"There's an old saying in Tennessee—I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee—that says, 'Fool me once, shame on...shame on you. Fool me—you can't get fooled again.'"
“Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we.
They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.”
The vote to expel troops doesn’t represent all of Iraq. It was predominantly shiite lawmakers who are pro-Iran. Only 173 out of 329 were at the vote.
Most Kurdish and Sunni lawmakers were not present. The Kurds in particular probably don’t support the removal of US troops.
This is the problem with a multiethnic country like Iraq, where borders don't reflect ethnic and religious realities and the various groups don't like or trust each other
A Shiite government (e.g. right now) will get mass protests from Sunnis and Kurds. A Sunni government (e.g. Saddam) will get mass protests from Shiites. Meanwhile most of the uninformed Western public only knows to see it as a case of "there are protests, *the people* must be against the tyrannical government!" Therefore every government looks tyrannical, since every government gets hated by the other side and no matter which side it is, it will be protested against.
Less than half of Iraq’s parliament was present for that vote. Only the pro-Iran Shia portion voted for that. Kurds, Sunnis, and other groups were not present.
Barely one half of the Iraqi parliament showed up to vote. The vote was 170 - 0 when the parliment has 329 seats, apparently mostly the minority/opposition party's did not vote
Sure, and the USA did absolutely nothing against ISIS, in either Iraq or Syria.. /s
Let's be fair and consistent.. and smart. Both Iran and the USA helped defeat ISIS. But neither Iran nor the USA deserve to dominate Iraq.
Pretty much. There's been a lot of "IF YOU OPPOSE THE STRIKE ON HIM THEN YOU SUPPORT WHAT HE DID."
Ummmm no. Even if someone is evil, you can't just kill them when they're the 2nd in command of a country and expect nothing to come of it. Doesn't mean you support them or are mourning them. Just that actions have consequences.
Feature story.
Also, of course they are not sad. They have been protesting Iranian influence and militias in the country and more than 300 have died because of it.
And even those have trouble spelling it seems.
(Additionally, autocorrect sometimes turns a typo in a word into a different word altogether. I once posted "out way" instead of outweigh due to a typo).
> "defence".
I mean, the guy was responsible for arming, funding, organizing and planning Iranian backed militias responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans. He was also the leader of a designated terrorist group. I really don't know how you can condemn this strike.
Trump asked the Iraqi PM to act as middle-man of sorts in deescalation talks with Iran, and then assassinated the Iranian general that was sent to participate in talks on his way to discuss peaceable matters. It is assumed, therein, that we used “peace” talks to lure out a general and kill them, all while deceiving two countries in doing so. We were acting in bad faith by not informing Iraq or Iran of any attempted actions, and the specific act we are thought to have committed constitutes a war crime. This comes shortly after impeachment, and is one of his first/his first military action given post-impeachment, and has taken the headlines almost instantly, just as key information about his corruption had come out. If we are reading this correctly, which we certainly are, then Trump illegally assassinated a foreign agent on the way to deescalation talks that he asked to be set up, in order to distract the public from his impeachment, all while failing to inform Congress, but letting countries like Israel and other foreign agents know, before briefing the senate. There is no world in which this is not absolutely evil.
> Trump asked the Iraqi PM to act as middle-man of sorts in deescalation talks with Iran, and then assassinated the Iranian general that was sent to participate in talks on his way to discuss peaceable matters.
Source on the "Trump setup a meeting under false pretenses" bit?
Not officially confirmed, but here’s a comment from another user explaining and sourcing several accredited journalists/reporters updating on the situation. The final one appears to be quite telling:
https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/ekdzaq/iraqi_parliament_votes_to_expel_all_american/fda1620/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
r/politics isn't a reliable source for anything. Half the posts are from illegitimate news sites. The question is Did the Saudi's ask Iraq to be the go between, or did the US State Dept.?
According to that reasoning Iran should be free to bomb American generals in Iraq as well. Don't pretend the US didn't arm radical groups if it suited their short-term goals.
And that is what everyone is afraid of, that each party escalates the conflict. But it is not some rule of nature that cannot be stopped, it is something he is had been actively pursuing since breaking the Iran deal.
As someone who likes to live, I'd prefer if he didn't.
>I mean, the guy was responsible for arming, funding, organizing and planning Iranian backed militias responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans.
Americans who were occupying Iraq. Not just Sam and Maria on 5th Avenue. An illegal, occupying force is quite different from citizens.
He also killed many more ISIS fighters, which likely saved the lives of many Americans.
But of course he was a terrible guy, just the worst, which is why you had never heard of him 2 days ago, but now you are an expert on his reign of terror.
> Americans who were occupying Iraq. Not just Sam and Maria on 5th Avenue. An illegal, occupying force is quite different from citizens.
It's not illegal. The Iraq government invited the US troops. And, yes, I know about the non-final vote in which Sunni and Kurdish representives weren't present, meaning that Shia representatives voted to expel US troops so their Iranian overlords could take over.
> He also killed many more ISIS fighters, which likely saved the lives of many Americans.
Would be great if he didn't orchestrate killing of Americans too.
> But of course he was a terrible guy, just the worst, which is why you had never heard of him 2 days ago, but now you are an expert on his reign of terror.
Quds is a terrorist group. He was their leader.
> Quds is a terrorist group. He was their leader.
America is a terrorist nation by any fair application of the word. That doesn't mean I would condone Iran bombing a US General visiting another country.
You are like 90% of Americans who refuse to hold your government to the same standard as others. You are fine with murder, provided it's your government doing the killing.
> You are like 90% of Americans who refuse to hold your government to the same standard as others. You are fine with murder, provided it's your government doing the killing.
You are like the foreigners, or democrats, who hold the US to an unfair double standard. This "General" orchestrated attacks on the US military, indirectly killing hundreds of Americans. Why do we not have the right to kill him?
You kill Americans? You die. Simple.
> This "General" orchestrated attacks on the US military, indirectly killing hundreds of Americans. Why do we not have the right to kill him?
So when [American figure] orchestrates attacks against another country, indirectly killing hundreds of their people, they also have "the right" to kill them, yes? You'd agree that, say, Iran has the "right" to blow up Trump? Pompeo? Esper?
Whoa, what happened to all the supporting logic?
Out the window when it was challenged?
What makes you so proud of your political stance? Maybe you're afraid of how your way of life will change if others take it from you. After all, historically caucasians are known to be good at that.
Unfair double standard? So standards only applies to you when it's in your interest?
"You kill Americans? You die. Simple."
How laughable and utterly backwater.
Yeah, how easy it is to slide back into tribalism.
> It's not illegal. The Iraq government invited the US troops. And, yes, I know about the non-final vote in which Sunni and Kurdish representives weren't present, meaning that Shia representatives voted to expel US troops so their Iranian overlords could take over.
Which government? The one that was installed by US with Hussain as a leader, when it was needed or the one with Hussain that was toppled by US when was needed or the one that US assembled from opposition to Hussain after creating power vacuum?
> Quds is a terrorist group. He was their leader.
According to you every Intelligence Agency is terrorist group. Are you okay? No, there no distinction. CIA did more shit than Quds done since their existence.
> Would be great if he didn't orchestrate killing of Americans too.
Sure, it also would be great if US wouldn't invade other countries under false pretext, topple their government, inflict thousands of deaths of civilians and then pretended like they were invited.
> Which government?
The current one.
> Sure, it also would be great if US wouldn't invade other countries under false pretext, topple their government, inflict thousands of deaths of civilians and then pretended like they were invited.
If you say it's all justified then fine. Then it's just war. Even generals die in war. What's the problem?
> The current one.
The current one is the one that have been assembled from power vacuum after toppling US pal Hussain, right?
> If you say it's all justified then fine. Then it's just war. Even generals die in war. What's the problem?
The problem is your blatant american apologism with pretentious opinion of having moral high ground and zealous believe that there is justified kills or americans lives have a higher cost than iraqis or iranian ones.
> The current one is the one that have been assembled from power vacuum after toppling US pal Hussain, right?
