SENATE BILL: Foreign Policy Transparency and Rationalization Amen... (Failed)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 07:47:05 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  SENATE BILL: Foreign Policy Transparency and Rationalization Amen... (Failed)
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: SENATE BILL: Foreign Policy Transparency and Rationalization Amen... (Failed)  (Read 3720 times)
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: June 03, 2012, 06:15:19 PM »
« edited: June 17, 2012, 07:24:29 PM by Senator North Carolina Yankee »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Wormyguy
Logged
Kaine for Senate '18
benconstine
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,329
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: June 03, 2012, 06:40:55 PM »

I can't support this.  It is, frankly, far too constricting and represents too much of a black and white view of national security.
Logged
tpfkaw
wormyguy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,118
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.58, S: 1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: June 03, 2012, 06:59:10 PM »

Since 2001, Atlasia has been dragged into several needless wars that have damaged our international credibility and our strategic posture, as well as causing the deaths of thousands of our soldiers and the maiming of tens of thousands more, as well as the deaths of hundreds of thousands if not millions of civilians in the countries we have invaded, bombed, or destabilized.  After over a decade, little progress meaningful to average Atlasians has been made after the expenditure of trillions of dollars and thousands of lives.  Those who have benefited are largely well-connected corporate interests in the military-industrial complex, who profit off of a needlessly-aggressive foreign policy.  This amendment serves to stop the President from unilaterally starting an aggressive war.  It does not outlaw defensive war, or even aggressive war, merely an aggressive war started by the President without the consent of the Senate, eliminating all legal loopholes that could be used to do so.  This is an eminently sensible and moderate position, and one would have to be truly an extreme warmonger to see otherwise.
Logged
Kaine for Senate '18
benconstine
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,329
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: June 03, 2012, 07:03:34 PM »

This is an eminently sensible and moderate position, and one would have to be truly an extreme warmonger to see otherwise.

Clearly Senatorial courtesy doesn't exist Tongue
Logged
Donerail
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,345
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: June 03, 2012, 07:15:25 PM »

I can't support this.  It is, frankly, far too constricting and represents too much of a black and white view of national security.

Essentially the DoEA's position. Wormy, I'm glad you're in the Senate, and your heart is definitely in the right place, but this is rather constricting; it's a good idea and I appreciate the spirit it's in, but at this point in time it's too black and white and too restrictive.
Logged
tpfkaw
wormyguy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,118
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.58, S: 1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: June 03, 2012, 08:50:44 PM »

I can't support this.  It is, frankly, far too constricting and represents too much of a black and white view of national security.

Essentially the DoEA's position. Wormy, I'm glad you're in the Senate, and your heart is definitely in the right place, but this is rather constricting; it's a good idea and I appreciate the spirit it's in, but at this point in time it's too black and white and too restrictive.

Lose the avatar please.

I fail to see how returning to the state of affairs as everyone understood it for the first 174 years of this country's history is "too constricting."
Logged
Donerail
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,345
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: June 03, 2012, 10:30:33 PM »

I can't support this.  It is, frankly, far too constricting and represents too much of a black and white view of national security.

Essentially the DoEA's position. Wormy, I'm glad you're in the Senate, and your heart is definitely in the right place, but this is rather constricting; it's a good idea and I appreciate the spirit it's in, but at this point in time it's too black and white and too restrictive.

Lose the avatar please.

I fail to see how returning to the state of affairs as everyone understood it for the first 174 years of this country's history is "too constricting."

It seems like you're attempting to set rules of engagement for Atlasian forces; in my opinion, such ruled are better devised and implemented by a commander on the ground than by a Senate sitting possibly thousands of miles away,
Logged
tpfkaw
wormyguy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,118
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.58, S: 1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: June 03, 2012, 10:33:52 PM »

I can't support this.  It is, frankly, far too constricting and represents too much of a black and white view of national security.

Essentially the DoEA's position. Wormy, I'm glad you're in the Senate, and your heart is definitely in the right place, but this is rather constricting; it's a good idea and I appreciate the spirit it's in, but at this point in time it's too black and white and too restrictive.

Lose the avatar please.

I fail to see how returning to the state of affairs as everyone understood it for the first 174 years of this country's history is "too constricting."

It seems like you're attempting to set rules of engagement for Atlasian forces; in my opinion, such ruled are better devised and implemented by a commander on the ground than by a Senate sitting possibly thousands of miles away,

If you can think of a different legitimate use of lethal force, I'd love to hear it and I'll probably make it a friendly amendment.
Logged
Kaine for Senate '18
benconstine
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,329
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: June 03, 2012, 10:38:39 PM »

I fail to see how returning to the state of affairs as everyone understood it for the first 174 years of this country's history is "too constricting."

Because this is a radically different world, Wormy.  If we were living in 1812, or even 1912, I'd agree with you.  But this is 2012.  No Founder could have envisioned an organization like Al Qaeda, or nuclear weapons, or failed states posing a threat to Atlasia.  We cannot hide behind the "it worked for the Founders, it should work for us" argument, because the times have changed.
Logged
tpfkaw
wormyguy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,118
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.58, S: 1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: June 03, 2012, 10:54:54 PM »
« Edited: June 03, 2012, 10:56:56 PM by red's wet dream »

I fail to see how returning to the state of affairs as everyone understood it for the first 174 years of this country's history is "too constricting."

