SENATE BILL: End to Imperialism Act (Law'd)

[Junkie]

Coming from the most unsuccessful Senatorial candidate in history, my comments may not mean anything, but I would like to add a few thoughts.  I do believe that this debate is worth having.  Then, I hope, the Senate will vote against this bill.

First, I don't think the Senate has the power to withdraw troops.  Polnut is the Commander in Chief and he, alone, has the power of deployment (especially when you are talking about pre-positioned bases in Europe and Asia).  Not to give any ideas, but I think the only legal avenue for the Senate would be to stop funding.  Could be wrong, but that is just off the top of my head.

Second, very ill-defined bill.  What are "troops?"  If you mean members of the armed services, then we would have to withdraw the Marines guarding the embassies in those two countries.  While I am not a fan of the State Department guys I have met, and would get a little joy out of the pucker factor they would experience without any military protection, you can't do that to them.  It makes too high an unprotected target.

So do you mean combat troops?  What about special forces training and advising the militaries of those countries.  If they are to survive, you want to make sure their militaries are prepared.  What about liaison and ground control personnel?  You would want to keep a couple in country so that in time of emergency, we could quickly use bases there.  See our troops in Iceland, Diego Garcia, Japan, etc.

Lastly, I don't think we have active military "in' Libya.  I believe from what I know from my friends involved in that area, the guys on the ground are "civilians."  The British I believe have the SAS on the ground.  Most of the work has been done from the air.

Those are a few structural problems I see.  I also do not believe wholesale withdrawl from the international community is a good idea.  It weakens our position and limits our ability to be involved when we have to.

Now I will go back to losing my next election.

[Junkie]

Coming from the most unsuccessful Senatorial candidate in history, my comments may not mean anything, but I would like to add a few thoughts.  I do believe that this debate is worth having.  Then, I hope, the Senate will vote against this bill.

First, I don't think the Senate has the power to withdraw troops.  Polnut is the Commander in Chief and he, alone, has the power of deployment (especially when you are talking about pre-positioned bases in Europe and Asia).  Not to give any ideas, but I think the only legal avenue for the Senate would be to stop funding.  Could be wrong, but that is just off the top of my head.

Second, very ill-defined bill.  What are "troops?"  If you mean members of the armed services, then we would have to withdraw the Marines guarding the embassies in those two countries.  While I am not a fan of the State Department guys I have met, and would get a little joy out of the pucker factor they would experience without any military protection, you can't do that to them.  It makes too high an unprotected target.

So do you mean combat troops?  What about special forces training and advising the militaries of those countries.  If they are to survive, you want to make sure their militaries are prepared.  What about liaison and ground control personnel?  You would want to keep a couple in country so that in time of emergency, we could quickly use bases there.  See our troops in Iceland, Diego Garcia, Japan, etc.

Lastly, I don't think we have active military "in' Libya.  I believe from what I know from my friends involved in that area, the guys on the ground are "civilians."  The British I believe have the SAS on the ground.  Most of the work has been done from the air.

Those are a few structural problems I see.  I also do not believe wholesale withdrawl from the international community is a good idea.  It weakens our position and limits our ability to be involved when we have to.

Now I will go back to losing my next election.

The senate has the ability to declare war and also the power of the purse.  We can essentially tie the president's hands by completely defunding any troop involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya.

If the President wants to get into a fight over who gets to decide when and where we conduct wars, I think he'll find that the senate can make it very difficult to enact "tough guy" foreign policy..

So we agree.  The Senate can only defund.  Thus, the statute would have to be amended.  I still don't support it (for whatever that matters) but that would be the only legal way to do it.

My other concerns still stand.

[Junkie]

Coming from the most unsuccessful Senatorial candidate in history, my comments may not mean anything, but I would like to add a few thoughts.  I do believe that this debate is worth having.  Then, I hope, the Senate will vote against this bill.

