Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Lolberals that were against the Iraq war...


  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

#1 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,028 posts

Posted 16 October 2011 - 03:11 AM

Iraq Liberation Act

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling for regime change in Iraq.[1][2] It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton, and states that it is the policy of the United States to support democratic movements within Iraq. The Act was cited in October 2002 to argue for the authorization of military force against the Iraqi government.
Representative Benjamin A. Gilman (Republican, NY-20) introduced the H.R. 4655 on September 29, 1998. The House of Representatives passed the bill 360 - 38 on October 5, and the Senate passed it with unanimous consent two days later. President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act into law on October 31, 1998.

H.R. 4655

#2 DancingBearly

DancingBearly
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,917 posts
  • LocationQuiet Corner

Posted 16 October 2011 - 10:02 AM

The act called for support of those opposed to Saddam not invasion.

HideSupport for groups opposed to Hussein

This act required the President to designate one or more qualified recipients of assistance, with the primary requirement being opposition to the present Saddam Hussein regime. Such groups should, according to the Act, include a broad spectrum of Iraqi individuals, groups, or both, who are opposed to the Saddam Hussein regime, and are committed to democratic values, respect for human rights, peaceful relations with Iraq's neighbors, maintaining Iraq's territorial integrity, and fostering cooperation among democratic opponents of the Saddam Hussein regime. On February 4, 1999 President Clinton designated seven groups as qualifying for assistance under the Act. (see Note to 22 U.S.C. 2151 and 64 Fed. Reg. 67810).

#3 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,028 posts

Posted 16 October 2011 - 01:50 PM

SEC. 4. ASSISTANCE TO SUPPORT A TRANSITION TO DEMOCRACY IN IRAQ.

(a) AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE- The President may provide to the Iraqi democratic opposition organizations designated in accordance with section 5 the following assistance:
(1) BROADCASTING ASSISTANCE- (A) Grant assistance to such organizations for radio and television broadcasting by such organizations to Iraq.
(B) There is authorized to be appropriated to the United States Information Agency $2,000,000 for fiscal year 1999 to carry out this paragraph.
(2) MILITARY ASSISTANCE- (A) The President is authorized to direct the drawdown of defense articles from the stocks of the Department of Defense, defense services of the Department of Defense, and military education and training for such organizations.
(B) The aggregate value (as defined in section 644(m) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961) of assistance provided under this paragraph may not exceed $97,000,000.

SEC. 5. DESIGNATION OF IRAQI DEMOCRATIC OPPOSITION ORGANIZATION.

(a) INITIAL DESIGNATION- Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall designate one or more Iraqi democratic opposition organizations that the President determines satisfy the criteria set forth in subsection © as eligible to receive assistance under section 4.
(B) DESIGNATION OF ADDITIONAL ORGANIZATIONS- At any time subsequent to the initial designation pursuant to subsection (a), the President may designate one or more additional Iraqi democratic opposition organizations that the President determines satisfy the criteria set forth in subsection © as eligible to receive assistance under section 4.
© CRITERIA FOR DESIGNATION- In designating an organization pursuant to this section, the President shall consider only organizations that--
(1) include a broad spectrum of Iraqi individuals, groups, or both, opposed to the Saddam Hussein regime; and
(2) are committed to democratic values, to respect for human rights, to peaceful relations with Iraq's neighbors, to maintaining Iraq's territorial integrity, and to fostering cooperation among democratic opponents of the Saddam Hussein regime.
(d) NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT- At least 15 days in advance of designating an Iraqi democratic opposition organization pursuant to this section, the President shall notify the congressional committees specified in section 634A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 of his proposed designation in accordance with the procedures applicable to reprogramming notifications under section 634A.

Regime change is regime change. If saddam wasnt our guy originally, and we didnt sell him the weapons he was using, I would wholeheartedly agree with this bill. The fact is, we propped him up until it became our interest to oust him.
It looks like Bush completely overstepped authority in this act, no doubt. But the stage fro regime change, regardless of the way it is done, was set up before Bush jr. got into office. This is along standing foreign policy regarding Iraq. We've been meddling in their business for a long time.

