. Once the spoils are divided there is no need for direct control, you can just collect the protection money each week.
The US got "invited in" to protect their investment.
Afghanistan is an occupied nation, as Japan and Germany used to be. But controlling Iraq has been the plan since at least the 90s, and it happened. This talk of "influence" ignores that Iraq's industry is in large part reliant on the US and the West. Once the spoils are divided there is no need for direct control, you can just collect the protection money each week.
The US got "invited in" to protect their investment.
That doesn't make sense though, because the Iraqi government is free to do business with Russia, China, and Iran, our geopolitical rivals, and they do a lot of business with them indeed. We have no leverage because the US doesn't have the willingness to fight a real war anymore and everyone knows it. So they do whatever they want to do.
Jephery on
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Afghanistan is an occupied nation, as Japan and Germany used to be. But controlling Iraq has been the plan since at least the 90s, and it happened. This talk of "influence" ignores that Iraq's industry is in large part reliant on the US and the West. Once the spoils are divided there is no need for direct control, you can just collect the protection money each week.
The US got "invited in" to protect their investment.
That doesn't make sense though, because the Iraqi government is free to do business with Russia, China, and Iran, our geopolitical rivals, and they do a lot of business with them indeed. We have no leverage because the US doesn't have the willingness to fight a real war anymore and everyone knows it. So they do whatever they want to do.
Iraq is entirely free to break 20 year service contracts. It will probably not though. Seems like a bad idea. Last time they excluded the US they were destroyed.
And I merely suspect, can not even remotely prove, am just basing this on some gut feeling, that Iraqis are somewhat sceptical over the assertion that the USA has no "willingness to fight a real war anymore".
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Mere suspicion. Pure gut feeling. I have conducted no surveys. Not even spoken to anyone from Iraq. I just think the likelihood of them thinking "Great. This is for sure the last time that the Americans have bothered us." is pretty low.
Afghanistan is an occupied nation, as Japan and Germany used to be. But controlling Iraq has been the plan since at least the 90s, and it happened. This talk of "influence" ignores that Iraq's industry is in large part reliant on the US and the West. Once the spoils are divided there is no need for direct control, you can just collect the protection money each week.
The US got "invited in" to protect their investment.
That doesn't make sense though, because the Iraqi government is free to do business with Russia, China, and Iran, our geopolitical rivals, and they do a lot of business with them indeed. We have no leverage because the US doesn't have the willingness to fight a real war anymore and everyone knows it. So they do whatever they want to do.
Iraq is entirely free to break 20 year service contracts. It will probably not though. Seems like a bad idea. Last time they excluded the US they were destroyed.
And I merely suspect, can not even remotely prove, am just basing this on some gut feeling, that Iraqis are somewhat sceptical over the assertion that the USA has no "willingness to fight a real war anymore".
Iraq's trade with Iran and the US is actually almost equal at ~12 billion a year each.
Couldn't get numbers on Iraq trade with China, but it seems that Iraq is a cornerstone of the Belt and Road initiative for them and they've been heavily investing in Iraqi infrastructure.
Trump is channeling the id of the Republicans in his isolationism, and Obama showed that the Democrats have no heart for conflict unless its a multinational effort.
Jephery on
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Afghanistan is an occupied nation, as Japan and Germany used to be. But controlling Iraq has been the plan since at least the 90s, and it happened. This talk of "influence" ignores that Iraq's industry is in large part reliant on the US and the West. Once the spoils are divided there is no need for direct control, you can just collect the protection money each week.
The US got "invited in" to protect their investment.
That doesn't make sense though, because the Iraqi government is free to do business with Russia, China, and Iran, our geopolitical rivals, and they do a lot of business with them indeed. We have no leverage because the US doesn't have the willingness to fight a real war anymore and everyone knows it. So they do whatever they want to do.
Iraq is entirely free to break 20 year service contracts. It will probably not though. Seems like a bad idea. Last time they excluded the US they were destroyed.
And I merely suspect, can not even remotely prove, am just basing this on some gut feeling, that Iraqis are somewhat sceptical over the assertion that the USA has no "willingness to fight a real war anymore".
Iraq's trade with Iran and the US is actually almost equal at ~12 billion a year each.
Couldn't get numbers on Iraq trade with China, but it seems that Iraq is a cornerstone of the Belt and Road initiative for them and they've been heavily investing in Iraqi infrastructure.
