Peace and Prosperity Act of 2014 (Voting on Amendment)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 19, 2024, 06:18:20 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)
  Peace and Prosperity Act of 2014 (Voting on Amendment)
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7
Author Topic: Peace and Prosperity Act of 2014 (Voting on Amendment)  (Read 8663 times)
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: August 20, 2014, 01:03:04 PM »
« edited: September 10, 2014, 06:22:54 PM by PPT TNF »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: President Pro Tempore TNF
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: August 20, 2014, 01:05:19 PM »

While other members of the Senate scramble to transform our foreign policy into one of belligerence, I have something different in mind. I think that we can and should place a renewed emphasis on respectful dialogue between nations, but we can only do so once we remove the obstacles that we have ourselves erected in that regard. The age of unilateralism has passed; it's high time that we recognize that and move forward toward a more cooperative understanding and democratic relationship among all nations.
Logged
Dr. Cynic
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,417
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.11, S: -6.09

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: August 20, 2014, 01:25:11 PM »

There's plenty of good stuff in this bill I'd support, however, I certainly have a few minor disagreements with this bill as it's presented. I think 75% is far too deep a cut. Our military could find itself lacking in sufficient supplies and we could see corners being cut that could actually endanger personnel. I think cuts can be done, but is 75% really the most prudent number?

Also, the closing of all foreign bases would not only risk our own defense, but the defenses of nations where belligerent powers would seek to cause those nations harm. If you want to draw down the number of troops in those bases, I could maybe support that, but outright closure of such bases could potentially cause more harm than good...
Logged
Lumine
LumineVonReuental
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,596
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: August 20, 2014, 01:28:44 PM »

I took the time to carefully meditate about this one when it was introduced to the queue, and needless to say I really oppose this bill. We need to reform the way our foreign policy works, true, but we must do so with realism and with true understanding of the way the world works. Idealism in foreign policy is not necessarily a bad thing, but allowing it to force radical shifts in our policies (like the an End to Imperialism act I sought to take down before the attempt was vetoed) is certainly not the way to go. Actually, this would have enormous amounts of negative consequences here and abroad, hence why I believe this shouldn't pass the Senate.

To elaborate further on my thoughts:

Our defense spending levels are already very low and have been systematically slashed by previous bills, so reducing it by 75 is quite ridiculous to me as it would cripple our armed forces beyond repair. We need to have a strong national defense, and weakening our forces won't endear us to the rest of the world, it will only make us weaker and destroy our capabilities to actually act when it's necessary to do so. If I'm not mistaken, Atlasia destroyed all chemical and biological weapons in 2009, and while nuclear weapons are a terrible weapon (that should never be used), destroying our arsenal is pretty much asking a rival nation to use theirs in the future knowing we won't be able to retaliate. If we wish to reduce the level of nuclear weapons we must do so by working with other nations and ensuring we are all reducing our levels, not simply getting rid of the weapons without regard for the enormous shift in the balance of power.

The part concerning the United Nations is not a bad one, that organization needs reform, although I would rather have a Security Council that includes the more powerful nations (Japan, Germany, India, Brazil and so forth) and eliminates the veto than an elected one (of course that's my personal take). Eliminating our military bases is another bad idea because we have already gutted them and to continue that line of thinking is to eliminate the mere possibility that we could even consider intervention elsewhere. And finally, in regards to the debt, I do recognize that there are some debts that could be forgiven to help a few nations in trouble, but to forgive all debts is something I can't see helping our economy and it will set a terrible precedent to other nations in the future not to pay their debts and go down the path of irresponsibility.

Regardless of whether one is more hawkish or dovish, more interventionist or isolationist, this is clearly the wrong way to go in foreign policy, and this bill would evidently weaken Atlasia and destroy our progress in the foreign stage instead of an idealistic cooperative world. I'm sure we would all want a truly peaceful world, but I deeply believe this is a dangerous, unpractical and far too rushed way of trying to reach that goal.
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: August 20, 2014, 02:36:57 PM »

There's plenty of good stuff in this bill I'd support, however, I certainly have a few minor disagreements with this bill as it's presented. I think 75% is far too deep a cut. Our military could find itself lacking in sufficient supplies and we could see corners being cut that could actually endanger personnel. I think cuts can be done, but is 75% really the most prudent number?

