Sorry about the blank reply earlier.
> Sober = imperial apologists?
Imperial if and only if any support for any military action taken abroad by the US is to be considered imperial. Or maybe you think the US fought with the aim of allowing an oil pipeline to be built through Afghanistan.
> Mass starvation didn't happen. But at
> the time it was reasonable to worry about it - and that's what aid
> workers on the ground were saying.
That's what *some* aid workers claimed. To the best of my knowledge, there was no consensus on the ground as to whether the US campaign would heighten or increase the odds of famine.
Be that as it may, the truth of the claim that such worries were reasonable at the time is far from clear. Many others at the time thought said worries were misplaced, and recent history seems to have validated their arguments.
> Yes, "untold numbers" of civilians died in Afg in the literal sense -
Strangely enough, I had thought as soon as I finished typing--perhaps I should've found another adjective.
> we don't know how many, and if anyone does, they're not telling.
Well, let's assume (as Marc Herold did) the Taliban's estimates are accurate. If so, the number dead would be somewhere around 5,000--horrible, but probably justified given the apparent end results.
> Doug
BTW, I have a question for all: does anyone know of any relief organizations abroad that I might be able to hook up with this summer? I cannot afford to pay more than 1,000-2000 for travel and living expenses.