Voting Thread on Sudan

[The Duke]

We started voting in the debate thread, but I think a formal voting thread will better catch people's attention.

So far hughento and JFK are for, StevenNick against.

The text of the bills, one for use of force, the other for funding.

Use Of Force Resolution

Section 1

1. The Atlas Senate hereby authorizes the use of military force in against the government of Sudan.

2. The Atlas Senate resolves to support our soldiers when they in harm's way.


Supplemental Appropriations Bill

Section 1

1. The Senate appropriates $26 billion for operations in Sudan from bases in Eritrea, Chad, Ethiopia, Kenya, and Uganda.

2. If any funds for military operations shall not be spent during the course of these operations, they shall be redirected to the Treasury.

Section 2

1. The Senate appropriates $4 billion in supplemental appropriations for maintenance and repairs of military vehicles.

[7,052,770]

Are we doing this alone, or will other nations be joining us?

[The Duke]

We have basing rights from a number of countries and there are peacekeepers in Darfur right now from other countries in the region.  We have others with us, and the support of even more nations.

We won't have a UN resolution though, since Russia and China would have vetoed it.

[7,052,770]

so will this be a coalition?  of what countries?  and how much do other countries contribute compared to us?
I certainly think we should take action, but it's not fair for us to take it almost by ourselves.

[The Duke]

so will this be a coalition?  of what countries?  and how much do other countries contribute compared to us?
I certainly think we should take action, but it's not fair for us to take it almost by ourselves.

Our most important coalition partner will be the SPLA, a rebel group that has been fightin the Sudanese government for 20 years.  They will do the hard work for us, since we are not sending a large contingent of ground troops.

I wouldn't call it a broad based alliance, but the reality is we do it with a small cadre of partners or we are stuck doing nothing.

[7,052,770]

so will this be a coalition?  of what countries?  and how much do other countries contribute compared to us?
I certainly think we should take action, but it's not fair for us to take it almost by ourselves.

Our most important coalition partner will be the SPLA, a rebel group that has been fightin the Sudanese government for 20 years.  They will do the hard work for us, since we are not sending a large contingent of ground troops.

I wouldn't call it a broad based alliance, but the reality is we do it with a small cadre of partners or we are stuck doing nothing.

hmmm, how many troops would we be sending?

[The Duke]

It depends on fluctuation in the situation in Darfur.  If the current peacekeeping mission falls apart and the Africans can't handle things, we will send two brigades of Army Rangers to the region to defend villages.

Regardless of what happens in Darfur, 7th Special Forces group will be sent to southern Sudan, but will not seek out combat, they are just to direct traffic.

The deployment in numbers of people will range between 200 ground troops and 2,000 ground troops.

[7,052,770]

OK, i vote aye

[12th Doctor]

Are we doing this alone, or will other nations be joining us?

At this moment, the chair would like to take this oppertunity to tell the Senator that he should pay attention to the business of the Senate as it goes on.

[12th Doctor]

The voting is 2-1 in favor.

[The Duke]

The voting is 2-1 in favor.

3-1

For: JFK, hughento, Harry

Against: StevenNick

[Akno21]

2. The Atlas Senate resolves to support our soldiers when they in harm's way.[/i]

What percisely does that mean?

[The Duke]

2. The Atlas Senate resolves to support our soldiers when they in harm's way.[/i]

What percisely does that mean?

It actually means nothing, its just a demonstartion of solidarity with troops.  Congress always passes these when they send troops into harm's way.  Everyone says yes, and it shows symbolic unity.

[The Dowager Mod]

IT'S A TRAP!!!!!!!!!

[Niles Caulder]

IT'S A TRAP!!!!!!!!!

ROFLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!

[Akno21]

2. The Atlas Senate resolves to support our soldiers when they in harm's way.[/i]

What percisely does that mean?

It actually means nothing, its just a demonstartion of solidarity with troops.  Congress always passes these when they send troops into harm's way.  Everyone says yes, and it shows symbolic unity.

Looking at what happened to John Kerry, was why I asked. He supported the initial invasion but did not vote for a version of the 87 billion and then was criticized for not supporting the troops. I didn't want to be caught in a trap.

[The Duke]

No trap.  Just trying to follow real life precedent.

[Akno21]

No trap.  Just trying to follow real life precedent.

Ok, good. I am most likely for this act/resolution.

[Gustaf]

LOL at Texasgurl!

Ahem...more seriously, I encourage the senate to pass this ASAP. Needless to say, I will sign it.

[Platypus]

Some of my fellow moderate leftists may be worried about this bill. After fully analysing it, arguing oer it, and basically getting it right with the secretary, I know it's as good as it can be, and that it is an extremely important cause.

I encourage you to pass it, and quickly, for the oppressed people of Sudan, especially the Black Africans in Darfur.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

As GM, I do wish to point out that because of actions already taken by the adminstration, the situation in Darfur in this fantasy forum has already diverged from that of reality.  In reality the Sudanese government has rejected an AU peacekeeping force, on this forum it has accepted an AU peacekeeping force which is larger than the one which it rejected in reality.  The debate here has caused me to think that some people are basing their reactions to the real Darfur situation instead of the fantasy Darfur situation which is why I am pointing this out.

[Nation]

I have been a long time supporter of action in Sudan, and I applaud Mr. Ford for taking action -- but I have concerns. Namely, concerns with troop safety and with costs. Naturally, in a perfect world, there will be no casualties -- but if we suffer big problems, unexpected problems -- do we have a plan?

I assume that we will be working with the local police and other forces there as much as possible -- but, the local forces cannot always be the most reliable. Secretary Ford -- are you FULLY CONFIDENT that even with a minimum troop deployment and with help from local authorities -- this mission should be easily within the Atlasia Military's capability?

[The Duke]

Sudan's army and paramilitary has been quite good at picking on elderly villagers and unarmed children.  Against the fighting power of the US Marines and Navy they will have some real problems.

We will not suffer a large number of casualties unless the Sudan has significant previously unkown capabilities.  I'd consider 50 American casualties to be a real disaster given our war plan and what we're up against.  Confidence of success is high.  The Senate PPT can vouch for this, he's seen the plan.  It is quite solid.

[Nation]

Sudan's army and paramilitary has been quite good at picking on elderly villagers and unarmed children.  Against the fighting power of the US Marines and Navy they will have some real problems.

We will not suffer a large number of casualties unless the Sudan has significant previously unkown capabilities.  I'd consider 50 American casualties to be a real disaster given our war plan and what we're up against.  Confidence of success is high.  The Senate PPT can vouch for this, he's seen the plan.  It is quite solid.

Very well -- Atlasia's Army, yourself, and President Gustaf have my support. I vote aye on action in Sudan.

[Akno21]

I vote yea.