It's a non binding resolution that is pretty much symbolic. About as relevant as Democrats these days.

The question I ask myself is.

What if the Americans and its allied refuse to leave...?

Markus

https://www.foxnews.com/world/iraq-p...s-drone-attack

If they make us leave, which is fine by me BTW, they know it means an eventual Iranian backed coup that will shortly mean civil war between countries Sunni, Kurd and Shiite factions, the first two which boycotted the above mentioned non binding vote in protest against it.

Members from USA both here on this forum and on FB want US military should leave middle east. One thing is what an ordinary American wants and what the leaders want.

I also have heard a plausible cause to this step.
The Iraqi people and their Parliament fear that a war between USA and Iran will be fought on Iraqi soil.

Markus

I'm of the opinion we must maintain a presence in the middle east. We are allied with Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Sunni Kurds and other sunni tribes. Our allies in Asia India, Japan, and South Korea would be affected if we left the Straits of Hormuz to Iran and China.

We stay, and if Esmail Ghaani or some other Iranian asshat wants to cause a problem we paint a target on his forehead too.


Seems so far to be going according to plan.

Well Trump also wants us out of foreign wars including those in the ME. But what we're not going to do (unless a Democrat is in the oval office) is ignore an attack upon our embassy like another democrat Jimmy Carter whose weakness contributed a lot to the present situation.

As for the Iraqi people/Parliament, a war has existed between the USA and Iran on Iraqi soil for over a decade now. The only difference being is that the Democrats chose to try and bribe them with planeloads of cash. The continued attacks upon our people and assets has showed the failure of that strategy.

I see we're in JCPOA fan fiction here. It's where we take one separate thing and pretend that it is in fact something else entirely. Planeloads of cash?

Eye roll.

It's a fun game to play with toddlers, but they usually figure out that the dog is in fact, no matter how loudly you insist, a cat.

Anyway.

Have to say I admire President Trump's plan here. It would certainly work on the US.

If Iran were to kill the Secretary of Defence on his way from Mexico City airport, then threaten heavy retaliation if the US responded, then we'd certainly never hear a peep out of the US about it. They would accept this as the way things are and not respond.

This strategy really works and everyone involved has thought it through in full.

That NYT report on how the drone strike option was included to make the sensible option seem more reasonable, and nobody ever thought Trump would go for it?


FAKE.

NEWS.

On the flip side, what are the ramifications if the U.S. completely un-asses the area?

But Turkey not with you.
I dont get the impresison that the lil boy in the white house cares. America first. BTW, the Iraq that was created after 2003, is predimantely Shia, not Sunni, so with all your sunni "allies" :har: you Shia hobby may have put you in na kind of difficult seat. Iran is Shia as well.

[/QUOTE]
In the end, the Iraqi parliament is not the instance deciding on behalf of the US, and Pompeo made that clear already. Even a call by the Iraqi PM would not be followed. Law of the stronger, and all that.

Neither the Us nor Europe are ddecisvely depending on oil fromt he strait of Hormuz. The US is completely independent from it, the eU and Germany only get a small share of oil form there, and could compensate a closure easily. The biggest interest has - China, and Japan.

China. I think that could trigger some interesting ideas in lil' boy's strange brain. Especially if China decides to maintain its own naval presence in the straits. But why would it want to? Iran and China are allies, and China is a preferredf customer of Iran's oil. China buys any oil it cna get. Russian, Chinese, it does not matter.

Loss of face and what has remained of its credibility. Not that the lil' boy has left much at all by now. By the end of 2024, it will be completely gone, and he will leave the Un-united States of America as his heritage and present to the future American generation.

No more Iranian threat for anyone ... no more Iranian Navy/Air Force or anything ... just an Army to fight no one, but then a cyber war or chicken sh*t rebels already in America, before the peace talks of course. :yep:

That was an exaggeration. They allowed room for the crew as well.


https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-sen...ent-1473208256

If this Iranian source is correct

The response will be militarily against USA controlled military targets in the region.

As some military leader said on CNN.

(using my own words)
They gave us a punch in our face. We have the right to do the same to then and if they mean peace they will not retaliate this.

Now I wonder-is it only strong words we hear from the Iranian ?

Markus

This was part of JCPOA, and had nothing to do with the proxy conflict in Iraq.

Which was the point you were trying to make.

Like I said, this dog is a cat.

They will retaliate, most likely by use of any of their many proxies, or terrorism. The US has many, many bases and installation in the region, it is for my taste very difficult to defend since there are so m any, its a kind of overstretching. But the targets must not even be Americna once. You can hurt the S tremendously by hitting US proxies - and by that damaging strategic interests of the US.

But I do not take the Iranian word for granted that they consider only military targets.

I do not rule out bombing runs against targets on US home soil or in Europe.

And naval traffic. Its a shooting gallery.

Expect everything, anytime.

For once, I agree with Trump's threat of disproportionate retaliation. This is no damn match of dodge ball. Sports and fairness have no place here.