SENATE BILL: Ukrainian Technical, Economical and Military Aid (Debating)

[DemPGH]

As I'm thinking right now about foreign policy, for me the questions are, why us, and why this situation? I don't see it, presently, aside from the corruption problems and the nature of who we'd be supporting, as noted by others.

[DemPGH]

1 Billion, or 5 Billion, isn't chump change.  I'm definitely willing to spend something on this bill, but I do have concerns about whether it is a wise amount of spending on this. If it is less, I have a feeling it will be invested more wisely. I am concerned about Ukraine, but there are a lot of other areas in the world that could use our help too, and so spending too much here is an opportunity cost both at home and abroad.

It is wise to question that amount of money - especially with the push to get involved in Iraq again as well. We risk throwing away an awful lot of money. Perhaps a lesser amount would be more palatable? Like, a lot less?

[DemPGH]

Section 2.2 is reasonable and is probably a good idea.

Section 2.1 and $5 billion dollars I'm not certain of. Do we have any way of knowing that that will achieve the desired result? It seems to me that you would need a lot of people (are they civilian, are they military?) to ensure all that happens. What standards are there? I'm completely opposed to sending military personnel into Ukraine at this time. You don't pour people and money into a turmoil-ridden situation because we're Atlasia and all problems go poof.

2.1.1 seems rather overboard to me, but I'll need to research the situation and the Act to which that applies.

At any rate, the cumulative effort at this moment in time includes: Bomb Iraq, do ALL of this for Ukraine, and allow private businesses to run guns overseas (by repealing the End to Imperialism Act). One would think this had suddenly become a war games simulator!

[DemPGH]

Okay, I'll support this although I am dubious. As long as it is economic and environmental, I really see no harm. I want no hardware or arms going in there, though, so I'll read the language closely before signing. Also, I'd like a quicker return time on the loan, so if there will be no objections I will likely tweak that and offer it as a re-draft.

Of the top 100 things to spend money on, this is #93 or so in my book, but everyone wants it, so ye shall get it.  

[DemPGH]

I've tweaked section 4.2, and I'll just stop there. If I get into anything else I'll change the thing too much and end up gutting it, probably.

I can understand this, really, even if it goes against by better judgment, and I don't see that it will do any real harm, honestly. Like I said, I'd rather not, but if we're to spend money overseas, there could be worse ways - as with Iraq.

This is a redraft, technically.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[DemPGH]

Let's not forget about this one! I did momentarily and then remembered that we have to act on it.

[DemPGH]

We need to start reading the rules more, xD

Actually, I think we need to rewrite them.

[DemPGH]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

X DemPGH, President

I'd rather not and this goes against my better judgment, but since there is an actual government in Ukraine and since this is probably a one time thing (and therefore not an endless regressive pit of quicksand like the Middle East), it's a pill I can . . . swallow.