Decius wrote:
] I think thats an apples to oranges comparison. Spending needed
] to maintain our working infrastructure long term is the not
] the same as what is needed to rebuild their broken one short
] term.

of course it's not an even comparison -- it's meant to highlight the fact that imperialistic motives, a lack of advance planning and retarded foreign relations are costly in more ways than the obvious military ones. This is money, american money, that *could* be used for domestic improvement. I don't think the senator meant to say that the cost for doing those tasks in iraq is too high, just that we shouldn't be spending that money there in the first place.

] However, people do not seem to get that the international
] coallition thing is not about troops, it about money. Canada
] may provide 8 warplanes for something like this, but they also
] pick up huge chunk of the tab. In this case the US has had
] almost no financial assistance, and its going to hurt. This is
] what we get for their arrogance in going it alone.

precicely. we'll see how far Bush is willing to prostrate himself in front of the UN to get that international financial assistance. I have my doubts.

RE: $87 Billion War Request Details Spending (washingtonpost.com)