First, I don't think the Senate has the power to withdraw troops.  Polnut is the Commander in Chief and he, alone, has the power of deployment (especially when you are talking about pre-positioned bases in Europe and Asia).  Not to give any ideas, but I think the only legal avenue for the Senate would be to stop funding.  Could be wrong, but that is just off the top of my head.

Second, very ill-defined bill.  What are "troops?"  If you mean members of the armed services, then we would have to withdraw the Marines guarding the embassies in those two countries.  While I am not a fan of the State Department guys I have met, and would get a little joy out of the pucker factor they would experience without any military protection, you can't do that to them.  It makes too high an unprotected target.

So do you mean combat troops?  What about special forces training and advising the militaries of those countries.  If they are to survive, you want to make sure their militaries are prepared.  What about liaison and ground control personnel?  You would want to keep a couple in country so that in time of emergency, we could quickly use bases there.  See our troops in Iceland, Diego Garcia, Japan, etc.

Lastly, I don't think we have active military "in' Libya.  I believe from what I know from my friends involved in that area, the guys on the ground are "civilians."  The British I believe have the SAS on the ground.  Most of the work has been done from the air.

Those are a few structural problems I see.  I also do not believe wholesale withdrawl from the international community is a good idea.  It weakens our position and limits our ability to be involved when we have to.

Now I will go back to losing my next election.

The senate has the ability to declare war and also the power of the purse.  We can essentially tie the president's hands by completely defunding any troop involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya.

If the President wants to get into a fight over who gets to decide when and where we conduct wars, I think he'll find that the senate can make it very difficult to enact "tough guy" foreign policy..

So we agree.

Yes.  I think the bill should be amended to make it more constitutional.  I also think Napoleon should be the one to amend it.

Sorry. Hit post before the rest of my thought.  Was editing it, then saw your post.

[Junkie]

Unfortunately, there's no way that such a bill would ever get through the senate, much less get signed. If I was a senator, I'd propose a compromise bill bringing our troops home from places like Western Europe and Australia. I'd like to see a senator who could really make an argument for keeping expensive military bases in those sorts of places.

If I had been elected, I could easily do so.  You probably would not agree with it, but I truly do believe in the pre-positioning of bases for purposes of force projection.  In many cases, these "bases" are really just American personnel stationed at foreign bases.  For example, in the case of Australia, I believe the last count by DOD put our military presence there at about 115-120 (or in that neighborhood, unless of course Atlasia drastically increased troops there for some reason, but I could not find that).  Most of these troops are rear-echelon support.  If I am not mistaken, their primary purpose as well as the five or 10 in New Zealand is to administer pre-positioned equipment stationed there for joint exercises, satellite tracking, and in the case of the Navy and Air Force, supplying and serving the scientific outposts in Antartica.  For each of these reasons, I believe that the placement of troops in the region is well reasoned and necessary.

I beleive similar arguments could be realistically made for the other deployments you might have issue with.  Not all of them, but most.

[Junkie]

I'm not "acting with my instincts" here.  And I'm not endangering the troops by bringing them home in a timely manner.  I'm only endangering the warmongers' ability to keep waging pointless wars and the profit margin of defense contractors.  And I have a feeling that is what scares this administration most.

A ridiculous and, frankly, insulting comment.
[/quote]

As completely worthless as my opinion might be, I felt the need to chime in.  I served (but before the war), and most of my friends have as well (both before and during), a few who never came back.  I know this was not intended, but I did find it a little insulting.  Snowguy, you have my respect, although we probably rarely agree on an issue.  I know you did not mean it that way, but "warmonger" is right up there with some terms that are really insulting to those in uniform.  I get your point, and agree with you on some of your points, although I disagree with the manner.  In that regard I support the President in his withdrawl scheme, although it is quicker than I would like.  I just felt you should know, and I hope you understand that I am not attacking you, just asking you to consider this in the future.  And Ben, you are my hero...although I don't think he meant to be insulting.