Trump is channeling the id of the Republicans in his isolationism, and Obama showed that the Democrats have no heart for conflict unless its a multinational effort.
about two weeks after the United States restored sanctions targeting Iran’s key oil industry as well as its banking and transportation sectors.
Baghdad is seeking U.S. approval to allow it to import Iranian gas for its power stations
Yeah totally free dude.
I was talking about the contracts for the exploitation of Iraqi oil fields, but this article isn't exactly supportive of your "Iraq is totally free" claim. Total value of import is not indicative of influence, since China is hardly going to stop buying oil. Iraq has to straight ask for permission to import energy? (They actually need to import gas for energy, wtf?)
Obama showed that the Democrats have no heart for conflict
also lol? Seemed to love conflict just fine as I recall. Could hardly be accused of being against it.
Afghanistan is an occupied nation, as Japan and Germany used to be. But controlling Iraq has been the plan since at least the 90s, and it happened. This talk of "influence" ignores that Iraq's industry is in large part reliant on the US and the West. Once the spoils are divided there is no need for direct control, you can just collect the protection money each week.
The US got "invited in" to protect their investment.
That doesn't make sense though, because the Iraqi government is free to do business with Russia, China, and Iran, our geopolitical rivals, and they do a lot of business with them indeed. We have no leverage because the US doesn't have the willingness to fight a real war anymore and everyone knows it. So they do whatever they want to do.
Iraq is entirely free to break 20 year service contracts. It will probably not though. Seems like a bad idea. Last time they excluded the US they were destroyed.
And I merely suspect, can not even remotely prove, am just basing this on some gut feeling, that Iraqis are somewhat sceptical over the assertion that the USA has no "willingness to fight a real war anymore".
Iraq's trade with Iran and the US is actually almost equal at ~12 billion a year each.
Couldn't get numbers on Iraq trade with China, but it seems that Iraq is a cornerstone of the Belt and Road initiative for them and they've been heavily investing in Iraqi infrastructure.
Trump is channeling the id of the Republicans in his isolationism, and Obama showed that the Democrats have no heart for conflict unless its a multinational effort.
about two weeks after the United States restored sanctions targeting Iran’s key oil industry as well as its banking and transportation sectors.
Baghdad is seeking U.S. approval to allow it to import Iranian gas for its power stations
Yeah totally free dude.
I was talking about the contracts for the exploitation of Iraqi oil fields, but this article isn't exactly supportive of your "Iraq is totally free" claim. Total value of import is not indicative of influence, since China is hardly going to stop buying oil. Iraq has to straight ask for permission to import energy? (They actually need to import gas for energy, wtf?)
Obama showed that the Democrats have no heart for conflict
also lol? Seemed to love conflict just fine as I recall. Could hardly be accused of being against it.
Probably doesn't have any refining capacity worth mentioning.
Well if Iraq doesn't get permission again in 90 days, but still goes through with the imports, we'll have our answer to whether they really needed that permission at all. I think its more likely they keep getting permission because if the US didn't give them the go ahead, and Iraq told the US to fuck off, the US wouldn't be able to do anything about it.
When push came to shove, Obama didn't invade Libya or Syria. He bombed a lot of stuff because he felt he did need to take action, but he wasn't willing to commit troops on the front line. All he ever sent were special forces for targeting missions.
Jephery on
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Afghanistan is an occupied nation, as Japan and Germany used to be. But controlling Iraq has been the plan since at least the 90s, and it happened. This talk of "influence" ignores that Iraq's industry is in large part reliant on the US and the West. Once the spoils are divided there is no need for direct control, you can just collect the protection money each week.
The US got "invited in" to protect their investment.
That doesn't make sense though, because the Iraqi government is free to do business with Russia, China, and Iran, our geopolitical rivals, and they do a lot of business with them indeed. We have no leverage because the US doesn't have the willingness to fight a real war anymore and everyone knows it. So they do whatever they want to do.
Iraq is entirely free to break 20 year service contracts. It will probably not though. Seems like a bad idea. Last time they excluded the US they were destroyed.
And I merely suspect, can not even remotely prove, am just basing this on some gut feeling, that Iraqis are somewhat sceptical over the assertion that the USA has no "willingness to fight a real war anymore".
