The Iraq Liberation Act 1998

[Gauvin]

The Iraq Liberation Act passed overwhelmingly through Congress in 1998 and was supported by both parties. When George W. Bush decided to bring democracy to Iraq, the Democrats at first supported it, but when public opinion turned against the war, the Democrats abandoned their commitment to a democratic Iraq. Do the Republicans have more integrity for sticking to their commitment to a democratic Iraq in spite of popular opinion? Did the democrats change their minds about Iraq when it became unpopular, and when they could use the anti-war sentiment to get more votes, knowing that it would be against the motion they supported?

Discuss.

[Erik]

Poll: Did the Democrats maintain their integrity on Iraq?

Why wouldn't they, based on that video?

[Gauvin]

Why wouldn't they, based on that video?

What? The video is from 1998.

[Erik]

What? The video is from 1998.

Yes.

My question is: what is this video from 1998 supposed to say about the integrity of the Democratic party?
I don't get it.

[Gauvin]

Yes.

My question is: what is this video from 1998 supposed to say about the integrity of the Democratic party?
I don't get it.

They abandoned their commitment to a democratic Iraq, they turned on George W. Bush and the Republicans when they brought democracy to Iraq.

This speech is reminiscent of nearly everything George W. Bush said leading into the War in Iraq. And now, the democrats are acting as if they were against bringing democracy to Iraq in the first place.

For more information read my first post again.

[Rapax]

Well I guess the difference is that Billy Boy didn't stumble into Iraq with no plan and against world opinion.
I assume you're going with a "the end justifies the means" approach but I don't think that's how the Democrats saw it in 1998, so this strange comparison is moot.

[Stevcho the Serb]

Can anyone tell me how can i join US army in afghanistan ?

[Yuri Orlov]

Off-topicness deleted

[André Masséna]

The Democrats at as a whole lost my support when they voted to not supply American soldiers with more armor and heavier vehicles in 2007, in that half assed attempt to end the war that we all knew would not work.

[Winter]

The Democrats at as a whole lost my support when they voted to not supply American soldiers with more armor and heavier vehicles in 2007, in that half assed attempt to end the war that we all knew would not work.

If I remember correctly your precious McCain threatened to vote against a funding bill just because there was a timeline in it. John McCain lost my support when he threatened not to fund American soldiers in a half assed attempt to extend the war. (Actually a lot earlier, but isn't it fun to spin things?)

[Каие]

A democratic free nation promising to overthrow violently another government, does not show integrity. So this point is moot, I think.

Integrity.

firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values

[Gauvin]

A democratic free nation promising to overthrow violently another government, does not show integrity. So this point is moot, I think.

When Bill Clinton stated he supported Iraqi "opposition" who do you think he meant? the Girl Scouts? He meant the Peshmerga, and other democratic militias within Iraq, those who would overthrow the baathist regime. The Peshmerga btw, were fighting side-by-side with the Americans since the beginning of the war, and is oft neglected by the anti-war movement!

Sadly, this "Iraq Liberation Act" has very little relevance currently, and was simply dug up in a desperate attempt to get rid of the Democrats "integrity".

How is the Iraq war not relevent? How is the fact that the democrats signed an act into LAW that they would support, and work towards regime change in Iraq not relevent?

in a desperate attempt to get rid of the Democrats "integrity".

You give me too much credit, and them too little.

Exactly my point, Integrity has nothing to do with this.

Your issue is semantic, it has everything to do with their professional integrity, they passed an act into law, and then abandoned the stated tenents of that Act for partisan reasons.

[The spartan]

How is the Iraq war not relevent? How is the fact that the democrats signed an act into LAW that they would support, and work towards regime change in Iraq not relevent?

Probably because the act was proposed under completely different Administrations, in two completely different ways, and at a completely inappropriate time.

[Gauvin]

Probably because the act was proposed under completely different Administrations, in two completely different ways, and at a completely inappropriate time.

Yes, one time it was under Bill Clinton, and they did nothing to further the Act, then at the other time it was under George W. Bush and he actually did something to further the goals of the act. That's the difference.

I wonder can you name me some more acts that no longer apply? Especially acts that were passed 10 years ago. You're being a very good Christian by forgiving, but don't you think you're stretching it by forgetting?

[The spartan]

Yes, one time it was under Bill Clinton, and they did nothing to further the Act, then at the other time it was under George W. Bush and he actually did something to further the goals of the act. That's the difference.

I wonder can you name me some more acts that no longer apply? Especially acts that were passed 10 years ago. You're being a very good Christian by forgiving, but don't you think you're stretching it by forgetting?

The point is not that the administrations are sequential, it's the fact that they are incredibly different in how they operate. You are generalizing that the Democrats were voting to have a war with Iraq by passing this act, which is not the case at all.

