Freedom Act of 2005

[Sam Spade]

I have to agree with Mr. Hughento here. This bill might not be recieved well by our allies in the Mideast such as Pakistan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Most of these regimes are pro-Atlasian because we give them the foreign aid needed to sustain their nations. Do you seriously believe that Egypt or Pakistan would still help us in the War on Terrorism if we stopped supporting their governments and giving them aid? While the scope of this bill is excellent and well in line with my feelings concerning the spread of democracy and liberty it may cause, as a result, less liberty and more anti-Atlasianism in the Mideast. While I do not like propping up dictators like Mubarak and Musharraf their is no way that I can see to get around this.

Can't necessarily disagree with what you're saying.  My feelings on the matter just differ.

[Peter]

While the scope of this bill is excellent and well in line with my feelings concerning the spread of democracy and liberty it may cause, as a result, less liberty and more anti-Atlasianism in the Mideast.

Yeah, we're going to rebel against the Republic anytime soon because of our uber-undemocratic government.

[Sam Spade]

While the scope of this bill is excellent and well in line with my feelings concerning the spread of democracy and liberty it may cause, as a result, less liberty and more anti-Atlasianism in the Mideast.

Yeah, we're going to rebel against the Republic anytime soon because of our uber-undemocratic government.

This is the Mideast's flag, isn't it?



Looks blatantly un-democratic to me. 

[12th Doctor]

I'm left with too many questions.  How do we determine the "list"?

The Secretary of State determines it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If we approve a Secretary of State we trust, its accuracy should not be in question.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Secretary of State's opinion.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Policy is being left with the Secretary of State.  We are just giving him and ourselves obligations as to who we give foreign aid too (and that they can't be non-free and non-democratic countries in the determination of the Secretary of State).

If the Secretary of State determines that a country should not be on the list, he will simply put it as being "free and democratic" instead of being "not free and democratic".

Essentially, we are giving the diplomats (and the Secretary of State) carte blanche over the determination of who we shouldn't give foreign aid to.  The Senate still has control over who we give foreign aid to.

This has nothing to with free trade or these types of things, it has to with foreign aid and foreign aid only.  If it was trade, I would be against it also.

Sorry, I guess I should have given this more than just a quick glance.  It's been a long week.

[The Duke]

This will almost certainly end food aid to North Korea and Zimbabwe.  You can decide for yourselves if that's good or bad, and I'll keep my own view to myself as GM, but you should know that its almost certain that this bill will indirectly change policy towards those two very controversial nations.

[12th Doctor]

This will almost certainly end food aid to North Korea and Zimbabwe.  You can decide for yourselves if that's good or bad, and I'll keep my own view to myself as GM, but you should know that its almost certain that this bill will indirectly change policy towards those two very controversial nations.

Hmmmm... good point.  I found a new reason to oppose this.  We can;t let millions stare to death simply because it suits us.

[Sam Spade]

This will almost certainly end food aid to North Korea and Zimbabwe.  You can decide for yourselves if that's good or bad, and I'll keep my own view to myself as GM, but you should know that its almost certain that this bill will indirectly change policy towards those two very controversial nations.

Good. 

[Jake]

This will almost certainly end food aid to North Korea and Zimbabwe.  You can decide for yourselves if that's good or bad, and I'll keep my own view to myself as GM, but you should know that its almost certain that this bill will indirectly change policy towards those two very controversial nations.

We'll see how the situation with Mugabe and Kim changes when their people are starving.  Either they lash out and are destroyed or they collapse.

[12th Doctor]

This will almost certainly end food aid to North Korea and Zimbabwe.  You can decide for yourselves if that's good or bad, and I'll keep my own view to myself as GM, but you should know that its almost certain that this bill will indirectly change policy towards those two very controversial nations.

We'll see how the situation with Mugabe and Kim changes when their people are starving.  Either they lash out and are destroyed or they collapse.

Or, they will let their people stave to death in the millions, especially in North Korea where the government has tight control on everything.

Worst case senerio, Kim sees the end is near and launches a nuclear warhead on Japan, or South Korea or Tiawan or Australia or even the US... with the promise of launching more if we do not resume aid.

What does it matter that we can bomb his ass into the ground, millions of people on our side will be dead.  Do you people think before you say things?

[12th Doctor]

Acctually, since I don't consider the North Korean peopel to be the enemy, probably tens-of-millions of people on our side will be killed.

[Gabu]

I'm currently undecided, but I'm leaning towards Supersoulty's position... even if the governments do collapse as a result (which is not a sure thing), I really don't like the thought of sitting idly by while millions starve to death in retaliation for the actions of their government, over which the people have little to no control.

[12th Doctor]

Even if this does work "as planned" it will have disasterous diplomatic consquences for our country.  The world and the people in these countries will crucify us for not only allowing to happen, but acctually advocating mass starvation as a foriegn affairs strategy and rightfully so. 

This legislation is not dangerous, but down right evil in its conception.  It would take a truely heartless, twisted person to acctually advocate going through with the provisions of this bill if it were passed.

I strongly urge all my fellow Senators to vote "Nay" on this.

[John Dibble]

Just something to read:

http://www.rfa.org/english/news/2004/01/11/125428/index.html

[Jake]

We'll see how the situation with Mugabe and Kim changes when their people are starving.  Either they lash out and are destroyed or they collapse.

