Iraqi parliament voted for the withdrawal of foreign troops from the country

Iraqi parliament voted for the withdrawal of foreign troops from the country

The Iraqi parliament voted to withdraw foreign troops from the country and terminate the agreement with the coalition to combat the ISIS terrorist group (banned in Russia).


This proposal was previously made by the acting Prime Minister Adil Abdul Mahdi. According to him, this will help reformat relations with the United States and other countries.

In addition, Baghdad made an official protest to the US ambassador and handed the corresponding note to the UN.

This decision of the Iraqi parliament can be considered an attempt to declare that Iraq sees itself as an independent state.

Recall that in addition to the American military contingent, there is a mixed contingent of NATO in Iraq.

On January 3, an Iranian general, the commander of the Al-Quds division of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Kassem Suleimani, died as a result of an American attack on Iraqi territory.

The withdrawal of American troops from any country is an extremely rare, but still not exceptional case. So in the seventies, US troops were forced to leave South Vietnam. Also, since 1990, American forces have been in Saudi Arabia and left this country only thirteen years later, leaving a small contingent for servicing equipment (including air defense missile defense).
Photos used:
Parliament of iraq
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

145 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Dmitry Donskoy 5 January 2020 18: 30 New
    • 38
    • 1
    +37
    Well, it remains only to bring the decision to life. And so everything is cool. fellow
    1. Black_Vatnik 5 January 2020 18: 40 New
      • 25
      • 3
      +22

      star-striped in the embassy as if hinting ...
      1. Sergey39 5 January 2020 18: 48 New
        • 5
        • 1
        +4
        A weighty hint.
      2. The comment was deleted.
        1. jekasimf 5 January 2020 21: 01 New
          • 4
          • 20
          -16
          The whole Iraqi army in Amer uniforms and on Amer equipment. So all this video is how the natives felled the natives.
          1. Gray brother 5 January 2020 22: 40 New
            • 8
            • 0
            +8
            Quote: jekasimf
            So all this video is how the natives knock down the natives.

            There are no losses. (c) Tymchuk.
        2. 210ox 5 January 2020 22: 33 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Maybe they should stay? Under the gun of snipers.
    2. Mountain shooter 5 January 2020 18: 44 New
      • 32
      • 0
      +32
      Quote: Dmitry Donskoy
      bring the decision to life.

      This is where doubts “gnaw” ... the Americans saw in the coffin any decisions of any parliaments if they contradict their interests ... They just used to put on “sheep's clothing”, but now they decided that it’s all right ...
      1. kit88 5 January 2020 18: 57 New
        • 16
        • 2
        +14
        Well yes. But there is something to provide this solution.
        I would like to ask a classic question to the Iraqi Parliament:
        "And how many divisions do you have at your disposal?"
        1. Kleber 5 January 2020 19: 04 New
          • 15
          • 2
          +13
          The spirits in Afghanistan with divisions are somehow not very good either.
          1. kit88 5 January 2020 19: 10 New
            • 26
            • 2
            +24
            So the spirits generally side whose flag there is over the airport.
            The main thing is that the plantations should not be touched, and the traffic should not be disturbed. In this, by the way, they have complete understanding with the Americans. repeat
            1. Quadro 6 January 2020 18: 22 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: kit88
              So the spirits generally side whose flag there is over the airport.
              The main thing is that the plantations should not be touched, and the traffic should not be disturbed. In this, by the way, they have complete understanding with the Americans. repeat

              To spirits - to whom? The Taliban forbid drugs in general, just local or repainted igilovites take care of the plantations, because Americans deprived them of other earnings (local).
        2. g1v2 5 January 2020 19: 10 New
          • 20
          • 0
          +20
          The parties that voted for this decision have 100 thousand militias. Or maybe more. That is, they will recruit 10 motorized infantry divisions. If we take Shiite militias, then they have experience of war against the Igiloids in Iraq and Syria. There may be less heavy weapons than the regular army of Iraq, but more than the Taliban, who win their war against the United States.
          And by the way my thought flickered. Or did Trump want this? He saw all these Middle Eastern wars in his grave and wanted American troops to leave Iraq and Syria. But the Pentagon and Congress. and hawks in his own party do not give him this. And here they are almost kicked out by the Iraqi authorities. He can stand in a pose of insulted innocence, withdraw troops. throw Iraq off allowance and even invoice. The United States spent a lot of money on Iraq, however. Trump is not happy with this. And again, no one can blame him for weakness or betrayal. After killing such a person. request
          1. kit88 5 January 2020 19: 25 New
            • 17
            • 5
            +12
            If Trump orders the withdrawal of troops from Iraq tonight. Then tomorrow morning in America there will be a new president.
            1. Ravil_Asnafovich 5 January 2020 19: 47 New
              • 6
              • 1
              +5
              You are even very right, maybe you can repeat the fate of the Kennedy family.
              1. dvina71 5 January 2020 20: 54 New
                • 6
                • 0
                +6
                Quote: Ravil_Asnafovich
                You are even very right, maybe you can repeat the fate of the Kennedy family.

                Did I miss something? Is Trump going to pick up a printing press from financial clans?
              2. venik 5 January 2020 22: 04 New
                • 9
                • 3
                +6
                Quote: Ravil_Asnafovich
                You are even very right, maybe you can repeat the fate of the Kennedy family.

