Is Iraq now American?

To correct a erroneous idea that everyone has, the United States is not attacking Iraq to grab Iraq's oil, but to maintain the hegemony of the dollar currency; once Iraq is in chaos, there will be no way to realize OPEC's idea of organizing a unified OPEC that OPEC wants, and once OPEC's wish can be realized, it is very likely that they will issue their own unified currency in order to obtain greater benefits, and this currency will be the only currency in the world that can challenge the dollar and the euro, and it can threaten the United States in the short term Supremacy.

And if so much oil from Iraq falls into the hands of the Americans, then the United States will immediately become the target of public criticism, and the Europeans will not be relieved, and Japan will not be relieved.

Therefore, the United States made such a masterpiece, winning the war in Iraq, but not completely occupying Iraq, but letting Iraq be chaotic, so as to realize its hope of continuing its dollar status, and did not become the target of public criticism, and the risk it took was greatly reduced.

There is also the question, will the United States let Iraq go into chaos forever?

No, the United States is now trying to find a more peaceful, more covert approach, such as pressure on the yuan, let the renminbi appreciate, in fact, the drunkard does not mean to drink, his real idea is to let China open the domestic dollar market, everyone knows that the dollar is not allowed to circulate freely in the country. Once China accepts the dollar, China's economic problems are basically over, and once the dollar is accepted by such a large market, then there is no need to peg the dollar to oil, but the dream of the renminbi rising to the world currency is also over, and it is impossible to realize.

1。Generally, the American oil company workplace.

2。No. 3。Squeeze the oil dry.

The nonsense on the first floor Iraq fought in the war and didn't even have an Internet line, and how to go online, and when I went out, there were bombs, and the Chinese there died a long time ago, and the Iraqi ** controlled room supported by the United States was controlled by the United States.

Yes, I'm in the northern Iraqi city of Sulaymaniyah right now.

Puppet**, the garrison is mainly reduced to military advisers.

This is like the situation of the puppet Manchukuo, the death of the country, that is, the annexation of the country, just like the Korean Peninsula in World War II.

Don't be naïve, all US troops have already withdrawn from Iraq, and the current ** in Iraq was elected by the Iraqi people themselves. These are all slaves of the country, so what other country is not a slave?

1.The United States did not occupy Iraq, it has withdrawn its troops from Iraq, and Iraq has a new democratically elected **, the US military has only overthrown the Saddam regime, and the new regime is just inclined to the United States;

2.In fact, the term slave rarely appears in modern politics, and in the new international order after World War II, it is rare for a country to directly annex a country.

If one country is garrisoned by another country, it is not truly sovereign and complete! For example, Japan, South Korea! This garrison said that it was to help, and it was going to suffer in the economy!

It can be regarded as yes, just like the Manchurian State in the past, the Japanese were the emperor, and now the United States is the emperor, but the United States is just a little more skillful.

Not occupied. Sovereignty or independence. It's not a dead slave.

It is not occupied, but the right to speak is in the United States.

Nominally, the Americans' fighting forces have withdrawn, but much of Iraq's affairs are still controlled by the Americans. If the sovereignty of a country is controlled by another country and not independent, then the people of that country are de facto slaves. The key here is whether the sovereignty is independent or not.

Now it's a relationship of mutual use, and it's a bit of a feeling that no one can be separated from the other!

No, Iraq's relationship with the United States today is what Western Europe had with the United States during the Cold War in the last century. The United States uses economic aid to manipulate Iraq's economic lifeline, so as to make Iraq's policy as biased as much as possible towards the United States, but it will not incorporate Iraq into the United States, because that does not conform to the norms of international law led by the United States after World War II, and will also give other countries a political pretext to attack the United States, prompting other countries to unite and resist the United States.

Iraq is an independent and sovereign State, which belongs only to Iraq itself.

Of course not, otherwise there would be no war or something.

Only the political power and resources in Iraq now belong to the United States, but the land and the hearts and minds of the people do not belong to the United States.

The purpose of the United States is to make Iraq settle oil in dollars and Saddam Hussein in euros, so it is K

The United States is not Russia, so it will not do the stupid thing of directly annexing the territory of other countries.

The United States has withdrawn its troops, do you say? Of course not.

The United States now relies on powerful military deterrence, and has turned Iraq into its vassal, that is, its former colony.

From a strategic point of view, the stationing of US troops in Iraq can deter the Gulf and peek into the energy resources of the Middle East.

No. Now it's the democratically elected ** specific management of Iraq, and the United States is only giving its opinion as an adviser. This kind of cooperation is very common, such as Sino-US relations during the Liberation War, South Korea-US relations, Japan-US relations, and so on!

Iraq has long been under the control of Iraq's new **, and the United States has now withdrawn all its troops from Iraq.