Iraq's trade with Iran and the US is actually almost equal at ~12 billion a year each.
Couldn't get numbers on Iraq trade with China, but it seems that Iraq is a cornerstone of the Belt and Road initiative for them and they've been heavily investing in Iraqi infrastructure.
Trump is channeling the id of the Republicans in his isolationism, and Obama showed that the Democrats have no heart for conflict unless its a multinational effort.
about two weeks after the United States restored sanctions targeting Iran’s key oil industry as well as its banking and transportation sectors.
Baghdad is seeking U.S. approval to allow it to import Iranian gas for its power stations
Yeah totally free dude.
I was talking about the contracts for the exploitation of Iraqi oil fields, but this article isn't exactly supportive of your "Iraq is totally free" claim. Total value of import is not indicative of influence, since China is hardly going to stop buying oil. Iraq has to straight ask for permission to import energy? (They actually need to import gas for energy, wtf?)
Obama showed that the Democrats have no heart for conflict
also lol? Seemed to love conflict just fine as I recall. Could hardly be accused of being against it.
Probably doesn't have any refining capacity worth mentioning.
Well if Iraq doesn't get permission again in 90 days, but still goes through with the imports, we'll have our answer to whether they really needed that permission at all. I think its more likely they keep getting permission because if the US didn't give them the go ahead, and Iraq told the US to fuck off, the US wouldn't be able to do anything about it.
When push came to shove, Obama didn't invade Libya or Syria. He bombed a lot of stuff because he felt he did need to take action, but he wasn't willing to commit troops on the front line. All he ever sent were special forces for targeting missions.
Oh well if it's just bombing campaigns and special forces I suppose it is all right.
And I mean Iraq's power generation has still not recovered by being bombed by the US in the 90s, but even so why the fuck would they need to ask for permission? Is that the behaviour of a truly sovereign country?
Afghanistan is an occupied nation, as Japan and Germany used to be. But controlling Iraq has been the plan since at least the 90s, and it happened. This talk of "influence" ignores that Iraq's industry is in large part reliant on the US and the West. Once the spoils are divided there is no need for direct control, you can just collect the protection money each week.
The US got "invited in" to protect their investment.
That doesn't make sense though, because the Iraqi government is free to do business with Russia, China, and Iran, our geopolitical rivals, and they do a lot of business with them indeed. We have no leverage because the US doesn't have the willingness to fight a real war anymore and everyone knows it. So they do whatever they want to do.
Iraq is entirely free to break 20 year service contracts. It will probably not though. Seems like a bad idea. Last time they excluded the US they were destroyed.
And I merely suspect, can not even remotely prove, am just basing this on some gut feeling, that Iraqis are somewhat sceptical over the assertion that the USA has no "willingness to fight a real war anymore".
Iraq's trade with Iran and the US is actually almost equal at ~12 billion a year each.
Couldn't get numbers on Iraq trade with China, but it seems that Iraq is a cornerstone of the Belt and Road initiative for them and they've been heavily investing in Iraqi infrastructure.
Trump is channeling the id of the Republicans in his isolationism, and Obama showed that the Democrats have no heart for conflict unless its a multinational effort.
about two weeks after the United States restored sanctions targeting Iran’s key oil industry as well as its banking and transportation sectors.
Baghdad is seeking U.S. approval to allow it to import Iranian gas for its power stations
Yeah totally free dude.
I was talking about the contracts for the exploitation of Iraqi oil fields, but this article isn't exactly supportive of your "Iraq is totally free" claim. Total value of import is not indicative of influence, since China is hardly going to stop buying oil. Iraq has to straight ask for permission to import energy? (They actually need to import gas for energy, wtf?)
Obama showed that the Democrats have no heart for conflict
also lol? Seemed to love conflict just fine as I recall. Could hardly be accused of being against it.
Probably doesn't have any refining capacity worth mentioning.
Well if Iraq doesn't get permission again in 90 days, but still goes through with the imports, we'll have our answer to whether they really needed that permission at all. I think its more likely they keep getting permission because if the US didn't give them the go ahead, and Iraq told the US to fuck off, the US wouldn't be able to do anything about it.
When push came to shove, Obama didn't invade Libya or Syria. He bombed a lot of stuff because he felt he did need to take action, but he wasn't willing to commit troops on the front line. All he ever sent were special forces for targeting missions.