                ========
                good Kennedy and Reagan - were the LAST American Presidents who TRIED to pursue "their own" policies ..... The result is one - BULLET! True, Kennedy got it in the head, and Reagan just in the thigh ..... But the result is the same: ALL subsequent “heads of state” were just “TALKING HEADS” (not even heads but simply “languages” - more precisely, PUPPETS !!!), who were "pulled by the strings" behind the scenes by puppeteers!
            2. knn54 5 January 2020 19: 59 New
              • 4
              • 0
              +4
              The question is where these troops will be sent. If in Europe (at the request of the "working people" of Poland and the Baltic states), then the senators will not blink. For Russia remains the main enemy.
            3. g1v2 6 January 2020 00: 57 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Do you really think that Iraq can somehow affect the impeachment of Trump? Yes, Iraq and the majority of Americans and Congressmen absolutely do not care. On the contrary, he can score points on this. Of course, his enemies will try to play this card, but it is definitely not a trump card.
            4. chip 6 January 2020 02: 15 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: kit88
              If Trump orders the withdrawal of troops from Iraq tonight. Then tomorrow morning in America there will be a new president.

              Voters, including for this, voted in his election. So far from a fact.
            5. Alex Justice 6 January 2020 06: 50 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              [quoteIf Trump orders the withdrawal of troops from Iraq tonight. Then tomorrow morning in America there will be a new president] [/ quote]
              More likely to get more votes in the election.
          2. kit88 5 January 2020 19: 25 New
            • 12
            • 1
            +11
            The divisions listed by you are good if you fight in an open field. The army, to which the Americans will not go under any circumstances. Everyone knows how they are fighting - contactless war and ever-green paper are their arguments, and here all Iraqi divisions are powerless.
            1. g1v2 6 January 2020 01: 01 New
              • 4
              • 0
              +4
              Why fight in the open field? belay Do the Taliban fight in the open field? And they almost won their war. Point strikes are good against a state that has weak points. Bridges, power plants, pr-va, warehouses, fuel storages and ports. Against a dispersed enemy with guerrilla tactics, and in such a number this does not work much. We need infantry to grind manpower and control territories. Otherwise, there will be no result.
        3. Vitaly gusin 5 January 2020 19: 11 New
          • 3
          • 20
          -17
          Quote: kit88
          I would like to ask a classic question to the Iraqi Parliament:
          "And how many divisions do you have at your disposal?"

          This is question number 1.
          And there is another question number 2
          Iraq is the birthplace of ISIS (banned in Russia), who and how will destroy it at "distant approaches"?
          1. Abbot 5 January 2020 19: 48 New
            • 19
            • 1
            +18
            Quote: Vitaly Gusin
            Iraq is the birthplace of ISIS

            Yes, yes, American hands creation. The “Abrams” will be taken away, you look, and the igil will resolve.
          2. gsev 5 January 2020 21: 02 New
            • 11
            • 1
            +10
            Quote: Vitaly Gusin
            how will it be destroyed at "distant approaches"?

            While there was no USA in Iraq, ISIS could not appear there. Without the United States and Iran, Iraq would send ISIS to the dustbin of history faster. In addition, the presence of a qualified majority in Iraq for the withdrawal of US troops will probably be an unpleasant discovery for the State Department, the CIA and Trump.
        4. Nyrobsky 5 January 2020 19: 23 New
          • 15
          • 0
          +15
          Quote: kit88
          Well yes. But there is something to provide this solution.
          I would like to ask a classic question to the Iraqi Parliament:
          "And how many divisions do you have at your disposal?"

          Divisions, this is a secondary issue in this case. It is initially important that the Americans are deprived of the legitimacy of their presence in Iraq as a result of a democratic procedure - a majority decision in parliament. To demonstrate to the whole world that the Americans spit on "democracy" is the defeat of the Americans as its ardent supporters. What did they install there in Iraq? Isn't "democracy" an accident? Her darling. Now about the divisions. If until today’s parliament’s decision, only Iran regarded the mattresses as an adversary, then, if they make a decision on the military admonition of Iraq, the Iran + Iraq coalition and partly Syria will be drawn, where the mattress contingent, which is located as the “oil guards”, will get bogged down with the prospect destruction, since its supply and replenishment is carried out from the territory of Iraq. The geography of American hemorrhoids expands exponentially and the best solution for mattresses is only the withdrawal of troops. In principle, Trump, being elected as president, promised his voters to withdraw troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Iraqi parliament helped him, let him go.
          1. Grandfather 5 January 2020 20: 40 New
            • 2
            • 9
            -7
            Divisions, this is a secondary issue in this case. It is initially important that the Americans are deprived of the legitimacy of their presence in Iraq as a result of a democratic procedure - a majority decision in parliament. To demonstrate to the whole world that Americans spit on "democracy" is already a defeat for Americans as its ardent supporters
            wow ... and Iraq, and Libya, aYugoslavia ... yes they did not spit ... they "finished" from the top .... and swallowed everything. (It will be nice to read those who did not swallow):
            1. Nyrobsky 5 January 2020 20: 55 New
              • 14
              • 1
              +13
              Quote: Dead Day
              Wow ... and Iraq, and Libya, aYugoslavia ...:

              You would not confuse the respected violet with cast-iron. You listed the well-known facts of mattress aggression, as a result of which the states you listed have practically lost their statehood. This is true, no doubt. BUT!!! There is one caveat ...
              This is about post-war period. At the moment, American troops were in Iraq no longer having the status of occupation, but under an agreement with Iraq. Today’s decision of the Iraqi parliament deprives them of legitimate grounds for being in the country.
              Quote: Dead Day
              Yes, they didn’t spit ... they "finished" from the top .... and swallowed everything. (It will be nice to read those who did not swallow):
              Judging by the depth of thought, the Arsenalnoe is strong, two and a half, without crackers.
        5. Vasyan1971 5 January 2020 20: 26 New
          • 3
          • 2
          +1
          Quote: kit88
          I would like to ask a classic question to the Iraqi Parliament:
          "And how many divisions do you have at your disposal?"

