>I understand that the Mayor promised in the past to
>veto the anti-war resolution. I also understand that
>people have argued such a resolution is not relevant
>to the city of Minneapolis because the act of war can
>only be implemented by the federal government, and
>thus the city should not be passing such resolutions.
>That position is flawed and misguided and lacks the
>understand of our nation and worlds history.
>
I wonder if people who so aggressively support the appropriateness of this city council resolution on a national policy would feel that way if they didn't agree with the resolution. What if it didn't represent your personal opinion?
For example, if the mayor and a majority of the city council were in favor of a pre-emptive strike on Iraq, and passed a resoution stating the support of the city of Minneapolis for such an action, would people be so preachy about the role of city government in national politics and how it was appropriate for our elected leaders to represent our opinion on national issues?
I don't know for sure what the majority of the citizens of Minneapolis feel about a war at this time. Personally I am opposed to it - but in the absence of an objective measurement of the citys desires, the City Council adds no value in passing anti-war resolutions. You want to be heard? Get your e-mail warmed up and contact your representative in Washington - because it is the House/Senate that will have more influence on the start of a war than a stack of anti-war resolutions from city governments.
Mike Hess
Kingfield
MSN 8 helps ELIMINATE E-MAIL VIRUSES. Get 2 months FREE*. TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Send all posts in plain-text format. 2. Cut as much of the post you're responding to as possible. ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
