On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 06:57:39PM -0500, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: > On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 02:14:22AM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote: > > > > I would be a little bit less torqued about foreign aid and a lot more > > sympathetic to the cause if the aid we were exporting wasn't a better deal > > than what we keep. Did you know Iraq has national healthcare, and it's > > currently paid for by US tax dollars? > > > Iraq also does not have a functioning economy. Now, you might argue > that providing National healthcare is simply getting them addicted to > it. Which I think is true. However, I think that in this case it is > the right thing to do. It would be nice if there were a better way, but > I doubt there is. Of course, once US aid stops, they will need to > decide if they want to keep paying for it themselves. >
Iraq had a national healthcare system before Saddam H. came to power. He kept it going. It is part of what people in third world _expect_ from the government. That and supression of riots. Not freedom. What has been in Iraq is hardly a reasonable standard of comparison for how the USA should conduct its own internal affairs on any issue. But I happen to know a few details of the recent history. -- Paul E Condon [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]