Al-Sudani: The presence of American forces in Iraq is destabilizing, and we want them to leave quickly - 1/10/2024

[ronscarpa]

Al-Sudani: The presence of American forces in Iraq is destabilizing, and we want them to leave quickly

PoliticsIraqAmerican ForcesInternational Coalition

 

2024-01-10 // 03:09

 

Shafaq News / Prime Minister Muhammad Shiaa Al-Sudani confirmed that Iraq wants a quick and orderly exit of the international coalition forces led by the United States, describing the presence of those forces as “destabilizing” in light of the regional repercussions of the Gaza war.

 

Al-Sudani told Reuters that there is a need to reorganize the relationship between Iraq and the American forces so that it is not a target or justification for any party, whether internal or external, to tamper with stability in Iraq and the region.

 

He added, "The exit of these forces must be through negotiation."

 

Long-standing calls by mostly Shiite armed factions, many of which are close to Iran, for the departure of the US-led international coalition forces have gained momentum after a series of US strikes on factions linked to Iran that also form part of the official Iraqi security forces.

 

These strikes, which came in response to dozens of drone and missile attacks on American forces since Israel launched its war on the Gaza Strip, raised fears that Iraq would once again become the scene of a regional conflict.

 

https://shafaq.com/ar/سیاسة/السوداني-وجود-القوات-ال-مريكية-في-العراق-مزعزع-للاستقرار-ونريد-خروجا-سريعا-لها

[haymon]

Oh, who helped stabalize it before now??

[Bama Girl]

He is one of several who asked the U.S. to stay. Is he becoming someone’s puppet? However, one can’t believe all the news in Iraq as one can’t believe all the news in the U.S.

[Dinarrock]

24 minutes ago, Bama Girl said:

He is one of several who asked the U.S. to stay. Is he becoming someone’s puppet? However, one can’t believe all the news in Iraq as one can’t believe all the news in the U.S.

Correct corrupt Maliki owns most of the news outlets from my understanding!

[ametad]

11 hours ago, haymon said:

Oh, who helped stabalize it before now??

Same folks who have Sadam the green light to invade Kuwait by indicting it was ok through diplomatic channels. Then they bombed and destabilized it before invading and occupying it to stabilize it. I think this is the US involvement you are referring to. But I’m a little un clear if it’s this first invasion you’re referring to, or perhaps it’s the wild goose hunt for WMDs after 9/11/2001 since we found and removed them the first time around. 

[ametad]

I think Iraq would be more stable without US troops in country. 

[Bama Girl]

9 minutes ago, ametad said:

I think Iraq would be more stable without US troops in country. 

Do you not think ISIS or other terrorist organizations would try to overthrow the government as happened when Obama pulled our troops out before? I’m interested in your thoughts. 

[Hotcurl]

Spoken like a TRUE Iranian Puppet .......................

 

He works for the Mullahs in Iran ...................

 

The only Stability they speak of is Control by Tehran ................

 

Just sayin' ........................

 

Semper Fi 

[haymon]

Sorry, I was making a quick comment only. Nothing to deep from me.

[ametad]

46 minutes ago, Hotcurl said:

Spoken like a TRUE Iranian Puppet .......................

 

He works for the Mullahs in Iran ...................

 

The only Stability they speak of is Control by Tehran ................

 

Just sayin' ........................

 

Semper Fi 

Hmm, that’s fascinating. 

[ametad]

1 hour ago, Bama Girl said:

Do you not think ISIS or other terrorist organizations would try to overthrow the government as happened when Obama pulled our troops out before? I’m interested in your thoughts. 

 
In the current era, it all comes down to the control of oil. At the end of WWII when the Ottoman Empire transformed into Türkiye and all the borders of the Middle East were drawn to split up the spoils of the war to the European powers as they occupied the land. When the democracy in Iran decided they wanted to nationalize the oil, ARAMCO the US and the UK stepped in during the coup of 52 and installed the Shaw to ensure control of oil and profit from it remained in European control rather than benefiting the Persians who were natives of the land where the oil was extracted from. Thus we entered into the beginning of the current era where any resistance to an occupying force stealing natural resources was bad. The lesson here is democracy is good only if you agree with us. 
 

That has to be understood for me to state that with Iraq having an agreement of how to distribute the natural resources back to the people and effectively nationalizing the Iraqi oil, the largest destabilizing factor is not from within but extensionally from outside the borders.  
 

Now if this oil revenue distribution law does not align with European and Western interests, history tells us a destabilizing installment of a leader will follow granting flow of both oil and oil revenues to Europe and the West. Or, a simple invasion and occupation works to control the oil supply. 
 

I think these people of Iraq are simply tired of being occupied while their natural resources are stolen. So much so, they are coming into agreement and alignment with each other to share the profit within the country. This is crystallizing into the legislative work to approve the hydrocarbon law. 
 

I don’t think there is the vacuum that allowed the caliphate and rise of ISIS at this time. The more plausible tactic would be to strike fear into people that global enemy #1, Iran is somehow behind it all, this will justify another invasion and occupation to control the oil. It’s convenient to forget that all these people, regardless of where exactly the random lines drawn on a map by European guys after WWII put them are tired of being occupied. Therefore, it is the presence of the US led coalition that is the destabilizing factor. 
 

If allowed to I think Iraq can sustain itself. However, the nationalization of Iraqi oil presents a clear and present danger for the ever so precarious petro-dollar and the key to US Global Supremacy.
 

In conclusion, I am thinking there is more danger from other countries than another civil war.

 

Bama Girl, not sure if that really answered your question but it’s what my thoughts are. I’m no afacianito here, just a guy who grew up and lives in rural America that invested in Iraqi Dinar which has kept me interested in these events for many years now. It’s a fascinating story, one that dates back into antiquity, it is after all the cradle of civilization.

[screwball]

9 hours ago, ametad said:

I think Iraq would be more stable without US troops in country. 

I agree….I think when the in peace keepers, Saudia Arabia and UAE step in they will plug the gap…

[screwball]

I think Iraq would be better of without us troops…

[Longtimelurker]

11 hours ago, ametad said:

I think Iraq would be more stable without US troops in country. 

The U.S has only made things worse for almost every country. I am ashamed of what the U.S has been for so long but I believe we are turning it around now..

[Longtimelurker]

11 hours ago, Bama Girl said:

Do you not think ISIS or other terrorist organizations would try to overthrow the government as happened when Obama pulled our troops out before? I’m interested in your thoughts. 

The U.S created most terrorist groups including Isis (thanks obama)..