arab-springLast week, opposition groups in Syria claimed that between 300 and 1,700 people were killed in a chemical weapons attack outside Damascus, crossing what US President Barack Obama has dubbed his ‘red line’. The use of chemical weapons has not yet been confirmed by UN inspectors (bringing back uncomfortable memories of the 2003 intervention in Iraq), though it now seems likely there will be some form of Western military response. The civil war in Syria has been raging for over two years now, with more than 100,000 killed and millions displaced from their homes, yet the UN Security Council is locked in a stalemate between the US, UK and France, who support intervention, and China and Russia, who oppose it and are likely to block any proposed resolution.

Last year, when we discussed the situation in Syria, Elia sent in the following comment:

citizen_icon_180x180If a state fails to protect its citizens, either because it is unwilling or unable… it loses its right to sovereignty. How many Srebrenicas do we need to have? Unilateral military action would undermine the international order, but can political stalemate prevent us from intervening in beyond-the-pale situations like this? We need more decisive action. The least we can do is to help the opposition to defend themselves.

Earlier this year, when we interviewed Ria Oomen-Ruijten, a Dutch MEP with the  Centre-Right, we asked her if she agreed with Elia about intervention. At that time, the discussion was focused on the possibility of Western governments supplying weapons to the rebels, so what did she think?

Photo: © Pietro Naj-Oleari pietro.najoleari@gmail.comI totally agree with Elia. Because, seeing that in Syria millions of people have been displaced and more than 70’000 citizens have already been killed in this war, we can’t any longer only watch [and promise them weapons] but we really have to do something. At the same time, everybody has to know that if the regime falls then we really need democratic forces which will install the rule of law and guarantee all the individual and collective rights of the citizens of Syria. And, if I look at some parts of the opposition, not everybody has the same aim. So, simply saying: ‘Now we are going to give everyone arms to get rid of the regime’ is too simple an answer. Yet, we can’t neglect what is happening any longer.

I, personally, cannot watch this anymore. I was in a refugee camp and a Syrian man asked me when will Europeans, and also the international community, stop this killing machine. And I couldn’t give him an answer…

We also spoke to María Muñiz de Urquiza a Spanish MEP from the  Social Democrats, to get her response to Elia’s comment:

de-urquizaI think that the European Union can help the opposition, but not necessarily by delivering arms. I think that there are other ways, for example, by helping the population of the liberated territories through aid programmes. But [sending weapons] to a dispersed opposition in such a violent conflict is very dangerous. In any case, we need a resolution or an authorisation by the UN Security Council before making any military intervention.

Finally, following the Egyptian coup last month we had a comment sent in from David, who cautioned that European countries should “stay neutral” in these sort of conflicts and “only involve ourselves if there is a threat of genocide”. We took this comment to Ivo Vajgl, an MEP with the  Liberal Democrats and former Slovenian Foreign Minister, to see how he would respond:

Vote 2014

Voting is closed in our Debating Europe Vote 2014! The results are now in, so come and see what our readers thought!

IMAGE CREDITS: CC / Flickr – Gwenael Piaser

133 comments Post a commentcomment

What do YOU think? If the Syrian government has used chemical weapons on its own citizens, should it lose its right to sovereignty? Should Western countries involve themselves in Syria if there is a threat of genocide? Or is it better to remain neutral and avoid destabilising the region further? Let us know your thoughts and comments in the form below, and we'll take them to policy-makers and experts for their reactions.

  1. avatar
    Yiannis Klean

    The conventional weapons killed thousands the last two years were not enough excuse for NATO and suddenly the proclaimed use if chemical weapon is an act of war!who are they kidding?!!

    • avatar
      olivier le roux

      Is it a civil war? while Saudi arabia is financing the rebels and most of them are likely to be non syrian

  2. avatar
    Hani Kamel

    Interesting thought !

    If investigations in Syria show that chemical weapons were not used by the regime, will the USA, GB, France and allies punish and bomb the rebels ?

    I wonder..

  3. avatar
    Alex Semiserios

    The question should be: do EU countries have the right to decide what’s right or wrong for that country?

    • avatar
      Limbidis Adrian

      Excellent point. Only the fascist USA seems to think it has the right to go around the globe bullying countries who don’t follow THEIR model of “obedience”.
      Is the EU turning towards that kind of demented mindset?

    • avatar
      Edgaras Katinas

      Perfect point!!