Oh well if it's just bombing campaigns and special forces I suppose it is all right.
And I mean Iraq's power generation has still not recovered by being bombed by the US in the 90s, but even so why the fuck would they need to ask for permission? Is that the behaviour of a truly sovereign country?
All joking aside, US capability for those special forces missions is just about to hit its limits:
So not only is the US not politically willing to enter another outright war like Iraq or Afghanistan, its capabilities for special operations is stretched thin at this point in time as well.
If the US is the evil empire, that empire is definitely falling, in my opinion.
Jephery on
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Afghanistan is an occupied nation, as Japan and Germany used to be. But controlling Iraq has been the plan since at least the 90s, and it happened. This talk of "influence" ignores that Iraq's industry is in large part reliant on the US and the West. Once the spoils are divided there is no need for direct control, you can just collect the protection money each week.
The US got "invited in" to protect their investment.
That doesn't make sense though, because the Iraqi government is free to do business with Russia, China, and Iran, our geopolitical rivals, and they do a lot of business with them indeed. We have no leverage because the US doesn't have the willingness to fight a real war anymore and everyone knows it. So they do whatever they want to do.
Iraq is entirely free to break 20 year service contracts. It will probably not though. Seems like a bad idea. Last time they excluded the US they were destroyed.
And I merely suspect, can not even remotely prove, am just basing this on some gut feeling, that Iraqis are somewhat sceptical over the assertion that the USA has no "willingness to fight a real war anymore".
Iraq's trade with Iran and the US is actually almost equal at ~12 billion a year each.
Couldn't get numbers on Iraq trade with China, but it seems that Iraq is a cornerstone of the Belt and Road initiative for them and they've been heavily investing in Iraqi infrastructure.
Trump is channeling the id of the Republicans in his isolationism, and Obama showed that the Democrats have no heart for conflict unless its a multinational effort.
about two weeks after the United States restored sanctions targeting Iran’s key oil industry as well as its banking and transportation sectors.
Baghdad is seeking U.S. approval to allow it to import Iranian gas for its power stations
Yeah totally free dude.
I was talking about the contracts for the exploitation of Iraqi oil fields, but this article isn't exactly supportive of your "Iraq is totally free" claim. Total value of import is not indicative of influence, since China is hardly going to stop buying oil. Iraq has to straight ask for permission to import energy? (They actually need to import gas for energy, wtf?)
Obama showed that the Democrats have no heart for conflict
also lol? Seemed to love conflict just fine as I recall. Could hardly be accused of being against it.
Probably doesn't have any refining capacity worth mentioning.
Well if Iraq doesn't get permission again in 90 days, but still goes through with the imports, we'll have our answer to whether they really needed that permission at all. I think its more likely they keep getting permission because if the US didn't give them the go ahead, and Iraq told the US to fuck off, the US wouldn't be able to do anything about it.
When push came to shove, Obama didn't invade Libya or Syria. He bombed a lot of stuff because he felt he did need to take action, but he wasn't willing to commit troops on the front line. All he ever sent were special forces for targeting missions.
Oh well if it's just bombing campaigns and special forces I suppose it is all right.
And I mean Iraq's power generation has still not recovered by being bombed by the US in the 90s, but even so why the fuck would they need to ask for permission? Is that the behaviour of a truly sovereign country?
These sort of things are not invasions is the point. They are far more limited actions that the public is far more willing to accept.
Afghanistan is an occupied nation, as Japan and Germany used to be. But controlling Iraq has been the plan since at least the 90s, and it happened. This talk of "influence" ignores that Iraq's industry is in large part reliant on the US and the West. Once the spoils are divided there is no need for direct control, you can just collect the protection money each week.
The US got "invited in" to protect their investment.
That doesn't make sense though, because the Iraqi government is free to do business with Russia, China, and Iran, our geopolitical rivals, and they do a lot of business with them indeed. We have no leverage because the US doesn't have the willingness to fight a real war anymore and everyone knows it. So they do whatever they want to do.
Iraq is entirely free to break 20 year service contracts. It will probably not though. Seems like a bad idea. Last time they excluded the US they were destroyed.
And I merely suspect, can not even remotely prove, am just basing this on some gut feeling, that Iraqis are somewhat sceptical over the assertion that the USA has no "willingness to fight a real war anymore".
