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

[Napoleon]

I can live with that. Please amend 30 to 90.

[Oakvale]

I urge the Senate to reject this dangerous bill and stay the course with the plan President Polnut has put into place.

^ This.

*dragged from Senate floor*

[Napoleon]

I urge the Senate to reject this dangerous bill and stay the course with the plan President Polnut has put into place.

^ This.

*dragged from Senate floor*

At least explain how it's dangerous... isn't ten years in Afghanistan enough?

[tmthforu94]

I urge the Senate to reject this dangerous bill and stay the course with the plan President Polnut has put into place.

^ This.

*dragged from Senate floor*

At least explain how it's dangerous... isn't ten years in Afghanistan enough?

Absolutely, but I don't support an immediate 30-day withdrawal (I see it's been changed to 90 now, which isn't quite as bad). I think it's important for the Senate to be supportive of President Polnut and not contradict the plan he has already laid out for Atlasia.

[Rowan]

I see I made the wrong vote in the last election.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

It would radically damage our foreign policy; plunge Iraq and Afghanistan into chaos

Of course everything is just fine with Iraq and Afghanistan

When will some people learn that such things don't fo good, just a hard? 

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Are the situations in these two countries in better shape than they are in real life? Would it be dangerous to pull out early?

I will say I'm totally opposed to closing all our overseas bases in places like Germany and other parts of Europe and Asia. No need for us to go back into isolationism.

[Bacon King]

I'm not sure but I believe Atlasia withdrew most of its military from mainland Europe several years ago. Might be wrong on that though.

Allow me to interject into this debate, if I may. Atlasian forces should be withdrawn from Afghanistan and Iraq, yes, but it should be a gradual phase-out so we don't leave a sudden power vacuum that would result from a needlessly strict withdrawal timetable. Personally I believe the Presideny has the right idea here.

[Junkie]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now I will go back to losing my next election.

[Ban my account ffs!]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now I will go back to losing my next election.

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

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

[Junkie]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now I will go back to losing my next election.

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

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

So we agree.  The Senate can only defund.  Thus, the statute would have to be amended.  I still don't support it (for whatever that matters) but that would be the only legal way to do it.

My other concerns still stand.

[Ban my account ffs!]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now I will go back to losing my next election.

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

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

So we agree.

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

[Junkie]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now I will go back to losing my next election.

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

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

So we agree.

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

Sorry. Hit post before the rest of my thought.  Was editing it, then saw your post.

[Napoleon]

How has this been done in the past?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

one possibility might be to decrease funding for Afghanistan and Iraq operations over time while cutting off funding for weapons in Libya.

[Napoleon]

Unfortunately, there's no way that such a bill would ever get through the senate, much less get signed. If I was a senator, I'd propose a compromise bill bringing our troops home from places like Western Europe and Australia. I'd like to see a senator who could really make an argument for keeping expensive military bases in those sorts of places.

We can pass this. I think that my modified version (tomorrow, people!) will get six votes.

No matter what, the final vote will be important. The people deserve to know where their representatives stand on this critical issue. We can identify the real Atlasian left.

[CatoMinor]

We can identify the real Atlasian left.

Does this mean I become an honorary leftist if I vote aye?

[Napoleon]

We can identify the real Atlasian left.

Does this mean I become an honorary leftist if I vote aye?

You seem reasonable to me, if not economically left-wing.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I want to make the Administration's view on this clear...

I want our troops out of harms way, where we disagree, is how to go about it.

Personally, I believe the Afghanistan conflict was handled abominably, largely due to unnecessary war in Iraq - but as President, and even moreso as Commander-in-Chief, I have a deep responsibility that goes beyond what I want to do. As an Atlasian, I want all of them home and out of harm's way yesterday, but as president and a world leader who believes in responsible government, I do not have that luxury.

As a country with forces on the ground we do have a responsibility to make sure the transition to local forces is a smooth as possible, while many claim this is lost cause already, I cannot image what it will make us look like if we just up and leave, and a massive power vacuum ensues.

Support or opposition to the War is not the issue now, it's about the right way to leave.

I'm prepared fully to work with the Senate to bring this joint goal about and believe me, I understand the frustration, I am prepared to work with you as long as you are equally prepared to work with me.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

I take it the bill has been amended to 90 days now, which is good. I'm not sure if I'll support the bill, but 30 days is nuts.

[Junkie]

Unfortunately, there's no way that such a bill would ever get through the senate, much less get signed. If I was a senator, I'd propose a compromise bill bringing our troops home from places like Western Europe and Australia. I'd like to see a senator who could really make an argument for keeping expensive military bases in those sorts of places.

If I had been elected, I could easily do so.  You probably would not agree with it, but I truly do believe in the pre-positioning of bases for purposes of force projection.  In many cases, these "bases" are really just American personnel stationed at foreign bases.  For example, in the case of Australia, I believe the last count by DOD put our military presence there at about 115-120 (or in that neighborhood, unless of course Atlasia drastically increased troops there for some reason, but I could not find that).  Most of these troops are rear-echelon support.  If I am not mistaken, their primary purpose as well as the five or 10 in New Zealand is to administer pre-positioned equipment stationed there for joint exercises, satellite tracking, and in the case of the Navy and Air Force, supplying and serving the scientific outposts in Antartica.  For each of these reasons, I believe that the placement of troops in the region is well reasoned and necessary.

I beleive similar arguments could be realistically made for the other deployments you might have issue with.  Not all of them, but most.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Napoleon, please don't insinuate that I am not a real member of the Left because of my position.  It is a foolish way to identify someone.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I love the litmus tests being proposed in the Senate! I love it!

[Napoleon]

Still discussing this with President Polnut.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Just to officialize this, and because I am uncomfortable doing this any other way, Senators have 24 hours to object starting on the 23rd at 8:17 pm and ending on the 24th at 8:17 pm. The bill has thenceforth been amended. Senators have 72 hours to object to this dereliction of the OSPR (Not really, since Snowguy used to let sponsor amendments through without any procedure at all).