SB 2016-027: Anti-Terror Coalition Resolution (Debating)

[tmthforu94]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Cris
Co-Sponsors: Blair, Tmthforu94

72 hours for debate. The sponsor is welcome to speak on the bill.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I like the spirit behind this bill, but I think it needs to define "historic allies" that are eligible for weapons and funding.  I don't know if there are any safeguards that can be implemented to prevent those weapons from falling to terrorist groups or rogue states.

[Senator Cris]

Atlasia can't defeat ISIS and other terror groups alone. I think the right thing is an international coalition composed by all countries except those suspected to have ties with terror groups.

This coalition would coordinate military projects, intelligence operations and air strikes (we are not speaking of operations on the ground).
Atlasia can give funds and weapons only to our historic allies and not to countries like Russia that might use that funds and weapons against us.

The Congress can't legislate on this, considered that we can't force other foreign countries to form an alliance, and so, if this resolution will pass, our Secretary of State will meet with the other heads of state to build this coalition. We, as Congress, are giving to the Secretary of State a clear mandate and a clear framework for the negotiations and the composition/work of the coalition.

Obviously this is just a start point. This resolution needs to be improved.

I like the spirit behind this bill, but I think it needs to define "historic allies" that are eligible for weapons and funding.  I don't know if there are any safeguards that can be implemented to prevent those weapons from falling to terrorist groups or rogue states.

In the original draft, the SoS determinate the composition of the group of historic allies, but if a majority wants, the Congress might determinate the composition of the group.

[Pingvin]

I echo all the concerns regarding the definition of "historic allies". The bill will be worthless if Saudi Arabia (the motherload of vile and subhuman jihadist filth) is included.

[Senator Cris]

The others?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

On principle, I would prefer that Congress have more influence on foreign policy and matters concerning war.  The former SOEA Department used to propose an annual or semi-annual outline of our relationships with foreign states and I believe the Senate would have an up-or-down vote on it.  I think we should bring something back along those lines and use that to determine who we form our coalition with.

For that, it might behoove us to ask Secretary Truman to write up such a list.

[Blair]

Sorry for my late response.

Would people, including Senator Cris be happy to have an amendment that would focus on Libya; as well as legislating action in Syria and Iraq against Daesh

[Senator Cris]

Sorry for my late response.

Would people, including Senator Cris be happy to have an amendment that would focus on Libya; as well as legislating action in Syria and Iraq against Daesh

I'm looking forward to see it.

[Blair]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Senator Cris]

I have some doubts on various changes:
- Not including nations that supports Assad means that Russia is not included. Russia is a big potence and I think their help is necessary. Even the recent US-Russia negotations are going toward this direction.
- Removing the referement to the countries suspected to have ties with ISIS. A nation might be committed to fight ISIS, but on the other hand it might have secret ties with ISIS.

A question:
- By removing the part about funds and weapons, we are making clear that we'll not give funds and weapons to any nation, including our allies, right?

[Blair]

I have some doubts on various changes:
- Not including nations that supports Assad means that Russia is not included. Russia is a big potence and I think their help is necessary. Even the recent US-Russia negotations are going toward this direction.
- Removing the referement to the countries suspected to have ties with ISIS. A nation might be committed to fight ISIS, but on the other hand it might have secret ties with ISIS.

A question:
- By removing the part about funds and weapons, we are making clear that we'll not give funds and weapons to any nation, including our allies, right?

Oh I'm happy to include Russia (as in RL the US have been doing for the last two years) by means of virtually coordinating airspace- the amendment doesn't stop that.

I removed the part about suspected ties to ISIS namely to deal with Saudi Arabia; a country that I have many issues with (including their war crimes in the Yemen civil war) As a country there's links from funding circles to ISIS (In the same way that US indiviudals had 'links' to the IRA) I feel that Saudi Arabia for all their faults have a role to play in defeating ISIS.

I removed the other clause to allow us to have options- would Iraq have counted as a 'historic ally'? I assumed that regardless of this bill we'd continue to have bi-lateral arms deals?

[Senator Cris]

I have some doubts on various changes:
- Not including nations that supports Assad means that Russia is not included. Russia is a big potence and I think their help is necessary. Even the recent US-Russia negotations are going toward this direction.
- Removing the referement to the countries suspected to have ties with ISIS. A nation might be committed to fight ISIS, but on the other hand it might have secret ties with ISIS.

A question:
- By removing the part about funds and weapons, we are making clear that we'll not give funds and weapons to any nation, including our allies, right?

Oh I'm happy to include Russia (as in RL the US have been doing for the last two years) by means of virtually coordinating airspace- the amendment doesn't stop that.

