Iraq votes to expel US Coalition Troops

[squatz1]

In a stunning rebuke to the US (that MEANS NOTHING) Iraqi Lawmakers voted 170-0 to expel US troops (and coalition troops) from Iraq. It's important to note that this vote is not final as this current caretaker government doesn't have the authority to oust the US (from NY times, will source this below) Most members of the chamber hadn't been present as well, as there are 328 members of the chamber and the rest hadn't attended the vote as they were boycotting it. These other members are Sunni and Kurds.


I''d just like to note again that what they've passed is a nonbinding resolution asking for the PM of Iraq to rescind the invitation of the US to assist in removing ISIS from the country. Pretty much a nothing burger.

Source:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/iraqi-parliament-votes-in-favor-of-expelling-u-s-troops-11578236473

[PrimeNumber7]

I have a better source for you.

Most, if not all, who did not vote would have voted against the resolution.

The current PM of Iraq has agreed to resign because he was widely seen as illegitimate because of actual meddling from Iran (I believe the effect of the meddling was significant, as opposed to the token meddling that Russia did in the US elections).

[TwitchySeal]

Just want to note that the link in OP is a WSJ article credited to a WSJ white house reporter and a WSJ middle east correspondent.

PrimeNumbers link is an editorial (opinion piece) credited to the WSJ Editorial Board.

Not dissing either one, WSJ is respected and I recommend reading both, but I don't think an editorial should be considered a 'better source' for someone just looking to figure out wtf is going on.


Off topicish, but I use https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-chrome to pretty much bypass all major news paywalls.  Little bit of an effort to install, but then everything just works.  Probably a simpler way for each individual news outlet (incognito or new browser user or the outline extension works for most, but not WSJ, Financial Times, Bloomberg, New Yorker or a couple others).

[audaciousbeing]

In a stunning rebuke to the US (that MEANS NOTHING) Iraqi Lawmakers voted 170-0 to expel US troops (and coalition troops) from Iraq. It's important to note that this vote is not final as this current caretaker government doesn't have the authority to oust the US (from NY times, will source this below) Most members of the chamber hadn't been present as well, as there are 328 members of the chamber and the rest hadn't attended the vote as they were boycotting it. These other members are Sunni and Kurds.


I''d just like to note again that what they've passed is a nonbinding resolution asking for the PM of Iraq to rescind the invitation of the US to assist in removing ISIS from the country. Pretty much a nothing burger.

Source:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/iraqi-parliament-votes-in-favor-of-expelling-u-s-troops-11578236473

Since the strike of the US against the Iran military leader, there have been some ripple effect which is what we are seeing that the Iraq parliament are moving towards but the moment the euphoria of war that has been a loud one since last week has died down, I think the Iraq parliament will want to have a stay on whatever they are planning for the United States military. Expelling them from the country does not mean they would just carry their bags and board the next flight to DC or LA it will take time and that time is what the US will try as much as possible to extend either to decimate Iran should war happen or to make their case for continual stay in Iraq... My opinion though...

[kro55]

So that Iranian troops can take over the country and other holy places for which Iran is struggling since revolution 1979. USA and other forces must quit and handover security to Iraqi forces and make sure that Iran stay away from affairs of there internal matters

[squatz1]

Just want to note that the link in OP is a WSJ article credited to a WSJ white house reporter and a WSJ middle east correspondent.

PrimeNumbers link is an editorial (opinion piece) credited to the WSJ Editorial Board.

Not dissing either one, WSJ is respected and I recommend reading both, but I don't think an editorial should be considered a 'better source' for someone just looking to figure out wtf is going on.


Off topicish, but I use https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-chrome to pretty much bypass all major news paywalls.  Little bit of an effort to install, but then everything just works.  Probably a simpler way for each individual news outlet (incognito or new browser user or the outline extension works for most, but not WSJ, Financial Times, Bloomberg, New Yorker or a couple others).

Offtopic but very helpful. THANKS SO MUCH -- GUESS I CAN CANCEL MY NYTIMES SUB right now.

Will this thing autoupdate from GitHub or am I just going to have to take a look at the GitHub every so often. This is an absolute lifesaver, thanks so much Twitchy. Don't want this to get too popular though, or they'll block it!

[KingScorpio]

In a stunning rebuke to the US (that MEANS NOTHING) Iraqi Lawmakers voted 170-0 to expel US troops (and coalition troops) from Iraq. It's important to note that this vote is not final as this current caretaker government doesn't have the authority to oust the US (from NY times, will source this below) Most members of the chamber hadn't been present as well, as there are 328 members of the chamber and the rest hadn't attended the vote as they were boycotting it. These other members are Sunni and Kurds.


I''d just like to note again that what they've passed is a nonbinding resolution asking for the PM of Iraq to rescind the invitation of the US to assist in removing ISIS from the country. Pretty much a nothing burger.

Source:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/iraqi-parliament-votes-in-favor-of-expelling-u-s-troops-11578236473

i don't belive americans will give the iraqis that favour they have build for billions military infrastructure in their country to ensure some kind of american hegemony.

