The drastic Baghdad decision came after on Monday a massive blast ripped through a neighborhood in the city, which Iraqi officials believe was the result of an Israeli strike on a pro-Iranian militia ammunition depot.

They should not be hosting an Iranian munitions dump. Iran has no strategic interest in Iraq to even justify it. No one wants to see Iraq turn into an Iranian missile base like Lebanon or Syria.

I see the Iraqi objection based on their sovereignty. But hosting that missile storage alone had already compromised their sovereignty.

I see the Iraqi objection based on their sovereignty. But hosting that missile storage alone had already compromised their sovereignty.

Who's to say? Certainly Iran wouldn't be storing munitions in Iraq without Iraq's approval.

Who's to say? Certainly Iran wouldn't be storing munitions in Iraq without Iraq's approval.

It certainly sounds like Iraq is switching sides from the coalition which delivered it from ISIS and is now orienting toward Iran.

Iraq is the most vulnerable state to Iranian appeals. It is a majority Shi'a country. And so is Iran. Their enemies are all the Sunni Arab states (except Qatar).

If it comes to war, missile stockpiles will be targeted early. Also, Israel is well-known for striking missiles from Iran, having done so repeatedly. Israel bombed Syria's shake-and-bake nuclear reactor that was apparently supplied as a joint project between North Korea and Iran. Israel also bombed Saddam's Osirik reactor.

Iraq should consider what may happen if they continue to aid Iran against Israel. Israel has demonstrated many times an expertise in making their enemies regret their choice to attack or threaten Israel.

Iraq should consider what may happen if they continue to aid Iran against Israel. Israel has demonstrated many times an expertise in making their enemies regret their choice to attack or threaten Israel.

But weren't you just lamenting Iraq's loss of sovereignty earlier in the thread?

How is it that Israel should be able to influence Iraqi policies, but not Iran?

It certainly sounds like Iraq is switching sides from the coalition which delivered it from ISIS and is now orienting toward Iran.

You got it completely wrong. The coalition delivered Iraq from the secular Sunni government and allowed Shia pro-Iranian majority to take over.

ISIS is Sunni, but it was suppressed by Saddam Hussein secularists.

Israel has demonstrated many times an expertise in making their enemies regret their choice to attack or threaten Israel.

Especially in 2006 Lebanon war.

How is it that Israel should be able to influence Iraqi policies, but not Iran?

Because Iran is an evil terrorist state run by kooks. Israel is a democracy run by civilized good people. How can you equate Iran who arrests women for attending a soccer match with Israel who doesn't act like the asshole Iranians.

Would you rather live in Iran or Israel?

Would you rather live in Iran or Israel?

It depends who you are. LGBT activist will chose the second, the devout Shia will chose the first.

Have you been to either country?

Have you been to Poland?

No I haven't been to either country.

It shows.

Have you been to Poland?

Off the topic.

It depends who you are. LGBT activist will chose the second

So Israel doesn't murder their citizens if they are faggots. Good for them. Iran does murder faggots. Faggots are pretty much useless but no one should be murdered. Ridiculing correcting making fun of laughing at telling them they are sickos is ok.

Have you been to Poland?

No I haven't been to Poland.

I've been to Germany, Austria, Canada and Mexico. That is the extent of my foreign travels.

Faggots are pretty much useless but no one should be murdered.

It is very kind of you. You should move to Saudi Arabia.

Off the topic.

Yes we are. It veered off long ago. That is ok. That is the way it goes sometimes. Sometimes something is said that relates to the original subject. Then it gets further and further from the topic posted.

That is ok. Just like a normal conversation.

Have you been to Poland?

No I haven't been to Poland.

Talking to yourself?

It is very kind of you.

Thank You I am a kind person. Remember that.

Talking to yourself?

No I am talking to a Polack.

How many polacks does it take to post on a forum?

Talking to yourself? No I am talking to a Polack.

Are you a rube or a dolt?

