Arcata's Iraq Sanctuary Resolution

Since both the Times- Standard ( go to the Local News page for the poll) and humguide.com have online polls asking whether Arcata should pass that resolution proposing it become a sanctuary for soldiers who refuse to participate in the Iraq War, perhaps I should throw in my two cents:

I actually voted Yes in both polls the other day, albeit with mixed feelings. I think I should have voted No now, although I suppose it’s not too big a deal. I felt at the time a No vote would suggest support for the invasion and occupation of Iraq, which I’m a strong opponent of. I realize that isn’t what a No vote really means but some might suggest it does. There are a number of opponents of the Iraq invasion who oppose the proposed resolution, if only because they don’t feel it should be the City’s business to be dealing with national issues. They have a point, and I think that is a good reason to oppose the resolution although I’ve publicly supported at least one other resolution brought before the Arcata City Council before.

One thing that bugs me about these type of resolutions, though, is that it seems unfair to those on the other side of the issue, should the resolution be passed. Let’s say fifty one percent of the people were in support of the resolution? How would you feel to have your city publicly identified with the resolution if you were strongly opposed to the resolution, especially since it’s not an issue many people think the City should be addressing at all in the first place? One might feel quite insulted if they were in the minority on this, or any other, issue.

If a resolution does involve an issue generally agreed on as within the purview of proper city business, then it may well have no other way of being resolved and the losers would have to just suck it up and live with it. Even then, I still think there’s too much acceptance in this country of "democracy"- that if fifty one percent of the people approve something in an election, then to hell with the rights and feelings of the forty nine percent who lost. Democracy: Two wolves and a sheep deciding what’s for lunch. That may seem a bit strong for the purposes of this resolution, but I think my concerns are justified.

One last thing that bugs me about this resolution is the references to the Iraq invasion being an "illegal war". Illegal because it wasn’t approved of by either the United Nations or the U.S. Congress. What if it had been a "legal war"? It could have just as easily been approved by both bodies under just slightly different circumstances. Not sure what those circumstances would have been but it could just as easily gone the other way. Would U.N. support or a Congressional Declaration of War made things any more right? I don’t think so but apparently many of my friends from both the Right and the Left do.

"Fifty one percent of a nation can establish a totalitarian regime, suppress minorities and still remain democratic". - Eric von Kuehnelt-Leddihn