The “war and peace report,” as progressive as it may often sound, has long ceased to be a purely listener-supported project, and this lack of economic independence has spilled into its politics.
We fired 105 missiles on April 14. That’s 10 times the number of Syrian refugees we’ve taken all year.
Just after midnight on April 14, the U.S. and its allies bombed three Syrian regime targets. The reason, they said, was to punish Syria’s alleged use of chemical weapons in the town of Douma. Now, the Syrian regime’s brutality has been well documented. Maybe the allegations are true. But there’s a lot about this that’s simply fishy. Only days
Amnesty International is embedded in a propaganda campaign — it will be cheerleading with blue and white pompons when the humanitarian bombs fall.
One must marvel at the first few paragraphs of Amnesty International’s recent press release: The international community’s catastrophic failure to take concrete action to protect the people of Syria has allowed parties to the conflict, most notably the Syrian government, to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity with
“Kindly let me help you or you will drown,” said the monkey putting the fish safely up a tree.
~ Alan Watts
Opinion -- “We’ve got to do something about Syria!” goes the common Western refrain. Actually, no you don’t. “What? You’re saying we should just do nothing??” goes the common response. Yes. Yeah that’d be great. Definitely please get as far away from Syria as possible, thanks. Arguing that the Western war machine is a good
International law expert Stefan Talmon explains why international legal experts are criticizing the Trump administration’s decision to bomb a Syrian airbase.
The US has called its attack on an airbase in Syria "a strong signal" for the Assad regime. Legal experts, however, criticized the action. In an interview with DW, international law expert Stefan Talmon explains why. DW: Under international law, what are the conditions for a military attack? Stefan Talmon: An airstrike, like
In many ways, Samantha Power is the liberal mirror image of Paul Wolfowitz and his neoconservative ilk.
The elevation of liberal firebrand Samantha Power to the post of America’s ambassador to the United Nations is an interesting, if dangerous, choice for President Obama. On the one hand, Power represents everything that a liberal progressive could wish for in a UN ambassador. On the other, her unflinching support of the use of force in
