Talk Elections

Atlas Fantasy Elections => Atlas Fantasy Government => Topic started by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on June 12, 2012, 11:20:09 AM



Title: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (VS)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on June 12, 2012, 11:20:09 AM
Quote
Treaty
between the Republic of Atlasia and the
State of Israel for Defense and Security Cooperation

[Location], [Date]


As presented to the Senate
by the Secretary of External Affairs
by Command of the President
[Month, Year]



TREATY BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF ATLASIA AND THE STATE OF ISRAEL FOR DEFENSE AND SECURITY COOPERATION
The Republic of Atlasia and the State of Israel, hereinafter referred to as "The Parties",

Recalling that their foreign and defense policies are founded on common interests, values and responsibilities,

Mindful of their rights and obligations under the Charter of the United Nations,

Believing that greater defense and security cooperation strengthens the ties between their nations and international security,

Bearing in mind that they do not see situations arising in which the vital interests of either Party could be threatened without the vital interests of the other also being threatened,

Determined to address strategic challenges, promote international peace and security, ensure collective security, deter and dissuade against potential aggressors and counter threats, including terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and cyber-attacks,

Seeking to improve further the effectiveness and interoperability of their armed forces,

Recalling that the control of their armed forces, the decision to employ them and the use of force shall always remain a matter of national sovereignty,

Convinced that a technological and industrial defense base which is robust and competitive is both a strategic and an economic necessity for the two Parties,

Have agreed as follows:

ARTICLE 1
Objectives
The Parties, building on the existing strong links between their respective defense and security communities and armed forces, undertake to build a long-term mutually beneficial partnership in defense and security with the aims of:

1. maximizing their capacities through coordinating development, acquisition, deployment and maintenance of a range of capabilities, facilities, equipment, materials and services, to perform the full spectrum of missions, including the most demanding missions;

2. reinforcing the defense industry of the two Parties, fostering cooperation in research and technology and developing cooperative equipment programs;

3. deploying together into theatres in which both Parties have agreed to be engaged, in operations conducted under the auspices of the United Nations or in a coalition or bilateral framework, as well as supporting, as agreed on a case by case basis, one Party when it is engaged in operations in which the other Party is not part.

ARTICLE 2
Scope
The Parties agree that cooperation undertaken under the provisions of this Treaty
shall include:

1. the strengthening of the cooperation between the armed forces of both Parties which shall include increasingly close cooperation in the following fields: the conduct of joint exercises and other training activities; joint work on military doctrine and exchange of military personnel; sharing and pooling of materials, equipment and services, and, subject to the provisions of Article 5(2), close co-operation in contributing to and pooling forces and capabilities for military operations and employment of forces;

2. continuing and reinforcing the work on industrial and armament cooperation, involving industry as appropriate, through a long-term joint approach aimed at delivering effective military equipment in the most efficient manner, minimizing national constraints and strengthening industrial competitiveness;

3. the building and joint operating of such facilities as may be agreed between the Parties;

4. the sale or loan of materials, equipment and services by one Party to the other Party or the procurement by both Parties from third Parties;

5. the development of their defense technological and industrial bases around key technologies with efficient corporate governance mechanisms;

6. the attachment or exchange of personnel between the Parties;

7. the exchange of information relating to the political, policy, planning and decision-making processes involved in the planning, launching and command and control of bilateral and multilateral military and civil-military operations;

8. subject to national security regulations, the exchange of classified data and information relating to the performance of different defense equipment and systems as well as for operational purposes.

ARTICLE 3
Deployment and Employment of Forces
1. The deployment and employment of the armed forces of each Party shall remain a national responsibility at all times.

2. The deployment or employment of the armed forces of one Party together with or on behalf of the other Party in any operation shall be on the express command of the first Party and in agreement in writing with the other Party. Such deployment or employment shall involve, after careful consideration by both Parties, a direction by the Parties to their respective authorities concerning the strategic objectives, scale of operation, mission, duration and end state. The Parties shall form, in advance of deployment or employment, a common understanding of the purpose and the legal basis under international law for such deployment or employment and appropriate and complementary rules of engagement.

3. Appropriate command and control arrangements shall be agreed by both Parties for all bilateral deployments or operations.

ARTICLE 4
Access to Facilities, Equipment or Support Functions
1. Each Party undertakes to make available and to guarantee unhindered access to any facility, equipment and support function where cooperation undertaken under this Treaty has led to both Parties sharing facilities, equipment or support functions or to dependence by one Party on facilities, equipment or support
functions of the other Party, subject to any exceptions to such access set out in any applicable agreement or arrangement relating to such cooperation.

2. If such agreement or arrangement is terminated, its substantive provisions and the obligations referred to in paragraph 1 above shall continue to apply until such reasonable time as the other Party has generated or established or has access to an alternative facility or to an alternative source of such equipment or support function. Any modalities for implementing such continued application, where necessary, shall be defined in appropriate agreements or arrangements between the Parties.

3. In paragraphs 1 and 2 above the provision of support functions includes any necessary personnel.

ARTICLE 5
Procurement and Future Capability Programmes
The Parties undertake to compare, at the earliest possible dates, capability objectives and prospective programs and, to the greatest extent practicable, to harmonize timelines and requirements. The Parties undertake to consult before taking any decision on significant capability programs or procurement.

ARTICLE 6
Transfer, Access to the Market and Export Licensing
1. In implementing laws, regulations and any stated policies on the export of armament materials and technology, the Parties undertake to facilitate to the greatest extent possible the transfer of defense and security equipment and services between the Parties, consistent with their national licensing procedures.

2. Each Party undertakes not to hinder legitimate access to its markets and to its Government contracts in the field of defense and security.

3. The Parties agree to facilitate and promote the export of defense and security equipment jointly produced by Atlasian and Israeli entities to third parties, by agreement and within the framework of their respective national legislation.

4. The rights and obligations set out in paragraphs 1 to 3 above shall be subject to the international rights and obligations of the Parties, and shall accordingly be given effect in a manner consistent with such rights and obligations.

ARTICLE 7
Industry and Technology
1. The two Parties undertake to develop and to preserve key industrial capabilities and defense technologies so as to improve their independence in relation to key defense technologies and to increase their security of supply and to develop the operational capabilities of their armed forces.

2. To those ends, the Parties shall work to minimize unnecessary regulatory hindrance, improve dialogue between the defense companies of both Parties and foster their rationalization with the objective of enabling the purchase of equipment best suited to the performance and cost requirements of both Parties.

ARTICLE 8
Costs and Benefits
The Parties shall share equitably all costs and benefits incurred as a result of their involvement in the totality of cooperation undertaken under this Treaty, including all overhead and administrative costs unless otherwise provided for in related agreements or arrangements.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (Debating)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on June 12, 2012, 11:20:58 AM
Quote
ARTICLE 9
Information
1. The Parties shall enter into arrangements to facilitate the exchange of information, including classified information, for the purposes of co-operation under this Treaty.

