SENATE BILL: Authorization for Use of...Force Against Iran Resolution (Failed)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Clarence

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Clarence, you have 24 hours to advocate for this.

[CLARENCE 2015!]

At the end of the day- the proof is in the pudding... my points are made in the legislation and this has already been argued thoroughly. There is only one point I want to make...

This legislation has been referred to as "Senator Clarence's plan to invade Iran" or something similar many, many times....this is NOT- I repeat NOT- a plan to invade Iran. This is an authorization for our elected President- Napoleon or his successors- to take action as needed considering the threatening actions Iran has taken. This is giving our President and Commander-in-chief the ability to respond and a strong statement that all options are on the table to counteract Iran's provocative and dangerous behavior

[Grumpier Than Thou]

I'm going to say that if I were a Senator, I'd be voting abstain on this one. As Clarence stated, this resolution gives the President the authority to invade Iran if they so choose. I'd fervently oppose an invasion of Iran, but I don't oppose a bill that at least Constitutionally sets up an invasion. This, per the Constitution, is agreeable, but an invasion of Iran is not, in my book.

[Napoleon]

I'm going to say that if I were a Senator, I'd be voting abstain on this one. As Clarence stated, this resolution gives the President the authority to invade Iran if they so choose. I'd fervently oppose an invasion of Iran, but I don't oppose a bill that at least Constitutionally sets up an invasion. This, per the Constitution, is agreeable, but an invasion of Iran is not, in my book.

What?

[Kaine for Senate '18]

This resolution has my full support.  I don't want us to invade Iran, obviously, but I think it should be stated policy that we will if necessary.

[Redalgo]

I very strongly oppose this resolution for reasons previously discussed in the National Security Committee thread, which can be referenced for those who have not already seen it here. Sam's subsequent comments there are also worth reading. I would further contend it is not Atlasia's business to keep Iran militarily weak, bar it from fabricating a larger nuclear weapons stockpile, establishing MAD with other world powers, or behave as if it is now morally imperative we escalate our already troubled relationship with the Islamic Republic in the direction of more violence and human suffering. If war should at some point be declared with Iran, let this legislative body vote on it then rather than us writing the executive branch a permission slip with a blank space for its date today. I refuse to support this legislation and so should the rest of you.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

I'm going to say that if I were a Senator, I'd be voting abstain on this one. As Clarence stated, this resolution gives the President the authority to invade Iran if they so choose. I'd fervently oppose an invasion of Iran, but I don't oppose a bill that at least Constitutionally sets up an invasion. This, per the Constitution, is agreeable, but an invasion of Iran is not, in my book.

What?

I suck at wording shit

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Like Redalgo, I do not find it ethical to give the President a blank check to declare war on other nations.  For one thing, this resolutions contains no expiration date, so it is my understanding that this would give any president -- irrespective of who is in office and when -- the power to initiate force against Iran whenever he feels like it.  Not only is this irresponsible, but it spreads a message of "peace through fear" rather than "peace through strength," an act of which I do not believe will be seen in positive light by the international community.  I say we ought to continue our peace talks with Iran now -- not undermine these talks by putting them on our radar screen.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

An amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[CLARENCE 2015!]

Ben's amendment is friendly

[CLARENCE 2015!]

Like Redalgo, I do not find it ethical to give the President a blank check to declare war on other nations.  For one thing, this resolutions contains no expiration date, so it is my understanding that this would give any president -- irrespective of who is in office and when -- the power to initiate force against Iran whenever he feels like it.  Not only is this irresponsible, but it spreads a message of "peace through fear" rather than "peace through strength," an act of which I do not believe will be seen in positive light by the international community.  I say we ought to continue our peace talks with Iran now -- not undermine these talks by putting them on our radar screen.

Let's talk about acts being seen in a positive light by the international community... those were sanctions which united most of the West in opposition to Iran's nuclear program. Those sanctions failed- there is no arguing this point. Iran has nuclear weapons, has tested them, along with the other hostile actions mentioned in my resolution.... peace thru strength and world unity has failed and it is time to inform Iran on behalf of ourselves and all peace loving nations that we are prepared to respond with force if they continue to ignore the world community

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: Friendly
Status: Senators have 24 hours to object.

[Redalgo]

With respect, my understanding is sanctions often hurt the people of a country far more than they do the reigning regime, allowing it to consolidate popular support by shifting blame for economic problems to external actors. Iranian leaders can talk trash about the "Great Satan" of Atlasia in all sorts of politically advantageous ways in much the same way Fidel Castro used to in Cuba. But then again, getting into position to kill tens of thousands of people and throw away many tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars from waging war on a country yet to initiate war on us or an ally, more a source of international mischief than a dire threat to our national security, and already with a history of ill-conceived, imperialist Atlasian attempts to influence their government, is in my opinion an even worse idea. To some extent, the current regime is already a monster of this very government's inadvertent creation long ago. Such meddling is to be avoided if at all conscionable.

