|
It's kind of late, and I'm tired. But I'm going to try to say this right. Here goes.
It's like the question in Congress is "We're gonna build all this stuff. So are we gonna build it for free (grants)? Or are we going to send them a bill later (loans)? Somebody (McCain, I think) made a decent point that if we make it loans then we reinforce the idea we were just after oil. I kinda see his point.
I think that's the wrong question. The question I have is why are we building them all this neat stuff if we didn't break it in the first place? It isn't our fault Iraq doesn't have zip codes. It isn't our fault they don't have 911. It isn't our fault the infrastructrure was neglected. If we don't take it upon ourselves to rebuild unnecessarily we won't have a huge bill to pass on to either the American people or the Iraqis. Rebuild what we broke, train and equipt a police force, let them elect their leaders, then get the hell out. Let them then decide what they want to rebuild and who they want the contractors to be. (There's a good chance they'll pick American firms all on their own). Then they can pay for it themselve--with oil revenues--without it looking like we're a car mechanic doing a complete engine restoration, then sticking the car owner with a huge bill when he just came in to get new tires.
==========================
Sorry for the rant. Like I said, it's late and I'm a bit loopy. :) I imagine most of you probably already agree with my on this. My main point (which I'm just now getting to), is we should try to call them on trying to divert this into the wrong question. They're saying "How are we going to pay for all this were gonna build?" We should be making them ask "Why are we building stuff we didn't break?"
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
