7 ms·

Because the government is backed by Iran (puppet) and it's fully corrupt?

yongjik 7y ago
Wait, didn't America wage a war to install a pro-American government in Iraq? Are they somehow pro-American and pro-Iran at the same time, or did they switch alliances while nobody in the west was paying attention?
- Ahmed90 7y ago
  Half these Pro-Americans used to hide in Iran before the war, America got outplayed when it comes to the Iraqi government lol
  - GhettoMaestro 7y ago
    As an American, I am curious to hear more about how we were "outplayed" re the Iraqi Gov. Thanks in advance.
    - Ahmed90 7y ago
      They got in, shot down Saddam, got a bunch of anti-Saddam parties and gave them power... most of them were hiding in Iran or worked with Iran during the Iraq/Iran war they didn't understand the powerplay by Iran, they kept struggling with troops in or out whos who etc... withdrawn and left the incompetent government alone, gave Iran, even more, breathing space to take over
    - parsimo2010 7y ago
      1. USA ousts Saddam Hussein, and is obligated to help Iraq transition to a democratic government (because they invasion was done under the pretext of liberating a country from a mad dictator with weapons of mass destruction, instead of the commonly cited argument of securing resources for the American empire). 2. USA backs a candidate and initially gets a government elected that is favorable to the USA. However, these politicians turn out to be kind of scummy and screw up just about everything. 3. Iran realizes that elections can be influenced (they watched the USA influence the first election), and having lots of paramilitary type forces that are trained in information operations, decides to capitalize. They flood across the porous border to spread propaganda (the current scumbags in government make it so the Iranian propaganda doesn't even have to lie, it just has to point out how much the current guys suck). 4. Iraqi citizens, growing sick of the crappy politicians they elected initially, start listening to the propaganda and elect a government friendly to Iran. This is the first time this has happened in a long time, Iraq has not been allies with Iran for several decades. 5. End result- USA invades, eventually loses influence to Iran. The global hegemony USA got outplayed by a regional hegemony because they backed unethical and incompetent sellouts rather than finding a good candidate.
      - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
        I fail to see how this isn't a win for the US. The Iraqis get a less terrible government no matter who it is and we get to wash our hands of the situation without pissing off Israel or the Saudis.
        parsimo2010 7y ago
        It's not a win for the USA because one of their enemies gained influence in the region. It's really as simple as that, but: The invasion also led to the rise of ISIS, which is widely seen as a embarrassment to the USA because they were supposed to be rebuilding a country and ended up allowing a large and deadly terrorist group to form under their noses. And just to add on, there are literal losses as well. When the Iraqi army retreated from Mosul in 2014, they left behind a bunch of US supplied equipment that ISIS took control of. Iraq has "lost" at least a billion dollars of military equipment in recent years, most of which has been taken by ISIS and enabled terrorism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Mosul https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Mosul https://www.newsweek.com/us-military-lost-track-1-billion-worth-weapons-and-equipment-report-614391 https://www.newsweek.com/us-military-lost-track-1-billion-wo...
        perl4ever 7y ago
        "Iraq has "lost" at least a billion dollars of military equipment in recent years" That's...one tenth of one percent of the cost (to the US) of the war.
        lawnchair_larry 7y ago
        That’s the wrong measure by a long shot. If I lose a $2000 rifle, and that rifle is then used to massacre a school, was the loss a mere $2000?
        perl4ever 7y ago
        If you lost a thousand $2000 rifles, then the loss was a "mere" 0.1%. Plus or minus an order of magnitude (or two). I mean, like, you are implying the other 99.9% of spending on the war was harmless or salutary?
- javagram 7y ago
  The Iraqi elections are democratic (somewhat? I don’t know the level of Iranian influence) and not controlled by the USA.
  - heyiforgotmypwd 7y ago
    "Democratic" is a duplicitous, ambiguous word: - to the people, it means a government that is less corrupt and more accountable to do the people's work; a semi-meritocracy. - in diplomatic circles, it means whatever Americans and their rich owner-class want. There aren't very many democratic countries allowed; they're usually small and don't have a resource curse.
    - ivalm 7y ago
      Iraq is an example of country with government that "Americans and their rich owner-class" definitely didn't want. It's democratic in the actual sense of the word: -- It's a government that got majority of the vote. This has little to do with corruption/accountability, iraqis tend to vote along sectarian lines. There are more shia, they are better organized, they win.
      - astronautjones 7y ago
        the shia are also protesting fwiw https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/10/iraqi-police-open-fire-day-protests-hit-baghdad-191002120630933.html https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/10/iraqi-police-open-fir...
- mc32 7y ago
  Probably a bit of “honne & tatemae”
- Maultasche 7y ago
  The initial government was pro-American, but the consequence of pushing a country to have democratic elections is that they sometimes elect people that you don't like. When you want a country to be free and democratic, you can't also tell them who to elect. You have to choose one or the other. The United States has often chosen the latter while pretending to want the former, but at least with Iraq they seem to be mostly hands off (in recent years).