          About aircraft carriers it is better not to even ask.
          Hegemonic skewers on the Tomahawk decision of the Iraqi parliament.
          1. KCA
            KCA 5 January 2020 20: 50 New
            • 6
            • 1
            +5
            Will Axes help if they repeat 1979 in Iran and Iraq? And will the aircraft carriers pull out burned tankers from the Strait of Hormuz? It’s only 167 km wide, Iran’s tactical missiles will be enough to arrange fireworks abruptly than Toporov volley
            1. jekasimf 5 January 2020 21: 04 New
              • 2
              • 1
              +1
              Its width is 54 km.
              1. KCA
                KCA 6 January 2020 20: 28 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Maybe he was mistaken, and this is 167 length and 54 wide, but even more so, Iran puts tactical missiles, RMD, RSD on mobile platforms, over the years of sanctions and acts of aggression by Israel, in the form of bombing of objects, they learned to hide them, and then to emerge, everyone has had 3-D terrain maps for a long time, I can’t say for BV, but in 1992 all of Europe was decomposed with an error in centimeters, he destroyed the hunchbacked rmd and rsd, but he was an unwise person, and with no one I consulted, the cards stayed, I saw it personally, it aroused, then the VGA monitor was a miracle, but then the map, relief, cursor led up - the height of the object, didn’t have time to get the permit, flew to the North Caucasus, and maybe it served now, interesting crap
            2. Vasyan1971 6 January 2020 00: 57 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Quote: KCA
              Will Axes help if they repeat 1979 in Iran and Iraq?

              But who knows? After all, there was also 1991 ... Time will tell whose fireworks are cooler.
              If the hegemons after Ena dry out again, they will lose their face completely. Judging by the fact that they deliberately went on an aggravation, they planned something bad ...
        6. kjhg 5 January 2020 20: 26 New
          • 5
          • 3
          +2
          Quote: kit88
          But there is something to provide this solution.

          For some reason, everyone forgot that in the north of Iraq there are Turkish troops who entered there without any invitation at all. Earlier, Baghdad also demanded their withdrawal, calling them aggressors. Then they reconciled to their presence, because the Iraqis did not want to fight the Turks at all.
        7. artifact 5 January 2020 21: 12 New
          • 5
          • 2
          +3
          Quote: kit88
          Well yes. But there is something to provide this solution.
          I would like to ask a classic question to the Iraqi Parliament:
          "And how many divisions do you have at your disposal?"

          the main thing is the legal framework. and then how it goes. if the amers will be blamed on the right and on the left - then the Iraqi government has every reason to say that "you were warned"
      2. tihonmarine 5 January 2020 19: 10 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        Quote: Mountain Shooter
        This is where doubts “gnaw” ... the Americans saw in the coffin any decisions of any parliaments if they contradict their interests ..

        I agree. There is not a single country that would put the Americans by the decision of the "parliament".
      3. Cutter 6 January 2020 00: 08 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        Baghdad made an official protest to the American ambassador and handed the corresponding note to the UN

        By God, the performance was painted according to the notes ... Grandfather Frost! FAIRY TALES!
    3. Abbot 5 January 2020 19: 01 New
      • 4
      • 2
      +2
      Well, how do you like it, Elon Musk? (with)
    4. The comment was deleted.
      1. The comment was deleted.
    5. Deniska999 5 January 2020 19: 18 New
      • 0
      • 5
      -5
      Sooner rejoice, everything is decided by the Iraqi government.
      1. Aerodrome 5 January 2020 19: 26 New
        • 2
        • 2
        0
        Iraqi parliament voted for the withdrawal of foreign troops from the country
        expel the Americans ...? don't ... don't know ...
    6. Evil543 5 January 2020 19: 37 New
      • 4
      • 1
      +3
      Cool of course, but I think the decision of the Iraqis mattresses do not care.
    7. Vol4ara 5 January 2020 20: 21 New
      • 10
      • 3
      +7
      The mice voted to withdraw the cat from the territory of the barn
  2. Sergey39 5 January 2020 18: 30 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    Which is to be expected. As already supposed here. But will the States seize the opportunity?
    1. New Year day 5 January 2020 18: 33 New
      • 14
      • 5
      +9
      Quote: Sergey39
      But will the States seize the opportunity?

      US Presidential Adviser on National Security Robert O'Brien warned Iraq against adverse decisions about the continued presence of US troops in the country. According to him, the White House will be "very disappointed" if the Iraqi parliament decides on the possibility of the United States "helping the people of Iraq."
      apparently, the states have no desire
      1. Sergey39 5 January 2020 18: 35 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Well, the main decision is not for the adviser. Who knows what they really conceived there and who decides whether to bomb or bring it down.
        1. New Year day 5 January 2020 18: 38 New
          • 6
          • 3
          +3
          Quote: Sergey39
          Well, the main decision is not for the adviser.

          so his master is against. Let's see what happens
    2. Svetlana 5 January 2020 18: 39 New
      • 7
      • 1
      +6
      But will the States seize the opportunity?

