Since apparently TNF's amendment is the latest version of the bill, here is my opinion:
A pretty straightofrward and good part of the bill, I guess noone seriously contests this.
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.
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.
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...
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?
No problem with that.
