The question must be judged over time... Would the world, or more importantly the Iraqi people have had less suffering post 2003 IF Saddam was still in power??? To me the answer is clear, it would have been more... How many people were claimed to have died under sanctions??? A million and a half??? Compare that number to cost in human life post 2003...A reduction from betwenn 50% to 90%...
This statistical truth is one most opponents wish to ignore or to individualize... Is the suffering of a minority of individuals within a country sufficient to deny requisite change that would reduce overall suffering in the whole??? This is a question that is forever debated... On May 20, 2:41 am, SnakeByte <[email protected]> wrote: > S. Husain, wan not without problems. He was funding or supporting > terror attacks by rewarding suiside bombers in izrial. But Could he > have been more contained? The U.S. had fairly tight servailance over > Iraq. Sudam also had tight control over the screwed up country of > three differing semi-integrated race/religons which blew out of > control in the aftermath of the U.S. invation. And then statigic error > of de-bathification and firing of the military that left no one to run > the country. I Care about US citizens but also for any needlessly > wasted lives of ordanary people of this earth. Where is the ballance? > What is the greater good? Certainly alot of evil has erupted. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
