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

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 07:29:50 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 8679 times)
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: August 24, 2014, 07:17:50 PM »


I though I saw an objection  Senator Cynic made an objection.  That's why I thought a vote was called for.

He did not post 'I object.'
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 #26 on: August 25, 2014, 12:48:33 AM »


I though I saw an objection  Senator Cynic made an objection.  That's why I thought a vote was called for.

He did not post 'I object.'

I didn't object. I did make a post.
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: August 25, 2014, 02:43:15 PM »

Do we have National Guard numbers?
Logged
Lumine
LumineVonReuental
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,610
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: August 26, 2014, 12:02:31 AM »

I thank the SoEA for those detailed numbers and information, it will be incredibly helpful for this bill and other foreign policy proposals. Although it is a bit more moderate now, I must say that I still find it a very bad idea to eliminate all of our bases and consider the forgiveness of debt given the likely consequences. Furthermore, wouldn't Clause 3 be quite extreme in times of a crisis by hampering our ability to act when needed?
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: August 26, 2014, 09:08:27 AM »

I have an idea concerning troop levels, but I'd like to get those NatGuard numbers before I present it.
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: August 27, 2014, 02:50:57 PM »

Bumping for those numbers.
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: August 28, 2014, 08:09:26 AM »

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
Cassius
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,591


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: August 28, 2014, 09:24:07 AM »

I really don't think its a good idea to remove troops from Europe or Japan, given that, in a nightmare scenario, they might be needed to help out our allies, and it would be easier for us to do so if we already had boots on the ground, so to speak.

Also, I think its a bad idea to decomission all aircraft piloted by humans, since they would have to be replaced by drones, which strikes me as a very bad idea indeed.
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: August 28, 2014, 09:47:53 AM »

I went with Europe/Japan because those countries are perfectly capable of defending themselves, unlike some of the smaller nations I decided not to include in that list on account of, well, those being smaller nations that are less developed and less capable of mounting a stronge defense.

What's wrong with drones?
Logged
DemPGH
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,755
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: August 28, 2014, 10:34:49 AM »

I support the amended version, although at the very least I would like to at least train fighter pilots and pilots generally. I think we're a very long away from not needing manned flights at all (even for intel, recon, etc.), so I guess 5C is my only real gripe. And as I said before, generally shrinking foreign aid would be a good idea too.
Logged
Simfan34
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,744
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: 4.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: August 28, 2014, 11:04:43 AM »

DemPGH supports abolishing the Marines and Coast Guard, the sweeping decommissioning overseas bases, and eliminating "offensive, cross-border military capabilities"? The author of this bill is ill-informed regarding military matters.

I went with Europe/Japan because those countries are perfectly capable of defending themselves, unlike some of the smaller nations I decided not to include in that list on account of, well, those being smaller nations that are less developed and less capable of mounting a stronge defense.

What's wrong with drones?

Opinion of Shinzo Abe?
Logged
Cassius
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,591


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: August 28, 2014, 11:05:33 AM »

I went with Europe/Japan because those countries are perfectly capable of defending themselves, unlike some of the smaller nations I decided not to include in that list on account of, well, those being smaller nations that are less developed and less capable of mounting a stronge defense.

What's wrong with drones?

I doubt that either European nations (most of which are paring their military capabilities back considerably), or Japan, would be able to resist a serious attack by a power such as Russia or China (God forbid that scenario ever comes to pass. Even in the 1980's, when defence spending was much higher in Britain, it was reasonably well-known that British forces (and their European counterparts), could not hope to resist a Soviet invasion without American help.

I'm an opponent of drone warfare firstly because drones are not as effective as some claim them to be, and it is often better to have humans carrying out these operations rather than drones. Secondly, I'm of the view that drones represent the depersonalisation of warfare, which I think is something that should avoided as much as possible.

I'd also like to add, with regards to 5d, that such a proposal was carried out in Canada in the 1960's, and was generally opposed by the different services, amongst both officers and men. It was generally regarded as doing little to reduce costs and improve operational capabilities. I think that it would be unwise to attempt to do the same in Atlasia, when I see little evidence that such a change is needed or desired by the armed forces.
Logged
DemPGH
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,755
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: August 28, 2014, 12:05:38 PM »


DemPGH supports abolishing the Marines and Coast Guard, the sweeping decommissioning overseas bases, and eliminating "offensive, cross-border military capabilities"? The author of this bill is ill-informed regarding military matters.