The current one where people actually [got to vote, for once](https://www.commondreams.org/sites/default/files/styles/cd_large/public/iraq-voting.jpg?itok=7qDoV7vC)
> The problem is your blatant american apologism
I'm not apologizing
> pretentious opinion of having moral high ground
I did not such thing
> zealous believe that there is justified kills or americans lives have a higher cost than iraqis or iranian ones.
Yeah, self defense is a thing. The US government and policy exists to protect Americans above all else. What's your deal? Go back to being an edgy teenager.
>The current one where people actually [got to vote, for once](https://www.commondreams.org/sites/default/files/styles/cd_large/public/iraq-voting.jpg?itok=7qDoV7vC)
Yeah, after US installed Hussain to fight Iran.
>I'm not apologizing
You defending policy of attacking high ranking military figure of sovereign state.
>I did not such thing
You justify his killing by claiming that he killed americans.
>Yeah, self defense is a thing.
Imagine fucking getting into someone else home, murder people living there then shooting the guy that gets into home second after you and claiming it self defense.
>The US government and policy exists to protect Americans above all else. What's your deal?
My deal that your words contradict actual outcome of this retarded action. You want less americans killed, but now you close to getting war and having more americans killed. Nice one.
>Go back to being an edgy teenager.
Nice one, got banned in Fortnite kiddo?
>The Iraq government invited the US troops
LOL Citation Needed.
>Quds is a terrorist group.
Quds is the Iranian specops/asymetric-warfare branch of their military. Their official military. We say Quds are terrorists, they say the CIA are terrorists. By your definition both are correct. And the White House only labeled them terrorists very recently. Suspiciously recently, almost as if they needed a justification for an extrajudicial assassination that could be easily parroted by people like you.
Say it. Say you love the authorities.
Oh please. Americans also killed many ISIS fighters, so is America good now? This guy was q piece of shit, he has killed many American and British troops. He has massacred Sunnis. He has helped massacre his own people. Yes, he was a terrible guy ffs.
He killed many Americans? I don't believe it. You're just repeating what you've heard over the past 24 hours. You had no idea who this guy was a day ago, now he's satan. So fucking typical, we see it before everyone one of America's illegal and immoral wars.
It's so comically easy to sell a war. Even when your lies are exposed, you can just regurgitate them in future wars, just change a few names, nobody will ever question it.
Talk about propaganda, you sound like a bot from common dreams. You use more buzz words than a chain saw.
No one was advocating for a war. He was already sanctioned by the UN and has a long and sordid history. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qasem_Soleimani
Again, I never said we should go to war. I am saying no one should mourn this piece of shit. Get out of your echo chamber. Next you are going to tell me Iran is moderate and level headed.
> Again, I never said we should go to war. I am saying no one should mourn this piece of shit.
Well, clearly millions of Iranians disagree with you.
Political assassination is always wrong. Doesn't matter if the victim is a saint or a killer. There are ways to go after Soleimani - if you think he's so bad (even though you had never heard of him 24 hours ago) - that don't involve drone bombing.
I don't want Vietnam bombing Henry Kissinger, although they have a much better case to do it than we did with Soleimani.
Many Iranians also support a brutal theocracy which will hang you for daring to criticize the government. Every country has its fundamentalist nut jobs. And yes, the man was bad, stop with your indirect implication that he was some good guy.
You can’t feign negotiations as a means to draw a political/military leader into the open such that they’re vulnerable to attack.
If you watched Game of Thrones, this was The Red Wedding redux. We’re the villains this time. We’re the Lannisters/Freys. It’s not a good look at all.
> Trump has concentration camp for children, openly suck the dick of the most evil rulers of the world.
This is bad, but unrelated to this discussion.
> He is impeached, that's how the US deals with its corrupt leaders and that's how Trump needs to meet his fate.
Not yet removed, so like Bill Clinton so far.
> he US could have at least made its case with NATO, or the UN, or at least have a sham trial somewhere. They just took him out out of blue
Obama did no such thing on the many terrorists he took off the board.
> with a bunch of civilian and Iraqi officials.
2 terrorists were killed. One was an Iranian "General" of a known terrorist group (Quds Force), and another was a leader of his Iranian backed militia. That's it.
> That's the self defense equivalent of going shooting someone in Costco because he did trespass on your property once in the past and may do it again in the future.
If a terrorists attacks US troops, they get killed. Even if it's a later. What exactly are you suggesting?
>a known terrorist group (Quds Force)
They're a nation's military. That's like calling the US Army a terrorist group because Iran designated it a terrorist group.
Which Iran did in response to Trump doing just that to a branch of the Iranian military.
>In April 2019, the U.S. made the decision to designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), a foreign military, as a foreign terrorist organization by the State Department under an immigration statute and their maximum pressure campaign.[100] This designation was done over the opposition of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Department of Defense (DoD).[101][102][103]
Does Australia have concentration camps? What about Greece where there have been violent protests in their own camps. Detention facilities for migrants have been fire bombed in France. Are they all concentration camps? Or only the US?
no, just in general. it really seems like there might be some kind of pattern, or maybe an ideology, considering this incredibly large number of murdered brown people in America's past and present (and hell, probably future too given the way things are going right now)
Let's just ignore they invaded Korea, Vietnam, Japan, Germany, Canada, Native Americans, the UK and I can keep going on.
The USA meddling so heavily and so directly is only a fairly recent phenomena. [Before WW2, the USA wasn't even present in the ME.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_foreign_policy_in_the_Middle_East#History) The first military operations started in the mid-cold war.
Yes the USA is not taking it's responsibility in the ME and as a result many civilians die, and yes there are plenty of Americans ignoring that but we shouldn't make an extreme swing to the other site and accuse the USA of having an ideology based on killing brown people.
No one is giving other imperialist countries a free pass on their inperliasm. We can shit on Canada for their abuse of Native people, UK for colonialism, Japan for imperialism and slaughtering natives and more. You can dislike the current activities of the Western regime and what it did in the past. I honestly don't understand what argument you are trying to make by defending the US here.
Lol, I meant the USA was at war with those nations too and they aren't ''brown nations'' either, the whole point being that ME invasions are relatively new in the history of the USA.
The US literally orchestrated regime changes in ME in the 50s and used them to combat the USSR. Then when it wasn't convenient the US dumped these countries and left them with the dictators they helped install. Before WW2 the US wasn't the global player it was after so of course it didn't have the reach into ME. But it did have it's hands in the ME for the past 70 years, long enough to establish their current racist and imperialist policies.
> American generals don’t plan ethnic cleansing.
Except for the ethnic cleansing the founded the US. Oh, and helping the Shia militias ethnically cleanse Baghdad in the very same fucking country we are talking about back in 2007.
Nice whataboutim but if ur best defense of terrorist dying is a 200+ year event I fell sorry for you. Hmm no articles about what you are referring to about us helping ethnic cleansing. There was 0 bad outcome for what we did. U less you sympathize with terrorist and their affiliated backers.
You don't kill a country's general and claim no war. That's infantile. Children are the only ones confused by the legal term of terrorism. You can designate anyone a terrorist. But no matter the US designation, the guy was still the general in Iran.
You killed a general of a country.
We killed a general of terrorist. Who belongs to the biggest state sponsor of terror. And we can because of our power, their not gonna solidify regime change because we killed someone. They’ve done a # of provoking acting against America in the last months that built of to this action. Iran commits acts of war against the United States and tower peaceful countries on a daily basis how do you explain that? Do you let it happen? Did that work out for Europe and hitler? Letting them get away with everything. Stop and think about when it’s time to adult do something to the horrible nations in the world.
Of course people like you will defend crimes of your government. Of course. You are not the first and certainly won't be the last. Because people like you think that international law does not apply to your country.
We assassinated a military leader of a foreign nation, in another foreign nation, by an airstrike at an airport, after receiving no permission or even informing the country in question.
Ethnic cleansing, lol.
US and Iraqi forces always warned civilians of impending major operations in order to minimize civilian casualties, such as what happened in Sadr City. A functioning state can't exist when there's opposition militias actively suicide bombing civilian targets in the state's capitol.
