Ending Financial Havens for Islamic State (Debating)

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I believe section 3 is part and parcel of our view, so while it has the resolution language, it should be part of this Bill.

This Bill cannot stop the flow of money everywhere, hence why the Bill is calling for doing what we can inside Atlasia and urging people around the globe to do the same.

I understand Senator TNF's view on this, but I see this as a complimentary measure, not an alternative.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I can support everything, except s 5.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I can support everything, except s 5.

Shall I split up the amendment, with Section 5 being hostile?

I think it should be because I feel exactly the same as Senator Polnut.

Please do. I accept the amendments as friendly, except new s 5 which is hostile.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

We have long-standing military presences in all of these countries and there's a big difference between withdrawing from a theatre of war and dismantling a full-blown military presence that has been established over many years.

There are also issues when it comes to security agreements between Atlasia and the countries listed. For example, we cannot renege on an agreement without there being consequences, including a reduction in good-will at a time when we want to foster greater good-will to deal with ISIS etc.

I would prefer an amendment which speaks to a phased withdrawal from Saudi Arabia over a year/18 months, in concert with the Saudi Government.

 

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Good lord.

This isn't theory, which might come as a shock, but dismantling established military presences DOES take time.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Good lord.

This isn't theory, which might come as a shock, but dismantling established military presences DOES take time.

Your point being? It may take a while to get our troops out safely, but that in itself isn't an argument for keeping them there indefinitely. Sorry, but "It's been like this for a long time" is not a logically valid argument for anything.

Also, I have to ask, were you abused by some sort of academic theorist as a child? Because your repeated references to the evils of "theory," even in discussions where no one has referenced any sort of esoteric theory, are getting annoying.

I'm not saying we can't ever leave. What I'm saying is that we can't just up and leave without certain elements being taken into consideration. Yes, including international agreements we have entered into.

I'm not dignifying that second paragraph with a response.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

NAY

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

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.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Unfriendly then?

If Senator TNF wishes to approach it with that view, then I'll consider it unfriendly and let the Senate make the determination. I don't see it as a big deal to add this into it, but let's put it to a vote and I'll respect that call.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

NAY

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

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

It would still come down to the Senate making this decision. I think unconditional withdrawals, without ANY considerations for the situation on the ground are irresponsible. Lumine has nothing to do with this.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

It is absolutely not disingenuous. This reflects the reality that we as a nation face.

Assuming all is well on the ground, the process of withdrawal will commence in just over half a year. This isn't your dramatic and immediate option, it's one based in reality and recognising that we cannot just do what we want without concern for the circumstances.

This does deliver a withdrawal from Saudi, but one done responsibly and sensibly.

I am putting this up as an amendment and Senator TNF is free to vote against it.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

The fact that he's 'suspicious' is concerning to me. Does he really think this is some kind of put up job?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

AYE

The tone of this debate has gone beyond the point of reasonable.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I think you're missing what my concerns of the tone are, I'm not accusing you or anyone else of zealotry. Suggestions that this is designed to support a particular candidate or that I have no desire for this to be seen through is what is worrisome. If you want to vote against it because you feel we can and should leave immediately, that's fine - but since my reputation is being targeted in a baseless way, I will reject that.

There are a number of possibilities, there are genuine social shifts in the under-current of Saudi society. Most are positive in the long-term, but could have negative short-medium-term consequences. We do have a number of Atlasian interests and nationals in the Kingdom. We also use it as a base for the region. Now, we do have others, and we closed others, a number under my presidency (that I instigated) that we can shift the focus and our presence to, but the process does take time.

There are also basic issues of contingency planning - there are things that could happen over the next six months, year etc that we cannot expect. The phrase is not, repeat not, word play to enable this to be reversed for base reasons, I don't see why it's so unacceptable to say here "here's a timeline for us to leave, but let's put in some contingencies to ensure it's done responsibly".

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

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.

They're still an Atlasian company that employs multiple Atlasian nationals. There are also a number of financial institutions, international law firms, research organisations, food companies... etc. I'm aware this isn't necessarily a list of your favourite groups - but they are Atlasian organisations, who pay (too little) tax in Atlasia and employ many Atlasians here and there.

Would you accept a situation that has the Senate vote again in a few months time to confirm? Let's say - remove the sentence you're so concerned about - and replace it with, ' the Atlasian Senate to vote by no later than 1 February 2015 to confirm the withdrawal to commence no later than 30 June 2015 and be concluded by no later 30 June 2016" That means the withdrawal could start as soon as the logistics permit (which HAS to be considered, this can't happen over night). I'm not at all dogmatic about staying in Saudi... I just want it done correctly and responsibly.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Senator TNF has made his position clear on this. A large reason for the presence of companies outside of the standard energy game is the security of having Atlasia forces in the Kingdom and what that does in relation to our relationship with the Government. While I understand why Senator TNF has no concern for the companies in Saudi, no concern for the well-being of the Atlasian employed there? As I said, I'm not in any way dogmatic about remaining in Saudi Arabia, I've outlined a pathway to withdrawal, which contains pretty standard clauses about withdrawal, with consideration for conditions on the ground. Again... not a word-game, but standard clauses in these types of situations.

If this amendment fails - I don't want this element to continue to knee-cap the elements that deal specifically with starving IS.

In good faith with Senators Deus and TNF who feel so strongly about this issue - I'm prepared to offer a separate Bill that deals specifically with this issue.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

That's an utterly bizarre vote

Yes and no

I motion for a final vote so we can get this thing moving and stop wasting time.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

AYE