Pre-emptive Strike

So this is what I do not understand. You're a Republican, there's this dictator in Iraq who you think is going to do some really awful shit. So you go over there and grab him. Now, at the same time, you are advocating sex ed programs that are based on abstinence. Because kids might have sex, might get pregnant, might catch some disease. Let's just be real for a minute. Saddam did awful things and it's a certainty that he would have done more evil, so I'm okay with him being gone, even if the methods we used to justify it were muddled at best and outright despicable at worst. Teens are going to have sex, and no amount of abstinence pledging is going to change that. Let's stop pretending. You cannot deal with an issue effectively if your basic assumption about it is incorrect. Instead of preaching abstinence, why not give kids the facts. Explain to them how much it costs to raise a child. Help them value their own life, and their prospects for it, enough so that they can make an informed decision. Same thing with Iraq; if they had been honest about it, I bet the big surprise would have been how many people would support the same result; ie., removing Saddam from power. If you humanize the situation, if you make people sympathetic to your cause, you can usually get what you want.