office of senator shua

[Yelnoc]

I believe the Senate will soon be taking up the question of whether to contribute forces to implement a no-fly zone. I am interested in hearing the concerns of the public on this matter.

Hopefully we won't be too late, like we have been in the real world.

[Yelnoc]

I don't like the way it limits our power to act unilaterally.  I know how that sounds, but if you look at history, every time the US has gone isolationist, a world war has occurred.

[Yelnoc]

I don't like the way it limits our power to act unilaterally.  I know how that sounds, but if you look at history, every time the US has gone isolationist, a world war has occurred.

What is this "US" that you speak of?

I'm fine with the amendment.

Only something I read in a book...
It was a book with big words and lots of pictures

[Yelnoc]

I don't like the way it limits our power to act unilaterally.  I know how that sounds, but if you look at history, every time the US has gone isolationist, a world war has occurred.

Acting unilaterally causes Iraq's and Vietnams.  World wars never involve acting unilaterally.

Maybe unilateral action could have brought a quicker end to World Wars 1 and 2, decreasing the casualty toll? 

[Yelnoc]

I don't like the way it limits our power to act unilaterally.  I know how that sounds, but if you look at history, every time the US has gone isolationist, a world war has occurred.

Acting unilaterally causes Iraq's and Vietnams.  World wars never involve acting unilaterally.

Maybe unilateral action could have brought a quicker end to World Wars 1 and 2, decreasing the casualty toll? 

No. Just no.
I challenge anyone to try to form an argument showing a case where unilateral involvement would benefit us and be hindered by this ammendment.
Also, world wars never involve acting unilaterally. Unilateral action in WW2 means we would have taken on the Axis and the Allies by ourselves. No way would less casualties have been possible. Ending conscription would bring less casualties though.

Oops.  Wrong word.  Forget unilateral.

You'll notice that the wording of the bill also prevents of from fulfilling our treaty obligations with NATO or any of our other allies in the event they were attacked.

As to WWII, if we had acted in 1938 in tandem with Britain and France, when the Sudantland was invaded, Nazi Germany would have had less time to prepare for all out war.  We would have been able to use France as a base rather than having to launch a D-Day, and might have been able to bully Mussolini out of War if it he had seen the futility of war, precluding a North African campaign.

[Yelnoc]

It does not prevent us from doing anything. The Senate would prevent us from doing that, just like they did in 1938 without any amendment similar to this in effect.

Without the law, the senate could theoretically act.  With the law, they could not unless they had a 2/3 majority.  Sure, congress in 1938 couldn't get a majority, much less 2/3s.  But if they had, WWII might have been much less bloodier.  Think with me for a moment, what if we lived in an alternate universe in which the US had acted in 1938 against the Nazi's by only a few Congressional votes.  Now were are having a conversation about how much more bloodier the war might have been if that congress had not acted.

Does that make sense?