2. As regards information in which intellectual property rights exist, nothing in this Treaty authorizes or governs the release, use, exchange or disclosure of information, whether classified or not, in which intellectual property rights exist, until the specific written authorization of the owner of those rights has been obtained, whether the owner is a Party to this Treaty or a third party.

ARTICLE 10
Claims and Liability
In the event of damage to property or injury or death caused by a willful act or omission or through gross negligence of one Party, its employees or agents, that Party shall be fully responsible for meeting or dealing with any resulting claims.

ARTICLE 11
Other Defense and Security Agreements
The provisions of this Treaty shall not affect the rights and obligations of each Party under other defense and security agreements to which it is a Party.

ARTICLE 12
Duration, Withdrawal and Termination
1. This Treaty shall continue in force until such time as either Party decides to withdraw from it after having given the other Party at least one months’ notice of its intention to do so.

2. During the notice period, the Parties shall decide on satisfactory
arrangements for the settlement of any outstanding liabilities. All provisions of this Treaty shall continue to apply during this period. Cooperation undertaken in accordance with specific agreements or arrangements shall continue after the termination of this Treaty in accordance with the provisions of the specific agreements or arrangements. The Parties may make any necessary amendments to those agreements or arrangements.

ARTICLE 13
Disputes
Any dispute regarding the interpretation or application of the provisions of this Treaty shall to the extent possible be resolved by consultations between the Parties. If a dispute cannot be resolved by consultations, the Parties may decide to refer it for settlement under a dispute settlement mechanism. The Parties shall decide upon the appropriate mechanism.

ARTICLE 14
Amendments
This Treaty may be amended at any time, in writing, by the agreement of both Parties.

ARTICLE 15
Entry into Force
This Treaty shall enter into force on the first day of the second month following the deposit of the later of the two instruments of ratification.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, duly authorized by their respective Governments have signed this Treaty,

DONE at [Location] on the [Day] of [Month], [Year], in duplicate in the English and Hebrew languages, each text being equally authentic.

For the Republic of Atlasia:

For the State of Israel:

Sponsor: Ben


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (Debating)
Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on June 12, 2012, 11:29:06 AM
Israel has always been one of our most important allies; they are an oasis of democracy in an arid region of authoritarianism.  This treaty reassures our ally that we will stand by them, especially with the development that Iran, a nation that is as friendly to Israel as a cotton farmer is to a boll weevil, is now a nuclear nation.  This is not a radical treaty; it does not break new ground in any significant way.  But it is sending a message to our friends and the enemies of our friends.

And so, I urge speedy ratification.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (Debating)
Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on June 14, 2012, 09:51:58 PM
When can we get a vote on this?


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (Debating)
Post by: Donerail on June 14, 2012, 09:53:26 PM
Debate expires like 11 AM on the 15th (tomorrow).


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (Debating)
Post by: LastVoter on June 15, 2012, 01:04:45 AM
There is no way I can support this.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (Debating)
Post by: CLARENCE 2015! on June 15, 2012, 02:42:50 AM
Strongly support of course...


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (Debating)
Post by: Donerail on June 15, 2012, 07:28:50 AM

Please expand. Anything we can do to make it more palatable?


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (Debating)
Post by: AndrewTX on June 15, 2012, 08:22:26 AM
No debate from me on this, I'll be supporting this.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (Debating)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on June 15, 2012, 12:27:08 PM
When I see "sending a message" I automatically think "moving us closer to war."  I will not support any legislation that heightens the possibility of war with Iran, and I am not sure how I will vote on this legislation.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (Debating)
Post by: Donerail on June 15, 2012, 12:51:50 PM
When I see "sending a message" I automatically think "moving us closer to war."  I will not support any legislation that heightens the possibility of war with Iran, and I am not sure how I will vote on this legislation.

Heightens the possibility of war? It will do the opposite. Through the ratification of this treaty, we will be saying to Israel, "We've got your back and support you." This show of support should provide some sort of sense of security to them, reassuring them and thus making them less likely to attack Iran.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (Debating)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on June 15, 2012, 01:09:09 PM
When I see "sending a message" I automatically think "moving us closer to war."  I will not support any legislation that heightens the possibility of war with Iran, and I am not sure how I will vote on this legislation.

Heightens the possibility of war? It will do the opposite. Through the ratification of this treaty, we will be saying to Israel, "We've got your back and support you." This show of support should provide some sort of sense of security to them, reassuring them and thus making them less likely to attack Iran.

But would Iran not see this as a way of preparing for war, and thus increase the chances that Iran would attack?


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (Debating)
Post by: Donerail on June 15, 2012, 01:14:19 PM
When I see "sending a message" I automatically think "moving us closer to war."  I will not support any legislation that heightens the possibility of war with Iran, and I am not sure how I will vote on this legislation.

Heightens the possibility of war? It will do the opposite. Through the ratification of this treaty, we will be saying to Israel, "We've got your back and support you." This show of support should provide some sort of sense of security to them, reassuring them and thus making them less likely to attack Iran.

But would Iran not see this as a way of preparing for war, and thus increase the chances that Iran would attack?

Given that Iranian policymakers have considered Atlasia and Israel in a de facto alliance already, it would likely make little difference in their opinion.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (Debating)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on June 15, 2012, 04:55:10 PM
When I see "sending a message" I automatically think "moving us closer to war."  I will not support any legislation that heightens the possibility of war with Iran, and I am not sure how I will vote on this legislation.

Heightens the possibility of war? It will do the opposite. Through the ratification of this treaty, we will be saying to Israel, "We've got your back and support you." This show of support should provide some sort of sense of security to them, reassuring them and thus making them less likely to attack Iran.

But would Iran not see this as a way of preparing for war, and thus increase the chances that Iran would attack?

Given that Iranian policymakers have considered Atlasia and Israel in a de facto alliance already, it would likely make little difference in their opinion.

Very well, then.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (Debating)
Post by: Donerail on June 15, 2012, 04:59:06 PM
When I see "sending a message" I automatically think "moving us closer to war."  I will not support any legislation that heightens the possibility of war with Iran, and I am not sure how I will vote on this legislation.

Heightens the possibility of war? It will do the opposite. Through the ratification of this treaty, we will be saying to Israel, "We've got your back and support you." This show of support should provide some sort of sense of security to them, reassuring them and thus making them less likely to attack Iran.

But would Iran not see this as a way of preparing for war, and thus increase the chances that Iran would attack?

Given that Iranian policymakers have considered Atlasia and Israel in a de facto alliance already, it would likely make little difference in their opinion.

Very well, then.

They call us (Atlasia) the Great Satan; they call Israel "the Little Satan". Pretty safe to say it won't affect their (negative) opinion.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (Debating)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on June 15, 2012, 05:23:36 PM
Vote will begin 24 hours after everyone stops talking or 24 hours after a UC request has been entered to waive cloture requirements or after a cloture vote has been held. All this is predicated on the 72 hour minimum debate time expiring or a UC request to waive that has been entered and 24 hours to object has been given. Same as every bill, but since someone asked. :P


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (Debating)
Post by: tpfkaw on June 16, 2012, 04:54:32 PM
Motion to table.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (Debating)
Post by: tpfkaw on June 16, 2012, 06:07:47 PM
Frankly, given that shortly after Atlasia sold Israel a load of F-16s, the Chinese Air Force started flying a new plane... (as acknowledged by an Atlasian military report (http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA314821): "United States technology has been acquired through Israel in the form of the Lavi [Israeli domestic variant of the F-16] fighter and possibly SAM technology").

()

()

That and its repeated spying, theft of sensitive technology including WMD technology, and other illegal activities in the US. (1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Franklin_espionage_scandal), 2 (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/27/eveningnews/main639143.shtml), 3 (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/01/13/false_flag?page=full), 4 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Apollo_Affair), 5 (http://irmep.org/ila/krytons/default.asp), 6 (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1986-09-04/news/8603060040_1_recon-optical-israel-last-year-contract-dispute), 7 (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/11/25/274400/-The-Usual-Suspects-Pt-3-Dr-Stephen-Bryen), 8 (http://articles.latimes.com/1993-04-13/news/mn-22383_1_spy-operation), 9 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Pollard), 10 (http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19970507&slug=2537854), 11 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7QYT3yoTAY), 12 (http://www.salon.com/2002/05/07/students/)) - and that is only a partial list of the incidents we know about!

This GAO report from 1996 (http://www.gao.gov/archive/1996/ns96064.pdf) provides an interesting look into "Country A's" [Israel's] spying activities in Atlasia.  This more recent article (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-spy-who-loves-us/) is a nice summary if you don't want to click on all the above links.  Of particular interest is the paragraph about Israeli sales of US intelligence to hostile foreign governments:

Quote
The focus on U.S. military secrets is not limited to information needed for the defense of Israel, as was argued when Pollard was arrested. Some of the information he stole was of such value that many high-ranking intelligence officers believe the Soviet Union agreed to the release of tens of thousands of Russian Jews for resettlement in Israel in exchange. In early 1996, the Office of Naval Investigations concluded that Israel had transferred sensitive military technology to China. In 2000, the Israeli government attempted to sell China the sophisticated Phalcon early warning aircraft, which was based on U.S.-licensed technology. A 2005 FBI report noted that the thefts eroded U.S. military advantage, enabling foreign powers to obtain hugely expensive technologies that had taken years to develop.

Israel has fooled us once, twice, dozens of times.  Shame on us if we decide to deepen our sharing of military technology and military intelligence with a country that has proven, time after time, broken promise after broken promise, that it absolutely cannot be trusted with either.  Shame on us too if we decide to "improve our alliance" with a country that conducts itself in a manner more befitting of our enemy than our ally (as the GAO report says, "the government of Country A conducts the most aggressive espionage operation against the United States of any U.S. ally").


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (Debating)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on June 17, 2012, 07:28:32 PM
The motion needs to be seconded by another sitting Senator.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (Debating)
Post by: Sbane on June 18, 2012, 01:21:55 AM
I second the motion to table.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (Debating)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on June 20, 2012, 05:13:00 PM
A motion to table has been entered and has been seconded by another Senator.


Senators, a 48 hour vote is now open on the question of whether or not to table the underlying treaty, please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain. Passage shall require 2/3rds of those voting to vote in the affirmative, excluding abstentions.


Normally I would post the text of the relevant OSPR section but we have seen it enough and I don't have the OSPR link handy on this back/hip/arm/leg killer machine.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (Debating)
Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on June 20, 2012, 05:27:28 PM
NAY!!!!


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (Vote on MT)
Post by: CLARENCE 2015! on June 20, 2012, 06:07:04 PM
Nay- I don't see why this would be one to table folks... clearly Senators have an opinion one way or another- it will pass or fail quickly I believe (and I hope pass)


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (Vote on MT)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on June 20, 2012, 07:31:21 PM
Nay.  I am still not sure how I will vote on this bill and I would like to see much more debate.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (Vote on MT)
Post by: tpfkaw on June 20, 2012, 10:49:44 PM
Aye.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (Vote on MT)
Post by: Sbane on June 21, 2012, 07:02:01 AM
Aye


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (Vote on MT)
Post by: AndrewTX on June 21, 2012, 08:19:31 PM
Nay


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (Debate)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on June 22, 2012, 10:25:47 PM
Vote on Motion to Table the Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty:

Aye (2): Seatown and Wormyguy
Nay (4): AndrewPA, Ben, Clarence, and Scott
Abstain (0):

Didn't Vote (4): ILV, NC Yankee, sbane and TJ in Cleve

With 2/3rds of those voting having voted not in the affirmative, the bill has not been tabled and debate shall resume.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (Debating)
Post by: Donerail on June 22, 2012, 10:55:14 PM
Frankly, given that shortly after Atlasia sold Israel a load of F-16s, the Chinese Air Force started flying a new plane... (as acknowledged by an Atlasian military report (http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA314821): "United States technology has been acquired through Israel in the form of the Lavi [Israeli domestic variant of the F-16] fighter and possibly SAM technology").

Taking this one section at a time...

Senator, while that is a fascinating document from 1997 and I thank you for bringing it to the attention of the body, there are a couple of issues I have with its factual accuracy (not the accuracy of the document itself, but of your notations). The Lavi, or Young Lion, developed by Israeli Aircraft Industries in the mid to late 1980s, is not the Israeli name for the F-16 Fighting Falcon (which the Israelis call Sufa, or Storm), but rather an indigenous multi-billion-dollar project, which, while innovative and groundbreaking, was cancelled due to a variety of factors (budget issues and Atlasian reluctance to fund a competitor to the F-16 on the global market being chief among them). There are currently two Lavis left in the world, one of which is at an Israeli airbase in Tel Aviv and the other in an Israeli military museum. After the cancellation of the project (ignoring South Africa's interest in the Lavi), according to some sources, China was in possession of a Lavi during Chengdu Aircraft's development of the J-10 Vigorous Dragon. However, the DoEA has not found sufficient evidence to prove these allegations; in addition, the J-10's designer Song Wencong (宋文骢), in an interview, denied any relation of the J-10 to the Lavi program, saying instead it was based on Chengdu's cancelled J-9 program. It also bears some resemblance to the MiG Ye-8. While the Lavi has a similar wing configuration and flight control system to the J-10, the Israeli government denies transferring Lavi technology to the Chinese, and testimony by Russian aerospace engineers to the contrary, we have not been able to verify any link between China's J-10 and the Lavi project.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (Debating)
Post by: tpfkaw on June 23, 2012, 01:00:13 AM
While the SoEA's Wikipedia research is admirable, it doesn't make him an expert on military aircraft.  It is a frequent marketing tactic for local manufacturers of foreign weaponry to claim theirs is "different," when in fact it is largely or entirely the same.  The Lavi is clearly F-16-based, with a delta instead of conventional wing and some Israeli avionics (using Atlasian technology).  Similarly, the other "unique" plane produced by Israeli Aircraft Industries, the Kfir, is a copy of the French Mirage V.  Whatever the case, China has produced a near-exact copy (with slight, mainly cosmetic modifications) of the F-16 in the J-10, as I demonstrated earlier, and our own Navy is confident enough to call out Israel as the culprit by name in an official, declassified report (which implies complete certitude given the potential diplomatic issues involved in such an accusation).

Images for reference

F-16:

()

Lavi:

()


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (Debating)
Post by: Donerail on June 23, 2012, 01:16:06 AM
Since the Senator seems to so like his images, here is the IAI Lavi (first image) compared to other jets of the period (including the F-16 and J-10, 2nd and 3rd images respectively). The fifth is a Yugoslav Novi Avion, the sixth a Dassault Rafael, the seventh a Saab Viggen, and the eighth an Eurofighter Typhoon. Tossed in a Kfir last so you could get a look at that too. As you can see, the aircraft of this time did tend to have common design features, sometimes including a delta wing, sometimes including canards, etc.

()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (Debating)
Post by: tpfkaw on June 23, 2012, 03:28:50 PM
I'm not really seeing the gentleman's point; his diagrams indicate that the F-16/Lavi/J-10 are all very similar in design (obviously), while the others are substantially different (also, obvious).


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (Debating)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on June 23, 2012, 03:30:45 PM
We're getting off topic...


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (Debating)
Post by: Donerail on June 23, 2012, 03:32:45 PM
I'm not really seeing the gentleman's point; his diagrams indicate that the F-16/Lavi/J-10 are all very similar in design (obviously), while the others are substantially different (also, obvious).

My point is that they are all different but all have common design features; while the F-16, Lavi, and J-10 are very similar in design, so are the others. They're all about the same amount of difference from each other.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (Debating)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on June 25, 2012, 05:21:22 PM
Is that all?


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (Debating)
Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on June 25, 2012, 06:59:15 PM
I'd like to see a final vote.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (Debating)
Post by: CLARENCE 2015! on June 25, 2012, 08:21:19 PM
As would I... I believe it's clear that Senators will be voting on this legislation based upon their opinions of Israel coming into this bill- that goes for me too

I plan to vote Aye to support the nation I believe to be one of our most important allies


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (AFV)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on June 25, 2012, 08:36:16 PM
Senators this bill is now at final vote, please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (AFV)
Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on June 25, 2012, 08:39:19 PM
AYE


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (AFV)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on June 25, 2012, 08:54:36 PM
Nay.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (AFV)
Post by: CLARENCE 2015! on June 25, 2012, 08:59:10 PM
Aye


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (AFV)
Post by: Sbane on June 25, 2012, 11:59:41 PM
Nay


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (AFV)
Post by: tmthforu94 on June 26, 2012, 12:04:01 AM
Should there be a tie, I'd like to make my intentions known that I would vote in favor of the treaty.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (AFV)
Post by: MyRescueKittehRocks on June 26, 2012, 02:09:42 AM
I support this as a supporter of Israel. But with a caveat that this treaty must have in it a clause that that says that the sovreginity of either Israel or Atlasia can not be compromised by the other in the fulfilling of said treaty


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (AFV)
Post by: AndrewTX on June 26, 2012, 08:22:20 AM
Aye


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (AFV)
Post by: ilikeverin on June 26, 2012, 08:23:47 AM
Nope >:(


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (AFV)
Post by: TJ in Oregon on June 26, 2012, 11:51:33 AM
Aye, but I definitely had to think a little bit about this one...


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (AFV)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on June 26, 2012, 08:17:33 PM
Aye


I support this as a supporter of Israel. But with a caveat that this treaty must have in it a clause that that says that the sovreginity of either Israel or Atlasia can not be compromised by the other in the fulfilling of said treaty

Such would had to have been offered as an amendment before the final vote.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (AFV)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on June 27, 2012, 07:20:48 PM
Vote is 5-3 currently.

Seatown and Wormyguy have yet to vote.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (AFV)
Post by: Torie on June 27, 2012, 08:19:59 PM
Aye, but I definitely had to think a little bit about this one...

Were you clear in your mine just why it is necessary now to move from a de facto to a de jure alliance with Israel? Just what does that accomplish specifically on the ground in the Mideast?


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (AFV)
Post by: Donerail on June 27, 2012, 08:35:40 PM
Aye, but I definitely had to think a little bit about this one...

Were you clear in your mine just why it is necessary now to move from a de facto to a de jure alliance with Israel? Just what does that accomplish specifically on the ground in the Mideast?

It reassures Israel that we support them and are fully committed to ensuring their security in light of a nuclear Iran. Basically telling them we've got their back, so they don't need to do anything risky (like attacking Iran, for instance).


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (AFV)
Post by: TJ in Oregon on June 27, 2012, 08:36:07 PM
Aye, but I definitely had to think a little bit about this one...

Were you clear in your mine just why it is necessary now to move from a de facto to a de jure alliance with Israel? Just what does that accomplish specifically on the ground in the Mideast?

Necessary, no. I neither wrote nor sponsored this bill. It likely changes nothing about the situation on the ground.

However, since we already are in a defacto alliance with Israel, I do think it makes sense to formally declare what we are doing anyway. I support Atlasia being forthright and honest about its activities.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (AFV)
Post by: tpfkaw on June 30, 2012, 08:24:58 AM
Nay.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (AFV)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on June 30, 2012, 06:21:27 PM
SEATOWN!!!!!!!!!!!!


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (AFV)
Post by: LastVoter on June 30, 2012, 07:07:05 PM
Nay


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (AFV)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 02, 2012, 08:28:10 PM
Vote on Final Passage of the Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty:

Aye (5): AndrewPA, Ben, Clarence, NC Yankee, and TJ in Cleve
Nay (5): ILV, sbane, Scott, Seatown and Wormyguy
Abstain (0):

Didn't Vote (0):

Vote ends in 15 minutes.


I haven't found a requirement in Article I of the Constitution dealing with Treaties requiring a 2/3rds vote, nor is such in the OSPR. It is possible that such is some obscure place appended to an unrelated matter and thus I missed it. I welcome others to scour the Constitution, OSPR and any related statues as well as collective memories of how these have been done in the past to find out whether this is a tie to be broken by the Veep or a failure to acheive passage.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (AFV)
Post by: tmthforu94 on July 02, 2012, 08:34:29 PM
Let's give it 24 hours, then I get my power!! :D

In all seriousness, I've also researched into this - couldn't find anything, though I originally thought it did require 2/3's.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (AFV)
Post by: tpfkaw on July 02, 2012, 11:55:03 PM
Actually, as far as I can tell, the Constitution does not give the Senate the power to ratify treaties.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (AFV)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on July 03, 2012, 12:00:27 AM
Actually, as far as I can tell, the Constitution does not give the Senate the power to ratify treaties.

Well, while Article I of the Constitution does not explicitly mention treaties on section 5, it does state that the Senate can-
Quote
promote Comity between Nations by engaging in such activities with other Nations as are of mutual benefit.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (AFV)
Post by: tpfkaw on July 03, 2012, 12:16:31 AM
Actually, as far as I can tell, the Constitution does not give the Senate the power to ratify treaties.

Well, while Article I of the Constitution does not explicitly mention treaties on section 5, it does state that the Senate can-
Quote
promote Comity between Nations by engaging in such activities with other Nations as are of mutual benefit.

A treaty is pretty obviously not the same as an "activity" - an activity is a one-time thing while a treaty is a binding commitment to perform some activity for a set length of time.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (AFV)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on July 03, 2012, 12:18:53 AM
Actually, as far as I can tell, the Constitution does not give the Senate the power to ratify treaties.

Well, while Article I of the Constitution does not explicitly mention treaties on section 5, it does state that the Senate can-
Quote
promote Comity between Nations by engaging in such activities with other Nations as are of mutual benefit.

A treaty is pretty obviously not the same as an "activity" - an activity is a one-time thing while a treaty is a binding commitment to perform some activity for a set length of time.

'Activity' means "the condition in which things are happening or being done."  There are no time limits as to what would constitute as an "activity," last I checked, as they can be short term or long term; duration is irrelevant.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (AFV)
Post by: tpfkaw on July 03, 2012, 12:30:36 AM
Actually, as far as I can tell, the Constitution does not give the Senate the power to ratify treaties.

Well, while Article I of the Constitution does not explicitly mention treaties on section 5, it does state that the Senate can-
Quote
promote Comity between Nations by engaging in such activities with other Nations as are of mutual benefit.

A treaty is pretty obviously not the same as an "activity" - an activity is a one-time thing while a treaty is a binding commitment to perform some activity for a set length of time.

'Activity' means "the condition in which things are happening or being done."  There are no time limits as to what would constitute as an "activity," last I checked, as they can be short term or long term; duration is irrelevant.

A treaty is not an activity, it's a commitment to engage in activity.  The Constitution gives no authority for the Senate to agree to such a commitment with a foreign nation.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (AFV)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on July 03, 2012, 12:34:09 AM
Actually, as far as I can tell, the Constitution does not give the Senate the power to ratify treaties.

Well, while Article I of the Constitution does not explicitly mention treaties on section 5, it does state that the Senate can-
Quote
promote Comity between Nations by engaging in such activities with other Nations as are of mutual benefit.

A treaty is pretty obviously not the same as an "activity" - an activity is a one-time thing while a treaty is a binding commitment to perform some activity for a set length of time.

'Activity' means "the condition in which things are happening or being done."  There are no time limits as to what would constitute as an "activity," last I checked, as they can be short term or long term; duration is irrelevant.

A treaty is not an activity, it's a commitment to engage in activity.

...Which would be, in itself, an activity, as it fits under dictionary definition.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (AFV)
Post by: LastVoter on July 03, 2012, 12:46:44 AM
Wormy, you can challenge this in Tweedist Supreme court and win.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (AFV)
Post by: tpfkaw on July 03, 2012, 01:02:12 AM
Actually, as far as I can tell, the Constitution does not give the Senate the power to ratify treaties.

Well, while Article I of the Constitution does not explicitly mention treaties on section 5, it does state that the Senate can-
Quote
promote Comity between Nations by engaging in such activities with other Nations as are of mutual benefit.

A treaty is pretty obviously not the same as an "activity" - an activity is a one-time thing while a treaty is a binding commitment to perform some activity for a set length of time.

'Activity' means "the condition in which things are happening or being done."  There are no time limits as to what would constitute as an "activity," last I checked, as they can be short term or long term; duration is irrelevant.

A treaty is not an activity, it's a commitment to engage in activity.

...Which would be, in itself, an activity, as it fits under dictionary definition.

No, a treaty is a document.  A document is not an activity.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (AFV)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on July 03, 2012, 01:03:29 AM
Actually, as far as I can tell, the Constitution does not give the Senate the power to ratify treaties.

Well, while Article I of the Constitution does not explicitly mention treaties on section 5, it does state that the Senate can-
Quote
promote Comity between Nations by engaging in such activities with other Nations as are of mutual benefit.

A treaty is pretty obviously not the same as an "activity" - an activity is a one-time thing while a treaty is a binding commitment to perform some activity for a set length of time.

'Activity' means "the condition in which things are happening or being done."  There are no time limits as to what would constitute as an "activity," last I checked, as they can be short term or long term; duration is irrelevant.

A treaty is not an activity, it's a commitment to engage in activity.

...Which would be, in itself, an activity, as it fits under dictionary definition.

No, a treaty is a document.  A document is not an activity.

Yet engaging in one is.

Merely stating that you plan on partaking in a certain activity is an activity.  I fail to see what it would be otherwise.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (AFV)
Post by: Donerail on July 03, 2012, 08:31:36 AM
Hey look, a treaty (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=42738.15) ratified by the Senate (with 6 Ayes & 3 Nays).


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (AFV)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 03, 2012, 07:00:15 PM
The problem is that predates the current constitution. But it appears that Jedi treated it like any other piece of legislation. What we would need to do is find out whether or not the second constitution had the same language as the third, to see if the precedent is valid.


Also, I suggest contacting Marokai Blue and anyone else involved in the crafting of this current constitution. I beleive that would also include Senator Ilikeverin, as well as many others.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (AFV)
Post by: Donerail on July 04, 2012, 05:17:11 PM
The problem is that predates the current constitution. But it appears that Jedi treated it like any other piece of legislation. What we would need to do is find out whether or not the second constitution had the same language as the third, to see if the precedent is valid.


Also, I suggest contacting Marokai Blue and anyone else involved in the crafting of this current constitution. I beleive that would also include Senator Ilikeverin, as well as many others.

I attempted to PM the 5 people who didn't miss any votes in the Constitutional Convention (assuming those 5 would be the most involved in the creation and thus the most knowledgable about such matters). I have not received word back yet from Marokai Blue, Bacon King, Afleitch, Hashemite, or PiT.

In the Constitution, the only things that changed in Powers of/Powers Denied to the Senate is the addition of:

Quote from: Third Constitution
30. To protect the Public Health and commerce by making such regulations as shall be necessary for the protection of those in employment.

31. To protect the Public Health, commerce and heritage by making such regulations as shall be necessary for the protection and preservation of natural beauty, biological diversity and other natural resources.

It appears that the language that would apply to this is the same and thus the precedent is valid.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (AFV)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 04, 2012, 11:35:09 PM
I plan to be back on tomorrow morning, if no further feedback is given then I shall proceed as best as I understand the precedent and current procedures with regards as to how to handle this.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (TIE)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 05, 2012, 09:04:37 AM
Vote on Final Passage of the Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty:

Aye (5): AndrewPA, Ben, Clarence, NC Yankee, and TJ in Cleve
Nay (5): ILV, sbane, Scott, Seatown and Wormyguy
Abstain (0):

Didn't Vote (0):

As it appears that no such 2/3rd's requirement exists, I am determined that this is to be treated as any other piece of legislation. Therefore, I am declaring the voted tied, with time having expired on the legislation and the Vice President is thus charged with breaking the tie.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (TIED)
Post by: ilikeverin on July 05, 2012, 09:29:22 AM
The problem is that predates the current constitution. But it appears that Jedi treated it like any other piece of legislation. What we would need to do is find out whether or not the second constitution had the same language as the third, to see if the precedent is valid.


Also, I suggest contacting Marokai Blue and anyone else involved in the crafting of this current constitution. I beleive that would also include Senator Ilikeverin, as well as many others.

The same clause existed in the Second Constitution as in the current one, fwiw.  I don't remember treaties ever being discussed, really.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (TIED)
Post by: tmthforu94 on July 05, 2012, 09:50:20 AM
Well, I've had plenty of time to think about this. I have decided to vote for the treaty and sent it to the President to make the final decision.

Aye


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (OTPD)
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on July 05, 2012, 04:29:06 PM
I'll assess this in the next few hours... but I honestly haven't seen any good reasons as to why I shouldn't sign this. I see a lot "nope"s and proclamations, but no concrete reasons...


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (OTPD)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on July 06, 2012, 12:52:03 AM
So, does Polnut still get to sign/veto this? :P


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (OTPD)
Post by: LastVoter on July 06, 2012, 01:04:56 AM
I'll assess this in the next few hours... but I honestly haven't seen any good reasons as to why I shouldn't sign this. I see a lot "nope"s and proclamations, but no concrete reasons...
Imperialism.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (OTPD)
Post by: Sbane on July 06, 2012, 01:09:00 AM
There is no reason to take sides in the Israeli-Palestinian issue and this treaty is tantamount to that I feel. We already have strong ties with Israel and we don't need this treaty to further advertise our bias.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (OTPD)
Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on July 06, 2012, 01:16:36 AM
If we have such strong ties then we should formalize them through a treaty.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (OTPD)
Post by: Donerail on July 06, 2012, 07:02:29 AM
There is no reason to take sides in the Israeli-Palestinian issue and this treaty is tantamount to that I feel. We already have strong ties with Israel and we don't need this treaty to further advertise our bias.

This treaty isn't intended to take sides in the Israel-Palestine issue, it's to show Israel that we stand with them in light of Iran gaining nuclear capabilities. Formalizing our ties with Israel lets them know that we stand with them, and as such, they don't need to do anything rash like attack Iran, because we've got their back.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (OTPD)
Post by: Napoleon on July 06, 2012, 12:36:43 PM
So, does Polnut still get to sign/veto this? :P


No, I do.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (OTPD)
Post by: Donerail on July 06, 2012, 01:19:55 PM

Damn it, Polnut! Now it does die :(


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (OTPD)
Post by: Napoleon on July 12, 2012, 10:34:11 AM
Veto (again wtf)


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (OTPD)
Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on July 12, 2012, 10:35:01 AM
It's been over a week; when does the bill go into law without a signature?


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (OTPD)
Post by: Napoleon on July 12, 2012, 10:43:45 AM
I wrote a lengthy post explaining my veto, looks like it didn't go through so I will try to write another one by tonight.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (OTPD)
Post by: tmthforu94 on July 12, 2012, 11:03:42 AM
From the time I cast the tie-breaking vote, it was about a week and one hour when the President signed it.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (OTPD)
Post by: Napoleon on July 12, 2012, 11:08:01 AM
From the time I cast the tie-breaking vote, it was about a week and one hour when the President signed it.

First of all, my long post doesn't seem to have gone through at 9 am or so.

Second, the Constitution gives the President seven days so I have until July 13th.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (OTPD)
Post by: tmthforu94 on July 12, 2012, 11:19:27 AM
From the time I cast the tie-breaking vote, it was about a week and one hour when the President signed it.

First of all, my long post doesn't seem to have gone through at 9 am or so.

Second, the Constitution gives the President seven days so I have until July 13th.
I posted my vote, which sent it to the President, at 10:50 ET, 8:50 my time. That was July 5th. At 10:50 ET, exactly one week passed. Your veto is shown at 11:34 ET. I may be missing something - if so, let me know.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (OTPD)
Post by: Napoleon on July 12, 2012, 11:24:27 AM
You are missing something. The Constitution does not state "seven days after the Senate passes a bill", it states "seven days after it shall have been presented to him (me)". The Constitution allows me these seven days to give full consideration to the merits of a bill. This bill was presented to me, the President, on July 6th at 12 pm. It is impossible to present the bill to me before then for obvious reasons, and seven days have not lapsed since the bill was presented to me upon my swearing in.

If the Constitution was not meant to allow me seven days, it would read differently. Both the text and spirit of the law uphold this veto.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (OTPD)
Post by: Donerail on July 12, 2012, 03:24:03 PM

As I wrote this treaty, I'd like to thank the President for his extensive analysis of this treaty and his great use of logic to decide to veto it. Although I disagree with the veto (for obvious reasons), I'd like to commend your reasoning. While writing this, I knew the argument "again wtf" was the strongest one against the bill, and I am glad to see the President use such eloquent language in his rationale.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (OTPD)
Post by: Napoleon on July 12, 2012, 03:46:19 PM

As I wrote this treaty, I'd like to thank the President for his extensive analysis of this treaty and his great use of logic to decide to veto it. Although I disagree with the veto (for obvious reasons), I'd like to commend your reasoning. While writing this, I knew the argument "again wtf" was the strongest one against the bill, and I am glad to see the President use such eloquent language in his rationale.

This takes the cake for pettiest attack ever. I wrote a detailed and lengthy post explaining my reasoning that didn't go through (the reason for my "again wtf"). I already stated above that I will try to rewrite it by the end of the night. Because of work, I don't have time yet.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (OTPD)
Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on July 12, 2012, 06:06:54 PM
I'll ask for a veto override after the President posts his rationale.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (OTPD)
Post by: Napoleon on July 12, 2012, 11:20:38 PM
Moving on from the former SoEA's disappointing and disrespectful comments...

After much consideration and thought, I have decided that vetoing this bill is the right thing for me to do as President. At this point in time, it is clear to me that further entangling Atlasia in the Middle East is the wrong direction for us to go.

My understanding is that this treaty has been proposed for the purpose of protecting Israel from a now nuclear Iran. My administration does not underestimate the threat a nuclear Iran could pose to the sovereign nation of Israel. Mindful of this, I do not believe that a treaty is necessary to maintain the friendship and alliance between our nations. This treaty is not limited to Iran; the consequences of signing this into law could compromise our ability to continue making peace in the Middle East.

Any attempt by Iran to use nuclear force of aggression will result in consequences that Iran may not find appealing in the end. But as of now, that has not happened, and I do not believe it will happen. And in the event it does happen, I will be quick to act, as I imagine any good President would. Not only for Israel, but our other friends and allies across the globe who may be at risk.

Atlasia will stand by her allies, treaty or not. I do not believe that a treaty with Israel, to the exclusion of our Islamic allies in the region, will be met kindly in an area where we are still working to restore peace. This is a delicate situation and we must not tie our hands. Atlasia and Israel have had close relations for a long time now and I am confident that Israel can put her trust in us to have her back, treaty or no treaty.

I will be sending a diplomatic agent to Israel to continue discussions regarding Iran. This does not mark the end of our relations, but a new beginning. As I have only become President less than a week ago, I need time to assess the situation longer. These decisions affect all of us and cannot be made without the necessary deliberation and analysis.

Thank you

President Napoleon


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (OTPD)
Post by: Donerail on July 13, 2012, 06:04:37 AM
[quote author=President Napoleon link=topic=154812.msg3352929#msg3352929 date=13421532 ability
Atlasia will stand by her allies, treaty or not. I do not believe that a treaty with Israel, to the exclusion of our Islamic allies in the region, will be met kindly in an area where we are still working to restore peace.
[/quote]

And this is why Saudi Arabia and Egypt are two of our Major NON-NATO Allies, the former of which was designated during the Polnut administration, and why Turkey is a member of NATO.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (Vetoed)
Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on July 13, 2012, 10:29:32 AM
I officially ask for a veto override.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (Vetoed)
Post by: MyRescueKittehRocks on July 13, 2012, 10:32:04 AM
I honestly feel your veto is a mistake. I may be devoted to the cause of peace, but I'm gonna have to agree with Senator Ben and former VP Tmfth. Tmfth's assessment of the time it was posted is correct thus this should be law as Napoleon did not post the veto within the seven day time limit. I I held the presidency this thing would be signed as soon as I saw it because it has the merits.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (Vetoed)
Post by: Napoleon on July 13, 2012, 10:33:17 AM
I honestly feel your veto is a mistake. I may be devoted to the cause of peace, but I'm gonna have to agree with Senator Ben and former VP Tmfth. Tmfth's assessment of the time it was posted is correct thus this should be law as Napoleon did not post the veto within the seven day time limit. I I held the presidency this thing would be signed as soon as I saw it because it has the merits.

The seven day time limit has thirty minutes remaining.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (Vetoed)
Post by: Redalgo on July 13, 2012, 10:46:05 AM
I applaud your decision, Mr. President!

This senator will stubbornly oppose any attempt to override your veto.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (Vetoed)
Post by: MyRescueKittehRocks on July 13, 2012, 11:58:10 AM
I honestly feel your veto is a mistake. I may be devoted to the cause of peace, but I'm gonna have to agree with Senator Ben and former VP Tmfth. Tmfth's assessment of the time it was posted is correct thus this should be law as Napoleon did not post the veto within the seven day time limit. I I held the presidency this thing would be signed as soon as I saw it because it has the merits.

The seven day time limit has thirty minutes remaining.

It was placed on the presidents desk under Polnut this this should've been his final act.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (Vetoed)
Post by: Napoleon on July 13, 2012, 12:11:58 PM
I honestly feel your veto is a mistake. I may be devoted to the cause of peace, but I'm gonna have to agree with Senator Ben and former VP Tmfth. Tmfth's assessment of the time it was posted is correct thus this should be law as Napoleon did not post the veto within the seven day time limit. I I held the presidency this thing would be signed as soon as I saw it because it has the merits.

The seven day time limit has thirty minutes remaining.

It was placed on the presidents desk under Polnut this this should've been his final act.

No, a President should not make major foreign policy decisions in his last few hours. That would be disrespectful and irresponsible and you know it.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (Vetoed)
Post by: MyRescueKittehRocks on July 13, 2012, 12:36:33 PM
I honestly feel your veto is a mistake. I may be devoted to the cause of peace, but I'm gonna have to agree with Senator Ben and former VP Tmfth. Tmfth's assessment of the time it was posted is correct thus this should be law as Napoleon did not post the veto within the seven day time limit. I I held the presidency this thing would be signed as soon as I saw it because it has the merits.

The seven day time limit has thirty minutes remaining.

It was placed on the presidents desk under Polnut this this should've been his final act.

No, a President should not make major foreign policy decisions in his last few hours. That would be disrespectful and irresponsible and you know it.

This treaty was looking at being signed and a mear change in administration kills it. That is what is disrespectful. 


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (Vetoed)
Post by: Napoleon on July 13, 2012, 12:44:59 PM
I honestly feel your veto is a mistake. I may be devoted to the cause of peace, but I'm gonna have to agree with Senator Ben and former VP Tmfth. Tmfth's assessment of the time it was posted is correct thus this should be law as Napoleon did not post the veto within the seven day time limit. I I held the presidency this thing would be signed as soon as I saw it because it has the merits.

The seven day time limit has thirty minutes remaining.

It was placed on the presidents desk under Polnut this this should've been his final act.

No, a President should not make major foreign policy decisions in his last few hours. That would be disrespectful and irresponsible and you know it.

This treaty was looking at being signed and a mear change in administration kills it. That is what is disrespectful. 

Oh yes, how dare a President try to make his own policy decisions for the course of his term.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (Vetoed)
Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on July 13, 2012, 12:48:23 PM
Mr. President, I agree that we should not antagonize other allies in the region.  However, Israel is our most prominent ally in the region, the only other democracy.  They are surrounded by enemies, and their number one enemy now possesses nuclear weapons.  Just as we made formal guarantees after WWII that we would defend our European allies, so now must we defend Israel.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (Vetoed)
Post by: Redalgo on July 13, 2012, 07:30:50 PM
This treaty threatens to further erode the reputation of Atlasia in West Asia and, in doing so, afford various terrorist organizations even more fodder to use in their recruitment drives and campaigns of propaganda. The security-related self interests of Atlasia and Israel are far from being identical, a treaty is unnecessary for Atlasia to assist Israel should it become the target of a war of aggression, and Israel's nuclear arsenal and mistreatment of the Palestinian nation puts us in the awkward situation of having to back up a country which is at least partially to blame for ongoing strategic challenges in their region. What useful purpose does the proposed agreement serve?

Iranian and Israeli possession of nuclear weapons is no vital concern of Atlasia so long as both countries use their arsenals for the purpose of strategic, defensive deterrents, which seems far more likely than the Iranian leadership pressing ahead with some plot to crater out Tel Aviv - in the process plunging itself into a major regional conflict from which it is unlikely to emerge without suffering grievous wounds inflicted by either Israel itself or a collection of allies in an overwhelming retaliation. I feel no country should have nuclear weapons, but if we can be trusted internationally to have them and so can Israel, and we tolerate Pakistan's stockpile, then why not Iran's?

And the fact of the matter is, Israel can defend itself without us playing the part of its nightclub's bouncer, and we ought not to be getting ourselves too close to a regime whose policies at times prove to be more of a liability than asset for the Republic of Atlasia - in terms of our security and reputation in the greater community of nations, alike. Indeed, I would even go so far as to state that Israel has become one of its own worst enemies in threatening its own capacity for providing long-term security and stability for its people. I can also confidently say that what West Asia in general needs today is not any further preparation to exchange senseless killing and destruction.

