OK, the Afghan population got to choose from 18 candidates. There was no referendum question along the lines of: "Is it all right for the U.S. military to poison the land for the next 50,000 generations?"

That 50,000 generations is no rhetorical point; it's my considered conservative estimate as a hydrometallurgist as to the time scale of the threat.

Of course, that's not the point you want to make. You apparantly believe that whatever is convenient for the U.S. military is good, good for the world and utterly without flaw. I disagree.

Since I detect no indication you are willing to discuss a point on its merits (my OP was on uranium acting as an estrogen proxy/cancer cause, if you'll recall) we really have nothing to say to each other. I have no desire to get into a shouting match with you.