#4 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,028 posts

Posted 16 October 2011 - 01:51 PM

Democrats and republicans alike.

#5 vic

vic
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,913 posts

Posted 16 October 2011 - 02:12 PM

Regime change is regime change. If saddam wasnt our guy originally, and we didnt sell him the weapons he was using, I would wholeheartedly agree with this bill. The fact is, we propped him up until it became our interest to oust him.
It looks like Bush completely overstepped authority in this act, no doubt. But the stage fro regime change, regardless of the way it is done, was set up before Bush jr. got into office. This is along standing foreign policy regarding Iraq. We've been meddling in their business for a long time.


and all the while he could have easily been ousted in 91...i still can't figure for the life of me why this wasn't done when the troops were one day away from seizing control of baghdad and ousting saddam

i assume you made this thread based on this?

http://www.huffingto...tml?ir=Politics

#6 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,028 posts

Posted 16 October 2011 - 02:22 PM

Partially. It happened to pop up during a conversation I got into regarding two party politics. I had an insistent debate that the neoconservatives solely worked on the new american century project. It's simply a US foreign policy item. Both sides are playing it.

#7 vic

vic
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,913 posts

Posted 16 October 2011 - 02:27 PM

gotcha. agreed.

i'm very suspect that this 'withdrawal' is only gonna end up being in preparation for war with iran:sad:

#8 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,028 posts

Posted 16 October 2011 - 02:28 PM

US military denies decision to quit Iraq after 2011
(AFP) – 17 hours ago
WASHINGTON — The Pentagon denied reports Saturday that the US military has given up on plans to keep several thousand troops in Iraq after a year-end deadline, saying talks with Baghdad were still underway.
US and Iraq officials have been negotiating a possible American military training mission of about 4,000 troops after 2011, but a dispute over legal protections for the US forces has jeopardized the security agreement.
The Associated Press, citing unnamed officials, reported that Washington had abandoned the plan for a contingent of several thousand troops and instead would have only a small team of 160 attached to the embassy in Baghdad.
In a statement to reporters, Pentagon press secretary George Little denied the negotiations had collapsed, saying the Obama administration had not made any decisions on a future mission.
"Suggestions that a final decision has been reached about our training relationship with the Iraqi government are wrong. Those discussions are ongoing," Little said.
The United States wanted to build a "robust security relationship" with Iraq and the talks with Baghdad were focused on the "nature of that relationship," he added.
Recent comments from Iraqi and US leaders have exposed a rift over legal protections for American troops, with US officials insisting their soldiers must be shielded from Iraqi prosecutions.
But Iraqi political party leaders have indicated they are not prepared to grant such legal safeguards.
All remaining 41,000 US troops in Iraq must withdraw by the end of the year under a bilateral security accord, which remains in force if no post-2011 deal is agreed.

#9 vic

vic
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,913 posts

Posted 16 October 2011 - 02:31 PM

[quote name='TakeAStepBack']US military denies decision to quit Iraq after 2011
(AFP)

#10 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,974 posts

Posted 16 October 2011 - 02:46 PM

Wasn't the plan/promise to get the troops OUT of there?

#11 vic

vic
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,913 posts

Posted 16 October 2011 - 02:49 PM

Wasn't the plan/promise to get the troops OUT of there?


http://gatheringofth...ead.php?t=64260

:dunno:

#12 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,974 posts

Posted 16 October 2011 - 03:48 PM

Candidate Obama rocks

President Obama sucks

#13 DancingBearly

DancingBearly
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,917 posts
  • LocationQuiet Corner

Posted 16 October 2011 - 04:41 PM

Wasn't he going to clode Gitmo too?

#14 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,028 posts

Posted 16 October 2011 - 04:42 PM

Candidate Obama promised to close it. The president Obama however, not so much. Many claim the republicans are responsible for his inability to close it....

#15 vic

vic
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,913 posts

Posted 16 October 2011 - 04:42 PM

Wasn't he going to clode Gitmo too?


yeah i've been looking for that guy too...can't seem to find him...must be hiding out with that guy that wanted more transparency in government:dunno: