Not really. The current US soldiers are there with the permission of the Iraqi government, which is far from a US lapdog. The group in question is a pro-Iranian paramilitary group seeking sectarian domination over Iraq, and sees non-Iranian foreign influence as an obstacle to that.
There was a bit of a minor scrap with some basically unknown fellows called the Mongols, and then there were the quarrels between the Mamluk Sultanate and the Turks, the constant rebellions and civil wars, then the Ottomans and the pseudo-feudal wars, separatist movements, and peasant revolts of that period, which include both prior-to and after the US's founding.
'Centuries after the crusades' - there is not a single century without major upheaval in the region from the factors I mentioned after the crusades. Not. One.
The war continued for some 20 years after that. After that, we get into internal Mamluk wars and unrest. Is that where you want to go? Because while I can do this all night, I won't do it with someone arguing in bad faith because they don't want to admit they were wrong.
Tankies have shit views all over, including that Saddam's Iraq was 'stable' rather than 'oppressive'. Nothing about the illegal invasion of Iraq. But you have fun jerking off to gassed Kurds.
First, you said it was not oppressive, but stable, but nice try.
Second, they very much are. Oppression does not create a stable society, it merely bottles up tensions. But I wouldn't expect a tankie fuck who gets hard over the deaths of minorities to understand that.
But you have fun jerking off to a million dead Iraqis.
Wanna remind me how many Iraqis Saddam's regime killed?
God, imagine being so intellectually and morally bankrupt that you simp for Saddam's Iraq. That's some peak brainrot. I would say tankies never cease to amaze, but honestly, I'm not even a little surprised.