SENATE BILL: Emergency Resolution to Authorize Force in Iraq (Withdrawn)

[Adam Griffin]

Does the President have the ability to unilaterally act for a specific time-frame like in real life? If so, then our involvement here surely isn't needed - like hell we're getting bogged down in this country's nonsense for a third time and anything we can do from the perspective of "authorizing force" surely can be handled within a 90-day time-frame, giving international authorities the time to intervene if they so choose.

[Sec. of State Superique]

Jesus Christ... Maybe we should give up of this whole thing...

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Dropping bombs on Sunni extremists in northern Iraq will not bring democracy to the Middle East. It would, in effect, support flawed yet relatively stable and rational actors in the region, including not only the incompetent, sectarian Maliki government (the idea that Iraq has been "holding together nicely" was laughable even before ISIS advanced into the country), but also Iran and Bashar al-Assad.

I recall that the Maliki gov't was ousted in our world. The Prime Minister of Iraq is a Sunni-Kurdish General named Zebari.

[TNF]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Offering this, since no one is seconding my motion to table.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Sponsor?

[Lumine]

Hostile, needless to say, specially in light of the continued use of the supposed "conspiracy" about going to Iraq for oil.

[Lumine]

What exactly is meant by the recommendation for "aerial support"?

The potential (emphasis in potential) use of planes and some assets of the airforce, but since I have envisioned the drones as the assets that will attack, this is just intented to provide further aid in terms of scouting or supplying.

Does the President have the ability to unilaterally act for a specific time-frame like in real life? If so, then our involvement here surely isn't needed - like hell we're getting bogged down in this country's nonsense for a third time and anything we can do from the perspective of "authorizing force" surely can be handled within a 90-day time-frame, giving international authorities the time to intervene if they so choose.

That is the problem, Griffin, our constitution is not prepared to deal with this kind of situation by being incredibly vague. Perhaps we could give the president a specific time frame for the support and the use of drones if the Senate feels so desperate, but I'm not sure if that's consitutional as well. Any thoughts?

[Lumine]

Jesus Christ... Maybe we should give up of this whole thing...

Not a chance, I will not cease this effort even if the Senate is unlikely to pass it. It's about time we take the responsibilites we have ignored in foreign policy, and that needs time, effort and discussion.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Dropping bombs on Sunni extremists in northern Iraq will not bring democracy to the Middle East. It would, in effect, support flawed yet relatively stable and rational actors in the region, including not only the incompetent, sectarian Maliki government (the idea that Iraq has been "holding together nicely" was laughable even before ISIS advanced into the country), but also Iran and Bashar al-Assad.

I recall that the Maliki gov't was ousted in our world. The Prime Minister of Iraq is a Sunni-Kurdish General named Zebari.

Yes, Lumine pointed that out on the last page. As I said, it only reinforces my point about Iraq not qualifying as a democracy, although I had forgotten that he was a Kurd - which undermines a lot of what I've been saying about Iraq's government being a corrupt, sectarian mess. We need Simfan in here to discuss the situation on the ground, because it must be significantly different from RL.

In fact, I doubt that ISIS would have made it as far as they have given the circumstances (i.e. Sunnis must not resent the government to the extent that they do IRL, the Kurds are probably more willing to cooperate, and the military's officer corps hasn't been hollowed out to be filled with Maliki's cronies).

From my understanding the selection was in response to the gains that ISIS had made (about two weeks ago I think) so it is not like this appened a year ago or something.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Right, the situation is much worse than it is IRL according to our GM. Given the current facts IRL, I wouldn't support us getting involved either aside from protecting our embassy and citizens in Iraq.

I do understand the argument of those wanting to stay out of Iraq entirely. It's unclear as to whether they will ever stand on their own, and the risk that they fall into the hands of ISIS or another terror group is real - Iran could turn them into a proxy state as well, and if that happens, then I fear we will be a direct target for them, but I don't know. This isn't an easy decision we are having to make one way or the other.

[DemPGH]

Trying to "destroy" ISIS is making the mistake, IMO, that has been made many times before. How do you even do that? What's the plan? We haven't destroyed al-Qaeda - and now we want to try to destroy ISIS? I don't think so. Also, when we attack one, they splinter and morph into another one, often more extreme than the one before. It's a mess!

Now. I can understand joining a coalition that seeks to prevent ISIS from taking over a government, but unilaterally sending drones and bombs and tanks out to the back country will not destroy ISIS. It will create a catastrophic mess on top of another catastrophic mess. You have to understand that these people are semi-barbaric. What can we really do outside cooperating with others to achieve very basic objectives?

I'm also not warm to what I'm reading that the in-game situation is possibly worse than the RL one.

[Sec. of State Superique]

Jesus Christ... Maybe we should give up of this whole thing...

Not a chance, I will not cease this effort even if the Senate is unlikely to pass it. It's about time we take the responsibilites we have ignored in foreign policy, and that needs time, effort and discussion.

I agree - it may seem like I am giving both of you a hard time, but I want to be sure that we've hashed this out carefully before it goes to a vote. I wouldn't bother arguing if I didn't agree that we should do something; it's just not clear to me at this point what that action should  be.

Of course, I am not even a Senator, so you are free to ignore me without suffering any negative consequences if you'd prefer.

You are just the next SoEA

[Sec. of State Superique]

Maybe we should rethink another clear objective. Destroying ISIS is certainly too broad but we can have other plans such as helping the new Iraqi Government, delineating the proper targets where we want to take ISIS out, training better the Iraqi Security Forces and promoting a more unified Iraq. Anyway, that clear objective may be written by the Senate and I would like to collaborate on that topic.

[Lumine]

I wonder if someone is willing to offer a reasonable amendment (not TNF, please) to address the concerns of some of the Senators, or at least a few guidelines. I remain convinced this is the best course of action, hence why I'm hesitant to amend it for the time being...

[TNF]

I wonder if someone is willing to offer a reasonable amendment (not TNF, please) to address the concerns of some of the Senators, or at least a few guidelines. I remain convinced this is the best course of action, hence why I'm hesitant to amend it for the time being...

You could just withdraw the bill, because it's awful and no one in this chamber but you has a hard-on for bombing Iraq.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Is there any way we can contact and possible work with our allies to form a coalition to stop this madness? I am pretty leery on declaring war on Iraq...the last thing I want is to be dragged into another mess. However, I do worry about the implications to our national security if we let the country fall to a radical group or if it turns into an Iranian puppet state.

[Lumine]

I wonder if someone is willing to offer a reasonable amendment (not TNF, please) to address the concerns of some of the Senators, or at least a few guidelines. I remain convinced this is the best course of action, hence why I'm hesitant to amend it for the time being...

You could just withdraw the bill, because it's awful and no one in this chamber but you has a hard-on for bombing Iraq.

Being alone and sending awful pieces of legislation has never stopped you, Senator, I'm just following the kind example you have given all of us for the past months. Once again, I'm rather surprised that not even drones could be considered as a legitimate force to use. I understand the hesitance to send troops, I truly do, and I don't wish to see Atlasians dying in Iraq once again. But drones seemed like a measured response to be, although it pretty obvious the Senate doesn't necessarily share my views on the subject.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I guess what needs to be established is, what will these airstrikes accomplish...in order to get the Senate behind this. What are our goals here?

I, like many others, fear getting back into a war in Iraq when I really believe that letting them have a civil war is probably necessary before they stabilize, whether as a democracy or under another dictator, which is more their speed, but we need to make sure they don't fall to a terrorist group who will just set up a training base in Iraq to launch future attacks against the west. That's the only reason I'd want to get involved in the first place, and that happening seems like a real possibility.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

To me, the fact that we have a Sunni-Kurd in charge gives us a small opportunity to preserve a gov't dedicated to a nified Iraq as opposed to the Sectarian gov't that we expended so much to support. Were it not for this opportunity, which in my opinion at least to me would make the situation seem somewhat better than real life in that there is a political path being pursued alongside unlike in real life, were it not for this window I would be against interveening at all. I said in my campaign that this situation combined with the time span of a potential Iran intervention on behalf of the shiites produces a situaiton where a limited interventjon now could avoid a bigger one later on

Trying to "destroy" ISIS is making the mistake, IMO, that has been made many times before. How do you even do that? What's the plan? We haven't destroyed al-Qaeda - and now we want to try to destroy ISIS? I don't think so. Also, when we attack one, they splinter and morph into another one, often more extreme than the one before. It's a mess!

Now. I can understand joining a coalition that seeks to prevent ISIS from taking over a government, but unilaterally sending drones and bombs and tanks out to the back country will not destroy ISIS. It will create a catastrophic mess on top of another catastrophic mess. You have to understand that these people are semi-barbaric. What can we really do outside cooperating with others to achieve very basic objectives?

I'm also not warm to what I'm reading that the in-game situation is possibly worse than the RL one.

The goal isn't to destroy ISIS but to hamper and hinder them to a degree that the Iraqi military can regain its footing and begin to push them back out of the country.

[President Tyrion]

I guess what needs to be established is, what will these airstrikes accomplish...in order to get the Senate behind this. What are our goals here?

I, like many others, fear getting back into a war in Iraq when I really believe that letting them have a civil war is probably necessary before they stabilize, whether as a democracy or under another dictator, which is more their speed, but we need to make sure they don't fall to a terrorist group who will just set up a training base in Iraq to launch future attacks against the west. That's the only reason I'd want to get involved in the first place, and that happening seems like a real possibility.

I don't think just "letting them" have a civil war is a reasonable solution.

Who wins civil wars? The best, most powerful military, mostly due to international backing. I'm not going to back away and let every other country in the world determine Iraq's fate, when there's no evidence that such a process always ensures the best outcome.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

So you're endorsing us getting involved then, dear Tyrion?

What we must do here is look out for what is in atlasia's best interest, not just now but in the future.

Of course, this won't be my decision to make. I'm outta here Friday at noon.

[President Tyrion]

So you're endorsing us getting involved then, dear Tyrion?

What we must do here is look out for what is in atlasia's best interest, not just now but in the future.

Of course, this won't be my decision to make. I'm outta here Friday at noon.

I'm not sure if people have noticed, but I'm quite hawkish. I'm not interventionist, per se, but I do agree that we should consider the best interests of Atlasia.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

What you recommend then, Tyrion?

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

So you're endorsing us getting involved then, dear Tyrion?

What we must do here is look out for what is in atlasia's best interest, not just now but in the future.

Of course, this won't be my decision to make. I'm outta here Friday at noon.

I'm not sure if people have noticed, but I'm quite hawkish. I'm not interventionist, per se, but I do agree that we should consider the best interests of Atlasia.

And I agree with you that we need to do something. If we don't, someone else will, and the outcome then might not be in our best interest in our near future, which is why I have disregarded the constitution and sent aircraft carriers to the regioncome to the senate for permission to act.

[Lumine]

Well, I feel encouraged at seeing Tyrion agreeing in some regards to this approach. I wonder if by setting more specific goals (I admit mine are vague in comparison to what we want to do) we could get the support we need from a majority of Senators.