SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (VS)

[Donerail]

Debate expires like 11 AM on the 15th (tomorrow).

[Donerail]

There is no way I can support this.

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

[Donerail]

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.

[Donerail]

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.

[Donerail]

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.

[Donerail]

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: "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.

[Donerail]

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.

[Donerail]

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.

[Donerail]

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).

[Donerail]

Hey look, a treaty ratified by the Senate (with 6 Ayes & 3 Nays).

[Donerail]

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:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

[Donerail]

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.

[Donerail]

So, does Polnut still get to sign/veto this?

No, I do.

Damn it, Polnut! Now it does die

[Donerail]

Veto (again wtf)

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.

[Donerail]

[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.

[Donerail]

Nay, today is not your day bloodthirsty hounds.

Best vote explanation ever.

[Donerail]

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.