The coalition delivered Iraq from the secular Sunni government and allowed Shia pro-Iranian majority to take over.

Well...Iraq was governed by led by Saddam and his gang of ruthless Sunni pols and cronies from Iraq's Sunni regions, especially the area where Saddam came from. They were supported by the Christian and Sunni minority and some of the Kurds (at least until Saddam gassed some supposedly disloyal Kurds).

But you are right that we destroyed the social fabric of Iraq.

And we've allowed the Saudis and Qataris to do the same thing to Syria, so the French and Brits could get natural gas pipelines into the EU. Which would end the Russian natural gas monopoly in the EU and establish a competitive market and much lower energy costs to the EU.

Syria is different from Iraq in that it was run by a minority of Alawite leadership with support from Shi'a and Christian minorities, all against a Sunni majority.

Being outside the region and having little grounding toward Mideast culture and religions, it's hard to remember all the details and cross-currents of all the former colonies of the British empire that we have to deal with.

But you are right that we destroyed the social fabric of Iraq.

Yes and not. Now the Shia majority is free to govern their country. The time of forced secularism and anti-Iranian policy ended.

having little grounding toward Mideast culture and religions, it's hard to remember all the details and cross-currents

It is like thinking that the Bible Belt is Catholic, Utah is inhabited by the Quakers and New England is Shinto. All those stupid details are irrelevant and annoying mumbo jumbo. Good humanitarian bombing will make it into a new Switzerland.

Now the Shia majority is free to govern their country.

Or Iran is free to exploit the Iraqi Shi'a to use for their own purposes.

Your remarks earlier on ISIS were accurate in that they were Sunni. They were also elements of Saddam's former military/security/intel agencies. Just as Germany had cause to worry about dispossessed members of the former military after WW I reduced the size of the German army and therefore left a lot of entitled military families at loose ends and helped open the doors to the Nazi element, the end of Saddam left his military/intel/security forces without a job or anywhere to go. And suddenly you have ISIS establishing itself out in the desert regions fighting Assad's forces to break off the eastern part of Syria and moving north-by-northeast inside of Iraq to try to grab and hold the Kirkuk oil fields. Add a bold dash of religious fundamentalism (smashing up ancient artifacts and sites) and some executions and you have a wannabe caliphate, trying to attract Muslim recruits worldwide. "It's the end of the world as we know it and you can enjoy the end in style. Come get your 72 virgins." Of course, they mostly attracted silly unprepared Westerners and a bunch of psychopaths from all over the world. There are psychopaths in every society including Muslims. Islam does tend to reward psychopaths far more than Western societies do.

All those stupid details are irrelevant and annoying mumbo jumbo. Good humanitarian bombing will make it into a new Switzerland.

Welcome to the Empire, comrade.

This is what it all comes down to now today. There is amazing wealth to tap which would benefit every Iraqi.

But that won't serve the purposes of their new masters in Tehran.

Iraq and Iran have been making each other unhappy off and on for some decades.

There is amazing wealth to tap which would benefit every Iraqi.

Are you a socialist? Such amazing wealth should belong to the people and corporations from the more civilized countries. To the people like you for example, don't you agree? Iraqi are savages.

Or Iran is free to exploit the Iraqi Shi'a to use for their own purposes.

No Iranians, no Iraqis should be allowed to exploit anything in this region. Our little brown brothers should submit and obey.

Welcome to the Empire, comrade.

No, thanks. I will leave it to you. Enjoy.

To the people like you for example,

Wow! Here in the US such language is a dog whistle for racism.

Care to define it?

Iraq and Iran have been making each other unhappy off and on for some decades.

And quite a few in the Iraqi Parliament who are quite uncomfortable the Quds seem to be overstaying their visit.

Even Sadr is giving signals of “thanks for all that help when the American devils were in charge, but we got it now.”

Here in the US such language is a dog whistle for racism. Care to define it?

Define what? What are you babbling about?