Our relations with people in West Asia would benefit from a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, commitments to aid human development so young people have improved economic opportunities in the future, and special attention given to poverty-stricken areas of countries rife with discontent. Many terrorist organizations hunger for the desperate, hopeless, and disenchanted; folks who feel they have nothing to look forward to in life or little to lose are choice prey for the advocates of violent causes to exploit. In the short-term, we ought to dispel impressions of Atlasia being a force of Judeo-Christian (or otherwise imperialist) aggression that "deserves" to be attacked for being set on corrupting if not replacing all aspects of traditional cultures in the region. For finding a positive endgame in regards to Iran, meanwhile, I think it is important we be more empathetic and respectful in our methods of engaging them on security issues. Diplomatic efforts should aim to achieve mutual gains - not renew previous gestures of suspicion or voice brutish threats of violence (which is what this treaty tacitly does, I reckon).

So, though I do want to apologize in advance for being a bit disorganized in the presentation of my thoughts here, I am convinced that President Napoleon and a number of my colleagues in the Senate were wise to take a stand against this treaty, a treaty that paves the way for essentially none of the constructive changes that we should be seeking in the difficult years to come. To be clear, I stand in solidarity with the good people of Israel no less than I do with those people who reside in other countries, and do appreciate the sentiments of those who have worked in support of the agreement, but it is as it stands today completely unsuitable for ratification.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (Vetoed)
Post by: Sbane on July 14, 2012, 02:31:13 AM
Mr. President, I agree that we should not antagonize other allies in the region.  However, Israel is our most prominent ally in the region, the only other democracy.  They are surrounded by enemies, and their number one enemy now possesses nuclear weapons.  Just as we made formal guarantees after WWII that we would defend our European allies, so now must we defend Israel.

This treaty just causes too much trouble in the Middle East. We unofficially do have a treaty with Israel and will protect them if they are attacked. We know this and they do as well. Atlasia has shown a consistent bias towards Israel, ignoring for years the human rights abuses that go on not just in Hamas occupied Gaza, but also in the West Bank where a friendly government is in place. That is not an acceptable situation, and keeping that in mind, there is no chance in hell I will be forging any formal treaty with Israel which will be seen symbolically as Atlasia endorsing the continuing unfair treatment of Palestinians by Israel regardless of what our intentions may be.

And of course the treaty will be seen as a threat by not just Iran, but the rest of the Middle East. We don't need that to ensure Israel is protected against an aggressive attack.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (VoVO)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 14, 2012, 08:39:31 AM
Quote
Section 3: Rules on Veto Overrides
1. If a piece of legislation is vetoed by the President, the original sponsor of the bill must let the PPT know publicly on the Senate floor within seventy-two (72) hours of the veto being placed whether he wishes to have a vote to override the veto. If he replies in the negative or fails to reply within the given time, the legislation will be withdrawn from the Senate floor.

2. Extensions to this time period may only be allowed by the PPT in case of a publicly announced absence from the forum.

3. Sections 1 and 2 of this Article shall apply in full to voting on a Veto Override, with this exception:

For the purposes of a Veto Override only, any Senator who Abstains from voting shall be counted as a vote Against the legislation under consideration.

4. Upon a piece of legislation being vetoed by the President, if the slot reserved for debating overrides is empty, that legislation shall be moved to that slot and a new piece of legislation, if available, shall be moved into the vacated slot; but if the slot reserved for debating overrides is occupied, then debate shall take place in its current slot and it shall remain there until said debate is concluded, even if the slot reserved for debating overrides should be vacated.


The directions regarding slots needs updating.

An override has been requested and the question on the floor is whether or not to override the veto of the Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty by President Napoleon. Senators please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain. Passage requires a two-thirds vote in the affirmative.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (VoVO)
Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on July 14, 2012, 09:25:56 AM
Aye


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (VoVO)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on July 14, 2012, 11:19:24 AM
Nay.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (VoVO)
Post by: Redalgo on July 14, 2012, 12:13:06 PM
Nay


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (VoVO)
Post by: Redalgo on July 14, 2012, 04:43:20 PM

Alright, well pwnt people. I'll be off eating a doughnut in my office if anyone needs anything. Please let me know when Sbane or Seatown drives the final nail into this thing's coffin, okay? Hopefully next time we will have a treaty we can support. :]



()




Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (VoVO)
Post by: LastVoter on July 14, 2012, 08:31:30 PM
Nay, today is not your day bloodthirsty hounds.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (VoVO)
Post by: Donerail on July 14, 2012, 09:24:06 PM
Nay, today is not your day bloodthirsty hounds.

Best vote explanation ever.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (VoVO)
Post by: Sbane on July 14, 2012, 10:32:39 PM
Nay


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (VoVO)
Post by: MyRescueKittehRocks on July 15, 2012, 03:38:45 PM
Nay, today is not your day bloodthirsty hounds.

This treaty should be resubmitted after Napoleon is out of the office. The supporters of this treaty are not the bloodthirsty hounds. The Palestinians are being mistreated more by their own and Arabs than anything Israel may or may not have done. Wouldn't the right thing be to encourage our Arab allies to offer citizenship to the Palestinians in their countries? For us to ask for more consessions from Israel would be to betray the very covenant ours is based upon and invite disastrous consequences of biblical proportions. You are messing with Israel to our national peril.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (VoVO)
Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on July 15, 2012, 03:41:20 PM
Nay, today is not your day bloodthirsty hounds.

Jesus Christ, this is a friendship treaty.  You people need to control yourselves.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (VoVO)
Post by: Donerail on July 15, 2012, 09:05:35 PM
Nay, today is not your day bloodthirsty hounds.

Jesus Christ, this is a friendship treaty.  You people need to control yourselves.

Does the Atlasian Senate have a way to censure this kind of behavior? It brings the Senate into dishonor and disrepute and is not conductive to the atmosphere the Senate (IMO) should portray.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (VoVO)
Post by: CLARENCE 2015! on July 15, 2012, 09:28:36 PM
Aye

Senator Seatown's rhetoric is disgusting


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (VoVO)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 16, 2012, 07:32:42 AM
Aye


The foreign policy positions and views of young liberals today in general are about as conspiratorial and ridiculous as that of the birthers.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (VoVO)
Post by: AndrewTX on July 16, 2012, 12:04:17 PM
Aye


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (VoVO)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 17, 2012, 08:05:05 AM
Nay, today is not your day bloodthirsty hounds.

This is not a code pink rally, this is a Senate where we should be able to respectfully disagree without resorting to childish name calling and doubting of one's onponent's intentions for supporting a bill, in such a conspiratorial manner. Please refrain from such behavior in the future.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (VS)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 21, 2012, 09:16:25 AM
Vote on Overriding the Veto of the Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty:

Aye (4): AndrewPA, Ben, Clarence, NC Yankee
Nay (5): Redalgo, sbane, Scott, Seatown, Wormyguy
Abstain (0):

Didn't Vote (1): TJ in Cleve

The Veto Override has failed.