Worst case senerio, Kim sees the end is near and launches a nuclear warhead on Japan, or South Korea or Tiawan or Australia or even the US... with the promise of launching more if we do not resume aid.

What does it matter that we can bomb his ass into the ground, millions of people on our side will be dead.  Do you people think before you say things?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

First, Kim has very little chance of successfully attacking Japan with a weapon, and can actually cause more damage to Seoul if he attacks it with a mass artillery barage than a nuke.  Second, he cannot attack the US, Taiwan, Australia, or any other country other than Japan or South Korea with a nuclear weapon as he has only short range missles and some crappy fighter bombers. His chances of successfully attacking Japan is low due to Japanese missle defenses.  

[Gabu]

Just something to read:

http://www.rfa.org/english/news/2004/01/11/125428/index.html

Does that mean that all food is diverted, or just some of it?  I ask because of the first half of the first sentence in the last paragraph: "North Korea has relied on international aid to feed its 22 million people since the mid-1990s."  That makes it sound like they still need international aid to survive, even with this diversion.

[John Dibble]

Just something to read:

http://www.rfa.org/english/news/2004/01/11/125428/index.html

Does that mean that all food is diverted, or just some of it?  I ask because of the first half of the first sentence in the last paragraph: "North Korea has relied on international aid to feed its 22 million people since the mid-1990s."  That makes it sound like they still need international aid to survive, even with this diversion.

Probably enough that it would make a difference in the quality of life of the people who it's being diverted from.

Oh, and this might sound un-Libertarian of me, but I wouldn't be against the idea of hiring a few assassins to take care of the problems of North Korea.

[12th Doctor]

We'll see how the situation with Mugabe and Kim changes when their people are starving.  Either they lash out and are destroyed or they collapse.

Worst case senerio, Kim sees the end is near and launches a nuclear warhead on Japan, or South Korea or Tiawan or Australia or even the US... with the promise of launching more if we do not resume aid.

What does it matter that we can bomb his ass into the ground, millions of people on our side will be dead.  Do you people think before you say things?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

First, Kim has very little chance of successfully attacking Japan with a weapon, and can actually cause more damage to Seoul if he attacks it with a mass artillery barage than a nuke.  Second, he cannot attack the US, Taiwan, Australia, or any other country other than Japan or South Korea with a nuclear weapon as he has only short range missles and some crappy fighter bombers. His chances of successfully attacking Japan is low due to Japanese missle defenses.  

You are right about Seoul, but woefully misinformed about N. Korea's missile capability.  They just tested a missile about a year back that could, in theory, hit the US

[Jake]

If they could mate a nuclear warhead on it.  They cannot.

[12th Doctor]

If they could mate a nuclear warhead on it.  They cannot.

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20030908-115609-6505r.htm

[Sam Spade]

This legislation is not dangerous, but down right evil in its conception.  It would take a truely heartless, twisted person to acctually advocate going through with the provisions of this bill if it were passed.

Superb.  I'm going to have to put that in my new quotables section as to things that I would like to be called. 

[12th Doctor]

It really is not very hard to mount a nuclear warhead.  The ones they make now are far smaller than the old ones.  Also, it only takes one bomb to do serious damage.  True, they cannot mount an enormous "City Buster" that is acctually comprised of 5 or 6 warheads, but just because that is the modern standard does not mean that that is what they have to do.

[12th Doctor]

This legislation is not dangerous, but down right evil in its conception.  It would take a truely heartless, twisted person to acctually advocate going through with the provisions of this bill if it were passed.

Superb.  I'm going to have to put that in my new quotables section as to things that I would like to be called. 

Well, it would certainly appear to be the truth.

[Jake]

If they could mate a nuclear warhead on it.  They cannot.

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20030908-115609-6505r.htm

The Taepo-Dong 2 (range as quoted - 2300Km) can carry a payload of several hundred pounds, barely enough for a nuclear warhead.

The Taepo-Dong X (range as quoted - 3400Km) can carry an unspecified payload, the problem is, neither of these missles have the range to attack the US proper, and I very much doubt their effectiveness and whether warheads are mounted on them and whether they have the numbers they'll needs to assure success.

[12th Doctor]

If they could mate a nuclear warhead on it.  They cannot.

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20030908-115609-6505r.htm

The Taepo-Dong 2 (range as quoted - 2300Km) can carry a payload of several hundred pounds, barely enough for a nuclear warhead.

The Taepo-Dong X (range as quoted - 3400Km) can carry an unspecified payload, the problem is, neither of these missles have the range to attack the US proper, and I very much doubt their effectiveness and whether warheads are mounted on them and whether they have the numbers they'll needs to assure success.

What the Hell are you talking about.  The article says that both have the capacity to hit the west coast of the US.  And even if they can't, they can certainly hit other places.

As I said before, a single warhead wieghs far less than the old bombs carried by the B-52's.  One war head will wiegh only about 200-300 lbs.

[The Duke]

Caulder Consultancies is available to analyze a best case worst case and middle case scenario for this bill, since there is dispute as to its effect, and people's votes seem to ride on what the effect would be.  Results, as this is a national security document, will be restricted only to Senators or executive branch persons who request it.