Template talk:U.S. congressional opposition to war

1812

The War of 1812 was the most divisive war in American history, worse than Vietnam. The New England States came close to leaving the union because of trade restrictions and the destruction of their economy. The Feralist party oppossed it, see Opposition to the War of 1812. That page says (emphasis added) "The Federalist Party in Congress was united in opposition to the war as soon as it was declared. A document called 'An Address of Members of the House of Representatives... on the Subject of War with Great Britain,' signed by 34 of 36 House Federalists, was widely circulated and put forward Federalist views on the subject. It argued that the parliamentary procedures used by Democratic-Republicans to launch the war were anti-democratic and hostile to 'Representative liberty'; that 'war upon the land' as a response to attacks against 'commerce upon the ocean' was not justified or effective; that the war would involve a dangerous entanglement with France, then fighting Britain in the Napoleonic Wars; and that with the U.S. unprepared for war and militarily weak, a disaster might result - 'a war of invasion may invite a retort of invasion.'" This deserves to be included in the template as it shows Congressional war dissent is not a modern invention.

--Wowaconia 19:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I add a link in the template.--Wowaconia 19:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Please add your work to War of 1812, it is wonderful. Travb (talk) 11:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't feel right

The existence of this template doesn't sit right with me. The subject matter doesn't seem to be what you'd typically expect to get made into a navigation template. The fact that the Iraq resolution appearing last in the template was passed just two days before the template was created certainly has the appearance of political commentary, trying to imply that the resolution was part of a long and storied congressional tradition. If I'm the only one feeling this way, fine - I just wanted to get that out there. -Joshuapaquin 01:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you know the phrase "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." In this case, you would do well to bear in mind that "Appearance is in the mind of the beholder." The template wasn't meant to imply anything in particular -- in fact, that neatly reverses the relationship between it's creation and current events (i.e. the Iraq resolution). It was, however, inspired by current events, which I'm sure has been the case with much of the contents of Wikipedia. Hope that helps. Cgingold 13:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Missing Resolutions

Where are the resolutions demanding surrender to Serbia that passed in the 90's? There were plenty of Slobo lovers in congress back then that couldn't wait for America to lose.

Syria 2015/6 - Gabbard Bill (HR 4108) to end USA support to groups aiming to 'destabilize' Syria and to overthrow its internationally recognized government

HR4108, the Gabbard Bill, should also be included in this list of U.S. Congressional opposition to war.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/4108 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr4108 http://gabbard.house.gov/index.php/press-releases/520-reps-tulsi-gabbard-austin-scott-introduce-legislation-to-end-illegal-u-s-war-to-overthrow-syrian-government-of-assad http://syrianamericanforum.org/index.php/saf-in-action/117-call-to-support-h-r-4108

"Notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds available to the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of Defense, or any other agency or entity of the United States involved in intelligence activities, or to the National Security Council or its staff may not be obligated or expended to provide assistance, including training, equipment, supplies, stipends, construction of training and associated facilities, and sustainment, to any element of the Syrian opposition or to any other Syrian group or individual seeking to overthrow the government of the Syrian Arab Republic, unless, after the date of the enactment of this Act, funds are specifically authorized to be appropriated and appropriated by law for such purpose."

HR4108 has two components:

(a) to stop all support by the USA government to groups aiming to 'destabilize' Syria and to overthrow its internationally recognized government. (b) If, however, the USA government wants to overthrow the internationally recognized government of Syria, a law (= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Clause) for such purpose must be enacted by Congress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dirk ec (talk • contribs) 03:38, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

The USA government has been involved in the 'destabilizing' of Syria since "early 2012" http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/25/world/middleeast/arms-airlift-to-syrian-rebels-expands-with-cia-aid.html , which was formulated as a policy goal back in 2001: 1:47 min in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSL3JqorkdU "This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, “We’re going to war with Iraq? Why?” He said, “I don’t know.” ... So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, “Are we still going to war with Iraq?” And he said, “Oh, it’s worse than that.” He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, “I just got this down from upstairs” — meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office — “today.” And he said, “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.”" http://www.globalresearch.ca/we-re-going-to-take-out-7-countries-in-5-years-iraq-syria-lebanon-libya-somalia-sudan-iran/5166 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dirk ec (talk • contribs) 04:01, 26 December 2015 (UTC)