Meanwhile Back In Iraq...

[Adam Peter]

On 3/5/2021 at 2:52 PM, bojan said:

but they do far more damage by "exporting" revolution

Where? To France, Belgium, Turkey? Or exporting there would be a counter-revolution?

[Mighty_Zuk]

16 hours ago, Adam Peter said:

Where? To France, Belgium, Turkey? Or exporting there would be a counter-revolution?

Any change, be it a revolution or anything else, that is overall productive for the people and humanity, is good.

Iran's revolution is the very definition of counter-productivity. Every despicable value institutionalized.

But how would you even tell the difference? You only type what's edgiest.

[Adam Peter]

10 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Any change, be it a revolution or anything else, that is overall productive for the people and humanity, is good.

Iran's revolution is the very definition of counter-productivity. Every despicable value institutionalized.

But how would you even tell the difference? You only type what's edgiest.

It is simple: your Sunni friends are there, so Shias only can start a counter-islamic-revolution-with-beheadings-and-all there.

[Yama]

I struggle to remember any terrorist attacks in Europe or US undertaken by Iran-supported Shias. Almost all Islamist terrorism is a product by sects originating from Saudi-funded religious schools. I don't see much potential targets where they could import their revolution either. It's not like there are tons of Shia dominated countries about to 'tip over'.

[Mighty_Zuk]

5 minutes ago, Yama said:

I struggle to remember any terrorist attacks in Europe or US undertaken by Iran-supported Shias. Almost all Islamist terrorism is a product by sects originating from Saudi-funded religious schools. I don't see much potential targets where they could import their revolution either. It's not like there are tons of Shia dominated countries about to 'tip over'.

Shi'ts are smarter than Sunnis when it comes to terrorism.

Instead of humiliating the Europeans by conducting terror attacks on their soil, they try to seize and occupy every middle eastern country in which the Europeans and Americans have interests.

I think we can all agree Shi'ite terror is far more dangerous than Sunni.

[Yama]

I don't agree with that all. I think such argument is completely ludicrous in face of the facts. Also, there are only few Shia majority countries, of which Iraq is the only one which might be seen as potential risk of falling into Iran camp. Even there, ethnic disparity between Iran and Iraq would likely prevent any large scale alliance. In addition, whole Shia mindset is much more insular than apocalyptic, millenaristic Wahhabist visions.

[Mighty_Zuk]

57 minutes ago, Yama said:

I don't agree with that all. I think such argument is completely ludicrous in face of the facts. Also, there are only few Shia majority countries, of which Iraq is the only one which might be seen as potential risk of falling into Iran camp. Even there, ethnic disparity between Iran and Iraq would likely prevent any large scale alliance. In addition, whole Shia mindset is much more insular than apocalyptic, millenaristic Wahhabist visions.

Sunni terrorists in Europe have managed to infiltrate and bomb a few things. Tragedies, but nothing that really shifts anything anywhere in the grand scheme of things.

Shi'ite terrorists have caused numerous actual wars and brought destruction upon Lebanon, Yemen, Syria, and Iraq.

They're actively militarily occupying Lebanon and Yemen, causing sky high poverty in the former, and an unprecedented famine in the latter.

They are disrupting global trade by attacking busy shipping lanes, and overall if a Sunni terrorist cell can hope to kill hundreds at best, the Shi'ites are playing the long game and are directly responsible for the deaths of millions, and destabilization of entire countries.

[bojan]

22 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

...Shi'ite terrorists have caused numerous actual wars and brought destruction upon Lebanon, Yemen, Syria, and Iraq...

Lebanon civil war was started by Sunnis, and Shia were for a long time at least partially neutral. Only after Israeli intervention did they became a major factor. Yemen was Sunni sponsored "Arab Spring". Syria was started by Sunnis, in particular Turkey and Qatar bankrolling "moderate headchoppers". Iraq... partially, OTOH Shia would never become dominant w/o US disposing Saddam, and ISIS was pure Sunni movement.

Problem is that Iranian influence just like Saudis goes far beyond "terrorism" problem. But in the a biggest example of that at the territory of Europe Iranians were a good, if unofficial buddies to US and west, where they supplied hardware and warm bodies, and US and Europe bankrolled that. Via 3rd countries ofc, but they knew where that money was going to in the end. OTOH Israel was on the other side, even if unofficially, so Israel is consistent in it's policies, unlike US and Europe.

Edited March 13, 2021 by bojan

[glenn239]

20 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

 

They are disrupting global trade by attacking busy shipping lanes, and overall if a Sunni terrorist cell can hope to kill hundreds at best, the Shi'ites are playing the long game and are directly responsible for the deaths of millions, and destabilization of entire countries.