  4. avatar
    Daniel Pintilie

    It’s hard to decide. What I can see it just a lot of hypocrisy from all actors (direct and indirect) in this. First of all, the Syrian government (meaning Assad) who is bent on keeping power at all costs even at the cost of the lives of their own people – remember Hama 1982 – the rebels that in their tactics are as savage as the government, Russia and China that are against a military intervention and say a diplomatic solution is better but sell their high-tech arms to the government as nothing happens, the Western powers (which cannot be put in a group as not all of them sold guns to rebels or supplied help to rebels or even sent mercenaries (as some say)) who in a way silently put up with two years of death in Syria without any real diplomatic action that made Syrian government willing to stop as well as the rebels. At the end, the EU cannot do much as the diplomatic strength needs to be backed by an army, a real political power and a real union. In this case, UN should have played a bigger role, but UN is just a game zone, not an institution. European countries should have a consistent opinion on that although some of them have bigger interests than others. At last, US is as hypocritical as any of the others as they should be the first to demand peace as their history shows that wars they started in Middle East didn’t do so much good as intended. I support peaceful negotiations but also a military intervention only if the UN and the Arab League are part of it. You cannot expect to have only Western countries deal with this.

  5. avatar
    Nuno Sousa

    Creating embargos onto Syria will only difficult the lives of the poeple in Syria… I don’t support war, but this must stop. It’s difficult to say. Maybe a No-Fly Zone like in Libya and more political pressure from the EU alone with Russia and China. (No U.S.A because everyone will think this is an excuse for them to come into war, the United States has lost all credibility).

    • avatar
      Nuno Sousa

      Also: The UK should also stay out of this. They lost all credibility like the United States.

  6. avatar
    Marios D. Christophinis

    War has never really solved problems. It has always enhased the existing ones and created much more. Force then to talk, instead of taking part in their insain war !

  7. avatar
    Limbidis Adrian

    Is the EU *that* stupid to fall for the American propaganda machine?
    Who used those chemical weapons? For all we know it could be the “freedom fighters” ( the REAL terrorists who snipe reporters and civilians like cowards ).
    Why join their side?
    Why even get involved !?

    Is the EU growing economically and are bored of so much prosperity?
    Are we done with our crisis to care about Syria ?
    FURTHERMORE who the HELL do we think we are to go over to another sovereign country and tell them how they should run their show?

    Are we following the fascist USA model now?
    The US is run by corporate interests and wants to wage war for war’s sake ( and profit to arms dealers ), but we?

  8. avatar

    I’m not sure, Iraq made it difficult to support action though I would care to avoid this stopping any action in the future. Though other interventions have worked it comes with a great risk. I think Europe won’t make any friends either way on this. Diplomacy doesn’t seem to be moving forward even with the numerous attempts given, though military action doesn’t present itself as a solution either. It’s just a mess.
    In regards to the proof being asked, I don’t think we will ever find a smoking gun and it’s a balance of probability which any action must be based on. If Assad didn’t release the chemical weapons it’s probably even more frightening to think the rebels and and the extremist elements have access to it.
    Should the EU look to enforce a treaty surrounding chemical weapons? Not many countries in the EU have the capability to do this but they will cop the most anger either way regarding this. If action is decided upon then I hope it’s limited and has clear objectives though I can’t see this solving the problem!

    • avatar

      Having listened to the situation a bit more, I think if chemical weapons have been used by either side in a concerted effort, some sort of limited action should be taken against this. It’s no use saying never again unless someone is willing to stand up against its use. In the Syria situation the only action that may be even close to making a statement seems to be from a sadly military standpoint (there doesn’t seem to be much room for discussion or background deals unless China decides to step in or Russia relinquishes its position). On balance it seems Assad is more likely the perpetrator as they own the means and have the stronger motive. If Europe is not willing to make a stand, should it actually go and make its own chemical weapons for defense (such a horrible thought given its direct experience on the matter, perhaps we can forget the lessons or WW1)??
      I would caveat this and say action shouldn’t be about sides and should only focus on punishing CW usage (be nice to get Russia on board for that!). They can have their civil war but no chemical weapons. I wouldn’t wish those weapons on my worst enemy.
      On the white phosphorous issue. Be keen if someone could clear that up. As I understand it, it is a chemical weapon if used as a direct weapon but is allowed for other uses such as smoke and flares? I suppose at least the difference is that WP is aimed like regular ammunition if it is legal rather than gas which is just deployed but that feels like a small comfort for a nasty weapon.

