|
|
|
|
| |
Pathway :: Home Militarism
Militarism
|
Afghanistan Massacre video |
|
|
|
|
Contributed by Werner Scott
|
|
Saturday, 10 November 2007 |
This is a video I 've never heard about until now.
On May 23rd, 2003 the nationwide, public radio and television show Democracy Now! premiered Afghan Massacre: The Convoy of Death,
a controversial documentary film alleging U.S. military involvement in
a massacre of Taliban prisoners in Afghanistan. The film, never before
shown in the U.S., aired during the Friday broadcast of Democracy Now!,
at 9 a.m. EST. Afghan Massacre: the Convoy of Death has been broadcast
on national television in Britain, Germany, Italy and Australia and has
been screened by the European parliament.
Write Comment (0 Comments) |
|
Last Updated ( Sunday, 11 November 2007 )
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
In Decency We Trust (Commentary) |
|
|
|
|
Written by John Keen
|
|
Sunday, 01 July 2007 |
Ongoing events in Iraq and Afghanistan have reminded me of all the chatter before the last US election. About the sort of President the USA (and the rest of us) would wind up with. Most of the talk consisted of “We want Bush" or "We don’t want Bush”. I don’t remember anyone ordering a particular type of President. So here is the kind of person I wanted …and who possibly exists somewhere...in another time …in another place…. Most importantly, a decent person. Sound silly? Maybe. But we desperately need somebody who will say, “I’m sorry.” Sorry for what? “Sorry for the failure of the United States to lead the world to a better life.” Mind you, we sanctimonious Canadians could also use a push in that direction. We joined the US in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and, to a lesser degree, in Iraq. That qualifies us as war criminals. A few years ago, I suggested to our recently retired Minister of External Affairs (on Canada wide radio) that we should go to the World Court and asked to be tried. He went ballistic. But every nation in NATO is by legal definition a war criminal. And has engaged in terrorist activities. So let’s all confess. Write Comment (0 Comments) |
|
Last Updated ( Sunday, 01 July 2007 )
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
Contributed by Peter Dodson
|
|
Tuesday, 10 May 2005 |
|
The Risk of inadvertent nuclear launch is unacceptably high
by Robert S. McNamara
Robert McNamara is worried. He knows how close we’ve come. His counsel helped the Kennedy administration avert nuclear catastrophe during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Today, he believes the United States must no longer rely on nuclear weapons as a foreign-policy tool. To do so is immoral, illegal, and dreadfully dangerous. (From CommonDreams.org)It is time—well past time, in my view—for the United States to cease its Cold War-style reliance on nuclear weapons as a foreign-policy tool. At the risk of appearing simplistic and provocative, I would characterize current U.S. nuclear weapons policy as immoral, illegal, militarily unnecessary, and dreadfully dangerous. The risk of an accidental or inadvertent nuclear launch is unacceptably high. Far from reducing these risks, the Bush administration has signaled that it is committed to keeping the U.S. nuclear arsenal as a mainstay of its military power—a commitment that is simultaneously eroding the international norms that have limited the spread of nuclear weapons and fissile materials for 50 years. Much of the current U.S. nuclear policy has been in place since before I was secretary of defense, and it has only grown more dangerous and diplomatically destructive in the intervening years. Today, the United States has deployed approximately 4,500 strategic, offensive nuclear warheads. Russia has roughly 3,800. The strategic forces of Britain, France, and China are considerably smaller, with 200–400 nuclear weapons in each state’s arsenal. The new nuclear states of Pakistan and India have fewer than 100 weapons each. North Korea now claims to have developed nuclear weapons, and U.S. intelligence agencies estimate that Pyongyang has enough fissile material for 2–8 bombs. Write Comment (1 Comments) |
|
Last Updated ( Thursday, 12 May 2005 )
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owners. Opinions expressed in articles within this site are those of their owners and may not reflect the opinion of ActUpInSask.org, its staff, or its associates.
|
|
|