The article said that Israel is attacking shipping.

Quote

They're actively militarily occupying Lebanon and Yemen

Hezbollah occupies Lebanon, not Iran, and it would be preposterous to suggest that anyone except Saudi Arabia is responsible for the situation in Yemen.

Quote

Shi'ite terrorists have caused numerous actual wars and brought destruction upon Lebanon, Yemen, Syria, and Iraq.

The assertion that Iran, not the USA, brought destruction upon Iraq?

[Yama]

Both Iraq and Syria conflicts began as Sunni insurgencies. Yemen civil war was result of long-term ethnic and political rift and to portrait it as some Iranian machination is complete fantasy. Humanitarian disaster in Yemen is mostly result of military intervention by Sunni countries. What "military occupation of Yemen"? They LIVE there.

Sunni terrorist cells have not killed 'hundreds at best', they have killed tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people.

I agree that Israel has every right to feel threatened about Iran supported terrorist organizations in Lebanon and Syria. However, Sunni extremism has potential to take over Syria (which they nearly did, mostly thanks to your very good friends USians), Jordania, Saudi-Arabia and Egypt, thus representing much greater risk for Israel as well.

Congrats on your 1000th post!

[Mighty_Zuk]

28 minutes ago, bojan said:

Lebanon civil war was started by Sunnis, and Shia were for a long time at least partially neutral

Unless you're arguing that Hezbollah, the current de facto government of Lebanon and a self proclaimed terrorist organization, is in fact not a proxy of the IRGC, I don't see your point.

30 minutes ago, bojan said:

Only after Israeli intervention did they became a major factor.

Which only happened after the Palestinians occupied sizable portions of Lebanon and turned it into a warzone, which was enabled by the amazingly consistent Lebanese incompetence, partially aided by the French with their idiotic government system.

We can go on and on but it will never end. The responsibility for Hezbollah's existence lies first and foremost in the hands of Iran.

34 minutes ago, bojan said:

Yemen was Sunni sponsored "Arab Spring".

The main destabilizing force in Yemen are the Houthis. Are you suggesting they are not an Iranian proxy?

37 minutes ago, bojan said:

Syria was started by Sunnis, in particular Turkey and Qatar bankrolling "moderate headchoppers".

The current and recent main players in Syria are the Syrian government, Hezbollah, Iran and its smaller proxies, Turkey, Russia, Kurds, ISIL, SDF, the US and Israel. Do you think any of them even remembers the war was started by Assad when he decided to mow down protesters with live fire, when they only wanted food and water? 

Nope. For a fact, Iran and its proxies continue to be a destabilizing factor in Syria right now, dragging other countries to attack them on Syrian soil.

39 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

The article said that Israel is attacking shipping.

No it does not. 

But if you prefer nitpicking, then the article also mentions Iran enabled this strategy by attacking merchant ships in the gulf. Israel's own attacks only came after that. And not against merchant ships, but ships carrying arms and oil to Syria, both countries are under strict sanctions.

Iran attacked civilian merchant ships, unprovoked, and illegally. 

Israel attacked ships that were used for military purposes, that were banned from sailing where they have sailed, and that are conducting illegal activities like smuggling and sailing without an AIS.

44 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

Hezbollah occupies Lebanon, not Iran

Oh, right. It's only the US Armed Forces deploying worldwide, not the US. I forgot. Amazing logic.

46 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

and it would be preposterous to suggest that anyone except Saudi Arabia is responsible for the situation in Yemen.

Had Iran not helped the Houthis, those incompetent Saudis might have actually finished it by now.

47 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

The assertion that Iran, not the USA, brought destruction upon Iraq?

Yes.

 

[Yama]

16 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

The main destabilizing force in Yemen are the Houthis. Are you suggesting they are not an Iranian proxy?

Shockingly, Yemeni Shia don't want to be ruled by a stable, friendly, head-chopping and oppressive Sunni regime. What bastards.

16 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

The current and recent main players in Syria are the Syrian government, Hezbollah, Iran and its smaller proxies, Turkey, Russia, Kurds, ISIL, SDF, the US and Israel. Do you think any of them even remembers the war was started by Assad when he decided to mow down protesters with live fire, when they only wanted food and water? 

Nope. For a fact, Iran and its proxies continue to be a destabilizing factor in Syria right now, dragging other countries to attack them on Syrian soil.