      What kind of opportunity are you talking about? They always had it. You probably wanted to say: An excuse. No, they will not use it.
      1. Sergey39 5 January 2020 18: 43 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Well, yes, an excuse. But time will tell.
    3. Major Yurik 5 January 2020 18: 44 New
      • 4
      • 3
      +1
      Quote: Sergey39
      Which is to be expected. As already supposed here. But will the States seize the opportunity?

      Bringing the Yankees out of the country is akin to pulling out bedbugs from an old sofa, you can't do without good dichlorvos with karbofos! yes The Russian Federation in the military-industrial complex has many good examples of “karbofos” of a different method of striking ability. negative
  3. Thrifty 5 January 2020 18: 31 New
    • 11
    • 4
    +7
    And the Yankees in a crowd, right on the water like a dry land, rushed to the states? Yes, they don’t care about Iraq’s decisions, there is American oil in Iraq, that’s the main thing for Trump and his occupying army!
    1. Abbot 5 January 2020 19: 14 New
      • 2
      • 2
      0
      They will make a long-term and comprehensive "blackout" - they will dump them. True, there is an opinion that Erbil will cave in and the Americans will transport their junk to Iraqi Kurdistan.
    2. tihonmarine 5 January 2020 19: 21 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Thrifty
      And the Yankees crowd, right on the water like a dry land, rushed to the states

      I did not think that April 1 was moved on January 5.
    3. Brturin 5 January 2020 20: 12 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Quote: Thrifty
      there is american oil in Iraq

      China is also active there - in November 2019, oil supplies from Iraq to China increased to 5,8 million tons from October 4,93 million tons. Lukoil and Gazprom Neft ...
      1. Doliva63 5 January 2020 20: 38 New
        • 3
        • 3
        0
        Quote: BrTurin
        Quote: Thrifty
        there is american oil in Iraq

        China is also active there - in November 2019, oil supplies from Iraq to China increased to 5,8 million tons from October 4,93 million tons. Lukoil and Gazprom Neft ...

        I think that even if they bomb Moscow, Lukoil and Gazprom will not stop pumping oil from Iraq to China for dollars and through Western banks. Nothing personal, business. By the way, there is a rumor that Suleimani banged precisely because of Chinese contracts - a patriot, withdrew money bypassing the dollar.
        1. Sky strike fighter 5 January 2020 22: 09 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          Trump rigged the killing of Suleimani.
          Iraqi Prime Minister Mahdi spoke in the country's parliament and called on MPs to vote for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.
          According to Mahdi, Suleymani flew to Iraq to meet with him to discuss the proposals that were transferred to Tehran from Saudi Arabia. To arrange this meeting, the Prime Minister by telephone personally requested Trump.
          But a few hours before the meeting, Suleymani was killed on the orders of Trump.

          After a speech by Mahdi, where he called the US withdrawal the best way out for Iraq, preparations began for the vote, which will take place in the next hour.

          https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/5543716.html?utm_source=3userpost
  4. Al Asad 5 January 2020 18: 32 New
    • 17
    • 7
    +10
    The "exceptional" will simply declare the parliament of Iraq a terrorist organization and inflict an air strike on it
    These decisions on the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq for the 17-year occupation of the country were not one or two
    1. Gray brother 5 January 2020 20: 03 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      Quote: Al Asad
      These decisions on the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq for the 17-year occupation of the country were not one or two

      How much was it?
    2. Abbot 5 January 2020 20: 16 New
      • 6
      • 2
      +4
      Quote: Al Asad
      These decisions on the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq for the 17-year occupation of the country were not one or two

      Really, how much? Remind me pliz.
      1. Gray brother 5 January 2020 20: 19 New
        • 6
        • 1
        +5
        Quote: Abbot
        Really, how much? Remind me pliz.

        Campaign zero. And you can’t say that you lied)))
  5. Tank jacket 5 January 2020 18: 34 New
    • 7
    • 1
    +6
    The assassination of General Suleimani was a fatal mistake of the Clintonoids ...
    1. Odysseus 5 January 2020 18: 44 New
      • 9
      • 1
      +8
      This is actually the "Trumpanoid." The establishment of the Democratic Party has always been in favor of an agreement with Iran.
      1. Tank jacket 5 January 2020 18: 49 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        laughing And it looks like Trump allowed the Clinton team to get laid out. And the party of war fell into a trap. Zugzwang.
      2. tihonmarine 5 January 2020 19: 22 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: Odyssey
        This is actually the "Trumpanoid."

        Clintonoids would never have thought of that.
    2. Vitaly gusin 5 January 2020 20: 03 New
      • 2
      • 18
      -16
      Quote: Tank jacket
      The assassination of General Suleymani

      Ai-i-i-i-i-i-yi, killed a black man
      They killed a black man, they killed
      I-I-I-I-yay, for no reason
      Not at all, (not good people), soaked.
      1. Tank jacket 5 January 2020 20: 16 New
        • 15
        • 4
        +11
        Well, Vitaly, it’s a shame when the owner got out of the pool because of a puddle? Do not worry your deflection is counted. laughing
        1. Vitaly gusin 5 January 2020 21: 32 New
          • 1
          • 22
          -21
          Quote: Tank jacket
          Well, Vitaly, it’s a shame when the owner got out of the pool because of a puddle?

