HB 2016-1052 - Anti-Terror Coalition Resolution (PASSED TO SENATE!)

[NeverAgain]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsors: Cris, Blair, and Tmthforu

I open debate for 48 hours

[Enduro]

I can support this, but I do want some guarantee that we won't just leave another whole for someone worse than ISIS to take power.

[Classic Conservative]

I support this bill and I will vote AYE on the final version.

[Anna Komnene]

As I stated during my campaign, I cannot support this bill.

During the course of a decade in Operation Iraqi Freedom, we lost the lives of 4,424 Atlasian heroes, with over 31,000 more who came home wounded.  What have we gotten for their sacrifice?  What can we tell the families of those soldiers who lost loved ones?  Pretty much nothing.  The situation is actually even worse now than it was before.  While it's nice to say that we might be able to fix all of the world's problems, I'm not sure what evidence exists to suggest we wouldn't just be throwing away the lives of more Atlasian servicepeople on a fruitless venture that does nothing except gain us more enemies in the Middle East.  Quite frankly, while we can contribute to the fight against ISIS in certain ways, Atlasia should not be leading this coalition.

I also have a few concerns with how the bill is written.  First, is the inclusion of an authorization of military force under a "recommendation" for the framework of negotiations toward building a coalition.  That doesn't really make much sense.  Either we authorize military force or we don't.  This bill seems to suggest that it's only a recommendation or that it might be part of negotiations with other states.  It doesn't make sense for the Congress to recommend to itself to authorize military force.  It makes even less sense to involve the decision in negotiations with other countries.  I believe the intent of the bill is to authorize military force, which is another reason why I'm opposed, but the language is kind of unclear.

Second, the bill doesn't specify whether we will be contributing ground troops to the effort.  It authorizes military force (apparently) in Iraq and Syria against ISIS, and it suggests collaboration on "military projects," air strikes, and intelligence.  That is pretty vague.

Third, how much is this going to cost?  As far as I can tell, there is no current plan to fund the military efforts in this coalition.

Fourth, while I appreciate the efforts of the Secretary of State to provide us with a list of potential coalition partners in the Senate thread, this doesn't guarantee that any of those countries will actually agree to provide the assistance that we'd need from them in order to win.  It seems to me that if we agree to authorize military force without knowing whether the coalition partners are serious, we could wind up in a situation where Atlasia is shouldering too much of the military burden or going it alone.

Fifth, I'm concerned about the provision that doesn't allow governments that "support the Syrian government and Bashar Al-Assad" to be part of the coalition.  First, that's kind of vague.  How do we determine if a country supports or doesn't support.  A working coalition would need substantial contribution from Middle East countries to have any chance of long term stability in the region.

Because of these several reasons, I can't support this bill.  I hope other Representatives will consider joining me, or at the very least, amending the bill to fix some of its issues.

[Enduro]

As I stated during my campaign, I cannot support this bill.

During the course of a decade in Operation Iraqi Freedom, we lost the lives of 4,424 Atlasian heroes, with over 31,000 more who came home wounded.  What have we gotten for their sacrifice?  What can we tell the families of those soldiers who lost loved ones?  Pretty much nothing.  The situation is actually even worse now than it was before.  While it's nice to say that we might be able to fix all of the world's problems, I'm not sure what evidence exists to suggest we wouldn't just be throwing away the lives of more Atlasian servicepeople on a fruitless venture that does nothing except gain us more enemies in the Middle East.  Quite frankly, while we can contribute to the fight against ISIS in certain ways, Atlasia should not be leading this coalition.

I also have a few concerns with how the bill is written.  First, is the inclusion of an authorization of military force under a "recommendation" for the framework of negotiations toward building a coalition.  That doesn't really make much sense.  Either we authorize military force or we don't.  This bill seems to suggest that it's only a recommendation or that it might be part of negotiations with other states.  It doesn't make sense for the Congress to recommend to itself to authorize military force.  It makes even less sense to involve the decision in negotiations with other countries.  I believe the intent of the bill is to authorize military force, which is another reason why I'm opposed, but the language is kind of unclear.

