Chicago City Council voting to oppose an invasion of Iran?

* I was looking through stories to compile for the morning shorts today, and had to rub my eyes when I saw this:

Undeterred, local politicians have decided to take another shot at repressing international conflict: They're considering whether to oppose a U.S. invasion of Iran.

My question, why? The City Council did the same thing before the Iraq War, and President Bush invaded anyway.

In committee experts talked about events like the 1981 attack on Iraq's Osiraq nuclear reactor and the relationship between Iran and the newly formed Iraqi government. Should Chicago alderman really be discussing nuclear weaponry in committee?

* The rationale behind the move went like this:

The federal government doesn't seem to be listening, so we'd better talk to the local lawmakers who will listen.

"This is not the ideal way to be doing this," said Scott Ritter, a former UN weapons inspector in Iraq who testified in favor of the resolution. "But nobody in Washington, D.C., wants to take this on. Do I sit back and say nothing, or do I take the indirect approach?"

* I understand the feeling, and agree that they aren't listening. However, going to the Chicago City Council on this doesn't make much sense to me. If you really want to show support don't pass a resolution through the City Council, take it to the streets. If you want to show support in Chicago then hold protests there. If you think that the federal government isn't listening, then march on the Capitol.

What happened to the spirit of the anti-war movement during Vietnam? You didn't see people pleading with their alderman to pass a resolution. You saw people marching in the streets, or flooding the National Mall in staunch disagreement.

Maybe things would be different if there was a draft.