Assistance for Iraq Act (Tabled)

[windjammer]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Senator Lumine

[Lumine]

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, another bill of mine concerning further foreign spending. With such a complicated situation in Iraq and since the administration was not interested in the use of drones, I still believe this bill is both relevant and useful in regards to the conflict. We recognize the threat of ISIS and provide some help to the Iraqi government to arm their military and provide some funding (which is a lot less than what I requested to Ukraine). Some believe that since we failed to do thing right in Iraq we should just ignore the place, but we created the current situation and the current government, despite its previous failings, has a new Head of State and less ethnic tensions than in OTL. I believe we have the responsability to help them when we have the tools to do so, specially now that any other kind of intervention seems off the table.

[Sec. of State Superique]

Oh, and its not more ISIS, it's a caliphate! =O

[TNF]

If the Iraqi government cannot hold itself up, we should not waste money trying to do it for them.

[Lumine]

If the Iraqi government cannot hold itself up, we should not waste money trying to do it for them.

We're obviously not going to agree on this issue, but I believe we should. I don't think these kind of expenses are wasteful, as the Iraqi government could very well be considered an ally in distress as of now. They are facing a rather complicated war against extremists and the victory of ISIS would mean further instability for the Middle East. If we can contain the surge of extremism by giving measured help to Iraq and preventing another widespread chaos as in Syria, we will be able to maintain some of the achievements Atlasia has had on the zone lately (mainly the Palestine-Israel peace deal) and for once act in a positive way in the zone instead of causing more chaos as some past actions tended to do.

[Lumine]

Bump! It the Senate seems to have made up its mind already about this and there's no further debate, I might as well request a final vote soon, xD

[DemPGH]

I'll be happy to gut this in a redraft or veto it or something if you guys pass it. You're throwing "good money after bad," as an adage goes around here. At minimum section 1.1 needs to go - I'm not agreeing to that.

If the purpose here is to spend money, I can find ways to do that that do not involve gun running.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Dear Edward, ain't ye heard of paying it forward.


We relied very much on various illegal scams (in more ways then one) that essentially amounted to gun running, during the Revolutionary War.

[Lumine]

I'll be happy to gut this in a redraft or veto it or something if you guys pass it. You're throwing "good money after bad," as an adage goes around here. At minimum section 1.1 needs to go - I'm not agreeing to that.

If the purpose here is to spend money, I can find ways to do that that do not involve gun running.

And I'll be happy to fight for it nonetheless, although that seems a bit harsh, Mr. President. I know that today the idea of leaving things alone and considering simple and normal actions illegal looks fashionable as the answer to some foreign issues, but I don't believe abandoning the Iraqi government and doing nothing to help is a wise choice. Besides, we're dealing with a friendly official government here, we're not "gun running".

[TNF]

If by 'friendly official government', you mean Atlasian puppet state regarded as illegitimate by the people of Iraq, that is.

[Lumine]

If by 'friendly official government', you mean Atlasian puppet state regarded as illegitimate by the people of Iraq, that is.

It is the legal government, Senator, like it or not. General Zebari is leading a government of national unity and I don't believe you can actually support claims of his government being considered illegitimate by the people of Iraq with a lot of evidence.

[TNF]

If by 'friendly official government', you mean Atlasian puppet state regarded as illegitimate by the people of Iraq, that is.

It is the legal government, Senator, like it or not. General Zebari is leading a government of national unity and I don't believe you can actually support claims of his government being considered illegitimate by the people of Iraq with a lot of evidence.

Legal =/= Legitimate, given that it was installed after the decapitation of the previous regime by Atlasian armed forces and subsequent occupation of the country in the name of opening up Iraqi oil reserves to multinational capital interests.

[Lumine]

If by 'friendly official government', you mean Atlasian puppet state regarded as illegitimate by the people of Iraq, that is.

It is the legal government, Senator, like it or not. General Zebari is leading a government of national unity and I don't believe you can actually support claims of his government being considered illegitimate by the people of Iraq with a lot of evidence.

Legal =/= Legitimate, given that it was installed after the decapitation of the previous regime by Atlasian armed forces and subsequent occupation of the country in the name of opening up Iraqi oil reserves to multinational capital interests.

Should be consider Saddam Hussein and the Baath Party as the legitimate government then? I don't think so, and I really doubt we have been manipulating the government of Iraq behind the scenes for the past five years (unless we want to accuse one of our former Presidents of doing so). Besides, the conspiracy theory about the oil again? I would like to point out that such a claim is still a myth not really supported by later events on Iraq.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The last I checked the legimacy of a government was determined by self-determination and a democratic process by which it selects its leaders? Do you not believe in such as the determinations of a legitimate government, TNF? Was the US illegitimate because it was assisted in its Revolution by Dutch Oligarchs seeking financial advantage over the British, the French Ancien Regime's dwindling treasury and that also of the Spanish Empire, which still officially had the Inquisition as state policy at the time?

