Protests continue at US embassy in Iraq

[Stevicus]

Iraqi Protesters End U.S. Embassy Siege: A Full Timeline

Iraqi protesters are ending their standoff at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad after calls from militia leaders and the government to end the increasingly violent protests that stretched over two days, the Associated Press reported. But tensions remain high.

The call comes after Iraqi protesters and demonstrators breached the U.S. Embassy compound in Baghdad. U.S. soldiers fired tear gas Wednesday as the protests reached their second day.

On Tuesday, protesters shouting “Death to America,” stormed the U.S. Embassy compound in Baghdad, setting fires, scrawling anti-American graffiti and planting flags for Iran-backed militia groups.

Trump may be sending more troops to Iraq, although the protests have mostly subsided for now.

President Donald Trump ordered more troops to be deployed to the Middle East as he asserted that Iran was “fully responsible” for the embassy attack. Approximately 750 troops are expected to be sent as a result of the embassy attack and another 3,000 could possibly be deployed in the next few days.

“This deployment is an appropriate and precautionary action taken in response to increased threat levels against U.S. personnel and facilities, such as we witnessed in Baghdad today,” Defense Secretary Mark Esper said in a written statement, according to the AP.

On Wednesday, leaders in the Popular Mobilization Forces, an umbrella group of state-allied militias, called on demonstrators to end the protest after the Iraqi government asked them to do so, the AP reported.

The militia leaders made it clear to the protesters that “your message has been received.”

“After achieving the intended aim, we pulled out from this place triumphantly,” Fadhil al-Gezzi, a militia supporter, told the AP. “We rubbed America’s nose in the dirt.”

 

[Stevicus]

The thread title may be erroneous, as the protests have ended. My mistake.

 

[SalixIncendium]

So they continue to be ended?

 

[Stevicus]

So they continue to be ended?

It's the end of the continuation.

 

[sun rise]

Trump threatens. Putin threatens. Xi threatens. Kim threatens. Iran threatens.

I must say I prefer that to bullets flying.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Trump threatens. Putin threatens. Xi threatens. Kim threatens. Iran threatens.

I must say I prefer that to bullets flying.

Frankly surprised trump hasn't started a shooting war to save his presidency. Perhaps this is one instance where his narcissism is actually helping the world... he may think he's genuinely popular enough that he doesn't need a "War time President" buff for the next election.

 

[Stanyon]

Frankly surprised trump hasn't started a shooting war to save his presidency. Perhaps this is one instance where his narcissism is actually helping the world... he may think he's genuinely popular enough that he doesn't need a "War time President" buff for the next election.

Trump may have colluded with Russia to have them convince Iran to start protests in Iraq so he could make it appear he could have an excuse to start a war if he needed to but then hold back to make him look like he's doing the right thing.

 

[epronovost]

Frankly surprised trump hasn't started a shooting war to save his presidency. Perhaps this is one instance where his narcissism is actually helping the world... he may think he's genuinely popular enough that he doesn't need a "War time President" buff for the next election.

The fiasco of the Iraq war of 2003 is still too fresh in the collective memory; it's basically a return of the Vietnam syndrome all over again. The US will refuse probably for another decade or two to engage themselves in peace-keeping efforts or in any military intervention no matter the reason or circumstances. At best, they will drop some bombs and maybe launch small scale operation to keep their operatives and special forces well oiled, but that's about it. This syndrome is neither good or bad. US interventionism has been a blessing about as often as it has been a curse.

 

[columbus]

Trump may have colluded with Russia to have them convince Iran to start protests in Iraq so he could make it appear he could have an excuse to start a war if he needed to but then hold back to make him look like he's doing the right thing.

Or maybe Russia supported Trump, because Trump could be counted on to make really bad geopolitical decisions, especially in the Middle East.
Really bad from the standpoint of USA security, really good for Russian ambitions.