  - throwaway66920 7y ago
    But the people are now protesting the Iranian favoring government?
    - astronautjones 7y ago
      useful quick watch: https://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestory/2019/10/iraqis-protesting-government-191002171055755.html https://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestory/2019/10/ira...
  - steve19 7y ago
    According to Wikipedia the Muslim population of the country is split 64–69% Shia and 29-34% Sunni. The Sunni minority once ruled but now the Shia majority rule and the government is said to be aligned with Shia-majority Iran.
    - dingoegret 7y ago
      Please don't bring up the Sunni Shia schism. It's a cliche narrative and it serves to grossly simplify problems in the country.
  - baddox 7y ago
    > The United States has often chosen the latter Seems like it's usually a government that's popular with its people that gets overthrown and replaced by a "democratic" government.
- munk-a 7y ago
  On the ground it might be more helpful to think of Pro-Saudi vs. Pro-Iran rather than involving America directly - those two political hegemonies are much more relevant to locals.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- ssvss 7y ago
  America waged war based on information provided by a Iraqi minister, who was later found to be working for Iranian interests. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Chalabi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Chalabi IRGC had also announced the Syria as its 35th province. https://carnegieendowment.org/2013/08/27/iran-s-unwavering-support-to-assad-s-syria-pub-52779 https://carnegieendowment.org/2013/08/27/iran-s-unwavering-s... IRGC and Russian bombing had driven out most of the Sunni's from Southern Syria towards north Syria, close to Turkish borders. and Iran is repopulating the land with Shias from allover from Afghanistan to Lebanon. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/13/irans-syria-project-pushing-population-shifts-to-increase-influence https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/13/irans-syria-pr... IRGC has sort of created a contiguous Shia controlled land mass from Iran, Iraq, Syria to Lebanon. Some geopolitical observers I follow, expect the next will be in Afghanistan, with Afghani Shias against Pakistan controlled Sunni Talibans, as soon as US withdraws from Afghanistan.
- jjcc 7y ago
  The initial goal was set by the policy makers who understand "unknown unknown" very well, along with most mainstream media journalists who share the same ideology/beliefs/cult. However knowing "unknown unknown" prohibit them from knowing "unknown unknown unknown". So the the final result doesn't align with initial intentions. The same mistake is repeated again and again, even today.

Wait, didn't America wage a war to install a pro-American government in Iraq? Are they somehow pro-American and pro-Iran at the same time, or did they switch alliances while nobody in the west was paying attention?

Ahmed90 7y ago
Half these Pro-Americans used to hide in Iran before the war, America got outplayed when it comes to the Iraqi government lol
- GhettoMaestro 7y ago
  As an American, I am curious to hear more about how we were "outplayed" re the Iraqi Gov. Thanks in advance.
  - Ahmed90 7y ago
    They got in, shot down Saddam, got a bunch of anti-Saddam parties and gave them power... most of them were hiding in Iran or worked with Iran during the Iraq/Iran war they didn't understand the powerplay by Iran, they kept struggling with troops in or out whos who etc... withdrawn and left the incompetent government alone, gave Iran, even more, breathing space to take over
  - parsimo2010 7y ago
    1. USA ousts Saddam Hussein, and is obligated to help Iraq transition to a democratic government (because they invasion was done under the pretext of liberating a country from a mad dictator with weapons of mass destruction, instead of the commonly cited argument of securing resources for the American empire). 2. USA backs a candidate and initially gets a government elected that is favorable to the USA. However, these politicians turn out to be kind of scummy and screw up just about everything. 3. Iran realizes that elections can be influenced (they watched the USA influence the first election), and having lots of paramilitary type forces that are trained in information operations, decides to capitalize. They flood across the porous border to spread propaganda (the current scumbags in government make it so the Iranian propaganda doesn't even have to lie, it just has to point out how much the current guys suck). 4. Iraqi citizens, growing sick of the crappy politicians they elected initially, start listening to the propaganda and elect a government friendly to Iran. This is the first time this has happened in a long time, Iraq has not been allies with Iran for several decades. 5. End result- USA invades, eventually loses influence to Iran. The global hegemony USA got outplayed by a regional hegemony because they backed unethical and incompetent sellouts rather than finding a good candidate.
    - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
      I fail to see how this isn't a win for the US. The Iraqis get a less terrible government no matter who it is and we get to wash our hands of the situation without pissing off Israel or the Saudis.
