>You are totally wrong about this. There is a reason the administration decided, within days of 9/11, that Iraq had to be part of the war on terror.
>Once we have eliminated Saddam, we are going to begin to see a decline in the rate of growth of anti-Americanism in the Middle East. This, and no other reason, is why we have to deal with Saddam at this time. The alternative is continue escalation of anti-Americanism, and continued threats to our nation on our soil.
Dream on. We'd have to proceed to show our committment by rebuilding Iraq, and even then, we'd probably have to take out at least Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia to start making real progress. We're talking trillions of dollars in expenditures here, and still no guarantee.
Could you expand a bit more on what you think the next 20 years would look like post-Saddam?
>You can't show me ONE, not ONE, government program that is run efficiently.
Perhaps not, but in theory, government programs have the most potential for maximum efficiency. We need an administration that will overhaul, but not privatize government programs.
-Z |
