Objectively intelligent.

[Hank Chinaski]

From an Iraqi who was there: the desperation of Obama to get out of Iraq and ends a war got them to the table.
In 2010 a democratic party with a democratic secular leader won the most votes and under the Iraqi constitution the party with most votes wins and form a government. Iran wouldn’t approve the win and they would interfere and they called a summit with all the religious parties heads to meet and form a bigger body in the gov and amend the constitution so they can take power and keep Maliky in power.
The Obama admins approved and they thought they could work with Maliky and pull out the troops that way they can avoid keeping the troops longer bcoz if they let the democratic party wins they will need to stay longer to deal with any Iranian threat.
Thats how Iran stole the 2010 Iraqi election.
Later when ISIS was formed Obama Admins admitted their mistake and said they shouldn’t have allowed this “under the table” deal to go through bcoz Maliky was Iranian puppet and he created these militias in Iraq and allowed others to form.
The Obama mistake was his desperation to leave Iraq quick without thinking of how weak Iraq was and how quickly Iran can take over.
They did exactly what they did with Lebanon by supporting Hizbullah and now Hizbullah is an Iranian tool.
If we won’t stop these militias from forming and if we don’t kick Iran out of Iraq there will be huge threats to the middle east and the American interest there and here too.
Iraqs wealth and geography specially being the land link between Iran and Syria then Lebanon is something Iran wants to hold on to, without it they are weak

Of course the fact that he was there doesn’t necessarily give him more cred than an American who thought Obama was a lizard shape shifter, so I’m just passing it on. I do not know what religion or branch thereof either.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

From an Iraqi who was there: the desperation of Obama to get out of Iraq and ends a war got them to the table.
In 2010 a democratic party with a democratic secular leader won the most votes and under the Iraqi constitution the party with most votes wins and form a government. Iran wouldn’t approve the win and they would interfere and they called a summit with all the religious parties heads to meet and form a bigger body in the gov and amend the constitution so they can take power and keep Maliky in power.
The Obama admins approved and they thought they could work with Maliky and pull out the troops that way they can avoid keeping the troops longer bcoz if they let the democratic party wins they will need to stay longer to deal with any Iranian threat.
Thats how Iran stole the 2010 Iraqi election.
Later when ISIS was formed Obama Admins admitted their mistake and said they shouldn’t have allowed this “under the table” deal to go through bcoz Maliky was Iranian puppet and he created these militias in Iraq and allowed others to form.
The Obama mistake was his desperation to leave Iraq quick without thinking of how weak Iraq was and how quickly Iran can take over.
They did exactly what they did with Lebanon by supporting Hizbullah and now Hizbullah is an Iranian tool.
If we won’t stop these militias from forming and if we don’t kick Iran out of Iraq there will be huge threats to the middle east and the American interest there and here too.
Iraqs wealth and geography specially being the land link between Iran and Syria then Lebanon is something Iran wants to hold on to, without it they are weak

Of course the fact that he was there doesn’t necessarily give him more cred than an American who thought Obama was a lizard shape shifter, so I’m just passing it on. I do not know what religion or branch thereof either.

I appreciate your sharing his point of view.

I'm not sure how the US is better off for our involvement in Iraq since we invaded almost two decades ago, for all of the lives that have been lost and all of the money that has been spent. The idea that if we had just invested some more lives and money and gotten a better result seems like absolute craziness.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I appreciate your sharing his point of view.

I'm not sure how the US is better off for our involvement in Iraq since we invaded almost two decades ago, for all of the lives that have been lost and all of the money that has been spent. The idea that if we had just invested some more lives and money and gotten a better result seems like absolute craziness.

I posted it for his take on whether killing the general was flat out insane impeachment avoidance, or if it might have been rational. Obama was the President of the US, and of course it’s interests are what he should have followed. But this guy is saying perhaps the US interests long term could have been better protected by insisting Iraqis rule Iraq.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I posted it for his take on whether killing the general was flat out insane impeachment avoidance, or if it might have been rational. Obama was the President of the US, and of course it’s interests are what he should have followed. But this guy is saying perhaps the US interests long term could have been better protected by insisting Iraqis rule Iraq.

Everything big done for the remainder the articles remain unresolved will be seen as an attempt to divert attention from impeachment. But ask, does Trump really want to divert attention from impeachment? No. He wants an acquittal and a victory lap.

If this assassination is anything political, I think it’s just a general attempt to gin up nationalism and look strong. He’s getting a good bit of positive press from those who think Obama let Iraq slide into Iran’s hands.

My suspicion is this was a win for Trump in response to Iranian provocation (the aggressive protests). It’s consistent with his plan of strangling Iran’s leadership. And I was wrong earlier when I suggested it could create a domestic oil spike. I forgot about our ramped up domestic production. A Middle East price spike is actually a potentially huge economic benefit to domestic producers.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I posted it for his take on whether killing the general was flat out insane impeachment avoidance, or if it might have been rational. Obama was the President of the US, and of course it’s interests are what he should have followed. But this guy is saying perhaps the US interests long term could have been better protected by insisting Iraqis rule Iraq.

I appreciated the post. I generally find takes from friends who were born in Iraq or Iran very interesting. There is a ton of anger at Suleimani among all of them. Raw anger, regardless of where they fall on the political spectrum.

There also is a much broader, non-polar range of views on what is going on, rather than the US foreign policy for-it-or-against-it view.

Certainly global interests are better solved by insisting Iraqis rule Iraq. It all depends where you define US interests what US interests are. If we want peace, well, that's one thing, if we're happy to have lots of people die so we have cheap gas and wealthy defense contractors, that's another.