And now your feedback:

[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/11/17/feedback.jpg caption="Christiane – all ears for the feedback."]

AMANPOUR. viewers commented on situations that felt as controversy to most. Former Secretary of State Madeline Albright’s exchange about security failures in the United States and the ongoing battle between Al Qaeda and the U.S. was thought to produce futile results.  Viewers thought that the “focus on stability in the Middle East” needed a more “holistic” approach for “a visible outcome.”  Additionally, the story of the Yemen Girl who chose not to wear a veil caused most to cheer in favor of her determination to “stand up for her own rights.”  Many felt she was a great example to follow, while wishing her some “needed protection” to continue living in Yemen danger-free due to the governmental and religious implications her actions could unravel.

Below, you will see some opinions from viewers like yourself. We would love to hear what you think.

Dear Christiane, I watched your program last night on the global water crisis. I am a water management engineer by trade without any particular preference for private or public provision.

There were a few factual errors made by your participants.  Robert Kennedy JR stated that corporations can set the price for water. Tariffs are always et by Government. Interestingly, this error is the centrepiece of his objection to water privatisation. He was a remarkablyunimpressive participant in a debate he clearly knows nothing about.  Maud Barlow stated that every 8 seconds a child dies because they cannot afford water provided by private companies. The vast majority of children who die from water borne disease do not have the option of buying water from private companies – they live in rural areas where there is no public water supply. She appears to be laying the blame for this on private water supply companies. She also made the claim that private companies must be more expensive and less equitable than public companies because of the requirement to make a return to shareholders. Actually the difference between public and private financing is not very significant – both rely heavily on debt. (She did in fact also point out that private companies contribute little equity). Therefore the financing costs of private or public supply are similar – the point about "profits extracted" is a red herring. We probably should move beyond the private-public debate, which excites a lot of uninformed attention but isn’t really anything to do with why people go without clean water. It would have been useful if your participants had pointed this out, but I suppose if they had they might not have been on television. Should you require some useful information about the water sector I would be happy to put you in touch with other engineers who devote their lives to providing clean water and sanitation. You seem to be interested in understanding the issue, and you would be doing a service both to your audiences and to poor people caught up in the politics of water to move beyond the politically inspired rhetoric. I attach a short article I wrote to try to dispel some of the politics from the discussion.

Alex Nash

Hello, the developed world uses more water to depose of waste than to create it. Is it not time to devote funds to redesign our present toilet disposal methods moving away from water?

Chris Forder

Yemen Girl

Who knows how long they will let this girl live in Yemen...

she's got the guts, but am not sure she's got protection. I only pray the extrmemist dont catch up with her any soon.

That girl is definitely a free spirit and she should be encouraged in school. but there is somuch sexism and repression in the Arabic cultures she will probably end up being stoned

Gen. Petraeus / Madeline Albright on U.S. security failures / U.S. Gen. David Petraeus

GREAT SHOW! ENJOYING IT!

Excellent coverage – loving the interview!

A new side will be open for new world order

It seems as if we've been trying to focus on stability in the Middle East for decades by focusing only on one country or area, thus leaving other areas ripe for destabilization. Would it make more sense to take a more holistic approach or do we think we've finally been able to focus on the places where terrorism and rogue elements can thrive?