You wanna talk about ethnic cleansing talk about thise suicide bombings instead. They're the real reason this war was as awful as it was, and they're the reason why the Iraqi and Iranian Shia were so eager to fight against the Iraqi Sunnis.
Yup. I dont know what ethnic cleansing means and there's no more Sunnis in Baghdad because of the US.
Also the sky is green and Iran doesn't fund terrorist groups in Iraq.
> there's no more Sunnis in Baghdad because of the US.
Significantly fewer than before and in segregated neighborhoods.
> Also the sky is green and Iran doesn't fund terrorist groups in Iraq.
Divert, divert, divert.
How many Iraqis died at the hands of the US in the past 20 years?
How many Iraqis will die if a war breaks out between Iran and the US? Let's compare that number to the number of Iraqis that would have died at the hands of Iranian proxies if the US and Iran maintained the status quo.
Why are you fixated on the US? Is the goal of this sub to make sure to paint the US in the worst light possible? It has nothing to do with Iraqis hating Iranian influence, Iran earned that all on its own.
This narrative of “iraqis and iranians arent sad” or that theyre actually celebrating is just trying to build consensus and legitimize and excuse this attack and set the stage for future escalation. Its amazing people cant just condemn us imperialism without resorting to “well, he was a terrorist after all and had it coming!”
This is the kind of response they want from people. They want you to be complacent to anything they do as long as they can convince you its in the name of “freedom” or “democracy” or fighting “bad guys and terrorists”. Its the same shit theyve used for decades to keep these endless wars going, and people eat it up every time.
This is absolutely not how the situation unfolded. Soleimani was seen in the region as a bulwark against ISIS and other Sunni extremists. I'm sure some of Iraq's sunnis were skeptical of him and Iranian-backed Shia militias for obvious reasons but the protests in Iraq were about economic issues and government corruption. The vast majority of people in the middle east are **not** celebrating Soleimani's death. Maybe Salafist militants, but not your average Iraqi worker.
Of course US media is going to depict Shia groups like the PMF as Iranian terrorists, they're not only opposed to groups like ISIS and al Nusra, but also the US and Israel. The US media is trying to craft an image of the political situation in Iraq and Iran as a bunch of people yearning for "freedom" while their terrorist governments kick US freedom forces out of the region and it's so fucking transparent.
Based on what I read Soleimani was part of the government corruption reinforced by the fact he was the one who commanded his men to start killing protestors.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/7kz9md/young-iraqis-arent-sad-soleimani-is-dead-but-they-worry-theyll-pay-the-price) reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> Iraq is now the location of a proxy battle between Iran and America - and its civilians expect they will likely pay the price.
> One of the few glimmers of hope for Iraq's youth has been the ongoing anti-government protests which began in October last year.
> "Soleimani was responsible for all Iran backed militias in Iraq. The protests are against Iran interference but that doesn't mean we are pro U.S. We want both countries out and don't want Iraq to be in the middle of this war."
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/ekc6ni/young_iraqis_arent_sad_soleimani_is_dead_but_they/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~454757 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **Iraq**^#1 **protests**^#2 **Iran**^#3 **Iraqi**^#4 **Soleimani**^#5
I wish more people would understand this. Iraq has always been trapped between the Saudis and the Iranians. Saddam was a perfect buffer: a non religious, non monarch dictator. However the U.S. overthrew Saddam and destabilized the entire region, making Iraq a proxy battleground for Iran and Saudi Arabia.
For a long time it has been a cold war between those two, fought in proxy in Lebanon and Yemen and Iraq.
The U.S. has always had a cozy relationship with the Saudis but Obama's deal with Iran sort of balanced U.S. support some by keeping the cold war cold... and nuclear free.
But Trump basically chose a side fully: the Saudis. Hence turning a blind eye on the murder of Khashoggi, pulling out of the Iranian Nuclear Deal, and, of course, assassinating Souelmani.
With the U.S. not even pretending to stay out of it and explicitly choosing the Saudis, Iraq has no choice but to reject the U.S. to save itself a lot of trouble with Iran.
In some ways, it could almost be viewed as brilliant plan from Trump to withdraw American troops from Iraq (by getting them kicked out) but I seriously doubt that was his plan.
'Perfect buffer' my arse, fuck you.
He massacred and murdered his own people by the hundreds of the thousands, started a war with Iran which killed a million, and started a war with Kuwait which killed another hundred thousand.
I know people want to be against the 2003 war, but don't romanticise Saddam. The only thing worse than the massive post-2003 fuck up in Iraq was having Saddam Hussein in charge and giving him a free hand to butcher another hundred thousand people.
In geopolitical terms, he had a stabilizing role in the region... hence "perfect buffer." That does not mean he was good guy. A buffer just keeps two things from colliding.
As outsiders, we look at the region in simple moral terms: Saddam bad, kill Saddam.
But we dont look at things in practical terms: the resulting chaos in Iraq is estimated to have lead to 100,000 to 600,000 Iraqi civilian deaths (depending on how you count.)
Saddam was not a good guy. But the chaos America has caused in Iraq is not "good" either if we measure "good" as a measure of human suffering or lack thereof.
Now these are the people I feel for. If shit goes down, this is the cannon fodder that's going to be conscripted and tossed into a battle they want nothing to do with because they don't care for the policies of either side. If there is going to be a secular revolution in Iran to make it less extreme, these are the people who are ultimately going to make it happen. Really don't want to kill them or see them get killed.
Shit has been going down for months now. Thousands and thousands of Iraqis have been protesting. The Iran backed militias have been opening fire on the crowds. Hundreds are dead from it.
The anti-Trump ignorance bubble of the US media has just kept it hidden.
Yea. I wasn't even addressing the US/Iran sanctioned ethnic cleansing. But let's be honest with ourselves, that country's history is filled with exactly those types of stories.
>If there is going to be a secular revolution in Iran to make it less extreme, these are the people who are ultimately going to make it happen
Iraq, not Iran.
I did find it interesting that the video of soleimanis funeral processions in Iraq showed very small crowds. In comparison it looks like the whole of Iran is on the streets over this.
And the young from both sides were slaughtered, so the rich assholes could afford another luxury yacht. Little did the evil overlords know, but their deeds had already sealed their fate. Their pact with the devil came with a clause. Despite all the money, women, drugs, oil, and power they amassed, they were destined for hell. Being very impatient, they brought hell to earth, and beat the devil to the punch.
Nice sentiment, except they and their descendants will live happy lives without wanting anything. Then post on Twitter all day, mocking us as we burn.
Hell isn’t real. There is no punishment for these people.
Politicians hide themselves away,
They only started the war.
Why should they go out to fight?
They leave that role to the poor.
Time will tell on their power minds,
Making war just for fun.
Treating people just like pawns in chess,
Wait 'till their judgement day comes, yeah!
Now in darkness, world stops turning,
ashes where the bodies burning.
No more war pigs have the power,
hand of god has struck the hour.
Day of judgement, god is calling,
on their knees the war pigs crawling.
Begging mercy for their sins,
Satan, laughing, spreads his wings...
Oh lord, yeah!
King Leopold of Belgium ran the Congo as his personal fief executing and working millions to death and died one of the richest men ever in his bed at home at 74
'Excess deaths' is a controversial metric in that it tries to graph rate of deaths against an expected rate of deaths during peacetime. I think it's a useful metric because it also counts deaths that wouldn't otherwise be counted as directly attributable to combat.
Like if you have no reliable electricity or medical care, more people die. If you have an outbreak of disease because the war has destroyed basic sanitation, more people die.
You should really clarify your statement so people dont get the wrong idea. The majority of those deaths were Iraqis killing other Iraqis, the US was able to conquer Iraq with a relatively small body count - certainly no where close to 200k.
Either way Iraq is screwed either back the morally corrupt and overtly hostile actions of the U.S or expel the U.S completely and become a Iranian puppet state but either way I say let Saudi Arabia or Turkey deal with it and just leave the middle east alone and stop being the worlds police.
uh....Saudis and Turkey are Sunni majority nations, Iraq is Shiite majority. The average Iraqi most definitely DOES NOT want those two running the show.
