US agrees to withdraw from Iraq or to continue to stay?


The US has agreed to withdraw its remaining combat forces from Iraq, at a date to be determined in talks with Baghdad, and remain in the country solely in an advisory and support role against terrorists.

“US forces are in Iraq at the invitation of Iraqi Government to support the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) in their fight against ISIS,” said a joint statement following the “strategic dialogue” between US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and his Iraqi counterpart Fuad Hussein on Wednesday.

“Based on the increasing capacity of the ISF, the parties confirmed that the mission of U.S. and Coalition forces has now transitioned to one focused on training and advisory tasks, thereby allowing for the redeployment of any remaining combat forces from Iraq, with the timing to be established in upcoming technical talks,” the statement added.

The above is quoted from RT. Superficially the US said they agree to withdraw from Iraq after intense pressure from the Iraqi govt, a democratically elected govt, telling them they are not needed and to get out of Iraq.  The excuse of staying in Iraq, after lying about WMD and invaded Iraq, murdered its President Saddam Hussein, was that they were invited by the Iraqi govt to fight ISIS. 

The Iraqi govt has said it plain and clear, get out, they don't need the Americans. What did the agreement above said?

The Americans agreed to get out, when not decided, how many to get out not decided. What is cleared is that the Americans would continue to be in Iraq on an advisory and training role. So, how many Americans would still be in Iraq? 10,000, 50,000?

Are the Iraqis capable of fighting the ISIS? Why must they need the Americans to stay to fight the ISIS? Was this requested by the Iraqis, decided by the Iraqis, or by the Americans?

Poor Iraqis, the Americans once 'invited' themselves into the country would not go without a fight, without being chased out. They are treating Iraq as an American protectorate, a semi colony, and Iraq has to pay them for staying in Iraq.

When would the Arab and Muslim countries be freed from the oppression and control of the Americans? The agreement is as good as no agreement.  The Americans would do a show with a few announcements and pulling out a few soldiers but the bulk of the American soldiers would stay, forever if they could.  What can the Iraqi govt do about it? Nothing, just like Japan and South Korea, semi colonies have no say and have to pay for the American bases and soldiers, 'to protect them'.

What a joke. Another white lie.


Anonymous said...

Iraq risks losing access to a critical government bank account if Baghdad kicks out American forces unilaterally. U.S. State Department warned that the U.S. could shut down Iraq’s access to the country’s central bank account held at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, a move that could jolt Iraq’s already shaky economy.

Iraq maintains government accounts at the New York Fed as an important part of managing the country’s finances, including revenue from oil sales priced in dollars. Loss of access to the accounts could restrict Iraq’s use of that revenue, creating a cash crunch in Iraq’s financial system and constricting a critical lubricant for the economy.

“The U.S. Fed basically has a stranglehold on the entire [Iraqi] economy,” said Shwan Taha, chairman of Iraqi investment bank Rabee Securities.

Restricting Iraqi access to dollars could cause the dinar’s value to fall, as it did in 2015. Such a devaluation could cause broader economic woes as it cuts spending power for workers, companies and the government.

Virgo49 said...

UAssA Mafia Gangsters had their parasites troops in other Countries on their hypocritial goodwill to protect them.

These Stupid Imbeciles countries thought so and so willingly let them stationed in their countries.

Their main Agenda is that they are there and you have to feed their underlinings of parasites Mafia Gangsters to protect their interests and also to contain any nearby countries that are not beholden to them

This is like inviting a Gangster into your house and fed him.

Then same time you feared him as he is a Gangster.

Whenever he feels like screwing your wife or daughter you have also have to comply.

Beholden to his whims and fancies like a slave.

So Stupid and Daft Leaders of colonised slave countries are pampering to their evil plans.

They will always have a boeyman to frighten you.

SSO said...

The Evil Unlawful States of America can never be trusted any more in words and in deeds. Period.

Anonymous said...

China is Paying a High Price for Its Ban on Australian Coal

By Clyde Russell April 9, 2021

China is paying a high price for its unofficial ban on coal imports from Australia, with the cost of domestic and alternative foreign supplies rising for both thermal and coking grades of the fuel.

China, the world’s biggest importer, producer and consumer of coal, has effectively ended imports from Australia, the biggest shipper of coking coal used to make steel and number two in thermal coal used to produce electricity, as part of an ongoing political dispute between the two nations.

The restrictions on imports from Australia came into effect in the second half of last year, resulting in China’s imports dropping to virtually zero in the first two months of this year from a 2020 high of 9.46 million tonnes in June, according to Refinitiv vessel-tracking and port data.

However, China’s consumers of imported coal have been facing higher costs, with prices for alternatives to supplies from Australia, both local and foreign, rising as the market adjusts to the unofficial ban.