Like reigniting conflict with Iran. He did promise to do do that.
Tom

 

[Stanyon]

Like reigniting conflict with Iran. He did promise to do do that.
Tom

Hillary promised to stand with Israel against Iran in March 2016 when she was the democratic frontrunner so it seems Trump is just following along with U.S. policy in the region. Hillary or Trump in office this probably would have happened anyway with or without Russia, can we accept that?

"If I am president we will attack Iran"
-Hillary Clinton

 

[columbus]

Hillary promised to stand with Israel against Iran in March 2016 when she was the democratic frontrunner so it seems Trump is just following along with U.S. policy in the region. Hillary or Trump in office this probably would have happened anyway with or without Russia, can we accept that?

"If I am president we will attack Iran"
-Hillary Clinton

You really shouldn't get so much of your news from @Revoltingest.

What happened was Hillary answered the question "What if Iran attacks Israel during the ten year period of the peace treaty?" with "We can still obliterate Iran if they do."
Deplorables turned that into a threat. Despite Clinton being a major player in negotiating the peace deal in the first place.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

You really shouldn't get so much of your news from @Revoltingest.

That's intentionally misleading (read "dishonest").
You'll not find any post of mine attributing the
other poster's quote to Hillary.

You should deal with what I actually post...not
with what you invent & intend to never support.
You do it a lot. It's annoying.

 

[columbus]

That's intentionally misleading (read "dishonest").
You'll not find any post of mine attributing the
other poster's quote to Hillary.

You should deal with what I actually post...not
with what you invent & intend to never support.
You do it a lot. It's annoying.

You've often misrepresented what she said.
What she said is "We could obliterate Iran if they attack us and allies." That is very different from a simple threat.
Tom

 

[Stanyon]

Remember when Trump said we could oblliterate Iran? Much was made of it in many mainstream news outlets but Hillary seems to have been given a pass, the hypocrisy is sickening.

I don't remember a time when Iran didn't hate us, televisions showed Iranians burning American flags chanting "death to America" as early as the 70's now 50 years on we are seeing the same thing.

 

[columbus]

Remember when Trump said we could oblliterate Iran? Much was made of it in many mainstream news outlets but Hillary seems to have been given a pass, the hypocrisy is sickening.

What hypocrisy?
Clinton helped put the USA and Iran on a path towards mutual peace and prosperity. This was an effort to eliminate the Iranian need for a nuclear deterrent to protect themselves from us.
Trump derailed that effort.

I don't remember a time when Iran didn't hate us, televisions showed Iranians burning American flags chanting "death to America" as early as the 70's.

Because they have been under assault by the USA since long before that.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

You've often misrepresented what she said.

So you say (incorrectly).
You're retaliating because I opposed your candidate?

 

[columbus]

So you say (incorrectly).
You're retaliating because I opposed your candidate?

You have said more than once that Clinton threatened to obliterate Iran, without mentioning that she was being asked the question "What if Iran attacks with conventional weapons".
I found that particularly pernicious because she was such a big player in the effort to put USA/Iran relations on track towards peace.
And the guy you voted for promised to derail that effort.
And he has.
Tom

 

[Audie]

Trump may have colluded with Russia to have them convince Iran to start protests in Iraq so he could make it appear he could have an excuse to start a war if he needed to but then hold back to make him look like he's doing the right thing.

I think Elvis was involved.

 

[Revoltingest]

You have said more than once that Clinton threatened to obliterate Iran, without mentioning that she was being asked the question "What if Iran attacks with conventional weapons".

I also regularly addressed her reason.
Nonetheless, you're deflecting from the problem with her.
She didn't merely want to defend Israel....she planned the
obliteration of the country. That smacks of a pogrom.
This inference is heightened by her statement that
"Iranians" are her enemy.
Hillary Clinton's Disturbing Comments Calling Iranians Her "Enemies" | HuffPost
I spoke 1 Iranian expat who said they saw that as enmity
for the people of Iran. Her language is such that Iran is
motivated to gain military power in the region, which is
exactly the opposite of what I say we should be pursuing.

You might claim that she is simply careless with her language.
Her record in government suggests a propensity for wars.

 

[Stanyon]

I think Elvis was involved.

And JFK after they dyed his skin