    • avatar

      I welcome the agreement between Russia and the US finally! If it removes the chemical weapons all for it. I hope Russia is prepared to wield a stick however Syria doesn’t do what’s required otherwise what is the point of the UN in such matters?
      Poor Syria though, doesn’t look like there will be any solution to the troubles there.

  9. avatar

    From what I gathered it really is just USA rushing to the war with Syria, even if the evidances are not collected yet, the White House seems to be pretty certain that the use of chemical weapons was performed by the Assad’s regime. What if later on turns out that this was not the case? Furthermore the Assad’s opposition, I shall refer them as rebels, are in league with the Al’qaeda, not only that, but they are a bunch of war mongrels and fanatics, as can be seen through many videos found around internet. Having said that, would European Union be fine with supporting this kind of opposition?

    It is sad to see how the EU is losing its sovereignty by following the US ideals and their geopolitical interests, thus I think, we should leave this war to those who are rushing at it at the first place, which would be USA, EU should remain neutral.

  10. avatar
    Amélia Costa Pereira

    any life has a right to be protected and defended. inocent people are at risk. intervention in Syria should have been done sooner and is as justified as the intervention of allies in 42 Germany.

  11. avatar
    Stephane Czajkowski

    1. Do we have the right to interfere with the private affairs of another country? If tomorrow, all the French suburbs attack the French State, would this government be glad to see Turkey or other countries fighting with rebels? 2. If in the name of moral, we have the right to protect the weak, do we dispose of sufficient proofs in order to determine that Syria President is responsible for a chemical attack against his own poeple? The answer is no. 3. Moreover, Occidental medias seem to forget that it is the rebels who are killiing innocent Christians. Taking the side of the rebels, is acting for their death. Or what? Killing Christians is more moral than killing muslims? 4. Medias seem to forget that there are also economic interests in that case. There is an energetic project planned passing through Syria for alimenting Europe. That could explain why Europe is so cynically taking the side of the islamists against innocent poeple. Thereare othe matters which count, but it would be too long.

  12. avatar
    No name

    Dependant, if the regime is proven to have used chemical weapons, then yes, military action is required. But should be limited to just damaging Syrian chemical weapon capabilities. The opposition nor Assad should be supported. Assad is a secular dictator. Whilst the rebel forces are Sunni Islamic extremists. Once international law is maintained, such as no use of chemical weapons then let them kill each other. We’ll, along with Russian and Chinese money provide humanitarian aid, and a weapon embargo on Syria by all UN nations should occur.

  13. avatar
    Christos Mouzeviris

    And why must we help the opposition? They have links with Al-Qaeda and they are also committing crimes against the Christians of Syria and other groups that support the Assad regime.. The situation is tricky..From one side we have a dictator oppressing his people, and from the other we have radical rebels supported by Al-Qaeda that are against Assad.. So why we must support one side or the other? NO to military intervention, yes to humanitarian and diplomatic intervention.. If we have to get involved militarily we must do so by targeting BOTH sides and only under the UN seal of approval.. For more you may read this:

  14. avatar
    Coro Cosimo

    The U.S.A. want to attack Syria as well .. the problem is not which side .. with the pacifists or with the U.S., but which side are really the interests of Europe and Italy in particular .. we make sure that the governments of all countries of the Mediterranean basin and the Middle East, which together preserve 80% of the world’s hydrocarbon reserves, oil and gas, one by one submissive to the U.S.A., in the future will bring benefits and advantages strategic to Europe’s largest economy of the great nation to which we all aspire to? …. European leaders and the Italian Government, if you care about the future of Europe and if you have the political skills to be able to take advantage of the peaceful Mediterranean as it once was for the Romans after founding the empire .. Be forward-thinking which side to take .. no parades whenever the ass .. otherwise there will be room for you in the long history of Mediterranean civilization, but you will be remembered as bad if not statesmen traitors

    Gli Usa vogliono attaccare anche la Siria.. il problema non da che parte schierarsi.. coi pacifisti o con gli Usa, ma da quale parte sono veramente gli interessi dell’Europa ed in particolare dell’Italia .. siamo sicuri che rendere i governi di tutti gli Stati del bacino del mediterraneo e del medio oriente , che insieme custodiscono l’80% delle riserve mondiali di idrocarburi, petrolio e gas, ad uno ad uno remissivi agli Usa, in futuro porter benefici e vantaggi strategici alla grande economia della grande nazione Europa a cui tutti noi aspiriamo? …. governanti europei e governo italiano, se vi sta a cuore il futuro dell?Europa e se avete le capacit politiche di saper sfruttare il mediterraneo pacificamente come un tempo fu per i romani dopo aver fondato l’impero .. siate lungimiranti da quale parte stare .. non parate ogni volta il culo .. altrimenti ci sar posto per voi nella storia millenaria della civilt mediterranea, ma sarete ricordati come pessimi statisti se non addirittura traditori

    • avatar
      No name

      Sorry I disagree with you. Rome was constantly fighting in the Mediterranean, and especially in the middle east throughout their years of occupation. Secondly, Italy is not the major military player here, the US, UK and France are the only western nations with true military capabilities to fight in this situation.

