Established in 2006 as a Community of Reality

Welcome to the Neno's Place!

Neno's Place Established in 2006 as a Community of Reality


Neno

I can be reached by phone or text 8am-7pm cst 972-768-9772 or, once joining the board I can be reached by a (PM) Private Message.

Join the forum, it's quick and easy

Established in 2006 as a Community of Reality

Welcome to the Neno's Place!

Neno's Place Established in 2006 as a Community of Reality


Neno

I can be reached by phone or text 8am-7pm cst 972-768-9772 or, once joining the board I can be reached by a (PM) Private Message.

Established in 2006 as a Community of Reality

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
Established in 2006 as a Community of Reality

Many Topics Including The Oldest Dinar Community. Copyright © 2006-2020


    Abdul-Mahdi: The survival of the American forces is against the interests of Iraq

    Rocky
    Rocky
    Rocky
    Admin Assist
    Admin Assist


    Posts : 282968
    Join date : 2012-12-21
    • Post n°1

    Abdul-Mahdi: The survival of the American forces is against the interests of Iraq Empty Abdul-Mahdi: The survival of the American forces is against the interests of Iraq

    Post by Rocky Thu 25 Mar 2021, 7:13 am


    Abdul-Mahdi: The survival of the American forces is against the interests of Iraq

    09:41 - 25/03/2021



    [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
     
     
    The information / Baghdad ..
    Former Prime Minister [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] responded , on Thursday, to an article published by former Assistant Secretary of State for Middle Eastern Affairs David Schenker, stressing that not withdrawing [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] is against the interests of [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] .
    The following is the text of Abdul Mahdi's response:
    Mr. David Schenker, the former Assistant Secretary of State for Middle East Affairs, wrote in "The Hill" an article on March 11, 2021 entitled "Our presence in [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] will remain important to the American national interest," stressing that "leaving the US forces means handing Baghdad completely to Tehran."
    In this article, Mr. David Schenker mentioned the name of the former Prime Minister, Mr. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] several times, and reached his erroneous conclusion, which in turn was based on incorrect introductions.
    We'll cover two main points. The first relates to the fact that the country will fall in the hands of [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] if the US forces withdraw, and the second is that the Iraqi parliament's vote on 1/5/2021 on the withdrawal is a "non-binding" decision.
    1 - The talk that [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] will fall in the hands of [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] if the foreign forces withdraw there are many problems. It indicates that the presence of the forces violates the basis for which they were called upon, which is the fight against [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] , the training of Iraqi forces, and nothing else.
    His speech carries an understanding and a policy that President “Trump” stated to CBS on February 3, 2019, saying, according to the BBC, that the US forces will move (from Syria) to Ain Al-Asad Air Base in Anbar Governorate, and will be part Its tasks are to assist Israel in monitoring [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] .
    This statement led to severe [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and non- [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] reactions , and [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] has repeatedly and formally confirmed that the mission of the forces is to fight [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and exclusively train the forces, otherwise it would be considered a deviation from their mission.
    [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] a large country in the region, and historically it, Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Syria played important regional roles - regardless of the regimes ruling them -. In contemporary history, [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] was a main pillar of the Baghdad Sento alliance in the 1950s. It played a role in [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] in cooperation with the American intelligence and the Mossad at the time to confront the Nasserite tide. It also had a military presence, not to mention the economic and political, in a number of Gulf countries to confront the national tide, and some Revolutionary movements in the 1960s, before the Islamic Revolution in [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] in 1979.
    So the Iranian presence in the region is not a new presence, but what is new in it is its nature. It is acceptable when it is in harmony with interests that Washington considers consistent with its strategies, and it is rejected in counter-cases.
    On the one hand, and on the other hand, those who say: that the peoples of the other region do not protect their interests, and that the affairs of their countries are merely a result of the struggle of others over them. Let's take an example soon. Indeed, the Iraqi government reached during Mr. Maliki’s tenure in 2009 as prime minister and the administration of President Obama and his deputy at the time, current President Biden, to an agreement to withdraw US forces in 2011 to end the military presence that began in 2003. The Americans welcomed the agreement, and the Iraqis welcomed it. During the period from 2011 until mid-2014, Baghdad did not fall to Tehran. On the contrary, the mood of the Iraqi street towards the Americans improved after the withdrawal. The slogans of "Death to America" ​​receded, and healthy relations began between the two countries organized by the "Strategic Framework Agreement" that they voted in conjunction with the vote on the withdrawal agreement in 2009. In fact, there is an example that may be more convincing to Mr. Schenker that Baghdad's influence will not decline. Is that in the 2014 elections, and the withdrawal had taken place, Mr. Maliki’s “State of Law” bloc won 95 of the 329 parliamentary seats, ahead of all lists by a large margin. Despite this, Mr. Al-Maliki did not win the presidency of the Council of Ministers, despite his good relations with Tehran and Washington at that time, which shows that Baghdad has in the end its independent decision, regardless of the correctness or error of its jurisprudence.
    2- In the article of Mr. David Schenker, it is stated that the vote of the Iraqi Council of Representatives on January 5, 2020 on the withdrawal of foreign forces was a non-binding vote.
    Yes, it may be that the House of Representatives vote alone is not legally binding, considering it a decision and not a law? But the House of Representatives decision was a reinforcement of the government’s decision, which alone is binding. With a decision by the government, the forces came, and by a decision by the government, they could be asked to withdraw. The decision of the House of Representatives strengthens the request and gives it moral and political legitimacy, in addition to legal legitimacy. This represents the highest constitutional expression of the national will. Others have to respect this will according to the Iraqi fundamentalist and institutional contexts, not to question it, and not to respect the decisions of the government and the constitutionally elected parliament.