Iraq's trade with Iran and the US is actually almost equal at ~12 billion a year each.
Couldn't get numbers on Iraq trade with China, but it seems that Iraq is a cornerstone of the Belt and Road initiative for them and they've been heavily investing in Iraqi infrastructure.
Trump is channeling the id of the Republicans in his isolationism, and Obama showed that the Democrats have no heart for conflict unless its a multinational effort.
about two weeks after the United States restored sanctions targeting Iran’s key oil industry as well as its banking and transportation sectors.
Baghdad is seeking U.S. approval to allow it to import Iranian gas for its power stations
Yeah totally free dude.
I was talking about the contracts for the exploitation of Iraqi oil fields, but this article isn't exactly supportive of your "Iraq is totally free" claim. Total value of import is not indicative of influence, since China is hardly going to stop buying oil. Iraq has to straight ask for permission to import energy? (They actually need to import gas for energy, wtf?)
Obama showed that the Democrats have no heart for conflict
also lol? Seemed to love conflict just fine as I recall. Could hardly be accused of being against it.
Probably doesn't have any refining capacity worth mentioning.
Well if Iraq doesn't get permission again in 90 days, but still goes through with the imports, we'll have our answer to whether they really needed that permission at all. I think its more likely they keep getting permission because if the US didn't give them the go ahead, and Iraq told the US to fuck off, the US wouldn't be able to do anything about it.
When push came to shove, Obama didn't invade Libya or Syria. He bombed a lot of stuff because he felt he did need to take action, but he wasn't willing to commit troops on the front line. All he ever sent were special forces for targeting missions.
Oh well if it's just bombing campaigns and special forces I suppose it is all right.
And I mean Iraq's power generation has still not recovered by being bombed by the US in the 90s, but even so why the fuck would they need to ask for permission? Is that the behaviour of a truly sovereign country?
These sort of things are not invasions is the point. They are far more limited actions that the public is far more willing to accept.
And for the media to have wargasms over.
I always kinda liked Brian Williams. He was funny in his interactions with Jon Stewart. I liked the way he read the news. And I was disappointed by his fake news under fire thing.
But I was frankly disgusted by his on-air reaction to the missile strikes into Syria. That the media glorify military actions, especially ones intending to kill people, EVEN if they're the enemy, turns my stomach.
I'm no pacifist. I accept that sometimes killing someone in a military action is necessary. But it shouldn't be celebrated. It's the taking of a life, often someone who's got zero fucking say in the policy decisions that lead to the action in the first place, some who are innocent bystanders, and often leaving loved ones and dependents behind.
I'm not saying that these actions need to be met with grief, penance and remorse. But the equivalent of "Woohoo!" from an anchor desk is not an appropriate fucking response.
So, fuck Brian Williams and any media personality that engages in that kind of Slim Pickensesque bullshit.
ISTANBUL — A U.S. delegation met with Turkish officials Thursday to discuss requests to extradite Fethullah Gulen, a Muslim cleric who Turkey says plotted a coup attempt in 2016, state media reported.
U.S. officials did not immediately confirm the talks, which the state-run Anadolu news agency said included FBI agents.
More meetings were planned for Friday, Anadolu reported, during which Turkey would “share new evidence” with U.S. law enforcement.
U.S. officials will also “provide information about investigations” into Gulen in the United States, the agency said.
ISTANBUL — A U.S. delegation met with Turkish officials Thursday to discuss requests to extradite Fethullah Gulen, a Muslim cleric who Turkey says plotted a coup attempt in 2016, state media reported.
U.S. officials did not immediately confirm the talks, which the state-run Anadolu news agency said included FBI agents.
More meetings were planned for Friday, Anadolu reported, during which Turkey would “share new evidence” with U.S. law enforcement.
U.S. officials will also “provide information about investigations” into Gulen in the United States, the agency said.
We're going to end up doing this, aren't we?
In the past, this was a no-go. For one, most Presidents had at least a public understanding of the American Ideal. And this shit just wouldn't fly. At the very least, being seen to accede to a foreign power without overwhelming evidence vetted by your own intelligence community (who currently don't believe Gulen has done jack), would be seen as kowtowing.