In coking coal, the price of free-on-board Australian cargoes has been weakening since the ban was imposed, apart from the usual seasonal gain for the northern hemisphere winter.

The Singapore Exchange contract for Australian coking coal ended at $113.71 a tonne on Thursday, down 18.8% from the $140 that it reached at the start of October, just as the Chinese ban was coming into effect.

If a Chinese importer switched from Australian cargoes to those from the United States, the price difference has entirely reversed since the ban started to affect flows.

Coking coal free-on-board at the U.S. east coast port of Hampton Roads, as assessed by commodity price reporting agency Argus, has surged to $152.75 on Thursday from $114 a tonne at the start of October last year, a gain of 34%.

This means that U.S. coking coal is currently about $39 a tonne more expensive that supplies from Australia, and this doesn’t account for the higher shipping costs given the longer distance from the U.S. east coast to China.

China’s domestic coking coal price has also been gaining since the restrictions on imports from Australia, with Dalian Commodity Exchange futures rising 16% from 1,353 yuan ($206.56) a tonne at the start of October to end at 1,573 yuan on Thursday.

This price isn’t directly comparable to the free-on-board prices in Australia and the United States, as it includes freight and other costs as well as import taxes and duties.

However, it does show that Chinese domestic prices have been pushed higher, partially reflecting the higher cost of imports from sources other than Australia.

China’s neighbor Mongolia has become its biggest supplier of coking coal, meeting 61.7% of imports in the first two months of this year, up from just 17.7% in the same period in 2020, according to official data.

Australia’s share of imports came down to zero from 68.4% in January-February 2020, according to the data, while the United States boosted its share to 9.1% from under 2%, and Canada went to 12.1% from 6.1%.

While coking coal supplies from Mongolia are cheaper than those from seaborne alternatives, it’s believed that they tend to track Chinese domestic prices, meaning it’s likely that they have risen sharply as well, especially once transportation and washing costs are factored in.

Anonymous said...

Domestic thermal coal plan
For thermal coal, the main impact from the ban of Australian cargoes appears to have been strength in Chinese domestic prices, with benchmark coal at Qinhuangdao SH-QHA-TRMCOAL, as assessed by SteelHome, closing at 747 yuan a tonne on Thursday, equivalent to about $114.

While this is down from the winter peak of 1,038 yuan a tonne, it’s still 22% higher than the 612 yuan that prevailed at the start of October.

It’s also believed that the Chinese authorities prefer a domestic thermal coal price in a range between 530 to 580 yuan a tonne, a level said to secure the profitability of mines while keeping electricity prices competitive.

China has turned to Indonesia, the world’s top exporter of thermal coal, to plug some of the gap caused by the absence of Australian cargoes, as well as buying more from Russia and South Africa, two countries that can offer similar quality coal to Australia.

But boosting supplies from these countries appears to have done little to lower domestic prices, meaning Chinese users are still paying substantially more for the fuel than what they were prior to the ban of Australian coal.

Anonymous said...

Those who believe the USA will leave Iraq on the face of this joint statement are seriously mistaken. The USA will find ways and means to remain in Iraq. It is the same old trick being used over and over.

That the withdrawal will be done 'with the timing to be established in upcoming technical talks' is vague and sinister. The Iraqi Government itself is actually being pressured by the Iraqi people to kick the USA out. This statement is probably meant to ease the pressure exerted by the Iraqi people on the Government. Nothing more, nothing less.

And then there is the proviso that the USA will remain in an advisory role to fight 'terror' which is even more telling. In other words, if terrorist activities escalate, then the USA would not have to leave Iraq. Now what is there to prevent the USA from supporting terrorist activities or even ISIS using the CIA, in order to prolong their stay. They have done that before and will do it again.

In Europe it is the Russian bogeyman. In East Asia it is the Chinese bogeyman. In the Middle East it will soon fall on the Iranians to play the part of the bogeyman.

Anonymous said...

The US running dog and spy is here again during the week hours to sneak in to your blog in order to spread anti-China lies, falsehood and hatred.

Anonymous said...

China is paying a high price for it's ban on Australian coal. But China is paying a lower price for Iranian Oil to the tune of US$5 per barrel. Can China import more Iranian Oil to replace coal? Oil is more important than coal and is used in more ways than coal.

Anonymous said...

Does anyone suspect who that US running dog is? Never mind since we know it is a dog.

Anonymous said...

Inviting the devil into the house is easy, getting rid of it is impossible.

Vietnam had to resort to exorcise their country to get rid of the devil. China did the same with the devils under Mao. But in North Korea, the devil still cling furiously on, with the South still under their clutches.

Iraq will suffer the same fate as South Korea. The devil will not leave. And most ridiculously, it must be up to the devil himself to decide whether to leave. That is what they call their 'rule of law'.