    Mr. Schenker might respond that quite a few MPs were absent to prevent the quorum by their diligence or pressure exerted on them? This argument - if this is its starting point - it is not institutional and illegal, and it is merely personal jurisprudence. The Iraqi parliament has a specific quorum like all other parliamentary institutions in the world. If the quorum is reached, the legal session will be completed. And in [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]A quorum is considered in the presence of 165 deputies. And what he votes on with a quorum will be considered effective. In the voting session on the withdrawal of forces on January 5, 2020, a quorum was 171 deputies, and the decision to withdraw was voted upon unanimously. This is more than the vote on the withdrawal agreement and the strategic framework agreement in 2009. As 149 deputies voted in favor of the first, and in favor of the second 144. Note that the quorum in the 2009 session was only 17 more than in the 2020 session. Everyone remembers that about 30 MPs from the Sadrist movement at that time were raised inside The meeting hall signs a rejection of the agreement, demanding an immediate withdrawal. Despite all these facts, the US government welcomed the vote and did not raise any procedural problem around it.
    Or is it because the government was a caretaker government for everyday matters? Here, we mention Mr. Shanker that the US forces' call for assistance was made according to a letter from the then Iraqi Foreign Minister, Hoshyar Zebari, on June 25, 2014. The Iraqi government at that time was a government that carries out everyday matters - also. The national legislative elections took place on April 30, 2014, and it is known that when the elections are held, the House of Representatives is dissolved according to Article 56 / second of the Iraqi constitution, and the government becomes a government that carries out everyday matters. So why is it acceptable for the US forces to come to [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] government that carries out daily affairs, with a letter from the Minister of Foreign Affairs?
    After the decision to withdraw, meetings, calls, and correspondence took place between the Iraqi government on the one hand, and both "NATO" and the American side on the other hand, with the aim of implementing the decision of the House of Representatives and the Iraqi government.
    None of the NATO consultations and messages and the American side officially indicated that the decision is not binding. That is why NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg replied after a series of negotiations in Amman and contacts with a letter on February 12, 2020 addressed to the Prime Minister of [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] , from which we deduct: “NATO fully respects the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq and all relevant decisions issued by the parliament and government of the Republic of [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] , and in this regard NATO participates. The goal is to develop the capabilities of the Iraqi armed forces so that [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] does not need the required assistance soon.
    The previous US administration also conducted a series of meetings with the Iraqi government, and the two parties exchanged letters and calls, despite the difference in views, but the goal was to reduce the forces with the intention of withdrawing from [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] . In a memorandum from the US Embassy in Baghdad No. 02326-2020 dated April 3, 2021, a key paragraph states: “As part of our dialogues on security cooperation, we will discuss the redeployment of the United States forces from [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] ” The US side preferred at that time the term redeployment outside [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] instead of withdrawal for well-known considerations. .
    Also, according to the agencies, on August 20, 2020, during the visit of the Iraqi Prime Minister, Mustafa Al-Kazemi to Washington, President Trump stated, "We have largely withdrawn from [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and very few soldiers have remained" promising "a quick exit of the coalition forces within 3 years." And in that a complete reversal of Mr. Shanker’s words
    The relationship between [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and the United States should not be regulated by the personal impressions and desires of political leaders and their aspirations in a specific circumstance. Rather, it is with respect to the will of the two countries and a deep understanding of the realities of matters in [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and the region and the circumstances they are going through. Mr. Schenker says: Mr. Abdul-Mahdi's favorite saying was, "Iran is a neighbor and you (America) are friends." We regret that Mr. Shanker, the veteran and long-standing diplomat, underestimates these words, and he does not appreciate that they mean, in the complex circumstances between two countries with which we have close relations, about the desire to allow Iraq to place itself in the right place in a way that matches the interests of the country and the region in which we live, while Mr. Shanker demands [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]By standing against Iran, and this is contrary to the country's policy, constitution and system. We have repeatedly heard from representatives of the previous administration, “You are not with me or against me,” and this is a policy that has proven its error on the United States and the world, so how is it true in Iraq?
    Therefore, based on our understanding of the geopolitical reality of the region, and the influence of regional and international powers that we mentioned in point (1) above, the permanent answer was with American officials, including Mr. Shanker, Secretary of State Mr. Pompeo, and even President Trump in the last call that took place between him and Mr. Chairman of the Council Former ministers on December 31, 2019, when the relationship with Iran was addressed, the answer was, you do not want war, and you did not reach direct negotiations, so nothing remained but "implicit consensus." And when he asked the French President Macron, upon Mr. Abdul Mahdi's official visit to Paris in 2019, about his view on the nuclear deal and the role of [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]In the region (and Chancellor Merkel had previously done the same thing), the Prime Minister replied in the plenary formal session between the two delegations that there is no other solution but to return to the nuclear agreement signed in 2015 with all its provisions and commitments. As for interests, concerns, and accusations of interference and expansion, they can be settled through dialogue and covenants between the various parties, including [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. It was reported that the influential countries in Europe such as Britain, France, Germany and Italy have fought bitter and destructive wars in the struggle for influence between them for decades and centuries, but when these countries reached “tacit consensuses” and official covenants to guarantee their geopolitical interests, Europe lived - and is now living - a period of peace, cooperation and friendship that did not Witness it at any stage in its history. Talking about neighbors and friends is part of this view that we have been, and we continue to defend. Whether those who rule in Washington are Republican or Democrat, or those who rule in our countries are Islamic, Republican, or royal. End / 25
    [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
    • Back to top
      Current date/time is Mon 13 Jan 2025, 7:53 pm