chaos and honey

it appears that many in the media and public want everything in a kodak moment. they want iraq to function like a western country in the next hour and they believe if that is not possible america and its coalition have no right to be there. did the media and the public want the u.s. to allow saddam to stay in power and continue to pose a threat to the world?
how many did saddam kill and how many more would he have killed? how many have died because the u.s. and its coalition are there? what is the mathematical difference, it's at least a million plus on saddam's side. the u.s has just given the reins at least politically to the iraqis this morning. sometimes change must come from another authority - there is no shortage in history of larger nations making sure that other countries and lands are brought to order.
it is naive at best to be so idealistic about wishing for the iraqi population to have changed its govt without the u.s. - just how would they have done this and how many lives would that have costs?
the 'rebels' trying to blow everything to kingdom come in iraq do so because they fear what is going to take place which they will not be able to dispel or contend with.
an iraqi led 'interim' govt, an iraqi trained army starting to patrol (of whom will be a tad rougher on the rebels) under u.s. coalition control, and economic growth which will cause many eyes to twinkle in the iraqi population cause the rebels to shudder with horror.
would it be best just to sit back and watch the world burn, like we are doing in sudan where at least two hundred thousand again will be massacred this year by an arab army against a civilian population of 'africans' who cannot defend themselves properly?
whose set of rules do we really think people would rather be living under saddam's (or zarqawi's) or the interim govt that has just taken power? three years from now, who will want to have saddam back in power? as a matter of fact, who would choose to have him in power today?