In response to Tanya' query, I think that Santa Barbara's anti war resolution is at best meaningless, and at worse counter productive.  While it's true that the war affects local politics, it's untrue that local politics, specifically the passing of resolutions, has any affect on the course of the war.  If a Democratic majority in Congress can't end the war, then the Santa Barbara City Council doesn't have much of a chance.  What the Santa Barbara City Council can do is waste its time and distract their constituents from problems that they have the mandate and ability to address -- like, say, violence in Santa Barbara. 

My antipathy towards these types of resolution comes from close to home.  Though I don't live in the People's Republic of Berkeley, they've been passing these types of inane resolutions for as long as I've been around (which isn't very long, but I digress).  The Berkeley City Council had its own anti-war resolution, they had a resolution to stop the bombing in Afghanistan, and mulled signing on as co-plantiffs in a German war crimes suit against Rumsfeld. While these are mostly worthy causes, the Berkeley or Santa Barbara city council has no ability to actually convict Rumsfeld or stop the war. 

These do-nothing resolutions also trivialize the work of city government, so that when they try to enact real policy, like school funding or increasing numbers of local police, the citizenry is less likely to take them seriously.