Rattle wrote:
] Elonka wrote:
] ] A valid concern... Then again, those weapons could be given
] ] to Al Qaeda regardless of whether we attack or not.
]
] And they may already have. Who knows?
]
] ] An even bigger decision factor with me, has to do with the
] ] stance of Iraq's military against us. They're already
] ] shooting at us, and have been for years. If I were Bush, I
] ] would wait for the U.N. Inspector official report next week,
] ] give the State of the Union, and then wait for the next time
] ] the Iraqis fire at one of our planes (or do a radar lock in
] ] preparation for firing), and then I'd start moving troops
] ] in.
] ]
] ] As you can see, I'm definitely on the "hawk" side of the
] ] dove/hawk debate. The main thing that does give me pause
] ] though, is that I wonder, "Okay, if we attack Iraq, just what
] ] exactly is the mission?" Are we going in to prove that the
] ] WMD are there? Is our goal to kick Saddam out of the country?
] ] Change the government? Enforce a free election? I mean, if
] ] Bush were to order the attack now I'd still support it, but I
] ] still have misgivings. Before giving my *full* support to an
] ] invasion, I personally would want to know, "How will we know
] ] when we've won??"
]
] I guess I'd be a dove.. I got peace turned up so loud.
]
] I can't support unilateral military actions. I can't support
] military actions without a clear goal. Too many unanswered
] questions.

"peace turned up so loud..." Heh, nice way of putting it!

How did you feel about invading Afghanistan? Do you think we did the right thing, kicking out the Taliban after September 11th?

Elonka :)