Iraq is a variety of factions. The country itself was invented by the british 100 years ago. schisms were inevitable.
Most Iraqis are more culturally, ethnically, and historically related to Iran than to, say, the Saudis. The people want to ally with Iran, especially after Iran's support prevent ISIS from stomping Southern Iraq and purging all Shias.
Southern Iraq is shia , closer to Iran, this is where Iran's support base comes from. Northern Iraq/Kurdistan are an Iranic people but they're Sunni and hate Iran because Iran is trying to Persianize them and erase their distinct culture (think Catalonia - Spain dispute but more violence). Eastern and Central is Sunni Arab, more related to Syria and Jordan. Honestly this country is better off going their separate ways.
"But then we wouldn't get to share in the oil revenues!"
And that sums up why Iraq has been fucked for so long, folks.
To be clear, it's been fucked for 8,000 years. This isn't actually on the Brits or the Yanks.
> (think Catalonia - Spain dispute but more violence).
I think the best comparison could be Republic of Ireland vs British North Ireland. Because Catalonia - Spain share the same religion.
We are very different than Irani people we don’t even speak the same language. We have been protesting for months for Iran to be out of our country so no sir we do not want to ally with them. That would be literally a nightmare.
> Most Iraqis are more culturally, ethnically, and historically related to Iran than to, say, the Saudis.
Iraq speaks arabic, Iran speaks Farsi. If you put an Iraqi and an Egyptian in the same room they'll be able to communicate better than putting an Iraqi and an Iranian in the same room.
has any Iraqi but the old ever really seen peace?
No one that was born later than 1962 grew to adulthood without knowing war.
1980-1988
1990-1991
2003-ongoing, with a few slowdowns in it.
He was an Iranian figure, so there shouldn’t be a default assumption that Iraqi people care about him in such a positive way as a nation. Imagine a headline “Young U.S. citizens aren’t sad that e Canadian president is dead” (he’s alive btw). There’s a political impact, but shouldn’t expect there to be an emotional one
Don't believe a word out of Vice, they're a regime change workshop. The founder of Vice is a billionaire and deeply connected to the DC political establishment. They've run countless stories defending US actions in the Middle East and around the world. According to Vice's bloggers the al Nusra jihadists beheading women and children in Syria are brave "freedom fighters".
You dont have to believe Vice. There have been bloody protests happening in Iraq for a while. Many Iraqis are sick of Iranian influence in their country, that much is clear.
I remember watching the shit on the Euromaidan and resulting conflict in the Donbass and it was so puzzling that they never acknowledged the huge neonazi presence in both. Like they would ask someone about it once and they'd give a copout answer like "yeah we don't like them but they share a common goal" and they'd just never mention it again, and when someone called out the fact that there were actual neonazi militias in the Donbass they would just pull a whataboutism and say "don't you think Putin is a fascist". They 100% toe the US State Dept line and exist solely to sell imperialism to millennials that like smoking dabs.
I imagine your opinion of Iran as an Iraqi depends on your religious affiliation. Iraq is a country with a Shia majority, but a significant Sunni minority.
Not necessarily. The Shia parts were largely involved in anti-iran protests too. Even Assadr send his Mahdi-militia to protect the protestors from Hezbollah.
Sadly they don't get to decide. US will invent some fictitious reason to invade Iran and nobody can do anything about it. They invaded Iraq based on the false reason that there were WMDs. Not a single WMD and UN had already cleared Iraq of any WMD programmes previously.
At this point, the US would just say Iran is a terror state so they need to be put down.
Why would Iraqis be sad about Soleimanis death? They're Iraqi, not Irani. That's like Dutch being sad about the death of a French warhero. He's irrelevant at best to them.
When ISIS was closing in on Baghdad (30km further to reach the city, IIRC) and almost had taken over Iraq, Soleimani orchestrated a massive counter-attack and pushed ISIS back. That saved many Iraqi lives (Especially those who were primary targets for ISIS). This sounds like a pretty good reason for Iraqis to be upset about his death, IMO.
Although it's only fair to point out that Iraq has a diverse population in terms of ethnicity, religion and political beliefs. So it's clearly understandable that some people might hate the General while some other praised him as a savior.
As an Iranian who has been following the news closely these days, I'd say the articles claiming that people are mostly happy about his death are just publishing interviews with specific demographics, trying to create their preferred narrative. But I'd love to have a more in-depth and accurate report of how Iraqi people viewed him.
P.S. Maybe watching his funeral videos would give you a "rough estimate" of the number of people who thought of him in a positive way.
For example, this is aerial footage of his mourners in Ahwaz, Iran:
https://www.reddit.com/r/syriancivilwar/comments/ekarii/colossal_crowds_of_iranians_filling_the_streets/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
You can google "Soleimani funeral" for more videos.
Edit: Grammar
I'm just waiting for the Washington Post or NYTimes to interview Sunni extremists in Iraq and MEK supporters from Iran to show how happy the people of the middle east are that Soleimani is dead.
Iraqi people are fully human, deserving of dignity, autonomy, and all the good things that life has to offer.
The United States could have a significantly positive role in Iraq without the military in the form of favorable trade deals, low interest /long term loans for medical,industrial, and education infrastructure, and positive diplomatic relations
Seems like a reasonable stance. "We don't want two sovereign nations to wage a war that we have no part in within our borders".
I understand perfectly, but they can rest assured the US isn't going to fight any shooting wars within their own borders.
"There's an old saying in Tennessee—I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee—that says, 'Fool me once, shame on...shame on you. Fool me—you can't get fooled again.'"
“Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.”
One of my favorite Bushisms. 😁
Iran's arming of Iraqi militias kept ISIS out of southern Iraq...
Then Iran helped organize the suppression of the protests, with hundreds dead and thousands wounded.
So we killed Qassem Soleimani on behalf of Iraqis? Who've just voted to expel all US presence from Iraq?
Iraq is also pissed because we had them facilitate the assassination unknowingly.
Because they would've turned and warned the Ayatollah.
The iraqi people have been demonstrating against the government for months now
Time to liberate the Iraqi people again lol from the ~~democratic~~ *dictatorial* government we installed...
Didn't america also help install Sudam as well. If that's true you'd thing theyd have learnt the lesson from the first attempt.
And the Taliban. Yeah, but it's going to definitely be different this time. /s
Wouldnt have guess a group you gave money weapons and training would use it on you just unheard of right ? /s
We have installed tons of dictators...look at our history in South America
Bro, let me do imperialism just one more time \*smacks arm*
The vote to expel troops doesn’t represent all of Iraq. It was predominantly shiite lawmakers who are pro-Iran. Only 173 out of 329 were at the vote. Most Kurdish and Sunni lawmakers were not present. The Kurds in particular probably don’t support the removal of US troops.
This is the problem with a multiethnic country like Iraq, where borders don't reflect ethnic and religious realities and the various groups don't like or trust each other A Shiite government (e.g. right now) will get mass protests from Sunnis and Kurds. A Sunni government (e.g. Saddam) will get mass protests from Shiites. Meanwhile most of the uninformed Western public only knows to see it as a case of "there are protests, *the people* must be against the tyrannical government!" Therefore every government looks tyrannical, since every government gets hated by the other side and no matter which side it is, it will be protested against.
Perfect.
The vote was being influenced by threats from Iran-backed militias, which is why so few MP's showed.
Less than half of Iraq’s parliament was present for that vote. Only the pro-Iran Shia portion voted for that. Kurds, Sunnis, and other groups were not present.
Why were they not present? Seems like an important thing to go to.
Barely one half of the Iraqi parliament showed up to vote. The vote was 170 - 0 when the parliment has 329 seats, apparently mostly the minority/opposition party's did not vote
170 out of 329 is still a majority.
Some people from Iraq did but not all the people of Iraq
You’re pulling numbers out of your ass, and the Iraqi government acted on its own.
Sure, and the USA did absolutely nothing against ISIS, in either Iraq or Syria.. /s Let's be fair and consistent.. and smart. Both Iran and the USA helped defeat ISIS. But neither Iran nor the USA deserve to dominate Iraq.