No, the Marines and Coast Guard get absorbed back into their parent branches (the A.F. used to be part of the Army, e.g.), which I don't think is a bad idea. See, it used to be that we did not intervene in every single conflict around the world and I would like to return to something like that, as I've said many, many times. As to overseas bases in developed countries, if they want bases there, perhaps they could foot the bill for them? That might make them disappear!

But I would absolutely redraft 5C.

I can see benefits to 5D, though, but perhaps gradually.
Logged
Lumine
LumineVonReuental
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,610
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: August 28, 2014, 05:11:29 PM »

I agree with Cassius and Simfan, I oppose getting rid of our bases in the allied countries we mentioned before. Beyond the defense purposes of them they also serve as a symbol of this country standing up for them, which is specially crucial when it comes to nations like South Korea and Japan, currently threatened by North Korea and specially by China. Having these bases and a good number of military assets deployed around several contries enables us to take quick action when we need to act in case of an emergency, so reducing our capabilities and our options is certainly not the road I think we should be taking. Furthermore, while the Defense sector does require some level of reform, Cassius is right in pointing our the risks of only relying on drone warfare (not to mention this would damage the Air Force in a big way), plus the issues brought by 5d.
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: August 29, 2014, 09:57:28 PM »

The amendment has been adopted.

I would like to hear from the SecIntAffairs to figure out what needs to be changed to honor our existing treaty obligations.
Logged
MyRescueKittehRocks
JohanusCalvinusLibertas
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,763
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: August 29, 2014, 10:16:03 PM »

The amendment has been adopted.

I would like to hear from the SecIntAffairs to figure out what needs to be changed to honor our existing treaty obligations.

Lumine and Cassius contest the amendment. So you can't adopt the amendment.
Logged
Simfan34
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,744
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: 4.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: August 30, 2014, 05:51:58 AM »

The amendment has been adopted.

I would like to hear from the SecIntAffairs to figure out what needs to be changed to honor our existing treaty obligations.

Lumine and Cassius contest the amendment. So you can't adopt the amendment.

That is not how parliamentary procedure works. You must say "I object".
Logged
Cranberry
TheCranberry
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,501
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: August 30, 2014, 08:35:55 AM »

Since apparently TNF's amendment is the latest version of the bill, here is my opinion:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

A pretty straightofrward and good part of the bill, I guess noone seriously contests this.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not that that would pass the UN, I think it's at least to show committment from our side. I'm perfectly okay with this as well.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Never is a strong word isn't it? Change 3b to something of the like "that it committs itself to bilateral solutions to conflicts concerning the internal affairs of another nation" or something like this, and I'm on board here as well. 

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Probably the "hardest", at least the most controversial part of the whole bill. On the one hand, I always found bases of one country's armed forces in another country near to an undermining of this country's sovereignity. What purpose do Atlasian bases fulfill in Germany, in Italy? I know, San Marino and Luxembourg are really dangerous nations...
On the other hand however, especially in South Korea if nowhere else, these bases probably really help increase this country's security on its borders, in that case North Korea... It would be inconstant if we removed them from Europe but not South Korea and NK would likely see it as a threat or a slight or something... I guess I'll have to think about that part...
 
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I really don't know the first thing about armies, and how they should be structured and about all the things dealt with in this section... Well then, better be silent, I don't know. Since Cassius said that it wasn't that sucessfull in Canada, I guess it's not such a brilliant idea?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

No problem with that.
Logged
Simfan34
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,744
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: 4.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: August 30, 2014, 10:04:52 AM »
« Edited: August 30, 2014, 10:07:15 AM by Governor Varavour »

Might Senator TNF tell us how he intends to restructure the Korean Armed Forces? Is he aware that, right, the Korean Armed Forces are effectively under the operational control of the United States? How does he intend to guarantee the security of that critical ally? Will he support Shinzo Abe's attempts to amend Japan's constitution to allow for militarisation? How does he intend to prevent further expansion of austerity programmes in response to European countries picking up the slack left by this country? How does the Senator intend to allow the states of eastern Europe to resist further Russian aggression; does the Senator even oppose Russian aggression? Is the Senator aware of each and all of the functions of our overseas bases and the effects their closure would have, particularly on communications and air strikes? Does the Senator think that, for example, we should not be bombing ISIS? Or is just supporting a blanket closure on principle?

