| 4-2-7 |
09-07-2015 04:07 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobabode
(Post 284281)
You aren't worth the keystrokes -5. :rolleyes:
|
Good I'll help you since your incapable and spreading fallacies since the vote never made it to the House.
Ghouta chemical attack
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghouta_chemical_attack
The attack sparked debate in France, the United Kingdom, the United States, and other countries about whether to intervene militarily against government forces.[41][42][43][44] On 6 September 2013, the United States Senate filed a bill to authorize use of military force against the Syrian military, mainly in response to the Ghouta attack.[45] On 10 September 2013, the military intervention was averted when the Syrian government accepted a U.S.–Russian negotiated deal to turn over "every single bit" of its chemical weapons stockpiles for destruction and declared its intention to join the Chemical Weapons Convention
Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against the Government of Syria to Respond to Use of Chemical Weapons
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Author...emical_Weapons
The bill authorizes only 60 days of military action, with the possibility of a one-time extension of 30 days.[2] The bill also specifically prohibits the use of ground troops.
In his speech, Obama also said that, "while I believe I have the authority to carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization, I know that the country will be stronger if we take this course, and our actions will be even more effective.
A CNN/ORC International poll was released on September 9, 2013 with data about U.S. attitudes towards Syria and the possibility of U.S. military intervention.[43] The poll revealed that a "strong majority" of citizens do not want Congress to authorize a military strike against the Assad government.[43] Over 70% of respondents did not believe that a military strike would achieve US goals, and a similar percentage do not believe it is in the United States' national interest to intervene.[43] According to the poll, even if Congress were to authorize military action, 55% of Americans would still oppose airstrikes.[43] When asked about a plan that limited military action to 90 days and prohibited the use of ground troops, like S.J.Res 21 would authorize, 59% still opposed it.[43] The poll also indicated that President Obama's approval rating on foreign policy was at its lowest point ever and that only 3 in 10 approved of how he is handling Syria.
House reaction[edit]
Before the authorization bill had even been drafted in the Senate, much less voted upon, there were already doubts being raised about whether any such measure would pass in the House.[33] Prior to Obama's announcement that he would seek Congressional approval, there had already been House Republicans that had announced their opposition to intervention in Syria, arguing that the civil war did not pose a threat to the United States.[33] Doubts about the ability of any legislation authorizing a strike to pass in the House continued over the following week.[2] The House Armed Services Committee was scheduled to hear from Secretary of State John Kerry about the need for strikes on Syria at a hearing on September 10, 2013
International reactions
In response to Secretary of State John Kerry's remarks to Congress, Russian President Vladimir Putin accused Kerry of lying to Congress, falsely testifying that Al Qaeda is not present among the Syrian rebels when it is |
