>>http://www.zmag.org/whatsgoing.htm
>
>>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.
[clip]
>>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 anuish
>>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.
>[clip]
>Ken Hanly posted:
>>"WASHINGTON, Sept 30 (AFP) -
>>Washington has shelved plans for bombing raids on Afghanistan because
>>of a shortage of viable targets, opting instead to deploy special
>>forces,
>Newsweek said in its issue appearing Monday. [clip]
>>Newsweek added that the United States may drop shipments of food into
>>Afghanistan before it drops any bombs, in a bid to undermine popular
>>supportin the starving country for the fundamentalist Taliban which
>>Washington has indicated it wants out of power."
>Could you find out if Albert thinks Newsweek is running propaganda?
I'll be glad to pass on the question , once I understand. This would seem to be a factaully correct, though incomplete statment. Even the "might" is probably correct. The government may well not have made up it's mind yet. I'm obviously missing something...
>Peter