>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! :)

My problem with the arguments from the people who believe we should not be there is that they have no viable alternative. I am going to go off on a rant here :-):

Some want the U.S.to do nothing. They complain about U.S. intervention. Sometimes in the same arguments, they complain that the U.S. should have done something earlier. It comes across as, "The U.S. shouldn't intervene in other countries, and by the way, you should have done something earlier." We are damned if we do and damned if we don't.

Another argument is to let U.N. inspections continue. I feel that a lot of people making this argument do not know 2 things: the 12 years of near total frustration in getting Iraq to cooperate with U.N. inspectors, and the fact that U.N. inspectors are not there to find a smoking gun. The U.N. resolutions relied on the full cooperation of Iraq to enable the inspectors to verify compliance with the resolutions.

Some want approval by the U.N. Security Council. My point is that the U.N. Security Council did nothing about Kosovo and nothing about Rwanda. Is it not apparent that the U.N. Security Council is a largely ineffective organization?

Another argument against the war is that this is a war for oil. We already get oil from Iraq in the "oil-for-food" program. This argument makes no sense at all. We already get the oil. After Saddam is removed and we have helped establish a new Iraqi government, the U.S. has made it very clear that the oil belongs to the Iraqi people. How much clearer can we be?