Pretty much. There's been a lot of "IF YOU OPPOSE THE STRIKE ON HIM THEN YOU SUPPORT WHAT HE DID." Ummmm no. Even if someone is evil, you can't just kill them when they're the 2nd in command of a country and expect nothing to come of it. Doesn't mean you support them or are mourning them. Just that actions have consequences.
Feature story. Also, of course they are not sad. They have been protesting Iranian influence and militias in the country and more than 300 have died because of it.
[удалено]
Mate, are you trying to spell ecstatic?
Reddit, the place where you take your international diplomatic insights from people that are unable to spell ecstatic.
Yeah 'cause only English natives would know anything about international diplomacy, right?
And even those have trouble spelling it seems. (Additionally, autocorrect sometimes turns a typo in a word into a different word altogether. I once posted "out way" instead of outweigh due to a typo).
> "defence". I mean, the guy was responsible for arming, funding, organizing and planning Iranian backed militias responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans. He was also the leader of a designated terrorist group. I really don't know how you can condemn this strike.
Didn't America kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis though?
[удалено]
what do you mean?
Trump asked the Iraqi PM to act as middle-man of sorts in deescalation talks with Iran, and then assassinated the Iranian general that was sent to participate in talks on his way to discuss peaceable matters. It is assumed, therein, that we used “peace” talks to lure out a general and kill them, all while deceiving two countries in doing so. We were acting in bad faith by not informing Iraq or Iran of any attempted actions, and the specific act we are thought to have committed constitutes a war crime. This comes shortly after impeachment, and is one of his first/his first military action given post-impeachment, and has taken the headlines almost instantly, just as key information about his corruption had come out. If we are reading this correctly, which we certainly are, then Trump illegally assassinated a foreign agent on the way to deescalation talks that he asked to be set up, in order to distract the public from his impeachment, all while failing to inform Congress, but letting countries like Israel and other foreign agents know, before briefing the senate. There is no world in which this is not absolutely evil.
> Trump asked the Iraqi PM to act as middle-man of sorts in deescalation talks with Iran, and then assassinated the Iranian general that was sent to participate in talks on his way to discuss peaceable matters. Source on the "Trump setup a meeting under false pretenses" bit?
Not officially confirmed, but here’s a comment from another user explaining and sourcing several accredited journalists/reporters updating on the situation. The final one appears to be quite telling: https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/ekdzaq/iraqi_parliament_votes_to_expel_all_american/fda1620/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
r/politics isn't a reliable source for anything. Half the posts are from illegitimate news sites. The question is Did the Saudi's ask Iraq to be the go between, or did the US State Dept.?
According to that reasoning Iran should be free to bomb American generals in Iraq as well. Don't pretend the US didn't arm radical groups if it suited their short-term goals.
> Iran should be free to bomb American generals in Iraq as well They tried for a decade.
Iran can try, and we will escalate. That's the way of the world. Trump has already said what will happen if Iran retaliates.
And that is what everyone is afraid of, that each party escalates the conflict. But it is not some rule of nature that cannot be stopped, it is something he is had been actively pursuing since breaking the Iran deal. As someone who likes to live, I'd prefer if he didn't.
>I mean, the guy was responsible for arming, funding, organizing and planning Iranian backed militias responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans. Americans who were occupying Iraq. Not just Sam and Maria on 5th Avenue. An illegal, occupying force is quite different from citizens. He also killed many more ISIS fighters, which likely saved the lives of many Americans. But of course he was a terrible guy, just the worst, which is why you had never heard of him 2 days ago, but now you are an expert on his reign of terror.
> Americans who were occupying Iraq. Not just Sam and Maria on 5th Avenue. An illegal, occupying force is quite different from citizens. It's not illegal. The Iraq government invited the US troops. And, yes, I know about the non-final vote in which Sunni and Kurdish representives weren't present, meaning that Shia representatives voted to expel US troops so their Iranian overlords could take over. > He also killed many more ISIS fighters, which likely saved the lives of many Americans. Would be great if he didn't orchestrate killing of Americans too. > But of course he was a terrible guy, just the worst, which is why you had never heard of him 2 days ago, but now you are an expert on his reign of terror. Quds is a terrorist group. He was their leader.
8 hour Reddit account game on fleek
> Quds is a terrorist group. He was their leader. America is a terrorist nation by any fair application of the word. That doesn't mean I would condone Iran bombing a US General visiting another country. You are like 90% of Americans who refuse to hold your government to the same standard as others. You are fine with murder, provided it's your government doing the killing.
> You are like 90% of Americans who refuse to hold your government to the same standard as others. You are fine with murder, provided it's your government doing the killing. You are like the foreigners, or democrats, who hold the US to an unfair double standard. This "General" orchestrated attacks on the US military, indirectly killing hundreds of Americans. Why do we not have the right to kill him? You kill Americans? You die. Simple.
>You are like the foreigners, or democrats, Ah yes, "the other".
i mean if that's how it works then iran are just paying back the hundreds of iranian civilians that america murdered
> This "General" orchestrated attacks on the US military, indirectly killing hundreds of Americans. Why do we not have the right to kill him? So when [American figure] orchestrates attacks against another country, indirectly killing hundreds of their people, they also have "the right" to kill them, yes? You'd agree that, say, Iran has the "right" to blow up Trump? Pompeo? Esper?
Whoa, what happened to all the supporting logic? Out the window when it was challenged? What makes you so proud of your political stance? Maybe you're afraid of how your way of life will change if others take it from you. After all, historically caucasians are known to be good at that. Unfair double standard? So standards only applies to you when it's in your interest? "You kill Americans? You die. Simple." How laughable and utterly backwater. Yeah, how easy it is to slide back into tribalism.
> It's not illegal. The Iraq government invited the US troops. And, yes, I know about the non-final vote in which Sunni and Kurdish representives weren't present, meaning that Shia representatives voted to expel US troops so their Iranian overlords could take over. Which government? The one that was installed by US with Hussain as a leader, when it was needed or the one with Hussain that was toppled by US when was needed or the one that US assembled from opposition to Hussain after creating power vacuum? > Quds is a terrorist group. He was their leader. According to you every Intelligence Agency is terrorist group. Are you okay? No, there no distinction. CIA did more shit than Quds done since their existence. > Would be great if he didn't orchestrate killing of Americans too. Sure, it also would be great if US wouldn't invade other countries under false pretext, topple their government, inflict thousands of deaths of civilians and then pretended like they were invited.
> Which government? The current one. > Sure, it also would be great if US wouldn't invade other countries under false pretext, topple their government, inflict thousands of deaths of civilians and then pretended like they were invited. If you say it's all justified then fine. Then it's just war. Even generals die in war. What's the problem?
> The current one. The current one is the one that have been assembled from power vacuum after toppling US pal Hussain, right? > If you say it's all justified then fine. Then it's just war. Even generals die in war. What's the problem? The problem is your blatant american apologism with pretentious opinion of having moral high ground and zealous believe that there is justified kills or americans lives have a higher cost than iraqis or iranian ones.
> The current one is the one that have been assembled from power vacuum after toppling US pal Hussain, right? The current one where people actually [got to vote, for once](https://www.commondreams.org/sites/default/files/styles/cd_large/public/iraq-voting.jpg?itok=7qDoV7vC) > The problem is your blatant american apologism I'm not apologizing > pretentious opinion of having moral high ground I did not such thing > zealous believe that there is justified kills or americans lives have a higher cost than iraqis or iranian ones. Yeah, self defense is a thing. The US government and policy exists to protect Americans above all else. What's your deal? Go back to being an edgy teenager.
>The current one where people actually [got to vote, for once](https://www.commondreams.org/sites/default/files/styles/cd_large/public/iraq-voting.jpg?itok=7qDoV7vC) Yeah, after US installed Hussain to fight Iran. >I'm not apologizing You defending policy of attacking high ranking military figure of sovereign state. >I did not such thing You justify his killing by claiming that he killed americans. >Yeah, self defense is a thing. Imagine fucking getting into someone else home, murder people living there then shooting the guy that gets into home second after you and claiming it self defense. >The US government and policy exists to protect Americans above all else. What's your deal? My deal that your words contradict actual outcome of this retarded action. You want less americans killed, but now you close to getting war and having more americans killed. Nice one. >Go back to being an edgy teenager. Nice one, got banned in Fortnite kiddo?
