SENATE BILL: End to Imperialism Act (Law'd)

[Ban my account ffs!]

nay

[Ban my account ffs!]

I would support an amended form of this bill that lengthened the withdrawal period to a more realistic amount.  I believe democratic movements have to be home-grown.. and while I understand the bombings in Libya are meant to try and stop a pathetic dictator from bombing his own people, arming the opposition generally hasn't worked out very well for us.

As far as Afghanistan and Iraq... at this point, they will get the government they deserve.  I am optimistic for Iraq.. not so much for Afghanistan.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I think 90 days would be appropriate.  That's 3 months... that gives 6 weeks for preparation and 6 weeks for execution.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Coming from the most unsuccessful Senatorial candidate in history, my comments may not mean anything, but I would like to add a few thoughts.  I do believe that this debate is worth having.  Then, I hope, the Senate will vote against this bill.

First, I don't think the Senate has the power to withdraw troops.  Polnut is the Commander in Chief and he, alone, has the power of deployment (especially when you are talking about pre-positioned bases in Europe and Asia).  Not to give any ideas, but I think the only legal avenue for the Senate would be to stop funding.  Could be wrong, but that is just off the top of my head.

Second, very ill-defined bill.  What are "troops?"  If you mean members of the armed services, then we would have to withdraw the Marines guarding the embassies in those two countries.  While I am not a fan of the State Department guys I have met, and would get a little joy out of the pucker factor they would experience without any military protection, you can't do that to them.  It makes too high an unprotected target.

So do you mean combat troops?  What about special forces training and advising the militaries of those countries.  If they are to survive, you want to make sure their militaries are prepared.  What about liaison and ground control personnel?  You would want to keep a couple in country so that in time of emergency, we could quickly use bases there.  See our troops in Iceland, Diego Garcia, Japan, etc.

Lastly, I don't think we have active military "in' Libya.  I believe from what I know from my friends involved in that area, the guys on the ground are "civilians."  The British I believe have the SAS on the ground.  Most of the work has been done from the air.

Those are a few structural problems I see.  I also do not believe wholesale withdrawl from the international community is a good idea.  It weakens our position and limits our ability to be involved when we have to.

Now I will go back to losing my next election.

The senate has the ability to declare war and also the power of the purse.  We can essentially tie the president's hands by completely defunding any troop involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya.

If the President wants to get into a fight over who gets to decide when and where we conduct wars, I think he'll find that the senate can make it very difficult to enact "tough guy" foreign policy..

[Ban my account ffs!]

Coming from the most unsuccessful Senatorial candidate in history, my comments may not mean anything, but I would like to add a few thoughts.  I do believe that this debate is worth having.  Then, I hope, the Senate will vote against this bill.

First, I don't think the Senate has the power to withdraw troops.  Polnut is the Commander in Chief and he, alone, has the power of deployment (especially when you are talking about pre-positioned bases in Europe and Asia).  Not to give any ideas, but I think the only legal avenue for the Senate would be to stop funding.  Could be wrong, but that is just off the top of my head.

Second, very ill-defined bill.  What are "troops?"  If you mean members of the armed services, then we would have to withdraw the Marines guarding the embassies in those two countries.  While I am not a fan of the State Department guys I have met, and would get a little joy out of the pucker factor they would experience without any military protection, you can't do that to them.  It makes too high an unprotected target.

So do you mean combat troops?  What about special forces training and advising the militaries of those countries.  If they are to survive, you want to make sure their militaries are prepared.  What about liaison and ground control personnel?  You would want to keep a couple in country so that in time of emergency, we could quickly use bases there.  See our troops in Iceland, Diego Garcia, Japan, etc.

Lastly, I don't think we have active military "in' Libya.  I believe from what I know from my friends involved in that area, the guys on the ground are "civilians."  The British I believe have the SAS on the ground.  Most of the work has been done from the air.

Those are a few structural problems I see.  I also do not believe wholesale withdrawl from the international community is a good idea.  It weakens our position and limits our ability to be involved when we have to.

Now I will go back to losing my next election.

The senate has the ability to declare war and also the power of the purse.  We can essentially tie the president's hands by completely defunding any troop involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya.

If the President wants to get into a fight over who gets to decide when and where we conduct wars, I think he'll find that the senate can make it very difficult to enact "tough guy" foreign policy..

So we agree.

Yes.  I think the bill should be amended to make it more constitutional.  I also think Napoleon should be the one to amend it.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I think we should call this to a vote ASAP... there is no reason to amend it into something that is nothing like the original bill.

With the 90 day time frame, I will support it.  Let's have our combat troops home to take their kids trick-or-treating.

[Ban my account ffs!]

How is it legal if that is true?

