Speaking to reporters on Thursday, Gen. Kenneth McKenzie, the head of Central Command, claimed that he believes Iraq wants the US troops to stay in the country, noting that no directive has been made to withdraw.
“The government of Iraq wants us to stay,” McKenzie insisted, “to continue the fight against ISIS.” These claims fly in the face of a lot of evidence to the contrary, as Iraq’s parliament voted unanimously to expel the US troops last year.
Protesters were already agitating about politicians dominated by foreign officials. The US assassination of Gen. Suleimani in Baghdad fueled calls for the US to leave. The US never acknowledged this but now are facing talk of broad strategic negotiations on future US ties.
The expectation from Iraq is that “everything” is on the table, and this is another indication that the US isn’t going in to such talks in good faith, trying to frame the dialogue before it happens to suggest the US is, as ever, “welcomed” in its occupation.
“a portion of Iraq’s parliament voted unanimously to expel the US troops last year”
Fixed, no charge.
As long as the portion remaining was large enough to form a legal quorum, the original writeup is accurate. Parliament members routinely skip votes and it is up to them to show up to vote if they are against the measure under consideration.
I didn’t say there was no legal quorum.
I just pointed out that the unanimity was among part of the parliament, not all of the parliament.
But votes are almost always among parts of parliaments. Members may choose to miss votes for various reasons, including political ones, as in this case.
However, as long as it’s a legal vote, then it’s a vote and I don’t see why you would insist on a qualification to be added to the description of unanimity. The members who disagreed with the vote could have shown up and voted (as Babara Lee famously did alone on the PATRIOT vote in 01 thus robbing it of unanimous passage … she could have easily just skipped the vote) and shown that opinion was Not unanimous; but they did not.
I don’t “insist on a qualification.” I simply state an irrefutable fact.
Not a single vote for the US troops to stay. That seems to be fairly unambiguous but US generals are not known for their intelligence.
Neither are their soldiers .
True, there was not a single vote for the US troops to stay.
But it was still a unanimous vote of part of the parliament, not of the parliament. A substantial part of parliament was boycotting the proceedings that day.
Why are you insisting on such a nonsense relative “fact”, Thomas?
Are you trolling?
I think it is waste of time to discuss your “facts”
If you think something is a waste of time, feel free to not do it.
It’s not a “relative” fact. It’s just a fact.
Do I WISH that the Iraqi parliament had been unanimous in demanding that the US leave? Yes I do.
WAS the Iraqi parliament unanimous in its demand that the US leave? No, they weren’t. One faction pulled a stunt while another faction was boycotting proceedings. It was a GOOD stunt in terms of producing some publicity for the demand, and if only they’d had a prime minister who acted with them and took the ACTUAL action that created a treaty requirement for the US to leave, it would have clarified things (the US would have either left or been in violation). But it was what it was,not what you apparently want it to have been.