          Israel has ONE host
          PEOPLE OF ISRAEL (unlike you)
          1. aszzz888 6 January 2020 06: 46 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2

            Quote: Tank jacket
            Well, Vitaly, it’s a shame when the owner got out of the pool because of a puddle?

            Israel has ONE host
            PEOPLE OF ISRAEL (unlike you)
            laughing laughing laughing laughing laughing
      2. The comment was deleted.
  6. Uran53 5 January 2020 18: 34 New
    • 6
    • 2
    +4
    The rat, cornered, is the most dangerous. Sooner or later they will have to leave Syria and Iraq, the only question is how much more blood they will shed.
  7. Sergei 23 5 January 2020 18: 34 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    It is interesting how events are developing !!! And what will Trump say in his homeland about this?
    1. mikh-korsakov 5 January 2020 18: 59 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      It seems to me that the probability of withdrawal of US troops from Iraq is 0,5. It looks like Trump's left leg is for the conclusion, and the right one is for saving. From what foot he gets up - it will be so. True, there is another option - if it gets on two legs, it introduces, then displays.
  8. loki565 5 January 2020 18: 36 New
    • 6
    • 1
    +5
    Yes, yes, they’ll throw oil right away and leave))) Not for that, they bent down Iraq to listen to him protesting there)))
  9. TermNachTer 5 January 2020 18: 36 New
    • 5
    • 2
    +3
    Given that in Iraq 10% of the world's oil reserves, I think the withdrawal of mattress troops from Iraq is very unlikely. Not including other Middle Eastern issues.
    1. Uran53 5 January 2020 18: 38 New
      • 9
      • 3
      +6
      They will arrange such partisanship that they will have to get out
    2. mikh-korsakov 5 January 2020 19: 03 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Nikolay! Regardless of the presence of US troops, no one in Iraq will encroach on American assets there - Iraq has a decent margin with its oil. Bees versus honey?
      1. TermNachTer 5 January 2020 19: 07 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        But part of the oil from the north went to Turkey. I don’t know from whose deposits. There are also Russian ones.
  10. Uran53 5 January 2020 18: 36 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Interestingly, have they already recaptured the costs of the war or not?
    1. 75 Sergey 5 January 2020 19: 14 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Profits have a sign of infinity.
  11. Grits 5 January 2020 18: 38 New
    • 11
    • 3
    +8
    The Iraqi parliament voted ... Hmm ... It's like, roughly, I would have voted for the head to double my salary.
  12. Odysseus 5 January 2020 18: 43 New
    • 15
    • 1
    +14
    A fundamental decision. Of course, the Americans will not leave, but the status of allies in the fight against ISIS is one thing, and the status of occupiers is another. Now you can deploy a full-fledged guerrilla warfare, in addition, on completely legitimate grounds.
  13. ohka_new 5 January 2020 18: 47 New
    • 9
    • 3
    +6
    Is there a parliament at an American military base? Cool ...
  14. opuonmed 5 January 2020 18: 48 New
    • 1
    • 3
    -2
    young people that voted but one nuance of the United States will go to the withdrawal of its military, it seems to me no
  15. 75 Sergey 5 January 2020 18: 49 New
    • 3
    • 7
    -4
    Yeah, shch-zz! Americans are already running - hair back.
    It was not for this that they destroyed the state so that some parliament of the puppet government would tell them what to do.
    So much money has been spent on democracy.
  16. Konatantin 1992 5 January 2020 18: 51 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    The parliament, of course, made the right decision, but how to get the Yankees out? if their contingent is more efficient than all militarized units of Iraq? Plus, any other conglomerate of NATO soldiers? hard to translate
    1. mikh-korsakov 5 January 2020 19: 12 New
      • 5
      • 2
      +3
      Konstantin! Conglomerate conglomerate. However, the lack of toilet paper and coffee due to the failure of Iraqi airfields will cause the conglomerate unbearable sadness. There is no way to fight for democracy without toilet paper and coffee at ten o’clock. We'll have to drop these items from parachutes. and this is expenses, and Trump does not like expenses.
      1. Konatantin 1992 5 January 2020 19: 23 New
        • 2
        • 2
        0
        Yes, everything seems to be in order with the airfields, they won’t be destroyed, and if they’re destroyed, the Yankees will repair it, not for the first time, remember how they restored the airfields throughout BV before the Desert Storm.
  17. rocket757 5 January 2020 18: 52 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    It all depends on what kind of public request dominates the strip. Any presidential candidate or wishing to be re-elected will be forced to take this into account!
    Opinions are expressed that there is a request for peace in stripes, or rather fatigue from the “war”, just a desire to LIVE BETTER by ourselves and not to bother our heads with what is happening somewhere there.
    In general, it is not yet obvious, but quite likely.
  18. rruvim 5 January 2020 18: 53 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    This means nothing! There will be elections for a new parliament (it will be dissolved). And this is the time.
  19. Amateur 5 January 2020 18: 53 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    The withdrawal of American troops from any country is an extremely rare, but still not exceptional case. So in the seventies, US troops were forced to leave South Vietnam. Also, since 1990, American forces have been in Saudi Arabia and left this country only thirteen years later, leaving a small contingent for servicing equipment (including air defense missile defense).