Also, the closing of all foreign bases would not only risk our own defense, but the defenses of nations where belligerent powers would seek to cause those nations harm. If you want to draw down the number of troops in those bases, I could maybe support that, but outright closure of such bases could potentially cause more harm than good...

I think the first number is very negotiable. I'm under no allusions that the Senate will approve a 75 percent cut, but I think it's a good number to start from because it allows us a lot of room to come up with something that we can all agree on. Barring that, I think we should seriously look in to reforming how our military operates. For example, why do we still need to use human fighter pilots when drone technology is readily available? We could replace the entirety of our human fighter pilots with drones and save quite a bit of money and lives in the process. Another thing that's worth looking at is whether or not we need to have the United States Marine Corps, given that it now essentially acts as nothing more than an additional land army, which we of course, already have. Thinning out the officer corps would be a good move, I'd say, too.

As far as closing down foreign bases goes, we've already begun this process, many years ago, in the Atlasian context, and so I'm not worried about foreign powers' defenses, given that by this point they've probably increased their own defensive capabilities and can do well enough to defend themselves. Atlasian men and women should not be sent to prop up regimes reject by their own people or fight on their behalf in conflicts which do not concern them. I don't know if we'll have much of an agreement on that, but that's my position and I'm going to stick by it.

Logged
DemPGH
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,755
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: August 20, 2014, 03:01:02 PM »

Forgiving debts is not something that I would want to do, but like Cynic said there is a lot in here that I like and I also think those figures and percentages are negotiable. I mean I'm assuming that that will happen, so for me the only red flag is forgiving debts. I'd at least want a cost analysis of that. Recently, we just shipped money to Ukraine, the wisdom of which I question(ed) and I'd hate to throw money like that away, e.g.

We've closed bases whose only purpose is to train paramilitary forces, which is good, but there are regular bases of strategic importance that I wold want to leave open. Those which are extraneous we could close. (Could I do anything like that by exec order? Hmm). But then yeah, we have to worry about those people finding work, and I see you have accounted for that.

It also brings up [again] the issue of the budget. I've perused the budget and have a few immediate recommendations that we could talk about; related to this bill I would like to drastically slash general foreign aid and general overseas expenditures.
Logged
Cassius
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,586


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: August 20, 2014, 03:37:01 PM »

1. This element of the bill is totally unacceptable. Not only is a 75 percent cut in military expenditure a dangerous and damaging thing to do, but, in fact, any cut in military expenditure should be avoided. Indeed, given the way the military budget has been pared back in recent times, I would argue that it is in need of further investment.

2. These elements of the bill, whilst novel, cannot be achieved without Section 1, thus these a pretty much a defunct duck anyway.

3. Unilateral nuclear, chemical and biological weapons disarmament is certainly a... courageous thing to do, yet, at the same time, it is quite possibly deranged. For one thing, to unilaterally disarm whilst not expecting other countries to follow suit (and even then, well...) is hardly advisable, given that it would put us at a military disadvantage relative to the likes of Russia and China. For another, Atlasian preeminence in world affairs has been built upon the back of military superiority. This section of the bill, and others, threaten to totally squander that advantage.

4. Section 4, like Section 3, simply ties one hand behind our back. You talk of 'concerned parties'. Well what about the 'unconcerned' parties. Are we simply to forget them, even if they pose a potential threat? Again, I repeat, the world is a profoundly unstable, not to say violent place. The only way to ensure Atlasian security is through military strength, as well as through the maintenance of strong relationships with our allies. Will they be so keen to be our allies if we take an axe to our military budget and unilaterally disarm (Section 7 also comes into play here, but we'll get to that in due time).