Saddam Hussein was a dictator who subverted the laws of his own country to seize power and used force, repression and genocide to maintain a minority Sunni Gov't in a majority Shia country. On what planet is that legimate and how on earth does the means by which it is removed from power, do anything absolve it of its inherent illegitimacy?

However bad a decision to invade Iraq in 2003 was, and it was don't get me wrong, nothing neither the mistake to go in, nor the poor planning and organization afterwards, nor the mistakes by the interim and early stages of the Iraqi government have any render it illegimate.

[DemPGH]

The last I checked the legimacy of a government was determined by self-determination and a democratic process by which it selects its leaders?

You're a Republican in North Carolina. (I'm a Democrat in Pennsylvania). In any event, that is a very Jeffersonian observation!

But if the last hundred years of history with this region has demonstrated anything, it is that we cannot pump money, guns, or anything into this region and force them to adopt democracy as we know it. That's because it evolved here and not there. Maybe in time it will evolve there, but for now it's a total waste of time and money to try to get them to evolve into what we are. It's presumptuous and wasteful. They don't want it - they're isolated and tribal. That's why it is "imperialism." If the Middle East fixes 75% of their problems and then comes to us for some help, it's a different story.

If we give money to one faction to fight another faction, we just create another generation of enemies and extremists.

I'll reiterate that 1.1 of the above bill has to go before I consider supporting this at all.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The last I checked the legimacy of a government was determined by self-determination and a democratic process by which it selects its leaders?

You're a Republican in North Carolina. (I'm a Democrat in Pennsylvania). In any event, that is a very Jeffersonian observation!

But if the last hundred years of history with this region has demonstrated anything, it is that we cannot pump money, guns, or anything into this region and force them to adopt democracy as we know it. That's because it evolved here and not there. Maybe in time it will evolve there, but for now it's a total waste of time and money to try to get them to evolve into what we are. It's presumptuous and wasteful. They don't want it - they're isolated and tribal. That's why it is "imperialism." If the Middle East fixes 75% of their problems and then comes to us for some help, it's a different story.

If we give money to one faction to fight another faction, we just create another generation of enemies and extremists.

I'll reiterate that 1.1 of the above bill has to go before I consider supporting this at all.

It is one thing to oppose giving such support on that grounds, but surely it is quite another to claim that the current gov't of Iraq is illegitimate?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The last I checked the legimacy of a government was determined by self-determination and a democratic process by which it selects its leaders?

You're a Republican in North Carolina. (I'm a Democrat in Pennsylvania). In any event, that is a very Jeffersonian observation!

If my plans had gone as I had made them back in 2010, I would be back in Pennsylvania by now.

I prefer to consider it Lockean as opposed to Jefferson, Jefferson was too favorable to arbitrary gov't in my view as exemplified by his shilling for Reign of Terror France. Anyway, it is not 2004 anymore Dear Edward, my taste for divine right Absolute Monarchy has waned considerably in these last ten years. So self-detrrmination and gov't by consent, guided by a firm adherence to equality before the law and avoidance of arbitrary gov't is where its at.

[Deus Naturae]

Yeah, sending weapons into a war-zone full of terrorists doesn't strike me as a great idea.

[Lumine]

Yeah, sending weapons into a war-zone full of terrorists doesn't strike me as a great idea.

It seems like a good one to me considering we're formally supplying a government instead of, say, what we did with the Taliban in Afghanistan in the late 80's to early 90's. I believe the current government, despite its shortcomings, it's the best chance we have for stability in Iraq (I don't many many people here would really like the aspect of an ISIS-run Iraq), and if we can help them to fight back this threat, I think we should.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So what are we doing here?

[TNF]

I motion to table this bill.

[windjammer]

I motion to table this bill.

This has been seen.

[PPT Spiral]

I'm skeptical that providing military aid to an unstable nation with extremist insurgents gaining momentum will end up well, to say the least. I oppose this.

[Dr. Cynic]

This seems like needless expenditure at this point, and I'm not convinced that this money will even work in the way Senator Lumine believes it will. I don't support this either.

[Lumine]

It seems quite evident as of now that this won't have the support of the Senate, so I wonder how wise would be to continue the push for this particular piece of legislation (specially considering that my insistence in these affairs is probably making me look like Alexander Haig on steroids). Given that this bill is fairly divisive as an issue I will request a final vote.