My husband and I have talked at length about what we'd do if either of us won the Powerball jackpots, and no, divorce was not on the list. We'd start by consulting a lawyer/financial planner to find a way to protect our privacy before claiming the money.

I suspect the comments from "Happily's" co-workers are evidence that unhappily marrieds group together -- or enjoy complaining about their spouses. Either way, it's sad. Studies show that complaining about a spouse significantly decreases one's satisfaction in a relationship. While we all "vent" from time to time, if talking divorce is your first response to a jackpot win, then you're in the wrong relationship. -- IN IT FOR THE LONG HAUL

DEAR IN IT: I hit the jackpot with the huge response I received about that letter. And the majority of readers said they would not divorce:

DEAR ABBY: I am a lottery winner, and I feel blessed and proud that I can take care of my wife the way she deserves. Within two minutes of my win I was on the phone with her, telling her to quit her stressful job. We now have a wonderful life, with more than we ever hoped for. -- SATISFIED IN THE SUNSHINE STATE

DEAR ABBY: I'm single, but that letter didn't surprise me. I think a lot of people feel they must be married by a certain age, so they end up "settling." Read some of the crazy lottery winner stories posted online, and you'll see people trade in their spouses because they feel they can do better or "move up," kind of like buying a bigger, better house. I'm not saying it's right, but it happens. -- CINDY IN ARLINGTON, VA.

DEAR ABBY: If I won the lottery, the first thing I'd do is get married. We're waiting so we can afford the nice wedding we both want. -- STEPHANIE IN SAUGUS, CALIF.

DEAR ABBY: The first thing I'd do if I won is pay off all my debts. I'm already divorced. -- DIANA IN TEXAS CITY, TEXAS

DEAR ABBY: I wouldn't consider getting divorced if I won, but I might finally buy that second husband I've been wanting but can't afford. -- TACOMA READER

DEAR ABBY: I've been married for 40 years. If I won I would not divorce. There's no way I'd want to give him half the money. I would stay married so I could have control over the money he spent. It would make up for all the years that he would pinch my pennies and make me squeeze a nickel till the buffalo pooped. -- WISHFUL IN OHIO

DEAR ABBY: If I were to win the lottery, I would trade all of it just to have one more hug and one more night talking with my wife, who died 16 years ago. Our children were young when she died, and I have tried my best to raise them to be good adults. But my heart still aches over losing her to cancer. I believe all widows and widowers would agree with me on this. -- TRENT IN OKLAHOMA

DEAR ABBY: "When" we win, my husband and I plan on going into a self-made "witness protection program" to hide from the long-lost relatives. But we will absolutely do it together. -- HOPING IN GEORGIA

Dear Abby is written by Abigail Van Buren, also known as Jeanne Phillips, and was founded by her mother, Pauline Phillips. Write Dear Abby ator P.O. Box 69440, Los Angeles, CA 90069.

To receive a collection of Abby's most memorable -- and most frequently requested -- poems and essays, send your name and mailing address, plus check or money order for $7 (U.S. funds) to: Dear Abby -- Keepers Booklet, P.O. Box 447, Mount Morris, IL 61054-0447. Shipping and handling are included in the price.

Obama fell short of Pakistani demands to announce an end to the attacks, but his landmark speech Thursday was seen as addressing some of Islamabad's main concerns over the covert CIA drone program targeting militants in the country's northwest tribal region along the Afghan border.

The strikes are extremely unpopular in Pakistan because they are widely believed to regularly kill large numbers of civilians a claim the U.S. says is exaggerated. The Pakistani government also criticizes the attacks as a violation of its sovereignty. Senior civilian and military officials are known to have supported at least some of the past strikes in secret but claim that is no longer the case.

Obama cast the drone strikes as crucial to U.S. counterterrorism efforts and said they have decimated al-Qaida's core leadership in Pakistan's tribal region. But he acknowledged that they are not a "cure-all" and would likely decline as the U.S. withdrew its combat troops from Afghanistan by the end of 2014.

The president said there was a wide gap between U.S. assessments of civilian casualties from drone strikes and those counts produced by non-governmental organizations. But he admitted that civilian deaths have occurred and said they will haunt him and those in his chain of command "as long as we live."

"Obama has finally responded to the popular sentiment in this country, which is fiercely against the drones, and I think that shows a certain sensitivity," said Mushahid Hussain, chairman of the defense committee in Pakistan's Senate. "But for the people of Pakistan, that is not good enough unless there is a cessation of drone attacks."

Pakistan's Foreign Ministry reiterated this point.

"The government of Pakistan has consistently maintained that the drone strikes are counterproductive, entail loss of innocent lives, have human rights and humanitarian implications and violate the principles of national sovereignty, territorial integrity and international law," the ministry said in a statement.

But it also praised Obama for mentioning the thousands of Pakistani soldiers who have lost their lives fighting extremists and for acknowledging that force alone will not make the U.S. safer.

"This also has been Pakistan's longstanding stance that a comprehensive strategy was required to address the root causes that foster terrorism and extremism," the ministry said.

Even though Obama defended the use of drones, Pakistani officials and analysts thought his comments and new guidelines governing the attacks could create space for improving strained relations between the two countries, as a new government led by former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif is set to take power in the coming days.

"I think it puts the new government in a better position," said Imtiaz Gul, head of the Islamabad-based Center for Research and Security Studies. "The expectation will be that even if a strike happens, it will be a lot more carefully examined before the execution and will be more in coordination with Pakistani forces."

According to an unclassified summary of the new guidelines, the U.S. will not strike if a target can be captured, either by the U.S. or a foreign government; a strike can be launched only against a target posing an "imminent" threat; and the U.S. has a preference for military control of the drone program, although the CIA will continue to control the attacks in Pakistan. Obama's advisers said the guidelines would effectively limit the number of drone strikes in terror zones.

Obama also said they are bound by respect for state sovereignty. Pakistani officials and analysts said the two countries needed to figure out a way to cooperate more closely on the strikes and put the Pakistani government in the lead a move Washington has resisted.

Cooperation on attacks has been hampered by pervasive mistrust between the two countries. This mistrust has been driven in large part by U.S. suspicions of links between the Pakistani government and Islamic militants, which Islamabad denies.

The relationship has also been rattled by a series of dramatic events, such as the unilateral U.S. raid that killed Osama bin Laden in a Pakistani army town in 2011.

On Friday, a U.S. diplomat accidentally killed a pedestrian while driving in Islamabad, but the incident didn't seem to be making waves.

Obama said in his speech there must be "near-certainty" that no civilians will be injured or killed in drone strikes going forward.

Shahzad Akbar, a Pakistani lawyer who has filed many court cases on behalf of drone victims' families, said he appreciated Obama's concern about civilian casualties. But Akbar said he was not confident the new guidelines would change the CIA's behavior because the attacks would still be shrouded in secrecy.

"The problem remains the same because there is no transparency and accountability for the CIA because it will remain inside the system and not be visible to outsiders," he said.

The number of strikes in Pakistan has dropped from a peak of more than 120 in 2010 to around a dozen so far this year, although it's unclear whether the decline is being driven by decisions about targeting or the political sensitivity of carrying out attacks. An additional decline could further help Pakistan-U.S. relations.

"In implying that the drone surge is coming to an end in this region, as al-Qaida has all but been neutralized, this opens space for more meaningful efforts to come to an agreement between the U.S. and Pakistan," said Maleeha Lodhi, a former Pakistani ambassador to the U.S.

_____

Associated Press writer Lara Jakes contributed to this report from Washington.