A couple of hundred million in aid at any time prior to beginning (maybe even post) killing in excess of 2:1 Afghans in revenge (?!) for 911 would have solved the problem without the killing.
But it appears that the US prefers spending billions killing the uninvolved after a crises has developed than spending a couple of hundred million helping them before. Perhaps the reason that the billions are required is the degree of training need indicated by their apparent military incompetence. After all, US "own casualties" in Afghanisatan exceed all those killed by the Talkiban and al Quaeda combined. Still most countries improve their forces' readiness and capability without needing to kill the citizens of other countries. Why should the US be permitted to be an exception?
As it is, despite the lesson currently in progress, if we sum previously made US commitments to foreign aid, it exceeds the 0.1% budget cap recently placed on aid. Which do you think is going to prevail? Hell, it is possible that we spend more destabilizing other countries than we do assisting them. Besides, the US is far to fond of saying, "We'll give you money, but only if you spend it on American weapon systems."
---- This message was posted by Hermit to the Virus 2002 board on Church of Virus BBS. <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=51;action=display;threadid=25860>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:16 MDT