Vermont Votes on Iraq War resolutions...

[Sky Warrior Bob]

http://www.iraqresolution.org/

Despite being a bit under the weather, I think this is something that others might be interested in. Last week, in local town meetings across Vermont (local goverment in a number of Vermont's towns are completely run by the people & public participation), a series of resolutions came out questioning or at least addressing the Iraq war.

A number of them called for Vermont to have final say as to where the Vermont National Guard is stationed, and not the Federal Government.

I've yet to hear anything significant come out of this, although I did hear that some of the various resolutions at least called for studies into how much Vermont contributes.

And while I'm having trouble confirming this factoid, I have heard that per Captia, Vermont has suffered the most fatalities in the war with Iraq. I think that's figured out in terms of state size & population density.

SWK

[Psrdirector]

Yeah I have heard this also. I say go Vermont

[Thought]

See, there have been wars to decide this very question. The fact is, we are THE United States of America, not THESE United States. The significance is, of course, the sense of a single entity. The Vermont National Guard is a military unit and all military units swear to the nation, not to their state. As such, Vermont, though it may support that part of the National Guard with state funds (I am not sure if they do or not), it does not have the final say in how that military is used. Consider, for instance, that Germany decided to invade America (circa 1913ish). Now since California is on the West Coast and far away from the most likely points of invassion (aka, east coast) could California then decide not to support any resistance effort?

As to their local resolutions concerning the Iraq War... well simply put local communities in Vermont don't have enough information to properly judge much about the Iraq War and I can't see them getting it anytime soon. It isn't like they have an ambassador to send to the UN seperate from the American Ambassador. And as amazing as the Vermont Intelligence Network may be, I find it hard to believe that it is capable of opperating efficiently on foreign soil. After all, their statement about Powell's statement about Saddam's search for nuclear materials in Africa being disproven has itself been called into question (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/15/ambassador/index.html, the short being that his official report was significantly different that the "report" that was made public by the press). Nothing like factual errors to grease the wheels of local rebellion. The FAQ section of that link if full of such factual errors. Some of the statements may be publically considered accurate, though they aren't. Like the Al Queda connection. It isn't as if Al-Zarqawi doesn't have connections to Al Queda, http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/02/28/threat.info/index.html, though it may freely be debated as to when those connections started.

However, having thus properly mocked them, I would like to point out that it is perfectly fine, indeed it is even good, to discuss the war at the local level. And if the local level determines that National Guard troops are being used improperly, they have the right to sent complaints to the federal government. But there is a line between dealing with local issues and trying to recreate the Confederate States of America.

[Sky Warrior Bob]

It can also be looked at from this perspective... Asking questions is never a bad thing, and looking into a matter is likewise. I doubt you'd find any Vermonter who actually believes that the National Guard will be pulled back on the basis of these town meetings.

However, in the same vein, it gets people talking, and really considering the issues. If every state in America were to start talking this way, then there would be political ramifications. Also, some good might come of this.

One thing in paticular that was prompted in these town meetings, was to look into the civilian jobs of the troops. Eg - The ratio of First Responders, Teachers & other somewhat vital pieces of Vermont society. Perhaps a triage for the National Guard might be established, so it put preference on non-vital civilian roles or something along those lines.

Also Thought, your examples don't entirely fit the current situation in Iraq, as success or failure in Iraq does not immediatly effect the situation back here in the United States (unlike the scenario of Germany attacking our borders). Plus, while there have been past wars about this very matter, I personally don't feel the question has ever been decisively resolved one way or another. Additionally, as this isn't a draft situation (well not yet, at any rate) the question of how much control should be given is at least a point that can be argued over.

SWK

[Thought]

Actually, my examples were direct responces to the statements contained in the FAQ of that link. To abreviate and simplify what I had attempted to indicate: While it is discussion and debate about most things is good, including the war, in order for that such meetings to be productive, people need to critically assess their information concerning those topics. The information that the link provided, in their FAQ page, is fundamentally flawed (hearsay is not something that is good to build a debate on). Based on the assumption that a FAQ will provide a generally agreed upon answer to common questions, I took the information provided in the FAQ to be indicative of the general process. That is, if the information on the FAQ is flawed, chances are the information presented at the town meetings are likewise flawed.

From the page, it does not appear that these meetings are merely discussing local issues, but how global issues are affecting the local level. It is only reasonable to assume that if they utalize incorrect information in their debates than the conclusions these meetings reach as a result of those debates will be flawed as well.

If people don't have a reasonable amount of information and the ability to critically analyze that information, they I wholeheartedly oppose discussion of the topic. I'd rather people remain without an opinion of the matter than to come to a false conclussion that will then, in the future, be all the more difficult to dislodge.