Rendered at 08:02:54 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
maeln 12 minutes ago [-]
> a departure celebrated as a victory by Iran and its allies who now have deep influence in the country where 4,500 Americans died during more than two decades of war.
Kind of crazy to lead with this. Talking about the Americans victims (mostly military) and ignoring the local Iraqi victims (mostly civilians).
trentor 3 minutes ago [-]
It’s an article about us forces leaving Irak seems reasonable to talk about how many they lost during the time they were there…
rjzzleep 10 minutes ago [-]
Usually when the US forces exit a theater it's a prelude to war, like the Afghanistan withdrawal was so that they couldn't be retaliated against. I caution people not to get too excited about this.
21asdffdsa12 9 minutes ago [-]
The whole region is a energy drain for any empire involved. When the empire-exits, all the regional empire start butchering one another. Usually this is start of a culling of the locals by other locals. There is a reason people in empire border regions (balcans) are at each others throats 24/7.
throwaw12 21 minutes ago [-]
Unfortunately, millions of lives lost, another millions started hating US for what it did to their families.
I am curious what did the world gain from this?
UpsideDownRide 5 minutes ago [-]
World? What would make you think this was ever about the world and not very particular interests?
artisinal 7 minutes ago [-]
Europe gained millions of refugees / cheap labour.
exe34 19 minutes ago [-]
Oil
prodigycorp 2 minutes ago [-]
This was not about oil. This is a harmful lie. The reality is more sobering and dangerous: it's the neocon agenda that led the invasion. There are people who fundamentally believe in nation building as national duty. That ideology should be addressed and resisted directly.
Distracting people with the oil excuse gives cover to ppl who need it least.
mahboi 3 minutes ago [-]
This "oil" thing is a cover for Israeli lobbying
meowface 6 minutes ago [-]
There's no evidence the US's motive or achieved outcome of the war was oil.
Seems "he tried to kill my father, now there's an excuse to take him out and turn his country into a democracy in the region, and a US-aligned entity" explains most of it.
Much like Trump, it's pettiness and prestige and a notion of more points on the board. (Though Trump did in fact attack Venezuela for oil, or possibly more so just to publicly boast about taking their oil and seem strong to his fans.)
p-e-w 16 minutes ago [-]
Did it? How did the world gain oil from the invasion and occupation of Iraq? It’s not like Iraq wasn’t exporting oil before. That makes no sense to me even under the most cynical interpretation.
21asdffdsa12 7 minutes ago [-]
Well, in the large theme of things, its irrelevant. The region butchers itself regularly- with the us involved or without. If they spend a 100 years undisturbed doing local wars - it would have been no different.
meowface 45 minutes ago [-]
Why is this article written like an op-ed, despite being Reuters?
I am not even necessarily disagreeing with it (I lean very anti-Iran and slightly geopolitically neoconservative) but the tone is not at all neutral and makes no mention of the possible downsides of troops staying in Iraq after decades.
fsh 32 minutes ago [-]
The article summarizes interviews with various interest groups in the region. Exactly what you would expect from a news agency like Reuters.
dmurray 8 minutes ago [-]
Shouldn't there be some quotes from the US leadership? Normally this would be a chance to claim a military victory, a "mission accomplished".
Perhaps the US are trying not even to acknowledge it. A reputable newspaper would normally include "the Department of War was contacted for comment" but maybe that's not appropriate for Reuters.
meowface 17 minutes ago [-]
It does, but it feels like every paragraph is inserted to fit only one thesis.
latexr 9 minutes ago [-]
> I lean (…) slightly geopolitically neoconservative
We have too many labels. That’s not good for a species which hates others based on different labels.
actionfromafar 40 minutes ago [-]
It is?
It reports on some reactions.
mahboi 2 minutes ago [-]
The beginning of the summary, which isn't a reaction, says "worst US war of 21st century"
shevy-java 38 minutes ago [-]
I somewhat agree - not necessarily with your content here, but that the article is written ... strangely.
For instance:
> US forces leave country where 4,500 of them died in worst US war of 21st century
I am not even certain that this war was worse than the Afghanistan war. Perhaps the Iraq war was objectively worse, but since the sudden withdrawal in Afghanistan, leaving the Taliban in charge, I am not so sure which war was worse. I am not even sure how to qualify it, so Reuters stating this was the worst war is ... indeed a strange label to use. Wasn't Reuters indeed more objective in the past? And with that I mean objective at all times, not white-washing or black-washing.
I now finished reading the article and it indeed seems op-ed. The reader now thinks that the war against Iran must continue. I still fail to understand why the USA invaded the area. Other than some making enormous profits, of course. If 911 was used as a rationale, why was not Saudi Arabia attacked?
arrrg 16 minutes ago [-]
I also tripped over that line but I think it’s content is very specific and the number of deaths is the clue: in terms of deaths the Iraq war is definitely the worst war of the US in the 21st century. You have to very literally read that line. And in that context that claim makes sense: In terms of deaths the Iraq war was the worst war.
Now, there are certainly other axis along which you can judge a war.
pathsjs 3 minutes ago [-]
american deaths
Arainach 16 minutes ago [-]
The US had a clear reason to be in Afghanistan. It was a brutal quagmire with thousands of deaths (and many more Afghani deaths), but one could at least argue there was purpose in the beginning.