[Siblesz]

Funny how the invasion was already being planned under the Clinton years. It's a tight network of buddies up there.

[Каие]

When Bill Clinton stated he supported Iraqi "opposition" who do you think he meant? the Girl Scouts? He meant the Peshmerga, and other democratic militias within Iraq, those who would overthrow the baathist regime. The Peshmerga btw, were fighting side-by-side with the Americans since the beginning of the war, and is oft neglected by the anti-war movement!

Yeah those Peshmergas did a lovely job of fighting Saddam...in between killing themselves... That just shows further American retardation in Foreign Policy, supporting anyone and everyone despite there obvious inability to comply. Saddam has been putting down American lapdogs for years before that...it could be argued had the US not been interventionist at all there would have been no massacres at all. After all the Americans had no problem supporting the Shah to ensure stability..

Your issue is semantic, it has everything to do with their professional integrity, they passed an act into law, and then abandoned the stated tenents of that Act for partisan reasons.

I age you a definition of Integrity, opposing the war was exactly that.The Iraq war was the most retarded decision in modern history. More so than Vietnam!

[Gauvin]

Yeah those Peshmergas did a lovely job of fighting Saddam...in between killing themselves... That just shows further American retardation in Foreign Policy, supporting anyone and everyone despite there obvious inability to comply.

Be very careful, the Kurds haven't given in to the sectarian violence that has been rampant in IRaq, the didn't kill Sunnis (even though they would have a much greater excuse than the Shia for doing so) and they didn't kill Shia. You don't hear about Kurdish suidice bombs, or Kurds attacking Sunni or Shia mosques, and you never hear of U.S. troops killed in Kurdistan, or by Kurds because the Pershmerga are on the side of the coalition and have been since the beginning of the war. Don't insult these people, they have done a lot to build Iraq and defeat Al-Qaeda. President Talabani is a Kurd who rose to President of Iraq from being a democratic Kurdish militia leader.

The Kurds could've very easily (and no one would've blamed them) fought for independence and refuse to help Iraq rebuild, but they DIDN'T.

I age you a definition of Integrity, opposing the war was exactly that.The Iraq war was the most retarded decision in modern history. More so than Vietnam!

They were willing to support Kurdish militias, but not their own military? Do you really think they thought Kurdish militias could take on Saddam alone? C'mon.

[Каие]

Be very careful, the Kurds haven't given in to the sectarian violence that has been rampant in IRaq, the didn't kill Sunnis (even though they would have a much greater excuse than the Shia for doing so) and they didn't kill Shia. You don't hear about Kurdish suidice bombs, or Kurds attacking Sunni or Shia mosques, and you never hear of U.S. troops killed in Kurdistan, or by Kurds because the Pershmerga are on the side of the coalition and have been since the beginning of the war. Don't insult these people, they have done a lot to build Iraq and defeat Al-Qaeda. President Talabani is a Kurd who rose to President of Iraq from being a democratic Kurdish militia leader.

I reserve the right to criticise any people who had the support of the worlds only super power but decided to fight themselves...the fact they are Kurdish is irrelevant in my judgement.

The Kurds could've very easily (and no one would've blamed them) fought for independence and refuse to help Iraq rebuild, but they DIDN'T.

Iraqi Kurdistan has enjoyed De Facto independence since 2003. Why should they complain?

They were willing to support Kurdish militias, but not their own military? Do you really think they thought Kurdish militias could take on Saddam alone? C'mon.

They didn't support the Military going in the first place, to suggest they don't support their own army is absurd. The decision not to support sending them is completely justified. The pretext to war was the WMD's, not protecting the Iraqi people, becasue had it been about democracy etc. Tony Blair would not have said "Disarm and you can stay". Plus the obvious Iraq was not the worst andmost impressive dictatorship in the region nevermind the world. See the quote and picture in my signature for more details.

[mrmouth]

We have been sponsoring the Kurds and disenfranchised Iraqi generals since the late 80's. In the early to mid 90's, after Desert Storm, the CIA backed out a few hours before a Kurd led coup was to take place. It was comprised of a few thousand Kurds, and multiple Iraqi Generals.

At the last minute the plan was found out by Saddam, so the Generals fled for the most part. Yet the Kurds went along with their plan, which called for them to attack, and distract special republican guard division in the North. Arguably Saddam's most loyal troops. They did so, and just a few thousand Peshmerga in pickup trucks almost completely obliterated a mechanized brigade of the special republican guard.

They were eventually beaten back by reinforcements from the south after Saddam concluded the coup attempt was dead.

So regarless of the Iraqi Liberation Act, Democrats in various committees have signed off on actual attempts to oust Saddam.