Second, the bill doesn't specify whether we will be contributing ground troops to the effort.  It authorizes military force (apparently) in Iraq and Syria against ISIS, and it suggests collaboration on "military projects," air strikes, and intelligence.  That is pretty vague.

Third, how much is this going to cost?  As far as I can tell, there is no current plan to fund the military efforts in this coalition.

Fourth, while I appreciate the efforts of the Secretary of State to provide us with a list of potential coalition partners in the Senate thread, this doesn't guarantee that any of those countries will actually agree to provide the assistance that we'd need from them in order to win.  It seems to me that if we agree to authorize military force without knowing whether the coalition partners are serious, we could wind up in a situation where Atlasia is shouldering too much of the military burden or going it alone.

Fifth, I'm concerned about the provision that doesn't allow governments that "support the Syrian government and Bashar Al-Assad" to be part of the coalition.  First, that's kind of vague.  How do we determine if a country supports or doesn't support.  A working coalition would need substantial contribution from Middle East countries to have any chance of long term stability in the region.

Because of these several reasons, I can't support this bill.  I hope other Representatives will consider joining me, or at the very least, amending the bill to fix some of its issues.

To this list of questions, I add this: what are the "other terror groups" talked about in the beginning, and never mentioned again?

[NeverAgain]

24 Hours for Siren to answer Enduro's question.

[Anna Komnene]

24 Hours for Siren to answer Enduro's question.

Sorry I was eating all the jello in the hospital.  I didn't realize Mr. Enduro's question was addressed to me.  If asking me, I'd say that I share his concern.  No clue what the "other" terrorist groups are supposed to be.

[Enduro]

24 Hours for Siren to answer Enduro's question.

Sorry I was eating all the jello in the hospital.  I didn't realize Mr. Enduro's question was addressed to me.  If asking me, I'd say that I share his concern.  No clue what the "other" terrorist groups are supposed to be.

It wasn't addressed to you, it was an addition to your list of concerns.

[NeverAgain]

The unclearness of this bill makes me question it also. I ask for better clarification from one of the sponsors, or a motion to table.

[White Trash]

I take issue with the section in the bill that bars pro-Assad nations from being involved in this coalition. If we are truly going to form a comprehensive and effective response to global terror it is absolutely imperative that we vet each nation individually rather than doing a blanket ban.

It is clear that this section was specifically directed at Russia and her allies, but if our goal is to efficiently and decisively combat terrorism, then it would be foolhardy to not work with Russia on this. Representatives, we must take care to remember that this isn't 1989. We need to close the fissures between ourselves and Russia. Passing this bill in its current form will do nothing to fight terrorism effectively and will only further alienate Russia.

Beyond this, how are we defining support for the Assad government? Boots on the ground? Financial support? Vague, kind words towards Assad? Unless we can provide concrete definitions for this, this section means nothing. This sort of ambiguity in forming such an important coalition cannot be allowed.

I propose an amendment to the resolution, to strike the following sentence from Section 2: Nations who support the Syrian Government and Bashar Al-Assad are not permitted in the coalition.

[Goldwater]

I am far from pro-Assad, but I support Gothic's proposed amendment. We need to stop ISIS, and I fear that preventing Russia and it's allies from joining the coalition could be detrimental to our cause.

[NeverAgain]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsors: Cris, Blair, and Tmthforu

We shall now vote on the Amendment made by Rep. SG for 24 Hours.

[Goldwater]

AYE

[Anna Komnene]

Aye

[Enduro]

Aye.

[Mike Thick]

Aye

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

Aye

[NeverAgain]

Aye... I am very reluctant to do this, as Assad is still a great evil in the Middle East, and must be thwarted, but I do think that ISIS is the greater evil and must be defeated with as much force as possible.

[White Trash]

Aye

[Hatman 🍁]

nay

[NeverAgain]

By a vote of 7-1, the amendment passes.

24 hours of a debate on the final bill, before we move to a final vote.

[NeverAgain]

As there is no debate, let's move onto a final vote.

Aye, Nay, or Abstain for 48 hours folks!

[Goldwater]

AYE

[NeverAgain]

Aye.

[White Trash]

Aye