In response to IWF's which is greater sin....?

A tough question, but it is not the place of a political leader in a republic to make choices based on his religious beliefs. He must listen to the PEOPLE. Too bad the people themselves were deluded.

Anyway...

We can't rescue every country from this kind of power, and we in fact encourage it in some places because we gain power from it. Our government is by NO MEANS innocent. But, to stay on topic, the first choice seems really bad if it's in one individual's hands. On the other hand, the second would kill many people. Assuming you HAVE to choose between the two - not crystallinectar's more realistic version of what could happen - I would say the first is worse.

Innocents get killed either way, but at least it could end if you did the second.

BUT... this is not realistic. There are alternatives. And considering the record of the United States, I'm not sure why we didn't try to use these sneakier methods to do it. Hmm, could it be that the government had... OTHER motives...? Nah, couldn't be.

I'm assuming that, in number 1, you're referring to Bush?

If I were the most powerful man in the world, I wouldn't target innocent civilians. And who will be the great one who rescues the Iraqis from Bush's military? DUH!

crystallinectar: Awesome answer :)

"Regime Change" and "Freedom for the Iraqi People" where the 4th and 5th excuses they used to try to sale preemptive war to the American people........Nice try, but this military excursion was planned before he even became president.

the problem is that you assume it has to be one or the other.

it doesn't.

there is NO excuse for killing innocent people. what's the point in trying to "rescue" them if by the time we get done there's no one left to rescue.

think long and hard about that one.

The second and seek penance and forgiveness. But this situation does not describe the US-Iraq situation.

Amen Coffee!!