It's not.  Perhaps we should drag the SoEA in here to explain.  If he is engaging in unauthorized activities, he should stop immediately.  If the president acts to try and authorize such activity, I'd recommend we defund any such activities ASAP.  If he wants to pay for it with milk and honey and unicorn jizz, he can go ahead and try.

[Ban my account ffs!]

You misread what I said - I said that I changed the mission from a military combat one to one of civilian protection and military intelligence and logistical support.

What's to stop the senate from reducing any funds given to NATO in order to make it impossible to keep sending Atlasian troops to Libya under the guise of international cooperation?

This bill has gone nowhere in days.  I'm tempted to call it to a vote, but I think I'll let Napoleon do that.

Keep in mind that if the bill passes as written and your veto is overridden, all troops from Libya will have to be withdrawn because no funding will be in place for them... even if it is first appropriated to NATO.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I have offered Napoleon what I think is a fair compromise - but he has not made those details public yet.

Well, I'd hope he makes them public ASAP.  As I already said, I won't support something that is too watered down and promotes further warmongering.

The bill as it stands now would pass the senate.  With minor changes, we would override your veto.

[Ban my account ffs!]

As I said - I respect the right of the Senate to make these determinations - but I believe anything too precipitous would be a mistake.

A mistake?  Afghanistan will be an endless moneypit for eternity due almost completely to geography.  We will never "win" there by employing force.  Afghanistan should really be split into several small semi-autonomous regions that are self governing.  But that won't be accomplished with Atlasian money or Atlasian troops.

We are more than ready to withdraw from Iraq.  I believe they can sustain democracy.. though they, too, should probably be divided into 3 semi-autonomous regions with self government.  The religious and cultural divides among the people there are too rigid to force them together under a weak democratic government.  By leaving the bulk of the decisions to regional governments elected by like minded people, things will run much more smoothly.

As far as Libya goes... just because the international community agrees to bombing the hell out of people, doesn't make it right.  I support the rebels in removing the tyrannical government from power... but that's all I believe I can and should do.. is give them moral support.  Targeted trade/economic sanctions and diplomacy should be the viable alternative.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Are we moving forward with this bill?

Also.. why is the original post not updated to reflect the passed amendments?  I'm pretty sure the bill should indicate withdrawing funds from troop involvement, and not simple withdrawl of troops.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Are we moving forward with this bill?

Also.. why is the original post not updated to reflect the passed amendments?  I'm pretty sure the bill should indicate withdrawing funds from troop involvement, and not simple withdrawl of troops.

I have never updated OPs, save for the subject line in the OP to change the heading of the thread. As such why are you suprised to not see it so?

Because the debate carried over to next page, I forgot to announce that the amendment had passed. Normally when I make such a declaration of passage, I post the updated text.

I always thought you did... which is why I always did.  It wouldn't hurt   I mean.. it's not like you're overworked or anything

[Ban my account ffs!]

I've already stated that I believe 90 days was enough time to get our troops out of there.  There is no reason to be all "moderate hero" about this.  Do you really think keeping them there until next June is going to make a bit of difference? 

If you were arguing that it will take that long simply to get the troops out, I could understand... but you're not.  You're just picking dates and times that are arbitrarily longer than what the sponsor of the bill offered because you have Obama Fever.  You can't/won't take sudden actions because that could maybe be seen as rash.  You're afraid to take those risks... so instead you push for a compromise that nobody likes at all.

When this bill comes to a vote, I will vote aye.  And when you veto it, Mr. President, I will vote to override your veto.

It's well past the time that Atlasian troops need to come home.  Not because we're defeated or we're losers or anything... but because we need to bring them home and focus on defending ourselves while ending the bottomless moneypit that "defense" has been.  We've screwed with enough peoples' lives and it should stop ASAP.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Senator, you have (hopefully accidentally) completely ignored what I've been saying.  For us to withdraw now, hastily, would do far more damage to the people we are trying to help than following the President's timeline.  Withdrawing just to withdraw, which is what you and Senator Napoleon are arguing for, is dangerous.  It doesn't give the people left time to prepare themselves; it will lead to the collapse of anti-Gaddafi resistance in Libya, it will strengthen the Taliban in Afghanistan/Pakistan, and will fuel instability in Iraq.  These are all outcomes that must be avoided, and so this bill must be defeated, and the President's timeline must be the absolute shortest we can have this process take.

The President consulted all the top foreign policy and military advisers before making his decision (I know, I was there).  His explanation is solid, and backed up by fact.  It appears, Senator, you are choosing to follow your own instincts as opposed to expert advice, and that is a mistake - one which I hope the Senate will not follow.

10 years in Afghanistan was plenty of time to affect change.  You've made it clear in your statements that we should be there "until the job is done"... unfortunately, you cannot explain what job it is that needs to "get done"... only that it is some far off, pie in the sky goal that will require lots more money and troops to achieve.

