>
>I am responding. Your rants against the U.S. government are just that... rants. You criticize what we do, yet offer no alternatives whatsoever. You complain that the U.S. government can't come up with a better plan, yet neither you nor your government have offered one. Furthermore, if you were really concerned about the Iraqi children, you would be glad they will not be spending the rest of their lives under Saddam's boot.

Chris;

If you remove the human factor from this equation it makes sense. Children die in Iraq. Remove SH. People die to remove SH. SH is removed. People are allowed to live as humans.

Now the immediate response from some in the United States is, “We should not be in Iraq”. If you want to reduce the suffering and starvation in Iraq, eliminate SH. Then look at short term and long-term losses. Benefits are for the long term. Short term produces problems.

If you do nothing to remove SH, then many people will die. Regardless of what anyone wants the United States has taken action. Looked at from a statistical view point it seems the best thing to do is to get rid of SH. From a humanitarian viewpoint we should not do anything. We should leave Iraq in the good hands of SH. Let SH be responsible for the deaths of his people.

As I see it there is no clear answer and both answers are flawed. Now, if humans were perfect, we would not be having this discussion! :)

Tom