Because this is a radically different world, Wormy.

Not radically different enough that unaccountable warmongering has suddenly become productive policy for anyone but unaccountable warmongerers.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Right.  Roll Eyes

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yep, it is 2012, possibly the period with the least warmongering in world history, with the exception of this "exceptional" country.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

None of those things are "a threat to Atlasia."  It is estimated that there are approximately 30 members of Al Qaeda left, which is hardly an invasion force.  Nuclear weapons are indeed threatening but already exist and are a fact of life and cannot ever be used against us due to Mutually Assured Destruction.  The only nuclear-weapons states who have the capability of reaching US cities are Russia, China (only the West Coast), the UK, and Israel (why those peace-lovers felt the need to produce ICBMs is anyone's guess, but it might have something to do with their tendency to bite the hand that feeds them).  A "failed state" cannot be a "threat" by definition.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

How about "it works for every other civilized country in the world right now, it should work for us" and "the opposite approach has never worked for us; in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan."
Logged
Donerail
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,345
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: June 04, 2012, 07:28:42 AM »

I can't support this.  It is, frankly, far too constricting and represents too much of a black and white view of national security.

Essentially the DoEA's position. Wormy, I'm glad you're in the Senate, and your heart is definitely in the right place, but this is rather constricting; it's a good idea and I appreciate the spirit it's in, but at this point in time it's too black and white and too restrictive.

Lose the avatar please.

I fail to see how returning to the state of affairs as everyone understood it for the first 174 years of this country's history is "too constricting."

It seems like you're attempting to set rules of engagement for Atlasian forces; in my opinion, such ruled are better devised and implemented by a commander on the ground than by a Senate sitting possibly thousands of miles away,

If you can think of a different legitimate use of lethal force, I'd love to hear it and I'll probably make it a friendly amendment.

It seems that, the way it's currently phrased, troops can use force to defend themselves or civilians against attack, but cannot themselves act aggressively to prevent harm coming to other people (except through the launch of WMDs). I'm imagining a scenario where a soldier sees a guy with a gun or a bomb or a sniper rifle pointing them at/planning to attack civilians and can't step in, because he can only use deadly force to defend civilians if they are directly attacked.
Logged
tpfkaw
wormyguy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,118
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.58, S: 1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: June 04, 2012, 09:26:18 AM »

I can't support this.  It is, frankly, far too constricting and represents too much of a black and white view of national security.

Essentially the DoEA's position. Wormy, I'm glad you're in the Senate, and your heart is definitely in the right place, but this is rather constricting; it's a good idea and I appreciate the spirit it's in, but at this point in time it's too black and white and too restrictive.

Lose the avatar please.

I fail to see how returning to the state of affairs as everyone understood it for the first 174 years of this country's history is "too constricting."

It seems like you're attempting to set rules of engagement for Atlasian forces; in my opinion, such ruled are better devised and implemented by a commander on the ground than by a Senate sitting possibly thousands of miles away,

If you can think of a different legitimate use of lethal force, I'd love to hear it and I'll probably make it a friendly amendment.

It seems that, the way it's currently phrased, troops can use force to defend themselves or civilians against attack, but cannot themselves act aggressively to prevent harm coming to other people (except through the launch of WMDs). I'm imagining a scenario where a soldier sees a guy with a gun or a bomb or a sniper rifle pointing them at/planning to attack civilians and can't step in, because he can only use deadly force to defend civilians if they are directly attacked.

I'm fairly sure that particular scenario would be covered under "directly defend civilians against attack" (it'd be a legitimate case of "defense of others" in a court, and since we're using legal terminology I think that'd cover it).
Logged
Donerail
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,345
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: June 04, 2012, 11:59:08 AM »

Add something like, "To prevent a legitimate and imminent threat to themselves, other Atlasian or allied military forces, or civilians from causing harm."?
Logged
tpfkaw
wormyguy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,118
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.58, S: 1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: June 04, 2012, 12:11:23 PM »
« Edited: June 04, 2012, 12:19:34 PM by red's wet dream »

I'll change "directly defend civilians against attack" to "directly defend civilians or allied (by co-belligerence) military forces against attack or immediate, probable, and active threat of attack."
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: June 04, 2012, 05:25:05 PM »

Is that an amendment?
Logged
tpfkaw
wormyguy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,118
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.58, S: 1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: June 04, 2012, 07:14:54 PM »


Yes.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: June 05, 2012, 06:52:41 PM »

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: Origination
Status: Senators have 24 hours to object.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: June 08, 2012, 01:07:02 PM »

The amendment has passed.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: June 10, 2012, 04:53:50 PM »

What now?
Logged
Kaine for Senate '18
benconstine
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,329
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: June 12, 2012, 08:08:17 PM »


I'll move for a final vote.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: June 13, 2012, 04:44:12 PM »

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: June 13, 2012, 04:46:14 PM »

Senators, this bill is now at final vote so please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.
Logged
ilikeverin
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,410
Timor-Leste


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: June 13, 2012, 06:28:23 PM »

Angry Nope
Logged
The world will shine with light in our nightmare
Just Passion Through
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,175
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.48

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: June 13, 2012, 06:30:43 PM »

Nay.
Logged
Kaine for Senate '18
benconstine
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,329
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: June 13, 2012, 09:07:28 PM »

NAY
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.043 seconds with 12 queries.