But with this current asshole? If Erdogan promised to approve Trump Istanbul, Gulen would be on a jet by the end of business. Really f'n hope Gulen is considering a 100 mile drive north in the near future. Cause it's one thing to rely on your compound to fend off bounty hunters and mercenaries. It's another if the full weight of the US Government is trying to kidnap you for extradition.
I wish I could say I'd be shocked if this happened. But after Charlottesville, Helsinki, child separation, nothing from this Administration would shock me. Now it's just a matter of bartering from the Turkish government. What are they willing to give Trump to get Gulen?
Posts
DCExaminer reporter:
You might as well say the Vietnam War was about an attack on a US military ship.
They don't even need anything on Trump to get him to spread Russian propaganda.
Trump's understanding of Afhganistan is what Putin told him about Afghanistan. After all, Putin is his friend, why would he lie?
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
Also, US forces are in Iraq as a result of Baghdad formally requesting them when under severe threat in 2014, rather than a result of an invasion and occupation as in 2003.
edit- missed Jephery's bottom'd post, I basically agree with them
I feel that the head of government of a country flying into another country to visit the military bases the first government has there unannounced and it resulting in nothing more than a "diplomatic incident" is pretty indicative of the relationship, regardless of whatever you think "influence" means.
Trump's position with regards to Iran continues to be incoherent outside of whatever Obama did was bad.
It hasn't been treated as a sovereign equal, though in fairness it isn't completely treated as a subject nation.
Trump's position is:
Do I have to care about this?
If No -> I don't care about this
If Yes -> Are you absolutely sure?
If No -> I don't care about this.
If Yes -> Fine, whatever.
https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/01/02/politics/pentagon-trump-syria-withdrawal/index.html?r=https://www.cnn.com/
Great confidence from the Pentagon on Trump’s 120 day withdrawal. CNN didn’t print the word fucking, but I have to assume it was in the original.
Starts here:
Foreign policy stuff is further down. Like these gems:
The way Trump views the world is insane.
I'm more flummoxed by him fixating on a general's personal aesthetics so much.
Alexander the Great, Hannibal, Scipio Africanus, Julius Caesar, John Churchill, Eric Lutendorf, all military geniuses, all rather homely. A winning smile and a hot bod have fuck all to do with competency in the real world.
~ Buckaroo Banzai
I hereby welcome to the Adminsitration the new Secretary of Defense, Jedi Padawan Anakin Skywalker:
Excuse me?
Look at what he says. He thinks life is like TV and movies.
Yeah, the real one had dark hair, was short for the time, and had a truly spectacular schnoz. A lot of emissaries mistook Hephasteion (who was far more conventionally handsome) for Alexander when meeting him for the first time.
~ Buckaroo Banzai
I believe it goes "don't. What are you, stupid?"
If there wasn't one before, there will be soon.
(There's another saying you may be familiar with: "history is written by the victors." IMO, it's looking more and more likely that it will be... in Mandarin.)
To be fair, Iraq kind of is a subject; when the US pulled out and ISIS rose up the iraqi army collapsed like a wet paper bag.
I'm pretty sure Sun Tzu would have an aneurysm if one of the mandarins said that to him.
I've heard this said before, to the point that it's almost a meme- but it really is true.
We are being governed by that brat with special powers from The Twilight Zone.
If the US tried to command Iraq to do something, they would laugh in the president's face.
Ok we helped them beat ISIS, but that worked out perfectly for the Shia majority, as they can now brutalize the Sunnis without question, on accusation of being ISIS terrorists and sympathizers.
The fighting was largely confined to the Sunni west and north of the country, while ISIS was stopped outside of Baghdad, which is in the border region between the Sunni and Shia regions, so the Sunni regions are devastated while the Shia regions are intact.
At this point, I dunno what the US is doing in Iraq. Are we just there to make sure if the Sunnis revolt against the Shia, they get kicked in the balls again?
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
The US got "invited in" to protect their investment.
That doesn't make sense though, because the Iraqi government is free to do business with Russia, China, and Iran, our geopolitical rivals, and they do a lot of business with them indeed. We have no leverage because the US doesn't have the willingness to fight a real war anymore and everyone knows it. So they do whatever they want to do.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Iraq is entirely free to break 20 year service contracts. It will probably not though. Seems like a bad idea. Last time they excluded the US they were destroyed.
And I merely suspect, can not even remotely prove, am just basing this on some gut feeling, that Iraqis are somewhat sceptical over the assertion that the USA has no "willingness to fight a real war anymore".