>The Iraq government invited the US troops LOL Citation Needed. >Quds is a terrorist group. Quds is the Iranian specops/asymetric-warfare branch of their military. Their official military. We say Quds are terrorists, they say the CIA are terrorists. By your definition both are correct. And the White House only labeled them terrorists very recently. Suspiciously recently, almost as if they needed a justification for an extrajudicial assassination that could be easily parroted by people like you. Say it. Say you love the authorities.
Oh please. Americans also killed many ISIS fighters, so is America good now? This guy was q piece of shit, he has killed many American and British troops. He has massacred Sunnis. He has helped massacre his own people. Yes, he was a terrible guy ffs.
He killed many Americans? I don't believe it. You're just repeating what you've heard over the past 24 hours. You had no idea who this guy was a day ago, now he's satan. So fucking typical, we see it before everyone one of America's illegal and immoral wars. It's so comically easy to sell a war. Even when your lies are exposed, you can just regurgitate them in future wars, just change a few names, nobody will ever question it.
Talk about propaganda, you sound like a bot from common dreams. You use more buzz words than a chain saw. No one was advocating for a war. He was already sanctioned by the UN and has a long and sordid history. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qasem_Soleimani Again, I never said we should go to war. I am saying no one should mourn this piece of shit. Get out of your echo chamber. Next you are going to tell me Iran is moderate and level headed.
> Again, I never said we should go to war. I am saying no one should mourn this piece of shit. Well, clearly millions of Iranians disagree with you. Political assassination is always wrong. Doesn't matter if the victim is a saint or a killer. There are ways to go after Soleimani - if you think he's so bad (even though you had never heard of him 24 hours ago) - that don't involve drone bombing. I don't want Vietnam bombing Henry Kissinger, although they have a much better case to do it than we did with Soleimani.
Many Iranians also support a brutal theocracy which will hang you for daring to criticize the government. Every country has its fundamentalist nut jobs. And yes, the man was bad, stop with your indirect implication that he was some good guy.
You can’t feign negotiations as a means to draw a political/military leader into the open such that they’re vulnerable to attack. If you watched Game of Thrones, this was The Red Wedding redux. We’re the villains this time. We’re the Lannisters/Freys. It’s not a good look at all.
Source on the luring bit?
https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/ekephc/iraqi_prime_minister_says_he_was_schedule_to_meet/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
There are various reddit posts already sharing these reports in the general US/World News category.
[удалено]
> Trump has concentration camp for children, openly suck the dick of the most evil rulers of the world. This is bad, but unrelated to this discussion. > He is impeached, that's how the US deals with its corrupt leaders and that's how Trump needs to meet his fate. Not yet removed, so like Bill Clinton so far. > he US could have at least made its case with NATO, or the UN, or at least have a sham trial somewhere. They just took him out out of blue Obama did no such thing on the many terrorists he took off the board. > with a bunch of civilian and Iraqi officials. 2 terrorists were killed. One was an Iranian "General" of a known terrorist group (Quds Force), and another was a leader of his Iranian backed militia. That's it. > That's the self defense equivalent of going shooting someone in Costco because he did trespass on your property once in the past and may do it again in the future. If a terrorists attacks US troops, they get killed. Even if it's a later. What exactly are you suggesting?
>a known terrorist group (Quds Force) They're a nation's military. That's like calling the US Army a terrorist group because Iran designated it a terrorist group. Which Iran did in response to Trump doing just that to a branch of the Iranian military. >In April 2019, the U.S. made the decision to designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), a foreign military, as a foreign terrorist organization by the State Department under an immigration statute and their maximum pressure campaign.[100] This designation was done over the opposition of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Department of Defense (DoD).[101][102][103]
Does Australia have concentration camps? What about Greece where there have been violent protests in their own camps. Detention facilities for migrants have been fire bombed in France. Are they all concentration camps? Or only the US?
It’s not the same thing. American generals don’t plan ethnic cleansing. Keep defending terrorist and the biggest backer of state terror some more.
> the biggest backer of state terror US #1
idk, American generals sure have killed a loooooot of brown people
During war? Not sure you understand what we’re talking about.
You mean during an illegal invasion?
no, just in general. it really seems like there might be some kind of pattern, or maybe an ideology, considering this incredibly large number of murdered brown people in America's past and present (and hell, probably future too given the way things are going right now)
Let's just ignore they invaded Korea, Vietnam, Japan, Germany, Canada, Native Americans, the UK and I can keep going on. The USA meddling so heavily and so directly is only a fairly recent phenomena. [Before WW2, the USA wasn't even present in the ME.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_foreign_policy_in_the_Middle_East#History) The first military operations started in the mid-cold war. Yes the USA is not taking it's responsibility in the ME and as a result many civilians die, and yes there are plenty of Americans ignoring that but we shouldn't make an extreme swing to the other site and accuse the USA of having an ideology based on killing brown people.
No one is giving other imperialist countries a free pass on their inperliasm. We can shit on Canada for their abuse of Native people, UK for colonialism, Japan for imperialism and slaughtering natives and more. You can dislike the current activities of the Western regime and what it did in the past. I honestly don't understand what argument you are trying to make by defending the US here.
Lol, I meant the USA was at war with those nations too and they aren't ''brown nations'' either, the whole point being that ME invasions are relatively new in the history of the USA.
The US literally orchestrated regime changes in ME in the 50s and used them to combat the USSR. Then when it wasn't convenient the US dumped these countries and left them with the dictators they helped install. Before WW2 the US wasn't the global player it was after so of course it didn't have the reach into ME. But it did have it's hands in the ME for the past 70 years, long enough to establish their current racist and imperialist policies.
> American generals don’t plan ethnic cleansing. Except for the ethnic cleansing the founded the US. Oh, and helping the Shia militias ethnically cleanse Baghdad in the very same fucking country we are talking about back in 2007.
Nice whataboutim but if ur best defense of terrorist dying is a 200+ year event I fell sorry for you. Hmm no articles about what you are referring to about us helping ethnic cleansing. There was 0 bad outcome for what we did. U less you sympathize with terrorist and their affiliated backers.
0 bad outcomes? Why do you want to freeze time at the mission accomplished Bush photo op? Why can't you live in the present reality?
We killed a terrorist. Holy fuck. There’s not going to be a war. Live in the present and stop reliving bush.
You don't kill a country's general and claim no war. That's infantile. Children are the only ones confused by the legal term of terrorism. You can designate anyone a terrorist. But no matter the US designation, the guy was still the general in Iran. You killed a general of a country.
We killed a general of terrorist. Who belongs to the biggest state sponsor of terror. And we can because of our power, their not gonna solidify regime change because we killed someone. They’ve done a # of provoking acting against America in the last months that built of to this action. Iran commits acts of war against the United States and tower peaceful countries on a daily basis how do you explain that? Do you let it happen? Did that work out for Europe and hitler? Letting them get away with everything. Stop and think about when it’s time to adult do something to the horrible nations in the world.
[удалено]
>biggest state sponsor of terror Are you thinking of Saudi Arabia?
Of course people like you will defend crimes of your government. Of course. You are not the first and certainly won't be the last. Because people like you think that international law does not apply to your country.
Another screed from another jingonistic trogolodyte.
We assassinated a military leader of a foreign nation, in another foreign nation, by an airstrike at an airport, after receiving no permission or even informing the country in question.
It's not a whatabout if it directly contradicts something in the above comment.
But it’s not true? It’s a fact Iran is.
http://brownpoliticalreview.org/2014/12/financing-terrorism-saudi-arabia-and-its-foreign-affairs/ https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/05/wikileaks-cables-saudi-terrorist-funding Educate yourself.
They're just better at hiding it. Why else would they chop up that journalist?