The amendment proposed does nothing to assuage my concerns. The clause proposed for Senate confirmation is meaningless since once a President puts Atlasian boots onto Iranian soil, there is really no going back without us coming under fierce political attack for not being "patriotic" enough or failing to "support the troops," and by then Iran will have already declared war on us in return anyway, so the Senate will have no reasonable choice but to stay the course and pay all the bills on account of the President’s unilateral decision. In regards to the expiration date set for the end of 2013, that is far too long. No more than a day should pass before such an authorization expires, so as to preserve the Senate’s principal authority in deciding whether or not to declare war.

[Sbane]

I will not support any resolution authorizing war against a country that has not committed an act of war against us. It's just as simple as that. If there is a legitimate need to go to war we can pass the resolution post haste. While it was unfortunate they decided to get an atomic bomb, I think it is understandable considering their history as a great power of the world and of course the constant threat of an Atlasian invasion. We have pursued the wrong foreign policy in regards to Iran in the past and I most certainly will not let this Senate continue in that same tradition.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Like Redalgo, I do not find it ethical to give the President a blank check to declare war on other nations.  For one thing, this resolutions contains no expiration date, so it is my understanding that this would give any president -- irrespective of who is in office and when -- the power to initiate force against Iran whenever he feels like it.  Not only is this irresponsible, but it spreads a message of "peace through fear" rather than "peace through strength," an act of which I do not believe will be seen in positive light by the international community.  I say we ought to continue our peace talks with Iran now -- not undermine these talks by putting them on our radar screen.

Let's talk about acts being seen in a positive light by the international community... those were sanctions which united most of the West in opposition to Iran's nuclear program. Those sanctions failed- there is no arguing this point. Iran has nuclear weapons, has tested them, along with the other hostile actions mentioned in my resolution.... peace thru strength and world unity has failed and it is time to inform Iran on behalf of ourselves and all peace loving nations that we are prepared to respond with force if they continue to ignore the world community

I don't see how Iran is going to want to make peace with the Republic of Atlasia if it knows our government is writing plans for a potential invasion.  These are the kinds of militaristic attitudes that, as I have read, pushed Europe down the path to World War I.  Iran already has to worry about a possible military surge from Israel, and I fear that passing this resolution will only increase tensions and make Iran more likely to declare war -- not less.

Also, I would like to point out a fairly recent survey from July that showed an overwhelming 69% of Atlasian citizens opposed to military intervention in Iran.  This was, of course, before Vice President Kalwejt made his diplomatic trip to Iran to open up peace talks for the first time.  I will simply not support a military resolution that two-thirds of the public opposes because history has shown us time and time again that unpopular wars do not lead a nation to success, and I simply could not allow the possibility of us engaging in this type of conflict -- even with Ben's amendment added to the text.

[CLARENCE 2015!]

It astounds me how any one could read the facts in my resolution- namely the acts of war Iran already commits on a regular basis- and conclude that this resolution makes us the aggressor

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

It astounds me how any one could read the facts in my resolution- namely the acts of war Iran already commits on a regular basis- and conclude that this resolution makes us the aggressor

Bear in mind that I had no intention, through the use of my words, to contend that the Iranian leaders are perfect or non-aggressive in any perceivable way.  It is simply my belief that drafting resolutions like these when peace -- for the first time ever, is possibly within reach -- could easily disrupt Atlasia's diplomatic tone.

[Sbane]

It astounds me how any one could read the facts in my resolution- namely the acts of war Iran already commits on a regular basis- and conclude that this resolution makes us the aggressor

Iran has not committed any aggressive action that would justify military action on our part. They have threatened to close the straits of hormuz, if they do then there would be justification for military action. And while they do support Hezbollah, do you also support invading Pakistan, which is probably an even more prolific state sponsor of terror?

[LastVoter]

This is unacceptable.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The amendment has passed, unless I missed an objection in one of those rather long posts.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

In my opinion this would have to conditioned on an attack on the strait of hormuz or on Israel. The only reason one would go to war with them other than that, would have been to prevent them from acquiring Nukes. Since that has already occured, the dynamics of the situation have changed greatly. If we were to go to war now, how would we be able to prevent them from using them on our troops?

[CLARENCE 2015!]

In my opinion this would have to conditioned on an attack on the strait of hormuz or on Israel. The only reason one would go to war with them other than that, would have been to prevent them from acquiring Nukes. Since that has already occured, the dynamics of the situation have changed greatly. If we were to go to war now, how would we be able to prevent them from using them on our troops?

As the North Koreans demonstrate... the development of nuclear weapons doesn't mean the mastery of them. Missile delivery and other technologies are likely far behind with Iran and the longer we wait, the more advanced they become... I believe that a confrontation with Iran is inevitable. I believe that the more powerful they become, the more they finance and direct terrorism and commit other acts of war- and their strength will make them increasingly difficult to challenge

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Couldn't they just build a dirty bomb and set it off in area with a large concentration of our troops?

[Sbane]

I still don't see why we should focus on Iran when there are other state sponsors of terror. Hopefully we aren't sending any aid to Pakistan at the very least?