5. Democratising the United Nations is another gambit which can only produce negative results. For one, if the United States truly is to be 'ruled by the people' (as democratisation implies), it must have a 'people' to represent. It does not, for it is a supranational body designed to be a forum in which nations, theoretically, can settle disputes (as well as other things), not the government of a nation. Secondly, the idea of electing the security council is patently ridiculous; to do so would put more power into the hands of the morass of third world countries, whom history has shown to be fickle friends to Atlasia. The idea of electing the security council and abolishing the veto that accompanies it will erode the power of Atlasia, leaving it less able to exercise any form of authority in the United Nations, and thus, in world affairs generally.

6. We cannot forsake our ability, as a sovereign nation, to intervene in the affairs of another sovereign nation if our interests call upon us to do so. We cannot chain ourselves to the wall of multilateralism, essentially ending our capacity for independent action, which may be neccessary, given that, sometimes, our interests may not be those of other nations.

7. As I pointed out earlier, Section 7 will simply serve to erode the credibility of Atlasia as one of the world's premier powers in the eyes of our allies. It will serve as a statement that we are disinclined to protect our allies if need be, which in turn will place great stress upon those relationships, and may even serve as to push former allies into different camps to our own.

8. Forgiving debts, as mentioned, sets an absolutely dreadful example to the world as a whole. 'We can take this loan that we won't be able to repay easily, because Atlasia will simply waive our responsibilities'. This is profoundly irresponsible, and should not be considered.

To sum up, this bill will do many things; it will gut our military, it will erode our international credibility and it will severely limit the ability of Atlasia to project its power abroad. In a world where all the old certainties seem to be withering away, and a frightening set of new circumstances are emerging, now more than ever, we must be a strong nation, with the ability to unilaterally influence the course of world events if need be. We must be like a ice-breaker, not a leaf caught up in the torrent and thrown this way and that. Of course, the Senator and I are on different pages entirely on this one; he is a Marxist and an internationalist; I am not. But I urge other Senators to reject this bill, in the name of state security if nothing else.
Logged
H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY
Alfred F. Jones
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,063
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: August 20, 2014, 04:38:13 PM »

I echo Sen. Lumine's concerns, and furthermore I'd like to state that, since injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, we are our brothers' and sisters' keeper, and we are as much citizens of the world as South Koreans are, our definitions of "conflicts that concern [Atlasia]" may be different, President TNF, sir.
Logged
Deus Naturae
Deus naturae
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,637
Croatia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: August 20, 2014, 04:49:33 PM »

I echo Sen. Lumine's concerns, and furthermore I'd like to state that, since injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, we are our brothers' and sisters' keeper, and we are as much citizens of the world as South Koreans are, our definitions of "conflicts that concern [Atlasia]" may be different, President TNF, sir.
So...you're basically admitting you want Atlasia to be the world police?
Logged
PPT Spiral
Spiral
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,487
Bosnia and Herzegovina


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: August 20, 2014, 08:12:48 PM »

I echo Sen. Lumine's concerns, and furthermore I'd like to state that, since injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, we are our brothers' and sisters' keeper, and we are as much citizens of the world as South Koreans are, our definitions of "conflicts that concern [Atlasia]" may be different, President TNF, sir.
So...you're basically admitting you want Atlasia to be the world police?

Alfred has already made it clear that he is a hawk on these issues in the past.

I find myself agreeing with the spirit of the bill but the details within make me quite hesitant to vote in the affirmative. Others have already listed off debt forgiveness and the renewed emphasis on multilateralism, some of my largest objections. On the question of giving foreign aid for clean energy, how much money were you exactly thinking of, TNF, and would this be a permanent expenditure or more of a short-term goal?
Logged
MyRescueKittehRocks
JohanusCalvinusLibertas
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,763
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: August 20, 2014, 08:47:47 PM »

Most know me as rather dovish on foreign policy. Needless to say I must oppose this bill. Cutting defense spending by 75 percent while our enemies abroad are building up is totally not wise at all. No nation is meant to be the policemen of the world. The reality is we need a strong national defense and this bill destroys that. I urge the Senate to defeat this bill and if I come to the senate I will vote against it.
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: August 21, 2014, 09:09:23 AM »

