To: epicure who wrote (176992 ) 12/4/2005 8:44:13 AM From: greenspirit Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500 The problem with your analysis is the assumption you can "know" in a sort of black and white way whether your actions have caused more deaths. How many would Saddam have killed in the next decade if we failed to take out his regime? Would he have developed nuclear weapons and used them against Kuwait or Iran? The future is an unknown and unknowable. The best we can hope for is making sound judgments based on our readings of history, the people, the climate, the culture, our abilities to effect change, and the willingness of people to desire freedom over tyranny. But, the path is not an easy one, and knowing with a level of perfect certainty is never going to occur. What do we think we know? We believe if given the choice people will seek a democratic free nation. We think if a nation is free and democratic it will choose not to invade other free and democratic nations. This has been the case for the better part of 200 years now. Free nations have not engaged in a major war with each other. They seek other avenues to address their conflicting goals. So world peace is linked toward building enough nations which support democratic values. We must first create the environment around which success is possible. And leaving Saddam in power would not have led toward Iraq becoming a just and democratic nation. We have a lot more work to do before this planet has most of its human beings living in an environment where world peace is sustainable long term. So we take small steps as the time dial of history advances and we keep learning. Doing nothing and allowing tyranny to continue, because of fear or heightened pessimism we may be doing something worse, is largely a formula for disaster. It's also a self prophesizing deterministic look at life, one I certainly don't share.