      More importantly the situation in Syria for once isn’t about oil. This is more of a power play between nations. Syria is protected by Russia, as Syria is the biggest middle eastern ally. Libya used to but since the Libyan Revolutionary war, Russian support to the Libyan Regime in supplying weapons has made enemies of the now Government. Russia will not be wanting this to happen again. Russia will thus try to maintain an Alawite Government. Also for Russia, Syria is close to its southern border and the opposition winning could lead to more terrorist attacks in Russia. For the western world it is the fact that the war is spreading into other nations, and uniting many islamic extremists on both sunni and shia fronts. Although they are fighting each other at the moment, in the future Syria could turn into a future terrorist state if the civil war continues, but in both cases now the west will be targeted by Syria. Assad will sponsor terrorists if he wins, to revenge against the west. Or Islamists will attack the west for not helping.

      The situation is tricky due to the fact one side are religious nuts and the other dictators but secular. The best outcome for all sides would be to threaten both sides and attack both sides, aiming at each weapon caches etc…. and try to force them into a ceasefire to allow for negotiations, and then hopefully some form of elections. Sadly this may still leave minorities in the country to be threatened by Islam.

      All in all Syria is screwed, the less we do their apart from humanitarian aid the better. If Assad has used chemical weapons, then short strike campaign to send a message of not using chemical weapons is in order, but otherwise stay out of Syria.

  15. avatar

    The U.S.A. want to attack Syria as well .. the problem is not which side .. with the pacifists or with the U.S., but which side are really the interests of Europe and Italy in particular .. we make sure that the governments of all countries of the Mediterranean basin and the Middle East, which together preserve 80% of the world’s hydrocarbon reserves, oil and gas, one by one submissive to the U.S.A., in the future will bring benefits and advantages strategic to Europe’s largest economy of the great nation to which we all aspire to? …. European leaders and the Italian Government, if you care about the future of Europe and if you have the political skills to be able to take advantage of the peaceful Mediterranean as it once was for the Romans after founding the empire .. Be forward-thinking which side to take .. no parades whenever the ass .. otherwise there will be room for you in the long history of Mediterranean civilization, but you will be remembered as bad if not statesmen traitors

    Gli Usa vogliono attaccare anche la Siria.. il problema non è da che parte schierarsi.. coi pacifisti o con gli Usa, ma da quale parte sono veramente gli interessi dell’Europa ed in particolare dell’Italia .. siamo sicuri che rendere i governi di tutti gli Stati del bacino del mediterraneo e del medio oriente , che insieme custodiscono l’80% delle riserve mondiali di idrocarburi, petrolio e gas, ad uno ad uno remissivi agli Usa, in futuro porterà benefici e vantaggi strategici alla grande economia della grande nazione Europa a cui tutti noi aspiriamo? …. governanti europei e governo italiano, se vi sta a cuore il futuro dell’Europa e se avete le capacità politiche di saper sfruttare il mediterraneo pacificamente come un tempo fu per i romani dopo aver fondato l’impero .. siate lungimiranti da quale parte stare .. non parate ogni volta il culo .. altrimenti ci sarà posto per voi nella storia millenaria della civiltà mediterranea, ma sarete ricordati come pessimi statisti se non addirittura traditori

  16. avatar
    Diogo Miranda

    1- The only reason there is a War in Siria is because the US wants to build a pipeline from Qatar to Europe to end the monopoly of Russian Gas.
    2- All rebel groups are armed and financed by the western powers.
    3- For 3 months now the west refuses to let the rebels meet the government for peace talks in Geneva.
    4- The (to be demonstrated) chemical weapons attack happened a few days before UN inspectors were due to arrive and in a middle class outskirt of Damascus where most of the government supporters live.
    5- At least 50 people a day die in Mexico for the last 7 years in the drug wars – when do the bombings start there? Ridiculous excuses for invading other countries can be thought of any time, all against international Law, not to mention the “logic” of bombing countries for humanitarian reasons…
    6- We have all seen this before.
    7- The icing on the cake is a Nobel peace prize winner rushing to start another massacre before any reasonable grounds are established or peace talks are attempted or the matter is even discussed at UN…!