Why does the Senator seek the elimination of offensive capabilities of our armed forces? How familiar is the Senator with the the various military doctrines that inform the current composition and organisation of the armed forces? What does he mean by democratic election to the Security Council?  Does he think Nauru having the same vote as this country would be democratic? Or is this, again, all motivated by ideology rather than consideration of realities?
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: August 30, 2014, 10:44:04 AM »

Might Senator TNF tell us how he intends to restructure the Korean Armed Forces? Is he aware that, right, the Korean Armed Forces are effectively under the operational control of the United States? How does he intend to guarantee the security of that critical ally? Will he support Shinzo Abe's attempts to amend Japan's constitution to allow for militarisation? How does he intend to prevent further expansion of austerity programmes in response to European countries picking up the slack left by this country? How does the Senator intend to allow the states of eastern Europe to resist further Russian aggression; does the Senator even oppose Russian aggression? Is the Senator aware of each and all of the functions of our overseas bases and the effects their closure would have, particularly on communications and air strikes? Does the Senator think that, for example, we should not be bombing ISIS? Or is just supporting a blanket closure on principle?

Why does the Senator seek the elimination of offensive capabilities of our armed forces? How familiar is the Senator with the the various military doctrines that inform the current composition and organisation of the armed forces? What does he mean by democratic election to the Security Council?  Does he think Nauru having the same vote as this country would be democratic? Or is this, again, all motivated by ideology rather than consideration of realities?

South Korea should have total control of its own armed forces. I don't regard any particular nation as a 'critical ally', given that I do not think that the Republic should be playing world police or picking friends and enemies based entirely upon what is in the interest of Atlasian capitalists, rather than the Atlasian people. Japan should be discouraged from growing its military capabilities, but it should not be singled out for doing so; every nation should ideally begin a process of reduced armaments spending and reductions in the size of their respective military forces. Any austerity programs enacted by the European governments should be met by organized action on the part of the European working classes, not the Atlasian government. I oppose Russian aggression and have been fairly consistent in opposing all acts of aggression, including those by the Republic of Atlasia. I do not support the neo-Nazi Kiev government or the neo-Nazi government of the 'Donetsk People's Republic', and further I don't support the Russians messing around in Ukraine. The people of Ukraine are the ones who should decide their own future, elect their own governments (free from NATO or Russian domination) and make their own way forward, not us or Russia.

I do not think we should be bombing ISIS. I was (iirc) the sole vote against authorizing military force in the region. I do not support military action unless that military action furthers the emancipation of the working class and is directed by the working class itself, which is why I have and will continue to oppose any and all action on behalf of Atlasian Capital, which of course, the Governor and his 'People's Party' are the key representatives of, at this juncture.
Logged
Simfan34
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,744
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: 4.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: August 30, 2014, 10:49:29 AM »
« Edited: August 30, 2014, 11:06:08 AM by Governor Varavour »

I am truly honoured to be deemed a "key representative" of "Atlasian Capitalism".

Also, "neo-Nazi Kiev government"... Roll Eyes
Logged
Lumine
LumineVonReuental
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,610
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: August 31, 2014, 12:40:26 PM »

Senator, President Poroshenko was elected democratically and the far right elements are losing power in Kiev, is there any chance this defamatory attack on his government could cease?

And furthermore, I must say I oppose the current trend of ignoring our written treaties and agreements in favor of sudden changes that eliminate our involvement. Many ignored that we offered Ukraine our guarantee that we would help them in case of aggression, making it harder to support them against the so called "separatists". And this bill seems to ignore NATO and many of our security and military agreements over the pasts decades. Certainly breaking the previous arrangements is not the best way of increasing the trust Atlasia has in the world, and openly calling for revolts against austerity is out of place.

If the Senate forgives my cynicism, world affairs don't work based on idealism. Most of us would like it to work like that, but it doesn't, and not even radical legislation like this would change it. What we need is measured reform and a willingness to act when necessary in order to be a positive force in the world, but by drastically diminishing our involvement and reducing our military funding and capabilities over and over the only thing that we're doing is to ensure that others will step in to fill the gap, and they won't be just allies. Many will speak about defending peace and to fight for peace, but beyond the rhetoric I remain unconvinced that this road will actually secure peace beyond making it harder for Atlasia to do anything on the world stage as the world's remaining superpower (unless you consider China or Russia on a similar standing).
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: September 02, 2014, 09:13:35 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 #48 on: September 02, 2014, 09:14:24 AM »

Senators have 24 hours to object.
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 #49 on: September 02, 2014, 04:02:32 PM »

I guess I can support this. It will probably save some money without leaving us completely vulnerable or force us into breaking our obligations to our allies left and right.
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 0.047 seconds with 13 queries.