Anne, I have given my apology to Brenda. But you have indeed ask some very good questions. The weapons have been there, some may have even been funded by the US. Why now? Because repeated attempts to talk to Iraq to stop massing this weapons have failed. Repeated request have gone unanswered to permit the UN to inspect. Because Sadam will not comply with peace keeping forces. Now because all else has failed. Is it less likely under a new regime? Yes. Less likely, but not a guarantee. A new regime would be more likely to work with the UN, and peace keeping forces. Good questions Anne, these are what I ask myself before I decided to support Bush. Kasey
Brenda, Your response said much of what I wanted to. And, I have to agree that I read some antagonism into your post, Kasey, whether you meant it or not. I'd be interested to hear from those who support a war against Iraq. I have a few specific questions: - What specifically is the rationale for the U.S. making the first strike? - What is the overriding reason for war now? (Why war? Why now?) (The weapons didn't appear last week. They've been there for years.) - If you feel there is danger of Saddam Hussein using weapons of mass destruction, do you think the danger is less likely under a different regime? I personally find the push for war ludicrous. The fact that so many are willing to listen to a president who reduces foreign policy to personal vendetta says something about where we are right now. Yes, the U.S. and the world were terribly wronged on September 11. But I hope we are a nation of laws, and those laws preclude action such as that which is being proposed in Washington. I hope for peace and eventual understanding. lots of love AnneGet more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