      - parsimo2010 7y ago
        It's not a win for the USA because one of their enemies gained influence in the region. It's really as simple as that, but: The invasion also led to the rise of ISIS, which is widely seen as a embarrassment to the USA because they were supposed to be rebuilding a country and ended up allowing a large and deadly terrorist group to form under their noses. And just to add on, there are literal losses as well. When the Iraqi army retreated from Mosul in 2014, they left behind a bunch of US supplied equipment that ISIS took control of. Iraq has "lost" at least a billion dollars of military equipment in recent years, most of which has been taken by ISIS and enabled terrorism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Mosul https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Mosul https://www.newsweek.com/us-military-lost-track-1-billion-worth-weapons-and-equipment-report-614391 https://www.newsweek.com/us-military-lost-track-1-billion-wo...
        perl4ever 7y ago
        "Iraq has "lost" at least a billion dollars of military equipment in recent years" That's...one tenth of one percent of the cost (to the US) of the war.
        lawnchair_larry 7y ago
        That’s the wrong measure by a long shot. If I lose a $2000 rifle, and that rifle is then used to massacre a school, was the loss a mere $2000?
        perl4ever 7y ago
        If you lost a thousand $2000 rifles, then the loss was a "mere" 0.1%. Plus or minus an order of magnitude (or two). I mean, like, you are implying the other 99.9% of spending on the war was harmless or salutary?
javagram 7y ago
The Iraqi elections are democratic (somewhat? I don’t know the level of Iranian influence) and not controlled by the USA.
- heyiforgotmypwd 7y ago
  "Democratic" is a duplicitous, ambiguous word: - to the people, it means a government that is less corrupt and more accountable to do the people's work; a semi-meritocracy. - in diplomatic circles, it means whatever Americans and their rich owner-class want. There aren't very many democratic countries allowed; they're usually small and don't have a resource curse.
  - ivalm 7y ago
    Iraq is an example of country with government that "Americans and their rich owner-class" definitely didn't want. It's democratic in the actual sense of the word: -- It's a government that got majority of the vote. This has little to do with corruption/accountability, iraqis tend to vote along sectarian lines. There are more shia, they are better organized, they win.
    - astronautjones 7y ago
      the shia are also protesting fwiw https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/10/iraqi-police-open-fire-day-protests-hit-baghdad-191002120630933.html https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/10/iraqi-police-open-fir...
mc32 7y ago
Probably a bit of “honne & tatemae”
Maultasche 7y ago
The initial government was pro-American, but the consequence of pushing a country to have democratic elections is that they sometimes elect people that you don't like. When you want a country to be free and democratic, you can't also tell them who to elect. You have to choose one or the other. The United States has often chosen the latter while pretending to want the former, but at least with Iraq they seem to be mostly hands off (in recent years).
- throwaway66920 7y ago
  But the people are now protesting the Iranian favoring government?
  - astronautjones 7y ago
    useful quick watch: https://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestory/2019/10/iraqis-protesting-government-191002171055755.html https://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestory/2019/10/ira...
- steve19 7y ago
  According to Wikipedia the Muslim population of the country is split 64–69% Shia and 29-34% Sunni. The Sunni minority once ruled but now the Shia majority rule and the government is said to be aligned with Shia-majority Iran.
  - dingoegret 7y ago
    Please don't bring up the Sunni Shia schism. It's a cliche narrative and it serves to grossly simplify problems in the country.
- baddox 7y ago
  > The United States has often chosen the latter Seems like it's usually a government that's popular with its people that gets overthrown and replaced by a "democratic" government.
munk-a 7y ago
On the ground it might be more helpful to think of Pro-Saudi vs. Pro-Iran rather than involving America directly - those two political hegemonies are much more relevant to locals.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
ssvss 7y ago
America waged war based on information provided by a Iraqi minister, who was later found to be working for Iranian interests. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Chalabi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Chalabi IRGC had also announced the Syria as its 35th province. https://carnegieendowment.org/2013/08/27/iran-s-unwavering-support-to-assad-s-syria-pub-52779 https://carnegieendowment.org/2013/08/27/iran-s-unwavering-s... IRGC and Russian bombing had driven out most of the Sunni's from Southern Syria towards north Syria, close to Turkish borders. and Iran is repopulating the land with Shias from allover from Afghanistan to Lebanon. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/13/irans-syria-project-pushing-population-shifts-to-increase-influence https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/13/irans-syria-pr... IRGC has sort of created a contiguous Shia controlled land mass from Iran, Iraq, Syria to Lebanon. Some geopolitical observers I follow, expect the next will be in Afghanistan, with Afghani Shias against Pakistan controlled Sunni Talibans, as soon as US withdraws from Afghanistan.
jjcc 7y ago
The initial goal was set by the policy makers who understand "unknown unknown" very well, along with most mainstream media journalists who share the same ideology/beliefs/cult. However knowing "unknown unknown" prohibit them from knowing "unknown unknown unknown". So the the final result doesn't align with initial intentions. The same mistake is repeated again and again, even today.