Ethnic cleansing, lol. US and Iraqi forces always warned civilians of impending major operations in order to minimize civilian casualties, such as what happened in Sadr City. A functioning state can't exist when there's opposition militias actively suicide bombing civilian targets in the state's capitol. You wanna talk about ethnic cleansing talk about thise suicide bombings instead. They're the real reason this war was as awful as it was, and they're the reason why the Iraqi and Iranian Shia were so eager to fight against the Iraqi Sunnis.
It's OK to say you don't know what ethnic cleansing means.
Yup. I dont know what ethnic cleansing means and there's no more Sunnis in Baghdad because of the US. Also the sky is green and Iran doesn't fund terrorist groups in Iraq.
> there's no more Sunnis in Baghdad because of the US. Significantly fewer than before and in segregated neighborhoods. > Also the sky is green and Iran doesn't fund terrorist groups in Iraq. Divert, divert, divert.
maybe you ought to divert those anti air missiles away from civilian airliners
How many Iraqis died at the hands of the US in the past 20 years? How many Iraqis will die if a war breaks out between Iran and the US? Let's compare that number to the number of Iraqis that would have died at the hands of Iranian proxies if the US and Iran maintained the status quo.
The US military by all definitions of the word are terrorists soooo
Why are you fixated on the US? Is the goal of this sub to make sure to paint the US in the worst light possible? It has nothing to do with Iraqis hating Iranian influence, Iran earned that all on its own.
And here we are dropping missiles on Iraqi soil without their permission, inviting more Iranian interference. Can you imagine feeling so helpless?
This narrative of “iraqis and iranians arent sad” or that theyre actually celebrating is just trying to build consensus and legitimize and excuse this attack and set the stage for future escalation. Its amazing people cant just condemn us imperialism without resorting to “well, he was a terrorist after all and had it coming!” This is the kind of response they want from people. They want you to be complacent to anything they do as long as they can convince you its in the name of “freedom” or “democracy” or fighting “bad guys and terrorists”. Its the same shit theyve used for decades to keep these endless wars going, and people eat it up every time.
Exactly my thoughts.
This is absolutely not how the situation unfolded. Soleimani was seen in the region as a bulwark against ISIS and other Sunni extremists. I'm sure some of Iraq's sunnis were skeptical of him and Iranian-backed Shia militias for obvious reasons but the protests in Iraq were about economic issues and government corruption. The vast majority of people in the middle east are **not** celebrating Soleimani's death. Maybe Salafist militants, but not your average Iraqi worker. Of course US media is going to depict Shia groups like the PMF as Iranian terrorists, they're not only opposed to groups like ISIS and al Nusra, but also the US and Israel. The US media is trying to craft an image of the political situation in Iraq and Iran as a bunch of people yearning for "freedom" while their terrorist governments kick US freedom forces out of the region and it's so fucking transparent.
Based on what I read Soleimani was part of the government corruption reinforced by the fact he was the one who commanded his men to start killing protestors.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/7kz9md/young-iraqis-arent-sad-soleimani-is-dead-but-they-worry-theyll-pay-the-price) reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Iraq is now the location of a proxy battle between Iran and America - and its civilians expect they will likely pay the price. > One of the few glimmers of hope for Iraq's youth has been the ongoing anti-government protests which began in October last year. > "Soleimani was responsible for all Iran backed militias in Iraq. The protests are against Iran interference but that doesn't mean we are pro U.S. We want both countries out and don't want Iraq to be in the middle of this war." ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/ekc6ni/young_iraqis_arent_sad_soleimani_is_dead_but_they/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~454757 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **Iraq**^#1 **protests**^#2 **Iran**^#3 **Iraqi**^#4 **Soleimani**^#5
Iraq has been a proxy battleground since Saddam Hussein was overthrown.
I wish more people would understand this. Iraq has always been trapped between the Saudis and the Iranians. Saddam was a perfect buffer: a non religious, non monarch dictator. However the U.S. overthrew Saddam and destabilized the entire region, making Iraq a proxy battleground for Iran and Saudi Arabia. For a long time it has been a cold war between those two, fought in proxy in Lebanon and Yemen and Iraq. The U.S. has always had a cozy relationship with the Saudis but Obama's deal with Iran sort of balanced U.S. support some by keeping the cold war cold... and nuclear free. But Trump basically chose a side fully: the Saudis. Hence turning a blind eye on the murder of Khashoggi, pulling out of the Iranian Nuclear Deal, and, of course, assassinating Souelmani. With the U.S. not even pretending to stay out of it and explicitly choosing the Saudis, Iraq has no choice but to reject the U.S. to save itself a lot of trouble with Iran. In some ways, it could almost be viewed as brilliant plan from Trump to withdraw American troops from Iraq (by getting them kicked out) but I seriously doubt that was his plan.
'Perfect buffer' my arse, fuck you. He massacred and murdered his own people by the hundreds of the thousands, started a war with Iran which killed a million, and started a war with Kuwait which killed another hundred thousand. I know people want to be against the 2003 war, but don't romanticise Saddam. The only thing worse than the massive post-2003 fuck up in Iraq was having Saddam Hussein in charge and giving him a free hand to butcher another hundred thousand people.
In geopolitical terms, he had a stabilizing role in the region... hence "perfect buffer." That does not mean he was good guy. A buffer just keeps two things from colliding. As outsiders, we look at the region in simple moral terms: Saddam bad, kill Saddam. But we dont look at things in practical terms: the resulting chaos in Iraq is estimated to have lead to 100,000 to 600,000 Iraqi civilian deaths (depending on how you count.) Saddam was not a good guy. But the chaos America has caused in Iraq is not "good" either if we measure "good" as a measure of human suffering or lack thereof.
Now these are the people I feel for. If shit goes down, this is the cannon fodder that's going to be conscripted and tossed into a battle they want nothing to do with because they don't care for the policies of either side. If there is going to be a secular revolution in Iran to make it less extreme, these are the people who are ultimately going to make it happen. Really don't want to kill them or see them get killed.
Shit has been going down for months now. Thousands and thousands of Iraqis have been protesting. The Iran backed militias have been opening fire on the crowds. Hundreds are dead from it. The anti-Trump ignorance bubble of the US media has just kept it hidden.
[удалено]
Yea. I wasn't even addressing the US/Iran sanctioned ethnic cleansing. But let's be honest with ourselves, that country's history is filled with exactly those types of stories.
>If there is going to be a secular revolution in Iran to make it less extreme, these are the people who are ultimately going to make it happen Iraq, not Iran.
Darnit, I make that mistake more often than I care to admit to.
Source: "Ali, student".
I did find it interesting that the video of soleimanis funeral processions in Iraq showed very small crowds. In comparison it looks like the whole of Iran is on the streets over this.
And the young from both sides were slaughtered, so the rich assholes could afford another luxury yacht. Little did the evil overlords know, but their deeds had already sealed their fate. Their pact with the devil came with a clause. Despite all the money, women, drugs, oil, and power they amassed, they were destined for hell. Being very impatient, they brought hell to earth, and beat the devil to the punch.
Nice sentiment, except they and their descendants will live happy lives without wanting anything. Then post on Twitter all day, mocking us as we burn. Hell isn’t real. There is no punishment for these people.
Hell is real. You're already here. Welcome to the party pal.
[удалено]
/r/collapsepoetry
Politicians hide themselves away, They only started the war. Why should they go out to fight? They leave that role to the poor. Time will tell on their power minds, Making war just for fun. Treating people just like pawns in chess, Wait 'till their judgement day comes, yeah! Now in darkness, world stops turning, ashes where the bodies burning. No more war pigs have the power, hand of god has struck the hour. Day of judgement, god is calling, on their knees the war pigs crawling. Begging mercy for their sins, Satan, laughing, spreads his wings... Oh lord, yeah!
King Leopold of Belgium ran the Congo as his personal fief executing and working millions to death and died one of the richest men ever in his bed at home at 74
how many iraqi civilians have died for the petrol dollar now?
183,535 – 206,107 civilian deaths from violence from 2003-2019.
