Peace and Prosperity Act of 2014 (Voting on Amendment)

[TNF]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: President Pro Tempore TNF

[TNF]

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.

[TNF]

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.

[TNF]

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.

[TNF]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[TNF]

Senators have 24 hours to object to the proposed amendment.

[TNF]

The amendment has been adopted.

[TNF]

The amendment has been adopted.

I call for a vote on said amendment.

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?

[TNF]

The amendment has been adopted.

I call for a vote on said amendment.

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.

[TNF]

TNF is right.

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.'

[TNF]

Do we have National Guard numbers?

[TNF]

I have an idea concerning troop levels, but I'd like to get those NatGuard numbers before I present it.

[TNF]

Bumping for those numbers.

[TNF]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[TNF]

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?

[TNF]

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.

[TNF]

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.

[TNF]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[TNF]

Senators have 24 hours to object.

[TNF]

An objection has been filed by Senator Spiral to the proposed amendment. Senators, a vote is now open on the above amendment. Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

[TNF]

AYE


While I like the original content (obviously, since I wrote it into the bill), I think this has a much better chance of passing without it, given the opposition it has seemed to elicit among some members of the Senate. With that section removed, I'm not entirely sure what is necessarily wrong with this bill to those who oppose it, other than opposition from those who believe that Atlasia needs a large military or multiple military bureaucracies doing the exact same thing under different banners, and thus wasting a lot of taxpayer dollars as a result.

I am of course ideologically committed to shrinking the offensive capabilities of the Republic of Atlasia because I believe that, with smaller offensive capabilities and a much larger role for citizen-soldiers (in the form of the National Guard), elected officials will be far less likely to engage in imperial actions abroad.

[TNF]

The amendment has enough votes to pass. Senators have 24 hours to change their votes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Amendment is friendly. Senators have 24 hours to object.

[TNF]

The amendment has been adopted.

[TNF]

Would anyone like to add anything else to this, or are we ready to have a final vote on it?

[TNF]

Except that, in 2014, they really don't, given that the USMC has seen combat in Iraq, and given that the USMC is supposed to serve as naval infantry. Are you proposing that as an amendment or not?