[yoseph]

So that Iranian troops can take over the country and other holy places for which Iran is struggling since revolution 1979. USA and other forces must quit and handover security to Iraqi forces and make sure that Iran stay away from affairs of there internal matters

If the US troops leave that region then it's going to be the last chance for stability in that region and the Iranians would have achieved what they wanted to do all along. The Iraqis are nowhere ready to take total control of their own security  especially with this US -IRAN tensions currently brewing.

[DosPower]

172 to 0. I wonder how much pressure there was to vote yes, and if some actually prefer them to stay. Having said that, it doesn't take away from the fact that it's what most want. It's just that it's so rare to see 172 to 0. Usually there are some who would vote the other way. Like a great, wonderful YouTube video. No matter how many likes it has there are always people who would thumb it down, and people ask, "Who would thumbs down such a video?"

[squatz1]

172 to 0. I wonder how much pressure there was to vote yes, and if some actually prefer them to stay. Having said that, it doesn't take away from the fact that it's what most want. It's just that it's so rare to see 172 to 0. Usually there are some who would vote the other way. Like a great, wonderful YouTube video. No matter how many likes it has there are always people who would thumb it down, and people ask, "Who would thumbs down such a video?"

As said before, most (if not all) of the other members of the 332 person chamber didn't attend the vote and would've voted NO. Meaning that this wouldn't have looked like such a blowout. Though the minority knew that it'd make more sense for them to protest the vote rather then to be in the chambers and lose there.

So, this wasn't a true 172-0. More like a 172-0-ALL THE OTHER NON VOTING MEMBERS WHO WOULD'VE VOTED NO.

So that Iranian troops can take over the country and other holy places for which Iran is struggling since revolution 1979. USA and other forces must quit and handover security to Iraqi forces and make sure that Iran stay away from affairs of there internal matters

If the US troops leave that region then it's going to be the last chance for stability in that region and the Iranians would have achieved what they wanted to do all along. The Iraqis are nowhere ready to take total control of their own security  especially with this US -IRAN tensions currently brewing.

Plus the US isn't going to be too happy to be forced out of a region that they dumped large amounts of money into to attempt to bring democracy and stablization to. That's a pretty big slap in the face TBH.

[TwitchySeal]

Apparently the DoD sent a letter to Iraq earlier today saying they were moving troops around to prepare to leave Iraq.

Media started reporting it, then the Pentagon responded saying "nope, we're not doing that" and everyone was like 'wtf'?

Then a couple generals held a press conference (rare) to announce “It was an honest mistake", "That letter is a draft, it was a mistake, it was unsigned, it should not have been released.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/06/world/middleeast/iran-letter-withdrawal-iraq.html

I don't have very strong opinions on what Trump should or should not decide to do regarding general peace in the middle east stuff other than if it goes well, he'll get more credit than he deserves, and if it's a failure he'll get more shit than he deserves.

I sure hope that this whole appearance of our Military being so unorganized they accidentally send a letter saying they're preparing to leave one country a couple months after they withdraw a bunch of vital troops from another country without any preparations at all, and all the other examples of US military drama,  is all part of some plan to make our enemies underestimate our capabilities.  

Less organization = Less power.

It does seem that we won't be leaving Iraq any time soon.  A few thousand were deployed in the last week, probably much more in the near future.  It would be a real bummer if things don't calm down soon.

Will this thing autoupdate from GitHub or am I just going to have to take a look at the GitHub every so often. This is an absolute lifesaver, thanks so much Twitchy. Don't want this to get too popular though, or they'll block it!

It won't auto update, but you shouldn't run into issues for the big sites.  Anyone can submit PRs to add to the list, or remove sites that add hard paywalls though.  

It's been banned from Chrome and Firefox official extensions already.

If anyone really wants to just read an article, you can always open a private browser window (incognito in chrome) and google the article title.  You should find the complete article within the first few results.

[Juggy777]

In a stunning rebuke to the US (that MEANS NOTHING) Iraqi Lawmakers voted 170-0 to expel US troops (and coalition troops) from Iraq. It's important to note that this vote is not final as this current caretaker government doesn't have the authority to oust the US (from NY times, will source this below) Most members of the chamber hadn't been present as well, as there are 328 members of the chamber and the rest hadn't attended the vote as they were boycotting it. These other members are Sunni and Kurds.


I''d just like to note again that what they've passed is a nonbinding resolution asking for the PM of Iraq to rescind the invitation of the US to assist in removing ISIS from the country. Pretty much a nothing burger.