I looked it up,
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/17/rouhani-sees-iran-iraq-trade-rising-to-20-billion-a-year-from-12-billion.html (if we really had any control over Iraq we'd make them obey the Iran sanctions)
https://www.ustradenumbers.com/country/iraq/
Iraq's trade with Iran and the US is actually almost equal at ~12 billion a year each.
Couldn't get numbers on Iraq trade with China, but it seems that Iraq is a cornerstone of the Belt and Road initiative for them and they've been heavily investing in Iraqi infrastructure.
Trump is channeling the id of the Republicans in his isolationism, and Obama showed that the Democrats have no heart for conflict unless its a multinational effort.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
I was talking about the contracts for the exploitation of Iraqi oil fields, but this article isn't exactly supportive of your "Iraq is totally free" claim. Total value of import is not indicative of influence, since China is hardly going to stop buying oil. Iraq has to straight ask for permission to import energy? (They actually need to import gas for energy, wtf?)
also lol? Seemed to love conflict just fine as I recall. Could hardly be accused of being against it.
Probably doesn't have any refining capacity worth mentioning.
https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/US-Extends-Iran-Sanctions-Waiver-For-Iraq-With-90-Days.html
Well if Iraq doesn't get permission again in 90 days, but still goes through with the imports, we'll have our answer to whether they really needed that permission at all. I think its more likely they keep getting permission because if the US didn't give them the go ahead, and Iraq told the US to fuck off, the US wouldn't be able to do anything about it.
When push came to shove, Obama didn't invade Libya or Syria. He bombed a lot of stuff because he felt he did need to take action, but he wasn't willing to commit troops on the front line. All he ever sent were special forces for targeting missions.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Oh well if it's just bombing campaigns and special forces I suppose it is all right.
And I mean Iraq's power generation has still not recovered by being bombed by the US in the 90s, but even so why the fuck would they need to ask for permission? Is that the behaviour of a truly sovereign country?
All joking aside, US capability for those special forces missions is just about to hit its limits:
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-army/2018/02/23/special-operations-command-asks-for-more-troops-biggest-budget-yet/
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2018/11/15/dod-is-stretched-thin-and-has-decided-to-pull-back-in-africa/
So not only is the US not politically willing to enter another outright war like Iraq or Afghanistan, its capabilities for special operations is stretched thin at this point in time as well.
If the US is the evil empire, that empire is definitely falling, in my opinion.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
These sort of things are not invasions is the point. They are far more limited actions that the public is far more willing to accept.
And for the media to have wargasms over.
I always kinda liked Brian Williams. He was funny in his interactions with Jon Stewart. I liked the way he read the news. And I was disappointed by his fake news under fire thing.
But I was frankly disgusted by his on-air reaction to the missile strikes into Syria. That the media glorify military actions, especially ones intending to kill people, EVEN if they're the enemy, turns my stomach.
I'm no pacifist. I accept that sometimes killing someone in a military action is necessary. But it shouldn't be celebrated. It's the taking of a life, often someone who's got zero fucking say in the policy decisions that lead to the action in the first place, some who are innocent bystanders, and often leaving loved ones and dependents behind.
I'm not saying that these actions need to be met with grief, penance and remorse. But the equivalent of "Woohoo!" from an anchor desk is not an appropriate fucking response.
So, fuck Brian Williams and any media personality that engages in that kind of Slim Pickensesque bullshit.
We're going to end up doing this, aren't we?
In the past, this was a no-go. For one, most Presidents had at least a public understanding of the American Ideal. And this shit just wouldn't fly. At the very least, being seen to accede to a foreign power without overwhelming evidence vetted by your own intelligence community (who currently don't believe Gulen has done jack), would be seen as kowtowing.
But with this current asshole? If Erdogan promised to approve Trump Istanbul, Gulen would be on a jet by the end of business. Really f'n hope Gulen is considering a 100 mile drive north in the near future. Cause it's one thing to rely on your compound to fend off bounty hunters and mercenaries. It's another if the full weight of the US Government is trying to kidnap you for extradition.
I wish I could say I'd be shocked if this happened. But after Charlottesville, Helsinki, child separation, nothing from this Administration would shock me. Now it's just a matter of bartering from the Turkish government. What are they willing to give Trump to get Gulen?
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar