SENATE BILL: Foreign Policy Transparency and Rationalization Amen... (Failed)

[tpfkaw]

Since 2001, Atlasia has been dragged into several needless wars that have damaged our international credibility and our strategic posture, as well as causing the deaths of thousands of our soldiers and the maiming of tens of thousands more, as well as the deaths of hundreds of thousands if not millions of civilians in the countries we have invaded, bombed, or destabilized.  After over a decade, little progress meaningful to average Atlasians has been made after the expenditure of trillions of dollars and thousands of lives.  Those who have benefited are largely well-connected corporate interests in the military-industrial complex, who profit off of a needlessly-aggressive foreign policy.  This amendment serves to stop the President from unilaterally starting an aggressive war.  It does not outlaw defensive war, or even aggressive war, merely an aggressive war started by the President without the consent of the Senate, eliminating all legal loopholes that could be used to do so.  This is an eminently sensible and moderate position, and one would have to be truly an extreme warmonger to see otherwise.

[tpfkaw]

I can't support this.  It is, frankly, far too constricting and represents too much of a black and white view of national security.

Essentially the DoEA's position. Wormy, I'm glad you're in the Senate, and your heart is definitely in the right place, but this is rather constricting; it's a good idea and I appreciate the spirit it's in, but at this point in time it's too black and white and too restrictive.

Lose the avatar please.

I fail to see how returning to the state of affairs as everyone understood it for the first 174 years of this country's history is "too constricting."

[tpfkaw]

I can't support this.  It is, frankly, far too constricting and represents too much of a black and white view of national security.

Essentially the DoEA's position. Wormy, I'm glad you're in the Senate, and your heart is definitely in the right place, but this is rather constricting; it's a good idea and I appreciate the spirit it's in, but at this point in time it's too black and white and too restrictive.

Lose the avatar please.

I fail to see how returning to the state of affairs as everyone understood it for the first 174 years of this country's history is "too constricting."

It seems like you're attempting to set rules of engagement for Atlasian forces; in my opinion, such ruled are better devised and implemented by a commander on the ground than by a Senate sitting possibly thousands of miles away,

If you can think of a different legitimate use of lethal force, I'd love to hear it and I'll probably make it a friendly amendment.

[tpfkaw]

I fail to see how returning to the state of affairs as everyone understood it for the first 174 years of this country's history is "too constricting."

Because this is a radically different world, Wormy.

Not radically different enough that unaccountable warmongering has suddenly become productive policy for anyone but unaccountable warmongerers.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Right.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yep, it is 2012, possibly the period with the least warmongering in world history, with the exception of this "exceptional" country.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

None of those things are "a threat to Atlasia."  It is estimated that there are approximately 30 members of Al Qaeda left, which is hardly an invasion force.  Nuclear weapons are indeed threatening but already exist and are a fact of life and cannot ever be used against us due to Mutually Assured Destruction.  The only nuclear-weapons states who have the capability of reaching US cities are Russia, China (only the West Coast), the UK, and Israel (why those peace-lovers felt the need to produce ICBMs is anyone's guess, but it might have something to do with their tendency to bite the hand that feeds them).  A "failed state" cannot be a "threat" by definition.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How about "it works for every other civilized country in the world right now, it should work for us" and "the opposite approach has never worked for us; in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan."

[tpfkaw]

I can't support this.  It is, frankly, far too constricting and represents too much of a black and white view of national security.

Essentially the DoEA's position. Wormy, I'm glad you're in the Senate, and your heart is definitely in the right place, but this is rather constricting; it's a good idea and I appreciate the spirit it's in, but at this point in time it's too black and white and too restrictive.

Lose the avatar please.

I fail to see how returning to the state of affairs as everyone understood it for the first 174 years of this country's history is "too constricting."

It seems like you're attempting to set rules of engagement for Atlasian forces; in my opinion, such ruled are better devised and implemented by a commander on the ground than by a Senate sitting possibly thousands of miles away,

If you can think of a different legitimate use of lethal force, I'd love to hear it and I'll probably make it a friendly amendment.

It seems that, the way it's currently phrased, troops can use force to defend themselves or civilians against attack, but cannot themselves act aggressively to prevent harm coming to other people (except through the launch of WMDs). I'm imagining a scenario where a soldier sees a guy with a gun or a bomb or a sniper rifle pointing them at/planning to attack civilians and can't step in, because he can only use deadly force to defend civilians if they are directly attacked.

I'm fairly sure that particular scenario would be covered under "directly defend civilians against attack" (it'd be a legitimate case of "defense of others" in a court, and since we're using legal terminology I think that'd cover it).

[tpfkaw]

I'll change "directly defend civilians against attack" to "directly defend civilians or allied (by co-belligerence) military forces against attack or immediate, probable, and active threat of attack."

[tpfkaw]

Is that an amendment?

Yes.

[tpfkaw]

Aye.  I see even extremely moderate proposals are rejected by the warmongers in the Senate.