    To the author - note:
    Manas - in 2001-2009, the air base of the anti-terrorist coalition, in 2009-2014 - the US Air Force Transit Center. The facility is located on the territory of Manas International Airport, 23 km northwest of Bishkek. The airport was built in the mid-1970s. Since July 2014, the air base has been closed, territory and infrastructure have been transferred to the National Guard of Kyrgyzstan.

    From 2001 to 2005 At a military airfield in Khanabad, located in the Kashkadarya region of Uzbekistan near the city of Karshi, there was a US military base. On November 21, 2005, the last American aircraft left the air base.
  20. iaaf73 5 January 2020 18: 55 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    An interesting turn of events ... So we will see soon whether Trump really muddied up a kind of multi-pathway so that, as some here say, have the opportunity to leave this region with his hands loose, or, on the contrary, Iran is pumping up and provoking retaliatory actions that would allow the United States subject this country to rocket attacks ... Personally, I hardly believe that they will leave Iraq, but I don’t want to believe in the second option either, because it’s blazing so that my mother does not grieve (((...
    1. Andrea 5 January 2020 19: 05 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      On the contrary, he now desperately needs a "small victorious war."
      First, what impeachment during the war.
      Secondly ... of course, if the war is victorious, a second term is guaranteed.
  21. rruvim 5 January 2020 18: 56 New
    • 3
    • 3
    0
    The Iraqi parliament over the past 10 years has repeatedly voted for the withdrawal of foreign troops from the country. And it was successfully dissolved ...
  22. Andrea 5 January 2020 19: 02 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    For a long time, there was no storm in the desert.
    1. Gray brother 5 January 2020 19: 10 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Quote: Andrea
      For a long time, there was no storm in the desert.

      Purely Americans in the region of about 110000-120000, this is not enough.
  23. KVU-NSVD 5 January 2020 19: 05 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    , this will help reformat relations with the United States
    Or the United States will reformat the ruling Iraqi elite.
  24. Graz 5 January 2020 19: 07 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    freedom is gained by blood, not chatter in parliament, whether the Iraqis are ready, like the Vietnamese, to put 10 of their own for one Yankee. if not, then there’s nothing to talk about
    1. Doliva63 5 January 2020 20: 47 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Quote: Graz
      freedom is gained by blood, not chatter in parliament, whether the Iraqis are ready, like the Vietnamese, to put 10 of their own for one Yankee. if not, then there’s nothing to talk about

      It depends on what kind of freedom it is. If it’s about the free conversion of currencies, etc. of “values,” then the Union has collapsed under this, where is Vietnam! And I somehow do not remember other freedoms for a long time.
  25. voyaka uh 5 January 2020 19: 08 New
    • 9
    • 4
    +5
    It’s already a year for Americans to leave Iraq. ISIS finished off, they trained the Iraqi army. All the same, they did not get oil: everything went to the Anglo-Dutch and Chinese. What else to sit there?
    1. rruvim 5 January 2020 19: 12 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      As for oil, another question. What are Anglo-Dutch sovereign? Even the Swiss, whom even Hitler did not touch, were shed at the first FAS from across the ocean. And they will not go out. Too much has been invested in this war since 1991.
      1. voyaka uh 5 January 2020 19: 27 New
        • 7
        • 4
        +3
        Come out, I suppose. The Americans have military bases in Saudi Arabia, in the Emirates.
        They needed bases in Iraq while they were chasing ISIS.
        When the people of the current government, swollen from the super-income from oil, trample, the next will again ask them to return.
        1. atalef 5 January 2020 19: 59 New
          • 2
          • 10
          -8
          Quote: voyaka uh
          They needed bases in Iraq while they were chasing ISIS

          Of course, the drones that soaked Suleimani took off from the base in the UAE, and they were generally controlled from the states.
          Quote: voyaka uh
          then the next will again ask them to return.

          Without the Air Force, the ISIS coalition in the northern regions of Iraq will again crawl out and undo the entire Iraqi army, as it was before.
          Then they will breakfast.
        2. rruvim 5 January 2020 19: 59 New
          • 2
          • 2
          0
          Who set this government in Iraq for the hundredth time? And oil with terminals is already owned by transcorps. Five years already, as they come out. And they will go out until they land on Mars. But this scam - not a ride.
        3. Quadro 6 January 2020 18: 18 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: voyaka uh
          Come out, I suppose. The Americans have military bases in Saudi Arabia, in the Emirates.
          They needed bases in Iraq while they were chasing ISIS.
          When the people of the current government, swollen from the super-income from oil, trample, the next will again ask them to return.

          Is humanitarian aid for oil an over-income from oil? Something is somehow not funny. And from Iraq, they supply the occupation contingent in the oil fields in Syria, if they dump from there, they will remain in "encirclement."
  26. Gray brother 5 January 2020 19: 08 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Also, since 1990, American forces have been in Saudi Arabia and left this country only thirteen years later, leaving a small contingent to service equipment (including air defense missile defense).

    Now there is a contingent of about 20000 people.
    1. rruvim 5 January 2020 19: 17 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      This is not obvious. Judging by the rotation from 20 to 40 thousand, plus more allies - five thousand.
      1. Gray brother 5 January 2020 19: 19 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Quote: rruvim
        This is not obvious. Judging by the rotation from 20 to 40 thousand, plus more allies - five thousand.