I removed the part about suspected ties to ISIS namely to deal with Saudi Arabia; a country that I have many issues with (including their war crimes in the Yemen civil war) As a country there's links from funding circles to ISIS (In the same way that US indiviudals had 'links' to the IRA) I feel that Saudi Arabia for all their faults have a role to play in defeating ISIS.

I removed the other clause to allow us to have options- would Iraq have counted as a 'historic ally'? I assumed that regardless of this bill we'd continue to have bi-lateral arms deals?

"Historic allies" is just a denomination. If it causes problems, it might be changed. The list of countries that might receive funds and weapons from Atlasia would be determined by the Secretary of State or by Congress itself.

[Blair]

Could we tie arms deals into the bill about individual countries?

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Having had the opportunity to review this bill prior to its introduction on the Senate floor, I am very happy with the progress that has been made in debate so far. This will make the coalition building process much easier once we actually have a GM, and I thank the Senate for their diligence and attention to detail.

On the matter of "historic allies": as I recall, this designation was one of the suggestions I made to Cris when he sent me his original version of the bill. I felt it was important to draw a distinction between countries like France and Britain, with whom we have longstanding and constructive relationships, and countries like Russia, with whom we will need to cooperate to defeat ISIL but who, for obvious reasons, should not be the recipients of Atlasian arms. The idea, as Scott inferred, was for the State Department to draw up a list of these "historic allies" in conjunction with Congress. It seems Blair's most recent amendment struck out the section dealing with military aid, so this may be a moot point, but if the Senate decides to reinstate that section, I would want to see some version of the "historic allies" clause retained.

[tmthforu94]

I was waiting to see if there would be amendments to the amendment, but seeing as there hasn't been, I'll allow 24 hours for objections to the amendment Senator Blair proposed on September 13th.

[tmthforu94]

Blair's amendment has been adopted. Debate resumes.

[Blair]

Does anybody have an further issues with this?

[Senator Cris]

I agree with the Secretary of State. I think there shall be some version of the "historic allies" clause.

Also, we are saying that countries supporting Assad are not permitted in the coalition and that our country will collaborate with the coalition, so this means that Russia is not permitted in the coalition and that we can't collaborate with Russia.

This bill needs to be amended more.

[Blair]

I agree with the Secretary of State. I think there shall be some version of the "historic allies" clause.

Also, we are saying that countries supporting Assad are not permitted in the coalition and that our country will collaborate with the coalition, so this means that Russia is not permitted in the coalition and that we can't collaborate with Russia.

This bill needs to be amended more.

Yes; that's my intention.
 
I'm happy for Atlasia to work with Russia, and to coordinate but I don't support being in a military coalition with them especially after the recent air strike on the aid convey

[tmthforu94]

If there is no additional debate, I will open a final vote this evening.

[Senator Cris]

Please wait... I have a doubt about a thing.

I agree with the Secretary of State. I think there shall be some version of the "historic allies" clause.

Also, we are saying that countries supporting Assad are not permitted in the coalition and that our country will collaborate with the coalition, so this means that Russia is not permitted in the coalition and that we can't collaborate with Russia.

This bill needs to be amended more.

Yes; that's my intention.
 
I'm happy for Atlasia to work with Russia, and to coordinate but I don't support being in a military coalition with them especially after the recent air strike on the aid convey

In the current version of the bill we are speaking just of the coalition and there's nothing about coordinating with Russia. Maybe there shall be some clause about it.

Honestly, I think Russia shall be included in that coalition and my intention was that of introducing an amendment removing the part referred to Assad allies. But first of doing that I'd like to know what are the Secretary of State's thoughts on the issue.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I strongly object to a final vote at this time.

What's the plan for determining our allies here?  Is the Secretary to propose a list of potential allies for us to sign off on?  Will this government have the power to remove members of the coalition that we suspect have gone rogue?  Do we know if other heads of state will sign on?

[tmthforu94]

Sure, keep debating. There just hadn't been debate in 2 days, so I wanted to make sure the ball was still rolling.

[Terry the Fat Shark]

I'm going to jump in ( since I think I will be confirmed in time for the vote?) I do not believe certain nations in the Middle East can be trusted to be a part of this coalition, some of the Gulf States have been proven to be bankrolling Islamic State ( or at the very least did initially) and have made very little strides to try and help us with IS when we needed them to.

[Blair]

I'm going to jump in ( since I think I will be confirmed in time for the vote?) I do not believe certain nations in the Middle East can be trusted to be a part of this coalition, some of the Gulf States have been proven to be bankrolling Islamic State ( or at the very least did initially) and have made very little strides to try and help us with IS when we needed them to.

To be factious countries like Saudi Arabia themselves haven't been directly funding ISIS.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/saudiarabia/12127916/Saudi-Arabia-funds-moderate-Muslims-not-Isil.html