As those who read this forum know, I am a vehement opponent of US troops in Iraq and a supporter of their withdrawal ASAP.
However, I think a "non-binding" resolution is a complete waste of time and political grandstanding. The US Legislative Branch has the power (i.e. the power to spend public money as it sees fit) to block further deployments into Iraq. Either use it or don't. "Non-binding" resolutions are an inappropriate vehicle for such a critically important national decision as to whether to continue and/or expand the military occupation of another nation (if they serve any purpose in any case is dubious).
Comments?
Originally posted by no1marauderyour comment suggests to me that youre looking at the problem through a microscope, turn it around and get a bigger picture
As those who read this forum know, I am a vehement opponent of US troops in Iraq and a supporter of their withdrawal ASAP.
However, I think a "non-binding" resolution is a complete waste of time and political grandstanding. The US Legislative Branch has the power (i.e. the power to spend public money as it sees fit) to block further deployment ...[text shortened]... of another nation (if they serve any purpose in any case is dubious).
Comments?
Originally posted by no1marauderIs there a history of these 'non-binding' resolutions? Are there circumstances when they are appropriate? I've a limited knowledge of US politics, but it seems like a bit of an oxymoron.
As those who read this forum know, I am a vehement opponent of US troops in Iraq and a supporter of their withdrawal ASAP.
However, I think a "non-binding" resolution is a complete waste of time and political grandstanding. The US Legislative Branch has the power (i.e. the power to spend public money as it sees fit) to block further deployment ...[text shortened]... of another nation (if they serve any purpose in any case is dubious).
Comments?
I agree that it does seem like political grandstanding. If they oppose what is happening, they should do whatever is within their power to prevent it.
Originally posted by no1marauderShould be obvious to all .. the Democrats are nutless.
As those who read this forum know, I am a vehement opponent of US troops in Iraq and a supporter of their withdrawal ASAP.
However, I think a "non-binding" resolution is a complete waste of time and political grandstanding. The US Legislative Branch has the power (i.e. the power to spend public money as it sees fit) to block further deployment ...[text shortened]... of another nation (if they serve any purpose in any case is dubious).
Comments?
Originally posted by RedmikeUnfortunately Mike, these things have been around for a long time.
Is there a history of these 'non-binding' resolutions? Are there circumstances when they are appropriate? I've a limited knowledge of US politics, but it seems like a bit of an oxymoron.
I agree that it does seem like political grandstanding. If they oppose what is happening, they should do whatever is within their power to prevent it.
They have historically been called a "Sense of the Senate" resolution. or, as I like to call them, "Nonsense from the Senate" resolutions.
Originally posted by no1marauderI agree. This is nothing more than posturing for support back home.
As those who read this forum know, I am a vehement opponent of US troops in Iraq and a supporter of their withdrawal ASAP.
However, I think a "non-binding" resolution is a complete waste of time and political grandstanding. The US Legislative Branch has the power (i.e. the power to spend public money as it sees fit) to block further deployment ...[text shortened]... of another nation (if they serve any purpose in any case is dubious).
Comments?
Originally posted by MerkThis must be one of the many differences between our political systems.
Unfortunately Mike, these things have been around for a long time.
They have historically been called a "Sense of the Senate" resolution. or, as I like to call them, "Nonsense from the Senate" resolutions.
It is common enough for a legislative body to pass motions on things it doesn't control. For example, the Scottish Parliament will often take a position on something which is still the remit of the UK parliament. For example, they debated the Iraq war in Edinburgh, even though this is a London issue.
But, for a legislative body to take a position on something it can influence, but do nothing in support of that position, seems a bit daft. Surely they should put up or shut up.
Originally posted by RedmikeI agree. Taking a stand for what a person believes doesn't seem to be popular in American politics. That would take guts. Guts are desperately lacking in
This must be one of the many differences between our political systems.
It is common enough for a legislative body to pass motions on things it doesn't control. For example, the Scottish Parliament will often take a position on something which is still the remit of the UK parliament. For example, they debated the Iraq war in Edinburgh, even though this is ...[text shortened]... do nothing in support of that position, seems a bit daft. Surely they should put up or shut up.
politics these days.
Originally posted by MerkThe elites that the two parties answer to support an aggressive foreign policy to protect and expand US business interests regardless of the cost in human life. The American people by and large don't. So they had to be hoodwinked into supporting the decision to go to war in the first place (most countries' people usually have to be) and have been quicker than the politicians to sour on the whole fiasco. A non-binding resolution is an attempt to really do nothing (thus keeping the sponsors of the parties happy) while kow-towing to popular sentiment.
I agree. Taking a stand for what a person believes doesn't seem to be popular in American politics. That would take guts. Guts are desperately lacking in
politics these days.