We should not have gotten involved with Libya.  While I vehemently oppose Ghadaffi and his murdering of his own people, I do not believe any good will come from our supporting the rebels.  At the very best, it will create yet another nation completely dependent on us for long term survival, and at the worst, sour those people and turn them against us.  This has been tried so many times before that you'd think the military establishment would get it through their thick skulls... but alas, they do not.

As far as Iraq is concerned:  It is time they carried their own water.  I believe they can do it.  There is no reason to drag things out any longer there.


I'm not "acting with my instincts" here.  And I'm not endangering the troops by bringing them home in a timely manner.  I'm only endangering the warmongers' ability to keep waging pointless wars and the profit margin of defense contractors.  And I have a feeling that is what scares this administration most.

[Ban my account ffs!]

My comment about warmongers was not in any way an insult to the troops, and to be honest I'm surprised anyone would see it as such.  The SOEA clearly wants endless war policing the world and forcing other nations to bend to our will in the classic neocon way.  Shua brings up an excellent question that has yet to be answered... What will the extra six months bring to the table?  I'm aware that the "military" advisors think the presidents compromise is too short... But any compromise to them that doesn't allow endless funding and throwing the lives of our young men and women away for unachievable objectives is not enough.

I've no doubt that in the end, the moderate hero neocons will win out and we'll consign countless more Atlasian troops to death in the quest to achieve an unachievable objective against a vague and I'll defined enemy.  But again, Halliburton will be elated!

Yelnoc:  I also have many friends serving, including two that are in Afghanistan right now.  I still think the top brass are warmongers who glorify war and use our chicken hawk politicians to get their way.  Im sorry if I've offended you...but nothing offends me more than sending good men to die for nothing.

[Ban my account ffs!]

It is clear the Senate will have to act on its own for this.

Yes, you've made it quite clear that you and your cronies will do whatever possible to destroy the good work Atlasia has done and is trying to do, in order to satisfy some wrongheaded grudge.

Grudge?  I have nothing against you or Polnut, Ben.  I just don't agree with you on foreign policy.  I think you're the one turning this into some kind of personal grudge.

You think warring is good for Atlasia and good for the rest of the world.  I think it's expensive and unnecessarily deadly.  We have international organizations that can handle peacekeeping and a thing called diplomacy.  If our "enemies" don't want to talk it out, then I think Atlasia can easily make a case to international bodies that these people are a threat and action should be taken... at an international level.  And diplomatic routes should always be exhausted first.. including military and economic sanctions on an international scale that cripples our "enemy" governments' ability to stay in power.

[Ban my account ffs!]

oh, and I was referring to Junkie in my previous post.. not Yelnoc.  Sorry about that, Junkie.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I motion to bring cloture to debate on this bill.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Nay.

I know.. shoot me later.  Since I made the motion, I've decided we need more time to debate this.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I think debate should continue and everyone should cool their heels a bit before we move forward.

[Ban my account ffs!]

In the compromise plan I offered, I did allow for a small contingent of troops to remain in Afghanistan to provide personal protection for high government officials.  I said that highly trained troops should perform this action and that there needn't be a withdrawal date for this very specific mission.

Otherwise, my offer was to get the troops out by March 1st (save the small contingent outlined above).

The President offered having the troops out by May 1st with the contingent force out by the end of next year, mostly to train Afghan troops to perform the job of protecting the government officials.

I plan to support the bill as it is currently... but if the veto should be sustained, I will offer the compromise measure in its place. 

[Ban my account ffs!]

Shua-  If you want to debate the bill, you should call for the vote to stop and reopen debate.

[Ban my account ffs!]

In the case that there's a real life natural disaster and we have absolutely no access to the internet and it's beyond our control?

This is especially the case since you just started the vote without a senator calling for a vote.. you based it on the fact that nobody posted.. when in fact Shua may have wanted to, but couldn't.

I think it is safe to say that when a hurricane threatens Washington, congress will not take up business... especially on important foreign policy matters that are not considered an emergency.

It is one thing if a senator cannot make it due to a personal problem... but when he is completely unable to debate or vote due to a RL natural disaster that also shuts down our RL nation's capital... I think exceptions can be made.

[Ban my account ffs!]

If you're going to throw the rule book at me, then why wasn't this bill voted on a long time ago?  Surely there were periods of 24+ hours with no debate?

The rules are the rules... but there is no language in the OSPR that states a vote cannot be stopped due to unusual or extreme circumstances.

I would say if this issue isn't addressed and Shua's concerns aren't dealt with to his satisfaction, I will push to keep the vote open until the current senate is dissolved and the next one is seated.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Alas, debate has resumed, and our esteemed colleague is no longer here to debate. 

Perhaps if our esteemed colleague were to PM me his thoughts or objections to the bill, I would voice said thoughts on behalf of said constituent.