Yes! On the surface, US troops have withdrawn from Iraq, but in reality the powers of the Iraqi government are still under the control of the United States. For example, the distribution of power within Iraq, diplomacy, and especially the two most important aspects of power for a country - defense and energy.

Iraq's national defense capability is still very weak so far, and it basically has to rely on the so-called "advisory group" of the US military to "guide" it with full authority. Although the "share" of the oil industry, which is the backbone of Iraq's economy, is not large for the United States to extract from its total imports, the distribution and control of mining areas, as well as key parameters such as daily output, are still up to the mold guys.

That's right, the Americans are the real bosses of Iraq.

At the end of 2015, Afghanistan and Iraq were largely controlled by the United States, but there was some control over them.

First of all, Afghanistan, because the social system of Afghanistan is still tribal, many international observers referred to him as the mayor of Kabul during the first ** Karzai period in Afghanistan, which means that the remote areas of Afghanistan are basically powerless. At present, al-Qaeda and the Taliban are still active in the Pashtun region of southern Afghanistan, and the US military is even unable to move an inch in many places, such as the famous Sangjin area, where there is an isolated stronghold that the coalition forces have nothing to do.

The second is Iraq, where the 2014 ISIS invasion has made peace a joke in the international community. Now the Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds in Iraq are in a mess, and ISIS**** is even gaining a foothold. And other countries are following suit in the name of counter-terrorism.

So, if the U.S. strategy is total control, then there is no doubt that the U.S. has failed. But if what the United States wants is to destabilize the situation, profit from it, or even preserve the petro-dollar system by attacking Iraq, then the United States controls at least part of the two countries.

The United States has set up a lot of military bases in the two countries, which means that it is fundamentally controlled, and as for whether there is a civil war in these two countries, the United States does not care at all, and the United States will not absolutely support the puppet regime it supports, as long as it does not threaten its military bases, how can it care about the life and death of the people of other countries, and the more fierce your civil war is, the happier it will be.

Since these two countries and Saudi Arabia have established many military bases, the United States has formed a flank attack on Iran from three directions, and I am afraid that Iran will sooner or later become a place of war.

The United States proceeds for the sake of interests and hegemony, and when they come to the first place, there will be turmoil, the source of all disasters. In addition to the army, the United States still has people to suppress it, and there are people to check and balance its fighter planes, and its naval power is not its opponent when it gathers all the naval forces in the world, so it is rampant to the point of lawlessness.

The United States wants to control these two countries, and it's just a fool's dream, because the United States shouldn't have desperately sent troops to Iraq and Afghanistan in the first place, you know, the United States spends hundreds of millions of dollars a year on fighting in these two countries, but what is it for? Although the United States has supported the local **, but Iraq and Afghanistan are the hometowns of the **** As soon as the United States leaves, those ** will fall soon You must know that the United States is not a good thing in the eyes of Middle Easterners Simply put, what the United States got in Iraq and Afghanistan is not a victory of victory, not a defeat of defeat That is to say, the United States has consumed tens of billions of combat funds in a few years for the short ** of Iraq and Afghanistan As soon as the United States leaves, civil war will break out in Iraq and Afghanistan in order to support a few years of ** And with tens of billions of dollars, no matter how you look at it, it's a loss, and the U.S. doesn't get anything else, so what the U.S. got in Iraq and Afghanistan was not a victory, not a defeat.

** Listen or not, the United States does not know.

All I know is that the exploitation rights of Iraq's largest oil fields have fallen into the hands of PetroChina, and after the end of the Iraq war, the proportion of Iraq's oil exports to China has increased, while exports to the United States have declined.

The countries that China imports the most oil from are Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran and Libya. China's dependence on Middle Eastern oil rises to 60%.

The countries that import the most oil from the United States are Canada, Mexico, Brazil, and Saudi Arabia. U.S. dependence on Middle Eastern oil has fallen to 18 percent.

The remarks that the United States is fighting a war over oil are inherently groundless and are the basic tone of "conspiracy theories."

Afghanistan, which is a warlord in power, has weak control, has a poor popular base, and is strongly supported by the United States, but it has been ineffective on many issues, and it is very corrupt, and it is almost certain that it will soon fall once the US troops are withdrawn. The problem in Iraq is a little more complicated, Sunnis (orthodox), Shiites (separatism), Kurds, Sunnis bullied Shiites in the Saddam era, and now Shiites are in power with the help of the Americans to liquidate the Sunnis, Kurds are mostly Sunnis, but they are self-contained, with separatist tendencies, intending to establish an independent "Republic of Kurdistan" in Kurdish-populated areas on the border between Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria. The United States had been using the Kurds to contain Iraq before the war, and the northern "no-fly zone" was established from this, but it had to take into account the opinions of Turkey's allies.

In general, while both countries are U.S.-backed regimes, neither is entirely controlled by the U.S.