humanitarian aid

[barbara100 at jps.net]

It's me who guessed a 'week' or a 'day.'  I apologize.  To be honest though
I didn't think it mattered much for the point I was trying to get across.
And that point is--more clearly this time--before September 11, there was
real humanitarian aid going to Afghanistan.  You know, the Christian aid
organizations who feed the World's hungry every day. Since September 11, the
borders have closed, and the relief workers with nothing better to do have
run for their lives. The passage of food and everything else was stopped by
request of the US Government. For four weeks there's been no food going into
that country.  So for the US to tout about their measly 37,000 rations a day
is a 'mischaracterization' indeed. Thirty-seven-thousand to make up for a
month's deficit for 2-4 million people.  Sorry I can't provide you with more
accurate figures than that, but go ahead, take the low one if it'll make you
feel more comfortable with yourself.  It's the least I can do to help aid in
the world's suffering.

----- Original Message -----
From: mike j <michaelmailing at yahoo.com>
To: Pynchon List <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2001 4:18 PM
Subject: re: humanitarian aid


> to paraphrase: we are not the world's denny's, are we?
> besides, how much does one ration weigh? the
> journalist mentioned 700 tons a day OR a week going
> over? umm, big difference between those two
> assertions, no? you'd think the journalist would have
> his facts straight, or is it you that forgot? don't
> compare apples to oranges, or in this case,
> potato/bean vinaigrette to rice. we may or may not be
> being 'manipulated terribly,' but to suggest that the
> US is starving a population seems a bit off base. no
> need for rumsfield to spin, it IS the fault of the
> Taliban that it's people are starving and/or dead
> already.
>
> ---------
> I just listened to Donald Rumsfield on TV.  It was a
> press conference to
> discuss the recent Bomb Damage Assessment in
> Afghanistan.  Two reporters,
> however, brought up the Food issue.  One noted the
> 37,000 daily rations the
> US is dropping off to the refugees isn't nearly enough
> to feed the presumed
> 4 million starving.  He only responded with, 'Well if
> you were one of those
> 37,000, you'd be pretty appreciative, wouldn't you.'
> The other reporter noted that before September 11
> there were some 700 tons
> of food moving across the Afghan boarder on a daily or
> weekly basis: 'So
> even with the aid packages the US is dropping,  isn't
> there a net loss in
> aid going to Afghanistan?'  Donald Rumsfield got a
> little flustered with
> that one, and all he could say was, 'It would be a
> terrible
> mischaracterization to say there's a net loss.'   I
> was so appalled by then,
> I can't remember what he said after that, but he
> definitely tried to spin it
> back on the fault of the Taliban regime before moving
> quickly to the next
> question.
> Our government is manipulating us terribly, not to
> mention slowly starving
> to death 4 million Afghan refugees.
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> NEW from Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just
$8.95/month.
> http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1