what was that about bombing them with food?

Kelley kelley@interpactinc.com
Fri, 05 Oct 2001 03:13:25 -0400


At 05:12 PM 10/4/01 -0700, Mike Masnick wrote:
>It's funny how many peole just assumed that the US would just go in and
>kill everyone in Afghanistan.  Reasons not to make assumptions.
>
>  -Mike
>
>http://news1.iwon.com/article/id/172627|politics|10-04-2001::18:07|reuters.h
>tml



What's Going On?
By Michael Albert

The U.S. response to September 11 seeks to benefit elites in the U.S.,
and, to a lesser degree, around the world. There are various goals.
...
Fourth, to have a good shot at getting rid of the Taliban, you would
close the borders of Afghanistan, starve the country, and hope that
Taliban members start to defect and that the country rises up in anguish
and despair. Fifth, to fill the ensuing power vacuum, you would support
Afghanistan's Northern alliance. Most important, sixth, to diminish the
groundswell of anti-war opposition to your combating terror with even
greater terror, you would send food to Afghanistan's borders, and
perhaps even drop food from planes inland. But, if you could have your
way, not too much food, of course. Indeed, if you remained free to do
so, you would provide only a pittance compared to the need generated by
closing the borders in the first place and by removing larger sources of
aid. Your goal would be to induce starvation sufficient to topple the
Taliban.
...
 >http://www.zmag.org/whatsgoing.htm