Thank you for your presentation, Comrade Secretary. I'll make some adjustments via amendment to take into account some of the things you've mentioned.
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 #12 on: August 21, 2014, 02:34:43 PM »

I think we have already cut quite a lot and a 75% reduction is too much.
Logged
H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY
Alfred F. Jones
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,063
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: August 21, 2014, 08:48:30 PM »

I echo Sen. Lumine's concerns, and furthermore I'd like to state that, since injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, we are our brothers' and sisters' keeper, and we are as much citizens of the world as South Koreans are, our definitions of "conflicts that concern [Atlasia]" may be different, President TNF, sir.
So...you're basically admitting you want Atlasia to be the world police?

Someone's got to do it.
Logged
bore
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,274
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: August 22, 2014, 07:04:28 AM »


Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think such a reduction could stop us implementing 6a.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think 300 billion is enough to do any of these things (apart from c, maybe) let alone all of them.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I can understand the biological and chemical parts, but the nuclear part is very dangerous. I don't like that our country has them, but now that other countries do as well, short of everyone getting rid of them, we need to keep them.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

This seems sensible, but I'm not sure what it means in concrete terms.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I can support this.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I mostly agree with this, but never is a very very strong word.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

The end to imperialism act seems relevant here. Foreign bases which are left open must be doing something towards the defence of either us or another country.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I definitely agree with the intention here (probably more so than most other senators) but this seems very absolutist. Besides, developing nations could mean anything.

Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: August 22, 2014, 09:22:12 AM »

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: August 22, 2014, 09:23:46 AM »

Senators have 24 hours to object to the proposed amendment.
Logged
Dr. Cynic
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,417
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.11, S: -6.09

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: August 22, 2014, 01:14:10 PM »

I still think it's a mistake to close ALL foreign bases. If only for the fact that those bases are spots that can protect us and our allies. If we do become involved in another conflict, heaven forbid, it would be a great strategic disadvantage to have to move troops into such a position when there could have been troops already there.

I certainly would support closure of bases that are unnecessary, but I still think it's important to maintain some for our own strategic interests.
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: August 23, 2014, 09:47:23 AM »

The amendment has been adopted.
Logged
MyRescueKittehRocks
JohanusCalvinusLibertas
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,763
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: August 24, 2014, 07:41:14 AM »


I call for a vote on said amendment.
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: August 24, 2014, 10:06:02 AM »


Too late, and you're not in the Senate (and probably never will be) so you have no ability to call for a vote on the amendment.

Could the Secretary of International Affairs give us an idea of what bases would be prudent to close and which ones wouldn't? Or does he think our current base numbers abroad are worth preserving?
Logged
MyRescueKittehRocks
JohanusCalvinusLibertas
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,763
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: August 24, 2014, 10:31:21 AM »


Too late, and you're not in the Senate (and probably never will be) so you have no ability to call for a vote on the amendment.

Could the Secretary of International Affairs give us an idea of what bases would be prudent to close and which ones wouldn't? Or does he think our current base numbers abroad are worth preserving?

You can't adopt an amendment without a vote of the senate.
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: August 24, 2014, 10:35:58 AM »


Too late, and you're not in the Senate (and probably never will be) so you have no ability to call for a vote on the amendment.

Could the Secretary of International Affairs give us an idea of what bases would be prudent to close and which ones wouldn't? Or does he think our current base numbers abroad are worth preserving?

You can't adopt an amendment without a vote of the senate.

Yes, I can. Provided that no one objects to that amendment in 24 hours after the proposal, the amendment is adopted automatically.
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 #23 on: August 24, 2014, 03:56:03 PM »

TNF is right.
Logged
MyRescueKittehRocks
JohanusCalvinusLibertas
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,763
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: August 24, 2014, 06:19:03 PM »


I though I saw an objection  Senator Cynic made an objection.  That's why I thought a vote was called for.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7  
« 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 0.063 seconds with 12 queries.