Ending Financial Havens for Islamic State (Debating)

[TNF]

I think this is a fine idea, and it has my complete support.

[TNF]

Perhaps we can move to sever ties with governments that actively fund terrorism? I mean that doesn't sound very controversial to me, but if we have definitive proof that Saudi Arabia is financing groups like this, we shouldn't be palling around with them, oil or no oil. We have already made great strides toward energy efficiency and renewable power production in Atlasia that have not been made IRL. With these in mind, I think that it would be much easier for us to divorce ourselves from the unholy alliance we currently have with the repressive monarchies of the Gulf.

I would personally like to see this as part of a broader retreat from the region, because let's face it, our presence there has done nothing but inflame this kind of sectarian conflict. From the decision to fund religious extremists against secular Arab nationalists during the Cold War to the decision to promote sectarianism in Iraq, we have done literally nothing to promote a peaceful or stable Middle East, instead backing the most brutal butchers in order to satisfy our domestic capitalists' need for dirty energy to grease the engine of their failed economic model.

The best way forward is to withdraw all Atlasian military forces from the region and cut off the means by which these radical Islamist groups are being funded from our own nation. That, and sever our relationship with the racist state of Israel, once and for all.

[TNF]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[TNF]

I would be willing to split the amendment as proposed.

For those of you objecting to Section 5, would you necessarily oppose a future amendment removing troops from Saudi Arabia alone? This seems to be one of the biggest sticking points for better relations in the Arab world. I know that Senator Lumine has voiced support for such, but how would those others who oppose Section 5 as it is currently written feel about an alternative that only withdrew troops from Saudi Arabia?

[TNF]

Very well then, I will offer an amendment outlining such a process as soon as we finish voting on the amendment in question.

[TNF]

Aye

[TNF]

Offering the following amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[TNF]

I don't like the idea of a blanket time line, but I'd be willing to consider it as friendly if Senator TNF is willing to add  - "Subject to on the ground conditions" at the end.

I'm not willing to do that because we seem to have enough votes to pass this without it.

[TNF]

Aye (anti-war/anti-Islamist)

[TNF]

"Subject to on the ground conditions" seems like a great way to undo this whole thing should Lumine win the Presidency in October.

[TNF]

I object to the proposed amendment (if it's being offered, there's no indication to suggest it is). It's a disingenuous attempt to continue our idiotic presence in Saudi Arabia should "on the ground conditions" (whatever that means) not be favorable to Atlasia (how is it any of our business what is going on in Saudi Arabia?)

[TNF]

Why should we be in Saudi Arabia at all? Is there any real justification for this, and is there any real justification for adjusting our presence based on 'conditions on the ground', or not? I will vote against any amendment that weakens withdrawal from that country, just as I will not vote for any amendment that negates us leaving, or even leaves open the option of negating it. We either leave or we don't.

If the Saudi people rise up and kill the King or whatever, we shouldn't not leave because of 'conditions on the ground.' We should leave. Period.

[TNF]

Nay

[TNF]

What "interests" do we have in Saudi Arabia? I understand that ExxonMobil might have "interests" in Saudi Arabia, but I fail to see why that should stop us from bringing our troops home as soon as possible.

[TNF]

If those companies set up shop in Saudi Arabia, they do so at their own risk. I frankly could care less if something happens to them in the event of some kind of uprising, personally. They knew the risk going in. Not our job to bail them out.

[TNF]

Aye