        Here is a fresh bait on the Americans (without sixes):
        https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/5543349.html
        Just laid out, freshly. Links to sources are present.
        1. rruvim 5 January 2020 19: 35 New
          • 4
          • 3
          +1
          Well here is a good link. Why keep 40000 fighters in the region? Although Iraq itself allegedly has 3000-4000 thousand. But analysts think differently: they look at payments to military personnel on vacation, they estimate the movement of planes, the mooring of lighter carriers and dry cargo ships in the ports of Basra, the number of houses at American bases from satellite imagery, the traffic of telephone calls to their homeland in Thanksgiving America, kindly provided by comrades from China, etc. etc. And when I ask a friend of the analyst: "Well, how many are there?" He does not tell me (for by subscription) 38 416 military personnel, but replies: "about forty thousand." There are no 3000-4000, there is everything according to the full program.
  27. Lunic 5 January 2020 19: 22 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Right now the Germans will say: "Shaw, how could that be?"
    1. Gray brother 5 January 2020 19: 27 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Quote: Lunic
      Right now the Germans will say: "Shaw, how could that be?"

      Let him ask Trump to fill Frau Merkel.
      1. Saxahorse 5 January 2020 20: 08 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Gray Brother
        Let him ask Trump to fill Frau Merkel.

        There are not Germans, there will be the first Poles. Guess where the Pshek sweeps?
        1. Gray brother 5 January 2020 20: 11 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          Quote: Saxahorse
          Guess where the Pshek sweeps?

          In Lviv)))
          https://topwar.ru/129462-galiciya-budet-polskoy-ili-bezlyudnoy.html
  28. Sansculotte 5 January 2020 19: 25 New
    • 1
    • 4
    -3
    And Iranian including
  29. Dmitry Vinner 5 January 2020 19: 47 New
    • 5
    • 8
    -3
    = Iraqi parliament voted to withdraw foreign troops from the country =
    Personally, I assume that the vague wording “Foreign” means Iranian. Personally, ME and Trump understood exactly that. I am not sure about myself, but as for Trump, he can be seen to help the Iraqis in this.
    1. rruvim 5 January 2020 20: 01 New
      • 3
      • 3
      0
      I would put ten, if possible. Of course the evil Iranians!
    2. chip 6 January 2020 02: 24 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      There are no Iranian troops in Iraq. There is a local Shiite militia controlled by Iran. But it is local.
      1. Dmitry Vinner 7 January 2020 13: 07 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Well of course IHTAMNET. Did I say something else? It would only be interesting to know what kind of weapons depots there are constantly bombed by unknown air forces.
        1. chip 7 January 2020 23: 33 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Dmitry Winner
          it would be interesting to know what kind of weapons depots

          A militia without a weapon is not a militia
  30. Dikson 5 January 2020 19: 48 New
    • 7
    • 3
    +4
    This is ridiculous .. The puppet government of a broken-down country seeks help from an organization that actually allowed it to be broken up ..)) The circus didn’t leave .. - he just dressed the clowns ..
  31. Kibl 5 January 2020 19: 53 New
    • 2
    • 5
    -3
    Under Trump, the staff put a big bolt on all sorts of decisions there of parliaments, courts and other instances. It is enough to say to Trump with a certain intonation “Che?” and EVERYTHING!
    1. Barmaleyka 5 January 2020 20: 05 New
      • 4
      • 2
      +2
      Quote: KIBL
      Under Trump, the staff put a big bolt on all sorts of decisions

      for the sake of truth, they did it without a ramp
  32. The comment was deleted.
  33. earthling 5 January 2020 19: 59 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    A good word and colt is better than just a good word.
  34. Barmaleyka 5 January 2020 20: 05 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    in the near future we will find out that again there is no democracy in Iraq, and the parliament was bought by Russia
  35. awg75 5 January 2020 20: 16 New
    • 1
    • 3
    -2
    so they left))) and the hair back))) funny ...
  36. Finn 5 January 2020 20: 38 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    I think the Americans will not say: “Well, well, we“ sailed ”over a puddle” and on the way they will capture our military, etc., from Syria, Rammstein in Germany, Japan. And why harm the Iranians so much, the new general said fill the BV with American corpses, then they will have to bring the corpses from far away, and so they are not far away and at least heaped.
  37. bar
    bar 5 January 2020 20: 38 New
    • 4
    • 4
    0
    Forgot to write the main thing - “The decision is only advisory.”
  38. Al Asad 5 January 2020 20: 45 New
    • 2
    • 3
    -1
    Quote: Abbot
    Quote: Al Asad
    These decisions on the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq for the 17-year occupation of the country were not one or two

    Really, how much? Remind me pliz.

    Yes, there almost every year, after the end of active hostilities in 2010, the question is raised of the complete withdrawal of troops.
    Only after the IG invasion * in the summer of 2014, the Iraqi authorities asked for help and the United States expanded its contingent.
    1. Quote: Al Asad
      Yes, there almost every year, after the end of active hostilities in 2010, the question is raised of the complete withdrawal of troops.
      Only after the IG invasion * in the summer of 2014, the Iraqi authorities asked for help and the United States expanded its contingent

      2011th, 12th, 13th, it turns out. "Almost not every year"- this is a maximum of 2 times, which means. Or rather? More precisely, never. The parliament of Iraq has never adopted a similar resolution. The question was raised, perhaps it was posed - but the parliament has never made such a decision until now.
  39. parusnik 5 January 2020 20: 46 New
    • 6
    • 2
    +4
    But in principle, a sound decision ... Will the United States leave Iraq, it’s the tenth thing ... NATO countries also fall under this decision ... They somehow need to explain to voters why they are being persecuted ... We will take into account that in European countries countries are full of refugees from the Middle East ... no matter how cars and shops in Europe start to burn ... Syria would make such a statement ...
    1. chip 6 January 2020 02: 25 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Quote: parusnik
      Syria would have made such a statement

      Syria must come up with a different wording
  40. Al Asad 5 January 2020 20: 47 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    Quote: Al Asad
    Quote: Abbot
    Quote: Al Asad
    These decisions on the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq for the 17-year occupation of the country were not one or two

    Really, how much? Remind me pliz.