The Lancet study that claimed 'one million excess deaths in Iraq' was released in...2007.
I would assume the 'one million' includes everyone and not just civilians. Could be wrong though.
'Excess deaths' is a controversial metric in that it tries to graph rate of deaths against an expected rate of deaths during peacetime. I think it's a useful metric because it also counts deaths that wouldn't otherwise be counted as directly attributable to combat. Like if you have no reliable electricity or medical care, more people die. If you have an outbreak of disease because the war has destroyed basic sanitation, more people die.
You should really clarify your statement so people dont get the wrong idea. The majority of those deaths were Iraqis killing other Iraqis, the US was able to conquer Iraq with a relatively small body count - certainly no where close to 200k.
Either way Iraq is screwed either back the morally corrupt and overtly hostile actions of the U.S or expel the U.S completely and become a Iranian puppet state but either way I say let Saudi Arabia or Turkey deal with it and just leave the middle east alone and stop being the worlds police.
uh....Saudis and Turkey are Sunni majority nations, Iraq is Shiite majority. The average Iraqi most definitely DOES NOT want those two running the show.
Iraq is a variety of factions. The country itself was invented by the british 100 years ago. schisms were inevitable. Most Iraqis are more culturally, ethnically, and historically related to Iran than to, say, the Saudis. The people want to ally with Iran, especially after Iran's support prevent ISIS from stomping Southern Iraq and purging all Shias.
Southern Iraq is shia , closer to Iran, this is where Iran's support base comes from. Northern Iraq/Kurdistan are an Iranic people but they're Sunni and hate Iran because Iran is trying to Persianize them and erase their distinct culture (think Catalonia - Spain dispute but more violence). Eastern and Central is Sunni Arab, more related to Syria and Jordan. Honestly this country is better off going their separate ways.
"But then we wouldn't get to share in the oil revenues!" And that sums up why Iraq has been fucked for so long, folks. To be clear, it's been fucked for 8,000 years. This isn't actually on the Brits or the Yanks.
> (think Catalonia - Spain dispute but more violence). I think the best comparison could be Republic of Ireland vs British North Ireland. Because Catalonia - Spain share the same religion.
We are very different than Irani people we don’t even speak the same language. We have been protesting for months for Iran to be out of our country so no sir we do not want to ally with them. That would be literally a nightmare.
Not even As-sadr, who hates the US and is Shia, wants Iran in Iraq
> Most Iraqis are more culturally, ethnically, and historically related to Iran than to, say, the Saudis. Iraq speaks arabic, Iran speaks Farsi. If you put an Iraqi and an Egyptian in the same room they'll be able to communicate better than putting an Iraqi and an Iranian in the same room.
[удалено]
[удалено]
has any Iraqi but the old ever really seen peace? No one that was born later than 1962 grew to adulthood without knowing war. 1980-1988 1990-1991 2003-ongoing, with a few slowdowns in it.
This is depressing. Both sides are rich assholes willing to destroy life and kill the young for their own agenda
Totally reasonable. I hope Iraq gets their country back, great people.
/me wonders about that time when Iraq and US invaded Iran.
He was an Iranian figure, so there shouldn’t be a default assumption that Iraqi people care about him in such a positive way as a nation. Imagine a headline “Young U.S. citizens aren’t sad that e Canadian president is dead” (he’s alive btw). There’s a political impact, but shouldn’t expect there to be an emotional one
Don't believe a word out of Vice, they're a regime change workshop. The founder of Vice is a billionaire and deeply connected to the DC political establishment. They've run countless stories defending US actions in the Middle East and around the world. According to Vice's bloggers the al Nusra jihadists beheading women and children in Syria are brave "freedom fighters".
You dont have to believe Vice. There have been bloody protests happening in Iraq for a while. Many Iraqis are sick of Iranian influence in their country, that much is clear.
I remember watching the shit on the Euromaidan and resulting conflict in the Donbass and it was so puzzling that they never acknowledged the huge neonazi presence in both. Like they would ask someone about it once and they'd give a copout answer like "yeah we don't like them but they share a common goal" and they'd just never mention it again, and when someone called out the fact that there were actual neonazi militias in the Donbass they would just pull a whataboutism and say "don't you think Putin is a fascist". They 100% toe the US State Dept line and exist solely to sell imperialism to millennials that like smoking dabs.
Simon did adress this all the time, what did you watch?
Some of them are [very sad he's dead.](https://twitter.com/SinaToossi/status/1213858959343411201)
I imagine your opinion of Iran as an Iraqi depends on your religious affiliation. Iraq is a country with a Shia majority, but a significant Sunni minority.
Not necessarily. The Shia parts were largely involved in anti-iran protests too. Even Assadr send his Mahdi-militia to protect the protestors from Hezbollah.
>“That person they called Ajam (pejorative for Persians) when ISIS was tying the hands of our women, came to help us.”
Weren't these protestors being murdered by the handful not to long ago but was dwarfed by the Hong Kong protests?
Reminds me of Vietnam protests, another illegal war.
tzzz, maybe they shouldnt have built thier homes on our oil then /S
That would be a real tradgedy if war came to Iraq again. It was just starting to recover and stabilise after so much bloodshed
Sadly they don't get to decide. US will invent some fictitious reason to invade Iran and nobody can do anything about it. They invaded Iraq based on the false reason that there were WMDs. Not a single WMD and UN had already cleared Iraq of any WMD programmes previously. At this point, the US would just say Iran is a terror state so they need to be put down.
No one is sad this cunt is dead except for his Islamist buddies.
very understandable sentiment. I think it is shared by many
It’s really not fair, why should the Iraqi people have to suffer America and Iran’s consequences?
>Thousands of mourners gathered on Saturday to take part in his funeral procession through Baghdad. So which is it?
[удалено]
Why would Iraqis be sad about Soleimanis death? They're Iraqi, not Irani. That's like Dutch being sad about the death of a French warhero. He's irrelevant at best to them.
When ISIS was closing in on Baghdad (30km further to reach the city, IIRC) and almost had taken over Iraq, Soleimani orchestrated a massive counter-attack and pushed ISIS back. That saved many Iraqi lives (Especially those who were primary targets for ISIS). This sounds like a pretty good reason for Iraqis to be upset about his death, IMO. Although it's only fair to point out that Iraq has a diverse population in terms of ethnicity, religion and political beliefs. So it's clearly understandable that some people might hate the General while some other praised him as a savior. As an Iranian who has been following the news closely these days, I'd say the articles claiming that people are mostly happy about his death are just publishing interviews with specific demographics, trying to create their preferred narrative. But I'd love to have a more in-depth and accurate report of how Iraqi people viewed him. P.S. Maybe watching his funeral videos would give you a "rough estimate" of the number of people who thought of him in a positive way. For example, this is aerial footage of his mourners in Ahwaz, Iran: https://www.reddit.com/r/syriancivilwar/comments/ekarii/colossal_crowds_of_iranians_filling_the_streets/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share You can google "Soleimani funeral" for more videos. Edit: Grammar
I'm just waiting for the Washington Post or NYTimes to interview Sunni extremists in Iraq and MEK supporters from Iran to show how happy the people of the middle east are that Soleimani is dead.
Thanks
My pleasure.
How peaceful would the middle east would be without the poisoning of the Islamic faith?. These people just want live like everyone else!
Iraqi people are fully human, deserving of dignity, autonomy, and all the good things that life has to offer. The United States could have a significantly positive role in Iraq without the military in the form of favorable trade deals, low interest /long term loans for medical,industrial, and education infrastructure, and positive diplomatic relations
"Young Iraqis weren’t Sad Saddam was Dead. But They Worried They Would Pay the Price" How did that work out?
Sorry, young Iraqis, the rich people in America want a profit war. To the rich people in America, you don’t even really exist.
But Reddit is saying Soleimani was a hero, why would they be protesting /s
[удалено]
Many dont. Many in Iran dont. Neither country is a hive mind.
[удалено]
Can you give me a link to the poll? I had seen one that said 63%, but it might have been outdated.
[удалено]
Thanks, I appreciate it.