Without Iran and Hezbollah 'meddling' with Syrian civil war, Syria would now be under religious Wahhabist dictatorship, with massive suppression and genocide of non-Sunni. But I am sure they would be friendly with Israeli.

 

 

[Mighty_Zuk]

2 hours ago, Yama said:

Without Iran and Hezbollah 'meddling' with Syrian civil war, Syria would now be under religious Wahhabist dictatorship, with massive suppression and genocide of non-Sunni. But I am sure they would be friendly with Israeli.

As opposed to the current religious Alawite dictatorship that suppresses and murders opposition?

And you say this ironically but I legitimately don't give a shit about sects of whatever religion/ethnicity. 

So long as someone doesn't bother me, I don't care what they do.

[BansheeOne]

Quote

Date 18.12.2021

Author Cathrin Schaer

The end of the US combat mission in Iraq: A meaningful change?

The US recently announced the end of active combat for troops in Iraq. On the ground, there will only be small changes, but it could signal a different attitude towards Iraq.

Earlier this month, the US military announced it had ended its combat role in Iraq.

The move comes just a few months after a July meeting between Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi and US President Joe Biden. Afterwards, the leaders issued a statement announcing that "there will be no US forces with a combat role in Iraq by December 31, 2021."

Experts said the two had come to this agreement in order to ease pressure on al-Kadhimi's government. It was being targeted by Iran-backed militias known as the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) in Iraq, who are opposed to any US presence in the country at all. The same groups are suspected of being behind ongoing drone and rocket attacks on US logistics convoys and bases as well as an assassination attempt on al-Kadhimi himself.

The plan to change the status of US troops was completed ahead of schedule. On December 9, Iraq's national security adviser Qasim al-Araji announced that the transition to a mission to "advise, assist and enable" was now complete.

Most of the US troops in Iraq are there as part of the International Coalition for Operation Inherent Resolve, whose aim is to fight the extremist group known as the "Islamic State" (IS).

Not like Afghanistan

Despite the fanfare with which they were announced, the changes are not huge in a physical sense and are certainly far from the wholesale withdrawal seen in Afghanistan recently.

The US invaded Iraq in 2003 looking for weapons of mass destruction, and the number of American soldiers in the country has steadily decreased since then, from a peak of around 160,000 in 2008. The situation has evolved from having the American military as an invading force — welcomed by some Iraqis, despised by others — to the establishment of a series of agreements between the US and Iraqi governments that allowed troops to remain under certain conditions.

In 2011, under President Barack Obama, these agreements saw US troop numbers decrease. In 2014, US troops returned to Iraq again, at the country's request, to lead an international coalition against the "Islamic State" group, which had taken control of large parts of northern Iraq. Since the Iraqi government officially declared victory over IS in 2017, troop numbers have fallen again.

Today, there are around 2,500 US soldiers in Iraq, along with about 4,500 Department of Defense contractors. There are also around 1,000 soldiers from the other coalition countries stationed in Iraq. About 130 are from Germany.

No end in sight

Even after the recently announced transition, US troop numbers are unlikely to change much, US Department of Defense spokesperson John Kirby confirmed at a press conference earlier this month. "This is a change in mission, not necessarily a change in physical posture," Kirby told journalists. It was a "natural evolution" based on agreements made with the Iraqi government and work that had already been going on for months, he explained.

[...]

Ongoing changes

But there have been some changes, and these have been ongoing. US troops pulled out of eight bases that they thought might be vulnerable to attack by the PMF, Caroline Rose, a senior analyst at the Washinton-based think tank, Newlines Institute, told DW: "We saw a series of base transfers, but they were kept quite quiet." 

According to a November report to the US Congress on the mission in Iraq, one command post was moved from Iraq to Kuwait in November and another was recently downgraded in terms of seniority in military leadership.

Some US contractors, such as those involved in maintaining Iraq's fleet of F-16 fighter jets, have been relocated and are now working remotely. Most Americans are now based in either Baghdad or the northern city of Erbil. Two thousand military vehicles were recently handed to local staff, and US funding for some aspects of the military cooperation has been gradually decreased; the Iraqi government is expected to take these costs over eventually.

The report prepared by the US military also noted that of 426 anti-IS group operations carried out by Iraqi counterterrorism forces between July and September, only 13 involved a partnership with coalition forces. The international coalition also conducted fewer airstrikes against IS group targets in those months than it previously had.

The report also suggested that the US' rapid withdrawal from Afghanistan had an impact on how quickly Iraqi officers were moving to become more independent.

[...]

https://www.dw.com/en/iraq-after-us-ends-combat-mission/a-60174121