Should the U.S. House and Senate pass a non-binding resolution?

Question

Should the U.S. House and Senate pass a non-binding resolution expressing their opposition to the SURGE in troops in Iraq?

Im doing an essay and was interested in everyones idea about this topic.

Answer 1

My answer is no. The reason for my answer is that I see it as both a purely political maneuver and an incredible waste of time. If they are truly against this move then pass binding legislation which limits funding and thereby eliminates the troop surge. Why won't they do this? Because they know any attempt of that nature would fail miserably. So, instead the people that are for this in Congress are walking the political tightrope. If the surge fails to achieve the desired goals then they will say see were against it all along. If the surge succeeds then they will say we were just responding to the will of the people, but did not want to hurt the troops. In short, there is nothing honest about this whole affair, it is just more politics as usual. A means for some to look like they are taking a stand without taking any real action.

Answer 2

It makes me wonder why we have the current people running the show. I understand that people disagree with the war, duh. However, having congress pass a "non-binding resolution" makes no sense whatsoever. ITS NON-BINDING! That means the president can simply say, "meh... yeah? so?", and continue the troop buildup. How about the congress actually pass something that will be binding, at least force President Bush to show his hand a little. In any case, I think that the entire idea behid the resolution is ludicrous, binding or non-binding. What this does is simply tell the troops that are currently in harms way that we want them to continue to do the job, but without any backup (even though we actually are sending the backup, sort of like a bad game of 'psych'). I can only guess that the morale over there is pretty low at best. I cannot see how this resolution will improve on that. As for America, its hard for me to say. We have long since departed from actually being a representative government. Yes I understand that *we* elect the people that are serving there, but it seems that that is our only purpose in the political chain once those we vote for get into office. I personally disagree with the course that the war has taken, but I have no clue how to proceed either. Probably why I am not a general. In any case, this is another example of America proving how incompetent we can be. I mean these politicians actually believe that this whole resolution thing makes a difference. And THAT is one of the biggest problems with our political system, but thats another post/answer. Heh.

Answer 3

Absolutely not. This is the biggest bunch of bull crap since Clinton's impeachment proceedings. Congress is acting like a bunch of weak and ineffective, retarded politicians - show some courage and either support the war or cut the funding - anything else is pure political nonsense.

A non-binding resolution against our efforts in Iraq can only be interpreted as an eventual victory by the terrorists. Their mentality has to be to simply wait out the clock.

A non-binding resolution to support Bush and his latest efforts to stabilize Baghdad would be a far better message to send the Islamic radicals.

I am totally ashamed of the present congress for their political grand standing at a time when our troops are in harms way.



And this is the party that wants me to believe they support the troops - yeah, and I can leap tall buildings in a single bound.



In short, either do what your base elected you to do - cut and run, or do something that REALLY supports the troops - but, in any event, show some courage and DO SOMETHING!!

Answer 4

Very good question that I will explain the purpose of.



Yes. The reason Congress went with a resolution and not a binding-bill is that a resolution can not be vetoed... a bill can be rejected/vetoed.



By passing this resolution that doesn't give the president the option of vetoing it, it goes on the record that Congress does not approve of his military actions. A vetoed bill would not go on record but rather, get sent back to Congress for an additional vote.

Answer 5

The passing of a non-binding resolution is a waste of time, money and effort. It is a mute piece of paper that says I don't like this and I am mad. Look at Senator left Wing Fienstein - she wants to dictate how we drop cluster bombs in a war zone. She too is clueless on military matters and should STFU. A non-binding resolution is like breaking wind - no one likes the smell but it can't be helped.

Answer 6

Absolutely. If nothing else it forces every member of congress to go on record for exactly how they stand on the war.



What is the GOP worried about anyway? The resolution has no power to stop the war and if in the remote possibility that we actually win this misguided war it will be a slap back in the fact of everyone who opposed it. The GOP should be scrambling to get it to a vote.

Answer 7

It's good to get a consensus of what people think of an escalation in iraq based on past failures we've seen from the policy surrounding the iraq fiasco. After the vote on the non-binding resolution i see a new binding resolution to follow shortly that will give a plan on how to proceed in iraq. It should be a step in the right direction.

Answer 8

No they can make their statement against the war without it.



Not sure the reason you are doing the essay, I assume it is for school. It would be like you and your classmates passing a non-binding resolution against essays. It is not going to stop your current teacher from making you do this one, and it will embolden liberal thinking teachers to think they have you on the run.

Answer 9

It is time wasted and has a negative influence. The public is upset and wants action. The public should be upset, even if the president said time and again this process is going to take time. We are good at blowing things up but not so good at putting it back together. The people with a say are waisting time.

Answer 10

I think yes--for two reasons. First, the American people have a right to have our representatives go on record, not just waffle aroud. Second--I think sending a clear message to Bush that the Congress is listening to the American people and we do not approve is important. It will put Bush on notice that his policies are being watched--and that when his "surge" fails, he is going to have to accept responsibility, not shove it off on someone else.



I think also there may turn out to be a third reason. Bush isnt't going to listen--everyone knows that. So--after the surge fails--which it will--and Bush continues to refuse to make any meaningful changes in his "policy"--the record--and Congress' forebearance--will be very clear. So when they take action against Bush, it won't be without having tried every other alternative first.

Answer 11

why don't they work on things that they have power to change - instead of spending so much time on somthing that they can't change- and has absolutly no power.



people act like impeachment is something that can be done at any time- it can't - something really really bad has to be done- law breaking before it can be done- geeze people.

Answer 12

If not have a time line before Bush is out of office and by that set time if no progress, impeachment.

Answer 13

Yes they should.