And quite a few in the Iraqi Parliament who are quite uncomfortable the Quds seem to be overstaying their visit.

I haven't seen any recent reporting on Iran trying to colonize Syria but I recall reporting on it. They recruited fighters for Syria, promising a plot of land (in Syria) to those who would fight to defeat ISIS there. There were earlier reports that Iran was being rather forceful about trying to convert the sizable Alawite population in Syria to Shi'a. Alawites are, as you probably know, sort of not accepted to Shi'a and Sunni and some question whether they are even Muslim. So, maybe Alawites are considered heretic by Sunni and Shi'a, kind of like how, say, Mormons used to be regarded by both Catholics and Protestants here in America. Anyway, that's how I try to remember Who's Who in the region. Alawites are sizable and numerous in Syria but their beliefs are not widely accepted as being mainstream Islam.

Maybe America should start copying this tactic. "Sign up for the Army and go fight in Afghanistan. When you win our crusade for peace in Afghanistan, you'll get 40 acres of Afghanistan and ten goats. We promise!".

I recall reporting on it.

I recall reporting on WMDs in Iraq, incubator babies and shredders. Do you?

I recall reporting on WMDs in Iraq, incubator babies and shredders. Do you?

The reports of WMD were certainly there which stretched back at least 10 years prior to our invasion. The same was true of reporting from human rights organizations about shredders (or wood chippers) being a favorite disposal method of Saddam's secret police.

The incubators are something you are misremembering. Those are associated with Gulf War I when we chased Saddam out of Kuwait. The daughter of the Kuwait ambassador just happened to be the person who accused Saddam's forces of dumping babies out of incubators and rushing the incubators back to Iraq. A lot of people still harbor doubts as to whether this was all just propaganda and no one seems to be able to find any Kuwaiti doctors or hospital administrators who say that their incubators got stolen. Surely there should be some witnesses to tell us steadfastly that their incubators got stolen but, so far, nada.

When you win our crusade for peace in Afghanistan, you'll get 40 acres of Afghanistan and ten goats. We promise!".

That's not 'sweetening the pot' much. :)

So many stories from the region, you can't get very complete reporting on. It's very hard to get informed and stay informed. I don't think the Brit papers do much better than ours and the EU media is even worse than our own.

dumping babies out of incubators and rushing the incubators back to Iraq. A lot of people still harbor doubts as to whether this was all just propaganda

Do you?

Do you?

Of course. It was a propaganda exercise, pretty successful. I'm pretty certain that State Dept. was in on it, probably planned it. They co-opted the Kuwaiti ambassador's daughter to do it, provided technical means for her pleas for help and the war crimes committed by the Iraqis. Of which some of them were clearly lies.

It was a propaganda exercise, pretty successful.

I wonder what are the consequences of persuading lower IQ segment of population (even majority) and alienating those with higher IQ?

I wonder what are the consequences of persuading lower IQ segment of population (even majority) and alienating those with higher IQ?

Ever seen the movie Idiocracy? Something like that.

Obviously, you do have some notion of how a government-sponsored propaganda campaign does affect politics here in America just as it does in other countries.

" I wonder what are the consequences of persuading lower IQ segment of population (even majority) and alienating those with higher IQ?"

Ever seen the movie Idiocracy? Something like that.

Yes, of course. But I am wondering about another aspect. If you address a crowd, what is better - to convince a stupider majority or smarter minority? What are the benefits and disadvantages of the first and second approach?

I know that in our times the "democratic" reverence toward majority holds powerful sway over our minds, but what is the sober, real world evaluation?

If you address a crowd, what is better - to convince a stupider majority or smarter minority? What are the benefits and disadvantages of the first and second approach?

Well, the smart political pros say you need to focus on the political elite (pols, media figures, show biz celebs, business people, academics). If you capture the thought leaders for your cause, the sheep will follow.

But your plans can go awry when the sheep get tired of the sham and elect some guy like Trump anyway.