    Yes, there almost every year, after the end of active hostilities in 2010, the question is raised of the complete withdrawal of troops. Only a million US pretexts were found: either a search for mythical chemical weapons or oil was not yet pumped out.
    Only after the IG invasion * in the summer of 2014, the Iraqi authorities asked for help and the United States expanded its contingent.
  41. Pevek 5 January 2020 20: 52 New
    • 4
    • 2
    +2
    To expel someone, you must either have the strength to do it yourself, or you need to ask someone. Now Iraq has begun to act through the UN and the legislatures of its country.
    Well, let's see what happens and see how other democracies listen to democracies .... lol
  42. Petrol cutter 5 January 2020 20: 58 New
    • 3
    • 3
    0
    "The parliament of Iraq voted for the withdrawal of foreign troops from the country
    Today, 18:23 "
    Great solution. And what further does a certain parliament of Iraq offer ?!
    Desirable by points.
  43. jekasimf 5 January 2020 21: 09 New
    • 5
    • 1
    +4
    Even if the United States does not want to withdraw troops, their status has changed. De jure, from today they are there illegally. That means you can carry out deversions (not to be confused with terrorist attacks!), Shoot them, etc. As history has shown, they have nothing with the partisans can do it when it comes to ground-based collisions.
    1. Petrol cutter 5 January 2020 21: 14 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      This is wonderful. Guerrilla warfare is our everything!
      Nothing strains the enemy more than strikes from nowhere and fighters going nowhere ...
    2. Pandiurin 5 January 2020 23: 32 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      "... their status has changed. De jure, from today they are there illegally ..."
      Most likely they are now in Iraq at the request of the Iraqi government (something about help in the fight against ISIS, training for Iraq, selling weapons, etc.).
      Accordingly, there is some kind of agreement on the presence, the procedure for the withdrawal of coalition troops should be spelled out there. Those. must be spelled out the period for which they must warn. Term for withdrawal, conditions, etc.
      So even subject to agreements, they can come out for a long time ...
  44. cat Rusich 5 January 2020 21: 35 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    There will be an official document on the expulsion of the United States Army from Iraq - Iran will be able to legally help in "this matter" to Iraq angry
    1. Sky strike fighter 5 January 2020 22: 24 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      There are now 120 Americans in the region. A year has been growing in numbers.
      The circle turned out in the region of 110-120 thousand only American troops (without other NATO). Despite the fact that the buildup of this grouping began in advance, in the past 2019, and the total number can be even greater today.

      https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/5543349.html
      1. cat Rusich 5 January 2020 22: 31 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        “The thicker the grass, the easier it is to mow” - supply routes are a weak point.
  45. Vadim1000 5 January 2020 21: 59 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    Wow! And what does UNESCO say there?
  46. Roman1970_1 5 January 2020 22: 10 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    It should be added that at the meeting there were only Shiites.
    Sunites, Christians, Druze ignored the meeting.
    And the United States gives 10 lard dollars a year to Iraq.
    So hardly anyone will leave Iraq
  47. Zomanus 6 January 2020 02: 29 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Oh, come on, you laugh.
    The occupied country requires the withdrawal of the occupying forces.
    And they just like that obeyed and got out, yeah.
    If in the near future the UN does not condemn the actions of the States,
    then they will get a taste and will destroy those who are objectionable no longer hiding.
    Iran and Iraq are a "test of the pen", look at the reaction.
    And then Syria and Ukraine and other countries will go.
    And the UN will turn into a damn chicken coop, led by a chairman who is clamoring about peace there.
  48. sgr291158 6 January 2020 06: 23 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    They must be driven from everywhere, let them sit in their America.
  49. Vitalonson 6 January 2020 07: 51 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    It is not necessary to vote here, but to take up arms .. Satisfied with American democracy? So in Russia in the early 90s, the same option was planned ..
  50. Udav kaa 6 January 2020 10: 37 New
    • 1
    • 4
    -3
    Iraqi parliament voted

    Is there such a thing in Iraq? I didn’t hear something lol
  51. Al Asad 6 January 2020 10: 45 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: jekasimf
    Even if the United States does not want to withdraw troops, their status has changed. De jure, from today they are there illegally. That means you can carry out deversions (not to be confused with terrorist attacks!), Shoot them, etc. As history has shown, they have nothing with the partisans can do it when it comes to ground-based collisions.

    The Americans de Jure have been illegally there since the first day of the attack on Iraq since 2003, and somehow they are not particularly worried
  52. high 7 January 2020 07: 32 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    There has been a war for more than a dozen years between Iran and the United States, 3 Iranian generals and about half a million people have already died in Syria.
    Alas, military people die in war, such is their dangerous profession ....
    By the way, why should the life of a US soldier who died in an attack by pro-Iranian forces on a US military base a couple of days before the elimination of an Iranian general cost less than the life of a general?