Chicago City Council votes against war

[AngelsRWorldChamps]

CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) -- The City Council voted 46-1 Thursday against a unilateral military attack on Iraq unless it is shown to be a real threat to the United States.

The resolution said military action against Iraq would cost billions of dollars, and during the debate, council members discussed how federal budget cuts could affect programs that benefit Chicago residents.

"We don't want our boys and our girls to go to war," Alderman Dorothy Tillman said.

Anti-war statements have been passed in others cities, including San Francisco, Seattle, Ithaca, New York, and Kalamazoo, Michigan.

Chicago's resolution calls Saddam Hussein "a tyrant who should be removed from power" for the good of the people of Iraq and neighboring countries
When the Cicty Council of Chicago Replace the Congress of the United States of America? (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/16/antiwar.vote.ap/index.html)

[Terri]

Oh Brother! I think you and Saber need to move. http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sarcasm.gif

[Saber]

Yeah. We're starting to sound like Berkeley, Midwest. http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sarcasm.gif

[pRIMrose]

Ummmmmmmmmmm........ I was thinking the same thing Terri.

You both are welcome to move to the http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sun1.gif state. There's no snow and I know the Koi's would love it. http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[agent758]

http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif Well I suggest coming here to NYC but I suppose you want to upgrade not down grade! http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif

[Saber]

Heck with the koi! (j/k)......I would LOVE it! Just one eeensy problem though...We'd have to be beach bums 'cuz there just ain't no jobs for hubby down yonder.

[Saber]

Think I'll pass on your fine offer agent. The farther I am away from the Hitlery, the better off we'll both be....... UGH.....

[heldmyw]

What authorized this pack of questionable personages to use their elected pulpit to voice their personal opinions on anything?

Surely this doesn't reflect the will of the people of that area, and said people told them to do this in order to "take a stand"?

For voting on this at all, and wasting time and taxpayer money, there should be a good slap on the wrist...

...or face. http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Der Alte]

I have always been somewhat amused at the Great Informed Decisions made by the Uninformed. Self-agrandizement. It is the same with all the politicians and movie stars that get on their soapbox and say they haven't seen any reason to go to war - have they seen all the classified information that the government has? If so, why did we get left out?

[Saber]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Surely this doesn't reflect the will of the people of that area[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Unfortunately, hmw, I believe it does. It is most upsetting.

[Charie]

No blood for oil??? Well, I guess if this war is all about oil, Venezuela Nigeria and Russia better get out the troops!! I'm so fed up with these lunatics that I can hardly see straight anymore.

[Reccos]

Why is everyone on this thread so fired up for war? War, for a super power, is always an option, but in this instance, the proposed response to Saddam Hussein is too great.

A far greater threat to world peace is North Korea. The &quot;axis of evil&quot; speech sure helped to get those guys in line. I should add, that I don't think there will be a major war involving Korea, but is a huge danger to a real third world war and the response by the USA there, is appropriate and measured, and based on the realization that:
(1) the US armed forces can't fight a huge battle in two different parts of the world;
(2) the US President is fixated on Saddam and this nut alone.

How many people recall the horror for the US and its citizens of the Viet Nam war? If the US thought it was getting into that kind of situation, they would find another way to isolate Saddam Hussein and his loons. This whole venture is premised on the belief that there won't be huge casualties as this guy has a lousy army and air force. However, it appears from the many troops who are suffering from the last war with these guys, that many have suffered on this side, possibly from chemical exposures. Is it worth the risk to lose and physically harm your own troops to prove that the US is tougher than a nut case?

Oh well, it keeps people from talking about the economy.

[AngelsRWorldChamps]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Reccos @ Jan. 21, 2003 -- 12:11 am)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">;
(2) the US President is fixated on Saddam and this nut alone.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
i AM SORRY HE MUST STOP THE AXIS OF EVIL before more americans get killed on American Soil I am for war with Sad damm ( what Herbert Walker use to call him) But just dop a Nuck on his little town of Badgad and than see if he still wants to miss with us

[Terri]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why is everyone on this thread so fired up for war? [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

&quot;fired up for war&quot; *That's a nice little propaganda phrase.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A far greater threat to world peace is North Korea.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

I'm not so sure of that although I do think they present a great threat. We have Presidents Clinton and Carter to thank for this problem. *

If you think the President is fixated on Saddam and Saddam alone it simply proves that you don't understand this President or his adminstration.

I do remember Vietnam. It was brought to us by a Democrat who was in the way of most Democrats unwilling to commit what was necessary to do the job. *George Bush is not a Lyndon Johnson.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Is it worth the risk to lose and physically harm your own troops to prove that the US is tougher than a nut case?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

How about doing it to prevent said nut from acquiring nuclear weapons and the ability to deliver them outside the Middle East? *Sounds like a plan to me.

[Saber]

http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sarcasm.gif