There are many different factions in the peace movement. Most of us can agree that war is a bad thing that should be avoided at all costs, but the question of what is a just war and how we should conduct ourselves in foreign affairs is something that really is in debate. Here is a rundown of some of the biggest divisions in the peace movement.

Lebanon v. Isreal. Which country is right? Which one is wrong? It seems both sides are going at each other in an essentially untolerable way, yet it seems that Hezabolla essentially was provoked by Isreal. On the other hand, the actions of Hezabolla in attacking Isreal certainly was not justified either. To boot, Isreal is one of our closest allies in the Middle East.

Iraq. We are in Iraq. Now we have to come to some resolve there, and get our troops out of there. How? What kind of a timeline do we follow, what should be our goals? Do we want to tie the hands of our military leaders? Our are Representives on the wrong side of the war issue, by saying we need to find a structured way to pull out? Almost everybody agrees, that stay the course is a disaster in the peace movement, but there is no clear solutions.

President Bush. Most peace activists don't like President Bush for getting us into that terrible war in Iraq without justification. Did the President lie in getting us in there or did he actually believe the evidence? Hindsight is 20-20 as they say. Is our President continuing to lie about Iraq, or does he really believe that things are going fairly well over there?

There is no one type of peace activist. Some want the troops home to focus on domestic priorities, others to stop the horrible killing, and others concerned about the global ecological consequences of us continuing to fight over in Iraq. Yet, we all can agree it's time for a solution in Iraq that will bring both the troops home and peace and dignity to Iraq.