Iraq was 4500 dead for one Texan trying to imitate daddy while listening to his CEO buddies.
watwut 19 minutes ago [-]
United States lost a total of 2,459 military personnel in Afghanistan. It had less military deaths.
lloydatkinson 1 minutes ago [-]
Again?
secult 2 minutes ago [-]
Iraq is a country of more than 40 million of inhabitants. They can take care of theirselves. Using an argument of some "sleeper cells", come on, it's silly. Is the US army only thing holding up their government? If yes then what do you expect? Either it falls the same way as in Afganistan, or it fights for itself.
meindnoch 21 minutes ago [-]
The American balloon is popping.
drstewart 9 minutes ago [-]
How many European forces are in Iraq? I guess the EU balloon has already popped, by your metric.
blitzar 1 minutes ago [-]
Europeans left in the mid 1900's
mahboi 1 minutes ago [-]
Well yeah, it can be both
dasKrokodil 13 minutes ago [-]
Mission Accomplished!
ImHereToVote 34 minutes ago [-]
Good news. Maybe Iraq will finally be able to control its own oil again.
Judging by what is newly happening in Venezuela, I think its unlikely USA will cede control over Iraq's oil/money as the mentality of the US state is unchanged. And USA is in debt/various individuals profiting personally.
Iran is becoming the new regional power while USA is retreating from the entire ME.
drstewart 1 minutes ago [-]
>Iran is becoming the new regional power
Is that what the Iranian state media is telling you?
inglor_cz 27 minutes ago [-]
Given the geostrategic situation there, either the West or Iran meddles in Iraq. Full sovereignty is hard to achieve in such a neighbourhood unless you are one of the traditional powers (Iran, Turkey).
anovikov 13 minutes ago [-]
One thing that people for some reason don't like to voice out loud: America won this way. Maybe it has become politically incorrect to even voice anything positive at all, like doomerism grasped all sides of society?
Baath party is destroyed and no longer exists, political and underlying ethnic groups that propped it up are deeply marginalised and sidelined, political regime in place in Iraq is exactly the one America wanted to have there, and it WORKS: they have regular competitive elections (in the strictest sense of it: before the elections, no one can predict results in advance) and a well-functioning civil society where people can advocate for, or protest against things without it devolving to tribalism (not "Shia vs Sunni" riots or similar). Iraq as it currently is, is created by America and stands firmly on its feet.
w3ll_w3ll_w3ll 10 minutes ago [-]
Yeah sure, really stable, apart from Islamic State invasion of Iraq between 2014 and 2017.
shevy-java 42 minutes ago [-]
Have they finally found weapons of mass destruction there? I remember a certain powerpoint presentation ...
Kind of crazy to lead with this. Talking about the Americans victims (mostly military) and ignoring the local Iraqi victims (mostly civilians).
I am curious what did the world gain from this?
Distracting people with the oil excuse gives cover to ppl who need it least.
Seems "he tried to kill my father, now there's an excuse to take him out and turn his country into a democracy in the region, and a US-aligned entity" explains most of it.
Much like Trump, it's pettiness and prestige and a notion of more points on the board. (Though Trump did in fact attack Venezuela for oil, or possibly more so just to publicly boast about taking their oil and seem strong to his fans.)
I am not even necessarily disagreeing with it (I lean very anti-Iran and slightly geopolitically neoconservative) but the tone is not at all neutral and makes no mention of the possible downsides of troops staying in Iraq after decades.
Perhaps the US are trying not even to acknowledge it. A reputable newspaper would normally include "the Department of War was contacted for comment" but maybe that's not appropriate for Reuters.
We have too many labels. That’s not good for a species which hates others based on different labels.
It reports on some reactions.
For instance:
> US forces leave country where 4,500 of them died in worst US war of 21st century
I am not even certain that this war was worse than the Afghanistan war. Perhaps the Iraq war was objectively worse, but since the sudden withdrawal in Afghanistan, leaving the Taliban in charge, I am not so sure which war was worse. I am not even sure how to qualify it, so Reuters stating this was the worst war is ... indeed a strange label to use. Wasn't Reuters indeed more objective in the past? And with that I mean objective at all times, not white-washing or black-washing.
I now finished reading the article and it indeed seems op-ed. The reader now thinks that the war against Iran must continue. I still fail to understand why the USA invaded the area. Other than some making enormous profits, of course. If 911 was used as a rationale, why was not Saudi Arabia attacked?
Now, there are certainly other axis along which you can judge a war.
Iraq was 4500 dead for one Texan trying to imitate daddy while listening to his CEO buddies.
https://thecradle.co/articles/why-does-the-us-still-control-...
https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/us-control-venezuelan-oil-revenue-...
Classic Chappelle show skit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFERPDn3i0o
Is that what the Iranian state media is telling you?
Baath party is destroyed and no longer exists, political and underlying ethnic groups that propped it up are deeply marginalised and sidelined, political regime in place in Iraq is exactly the one America wanted to have there, and it WORKS: they have regular competitive elections (in the strictest sense of it: before the elections, no one can predict results in advance) and a well-functioning civil society where people can advocate for, or protest against things without it devolving to tribalism (not "Shia vs Sunni" riots or similar). Iraq as it currently is, is created by America and stands firmly on its feet.
https://web.archive.org/web/20150218235400/https://2001-2009...
Although the loss of that school is quite saddening :/ poor girls
I remember a speech at the UN, with a certain vial being held..
The last 5 years will be 5 chapters in history books