WFP meets Nov food Quota - Afghanistan

I'm sure we'll hear a negative spin on this from the left...here's my guess as to the possibilities:

1. Only the Northern Alliance soldiers are eating-- they're hogging all the food, and millions of babies (those few that weren't killed by US bombs) are dying of starvation!

2. The food meals do not conform to Ramadan diet restrictions! The country is outraged and is starving as a result of our western ignorance of their customs!

3. This is a lie. I just know it! The food is not getting in, because the US bombing has created this whole situation that is too dangerous for aid workers to deliver food. The US is preventing food from being delivered by their evil military campaign to kill innocent Afghan babies!

4. The US soldiers and Northern alliance military are killing pro-Taleban soliers as the people try to eat. They are having indigestian!! This is a serious problem and the killing needs to stop NOW!

5. The Pro-Taleban soldiers who fled (or "strategically retreated") to the mountains are not eating!! Why isn't the food being delivered to their caves?! This is a clear pattern of racist and anti-mulslim behavior that must stop NOW!

6. I didn't see this food delivered on Al Jazeera, so I don't believe it. I saw it on CNN, then checked the UN food Programme site, and the information was there....But, Im convinced there is a media blackout in Afghanistan since the US delibately bombed the Kabul offices of Al Jazeera which were used as in part as Taliban hang out.

Any more that you guys can think of, please post.

And another thing!! I never even heard of the Taliban or Al-Jazeera before, but I dont care!! If you love America like I do, you would quit thinking and start following!! YEAH!!

Hey, Jeffrey impersonator and cowardly fool!

I have been to Pakistan and Afghanistan, and I have the visas in my passport to prove it... hmm...maybe I need to fire up the scanner and try to upload pics of them so you shut your ass up!

Down with fools!

http://www.zmag.org/qatw.htm

Quote from the above article by Michael Albert
& Stephen R. Shalom:

"That a country embarks on a policy that puts a million or more innocent civilians at risk for political purposes is mass-scale terrorism. If -- and it remains a big if, regrettably -- the catastrophe is averted that will certainly be a reason to celebrate, but it will not be not reason to laud those who aggravated the prospects of disaster in the first place. Playing Russian Roulette is stupid -- even if you don't end up blowing your head off. Shooting a gun with a bullet in a random chamber at someone else is immoral, whether or not you end up committing murder."

It's interesting to hear pro-bombing hacks such as jeff point to the possibility that the worst case scenarios of mass starvation will be averted as justifying this "war" when they showed little or no concern about such a threat as it mounted. Are we to assume that they will back-off in their support if it's shown that many Afghans did or do die of starvation? I have my doubts. Time will tell -- the situation is highly volatile and the US continues bombing.
In itself, I am pleased to see the Taliban on the run. However, Afghanistan has a history of combatant forces taking then fleeing the cities and starting up again from the mountains. The US supported the Northern Alliance when it took Kabul in 92 and preceeded to kill tens of thousands, conduct mass rapes and pillaging. The US then supported the Taliban when it took control in 96 in hopes that it would impose stability and help build a pipeline from Turkmenistan to Pakistan through Afghanistan. Now, in 2001, it supports the Northern Alliance wresting control again. The Afghans could be excused for questioning whether the US really has it's best interests at heart.
There is a distinct possibility that the Taliban is a shattered force. Altogether, it would be a good thing. We shall see...
The following is a piece written in the past couple days that I think is on the whole quite good.
http://www.counterpunch.org/grossman1.html

"That a country embarks on a policy that puts a million or more innocent civilians at risk for political purposes..."

Would you consider SURVIVAL to be a political purpose? Or, would you have preferred that America waited to act until a nuke was detonated in one of her cities?

And, luckily, the million civilians are no longer at a risk greater than that which they faced before the bombing began... This is just a lot of hang-wringing, leftist psychobabble.

"That a country embarks on a policy that puts a million or more innocent civilians at risk for political purposes..."

Would you consider SURVIVAL to be a political purpose? Or, would you have preferred that America waited to act until a nuke was detonated in one of her cities?

And, luckily, the million civilians are no longer at a risk greater than that which they faced before the bombing began... This is just a lot of hang-wringing, leftist psychobabble.

From the WFP site:

Nov 16th

WFP's recent US$ 257 million appeal to feed six million people inside Afghanistan includes a US$27 million logistics operation to augment the UN's ability to deliver emergency aid fast and efficiently into Afghanistan.

With some 40 years experience of delivering food aid into some of the world's worst crisis spots, WFP was the natural UN choice to co-ordinate logistics in the region.

The Special Operation will provide for the establishment of a regional logistics network, a fleet of 190 trucks, airlifts and telecommunications.


so, I guess the claims that food is being delivered "despite" US assistance is crap.

Kim-

The United States is the only nation to detonate a nuclear device on the civilian population of another country.

I'm concerned that you would state that it is a matter of SURVIVAL for the richest country in the world to bombard the poorest. Turn off your television and start thinking for yourself. It is simply not a matter of survival.

It is not a virtue to do and think as the masters say. Think critically! Question everything! Don't blindly conform! Question you own ideological biases! This is what makes a good person. This is what takes real courage. This is the only behavior that can yield a true democracy.

It is horrible that almost 5000 good people died violently on 911. But it is simply not logical nor moral to react by massively bombing another country thereby putting MILLIONS at risk of starvation. IT WAS NOT A MATTER OF SURVIVAL.

However, it may be a matter of survival for the United States to take its foot of the neck of the less fortunate people of the world.

that's the difference.

I viewed the WTC disaster as a call to action. If we do not stop these fanatics, they will commit even more horrors upon our Nation. It is therefore immoral not to act with force to stop them in their tracks. It is unfortunate that the governments sponsoring these terrorists decided to put their citizens at risk rather than hand over these criminals. But that is their choice.

Maybe I feel this way because I live and work in downtown NYC. Perhaps for those that don't the WTC was just some nasty pictures on TV that can quickly be forgotten.

In any case, the "millions" we put at risk seem to be largely greatful for the efforts of others to unseat the Taliban. Had we done nothing, the "millions" at risk would have been american civilians. Sorry, but our country doesn't exist to be toppled by inaction in the face of destruction.

If people dont fuck with the US, the US wont have to thump their ass. Its not like any country has the right to attack us without our overwhelming response. We respond. Like nothing the worlds ever seen. Limited tactical nuclear weapons are still in our arsenal, if you fuck with the US bad enough they may end up in your fucking neighborhood.
Bunch of pro vicious anti-self defense mutants. I know the talibanalqadians see and feel the support you guys profess.
I wonder if a talibanian walked into your house if you would dance a little jig of joy. They created the anger I feel and you are angry with those who feel like I do, so how are you not for the failure of the United States.
Its a 100% volunteer military the US has. You are against them. Dude, so so so unwise. Peace all.

Kim,

Why is WTC your call to action? The people who use and run this site have been fighting this kind of terrorism long before September 11th. The problem is, you fail to see that the United States commits this kind of terrorism too. If you are against terrorism, why aren't you against terrorism that is paid for or organized by your own government?

So please. Your attempt at moral indignation as a rallying cry for more violence by the U.S. isn't fooling anyone here. Try freerepublic.com if you want to push that kind of nationalism disguised as shock and surprise.