The Iraq war is very costly, but I doubt the Afghan war costs very much. I also doubt bin Laden expected the US to take out his nation-state center of operations. He surely expected retaliation, but not a full-blown invasion and regime change. While I have no moral problem with the use of nuclear weapons, it lets the cat out of the bag. If the US can use them, then so can China, Russia, and troublesome nuclear powers yet to come. I think Bush, Rumsfeld, and the military leadership did well on the Afghanistan invasion. They sent the CIA and special forces into Afghanistan with lots of money, they bought and united several militia groups, and provided those groups with air support. There were very few US troops on the ground when Kabul fell.
_____ From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of wesjcarr Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2007 6:03 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [marketliberal] war=bankruptcy? After six years I have concluded that Bin Laden not only knew we would retaliate for 9-11, but that he was counting on it. We supp- lied him and the Taliban with weapons to use against the Russian army in the 80s, and the cost of that war helped Bankrupt the Soviet Union. With waging two wars plus the "foreign aid" we are sending over there it is no wonder our current debt is 9 trillion. A more cost effective solution would have been a tactical strike with neutron bombs whose radiation would have penetrated any cave or building, then dissipated leaving no lasting fallout. It also would have served as a warning against further attacks. For those who say "stay the course" I say you had your chance and blew it. I have no more patience for excuses or incompetence. Wes Carr <http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=11708624/grpspId=1705060169/msgId=2416/stime=1196044588/nc1=3848621/nc2=4763760/nc3=4840 958>