Source:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/iraqi-parliament-votes-in-favor-of-expelling-u-s-troops-11578236473

@squatz1 Iraq had to pacify it’s citizens by showing a show of strength, but all they did was show to the world that they’re never getting rid of the US military. Also Iraq is already backing down from it’s decision to expel US military as they’re now worried about the sanctions that Trump may impose on them, and for this Trump deserves credit as he swiftly dealt with Iraq and solved it before it could escalate.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/01/05/donald-trump-threatens-iraq-sanctions-expel-us-troops/2821255001/

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/06/iraq-scales-down-threats-to-expel-us-forces-after-trump-retaliation

[franky1]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/01/05/donald-trump-threatens-iraq-sanctions-expel-us-troops/2821255001/

just goes to show how things changed in 80 years
imagine if france voted to get germans out of france in the 1940's and germany threatened sanctions...
oh wait. that was WW2.

kind of funny how trump thinks troops should remain in a country that doesnt want them

[msarro]

Why this demand came only after US killed Iranian general? It surely means that Iraq had ties with Iran. Iran is responsible for creating problems for Sunni Muslims in every Muslim country including Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Palestine. US leaving Iraq at this point means handing over the country to Iran and that’s not what all Iraqis want but demand of shias of Iraq.

[gabmen]

Why this demand came only after US killed Iranian general? It surely means that Iraq had ties with Iran. Iran is responsible for creating problems for Sunni Muslims in every Muslim country including Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Palestine. US leaving Iraq at this point means handing over the country to Iran and that’s not what all Iraqis want but demand of shias of Iraq.

Just curious. What if the us doesn't want to pull out their forces. What will happen then? Will they be forcefully pushed out? If so, how? The military conflict may just blow up inside their own country. Hopefully there's a more diplomatic way to resolve this issue though it's quite clear that both governments aren't willing to give ground.

[Artemis3]

Why this demand came only after US killed Iranian general? It surely means that Iraq had ties with Iran. Iran is responsible for creating problems for Sunni Muslims in every Muslim country including Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Palestine. US leaving Iraq at this point means handing over the country to Iran and that’s not what all Iraqis want but demand of shias of Iraq.

Just curious. What if the us doesn't want to pull out their forces. What will happen then? Will they be forcefully pushed out? If so, how? The military conflict may just blow up inside their own country. Hopefully there's a more diplomatic way to resolve this issue though it's quite clear that both governments aren't willing to give ground.

Nothing. The conquered doesn't get voting rights to oust the conqueror, and the UN etc won't go beyond diplomacy, some protesting, ambassadors recalled, maybe even more sanctions, nothing more.

Of course the conqueror has to pay the price for keeping the conquered land, that means sending troops, feed them, risk them etc. The usual. Logic says Iraq has nothing to do with USA, they should leave and let Iran do whatever they want (of course it was the USA that demolished Iraq's forces in the first place, paving the way for the iranians).

Then again Israel might want to have fun again if the Americans leave... Breathing space or something.

[franky1]

Of course the conqueror has to pay the price for keeping the conquered land, that means sending troops, feed them, risk them etc. The usual. Logic says Iraq has nothing to do with USA, they should leave and let Iran do whatever they want (of course it was the USA that demolished Iraq's forces in the first place, paving the way for the iranians).

if you learned anything from africa over the last 70 years you would know
foreign countries come in and take the land. displace the natives and then get other charities to feed/shelter them.

US military invade and take the land, sell it to other investors.. and worldbank/unicef/red cross then make millions from donations just to hand out cups of rice to the displaced

[squatz1]

Why this demand came only after US killed Iranian general? It surely means that Iraq had ties with Iran. Iran is responsible for creating problems for Sunni Muslims in every Muslim country including Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Palestine. US leaving Iraq at this point means handing over the country to Iran and that’s not what all Iraqis want but demand of shias of Iraq.

Just curious. What if the us doesn't want to pull out their forces. What will happen then? Will they be forcefully pushed out? If so, how? The military conflict may just blow up inside their own country. Hopefully there's a more diplomatic way to resolve this issue though it's quite clear that both governments aren't willing to give ground.

Nothing. The conquered doesn't get voting rights to oust the conqueror, and the UN etc won't go beyond diplomacy, some protesting, ambassadors recalled, maybe even more sanctions, nothing more.

Of course the conqueror has to pay the price for keeping the conquered land, that means sending troops, feed them, risk them etc. The usual. Logic says Iraq has nothing to do with USA, they should leave and let Iran do whatever they want (of course it was the USA that demolished Iraq's forces in the first place, paving the way for the iranians).

Then again Israel might want to have fun again if the Americans leave... Breathing space or something.

I mean this is just all bullshit. Iraq wasn't conquered by the US, the US did change the regime that was ruling Iraq. They removed Saddam Hussain from power, a ruthless dictator, from power.

People today may say that Saddam was a great leader in Iraq, but that's just not the case and the people hated him. He was a ruthless dictator. Here's some info on what the Iraqis thought about this.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/11647/gallup-poll-iraq-iraqis-judge-saddam-hussein-when.aspx - Iraqis thoughts about Saddams crimes against his own people and if he should be put to trial.
https://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/12/17/elec04.prez.poll/index.html - Saddams capture had boosted Bushs approval ratings, showing that's what the American people wanted.

This is why the US is there, then it transitioned into ISIS and stopping them from taking more land in Iraq.