    • avatar
      No name

      1- The Syrian civil war started in the Middle eastern spring. Not organised by the west as it ran against western strategies for the middle east.
      2- Rebel groups are armed and financed by several powers, but mainly actually by middle eastern sunni dominated nations. The west actually had a weapon embargo on Syria.
      3- The west called on talks, notice Geneva? Main problem is ideology and continued violence. The lack of a cease fire prevented talks, and the lack of a true opposition. (Opposition being fragmented amongst minorities, secularlists, Sunni crusaders and Islamists.)
      4- The suspicion of chemical weapons being used has been about for a while, however not on such a large scale . That is why the UN inspectors were already going due to previous Chemical weapon attacks. The area at the time of the attack was actually under rebel control.
      5- 50 people die in Mexico, hundreds a day are dying in Syria. Also there is mass amounts of US money funding mexican authorities. The drug war also is not a civil war, its more like the Mafia. Its an underground war, large military forces from the west won’t work. It requires policing. Basically what I’m saying is, it is completely different.
      6- Not completely, we saw something similar in the first gulf war possibly. Chemical weapons and illegal invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. This time it is chemical weapons and a civil war. Also more complex due to the re-merging west vs east powers using Syria as a political tool to block and then attack each other.
      7- Actually the west has taken a very measured approach, with weapon embargoes unlike China, Russia, and Iran. Majority of the humanitarian aid is western aid. However breaking International law when it comes to weapon uses and massacres is a touchy subject in the west to this day. Armenia, Holocaust, and Kosovo. All of which are in twinned in the western psyche of trying to prevent them. Do we ignore the breaking of international law? (And we know the Iraq war was baseless and probably illegal, sadly lawyers will dispute it and many have tried to press charges and failed; so till proven guilty, George Bush and Tony Blair are not guilty.) International law has to be up held where possible.

  17. avatar
    Justin Lin

    Syria is not another Iraq, it is another Kosovo. World leaders has been reluctant to do anything for too long, with the exception of Russia love to see the conflicts escalate.

  18. avatar
    Marinescu Daniela

    Could we just look at such atrocity? I think we couldn’t…. We have to do something…… not necessarely a military action…..

    • avatar
      Limbidis Adrian

      Si ce-ai vrea tu?
      Sa mergem sa ii “bombardam” ca sa fie pace? Logica americana din Irak. Am vazut cat de bine a functionat pana acum…

  19. avatar
    Martin S.

    For the West, Syria is a no-win scenario. What should we do? Help Assad – to be honest, from certain point of view it seems like a best of all bad scenarios available – it will mean quite stable, secular (to some extent) state which won´t posses a threat to the West. But there is a problem – he is a dictator. Can we openly support a dictator? No we can´t. We have some ethic limits and this is simply impossible (but let´s admit that we did this for years and nobody cared until the unrest broke up in the middle east…). So, supporting Assad is a no-go, what else? Support rebels? It seems fine, after all, they are fighting a dictator, right? But wait a moment, do we really know who are they? No, we don´t because there is not a single opposition. And we know that a fraction with a great influence among them is…fanfare…group of militant islamists who wants to smash the West as soon as possible. They have backing from Saudi Arabia and a lot of support from other Arab countries. Now it doesn´t seem such a great idea to support them, right? OK, possibility No. 3 – Let it be, wait and see. It was applied in last two years with no result but for us, it seems like a good idea. However, things´ve changed recently as those guys used CWs – especially we – Europeans – should understand that this is a red line (have you asked your grand-grandfather about CWs when you were a kid?). For years, we´ve been stating that CWs use is unacceptable, it was one of West´s basic and fundamental norms. But now, one idiotic dictator tries to test our ability and (especially) determination to defend it. I must say that in this case I admire Obama (let´s be honest – without US, Europe´s influence would be much much lower and we would be almost impotent to any military action) because in his situation, I would get mad. He knows that anything he´ll do, it will be wrong. That´s why he was doing everything possible to avoid US involvement in this civil war so far. But he knows that he must do something or every local chieftain or dictator in Middle East, Africa and god knows where else will (rightfully) think that West is not able to defend its basic principles. Some military action is necessary, even it means that we will pay the price. By the way, one remark to all of you who are talking about “diplomatic solution” – wake up guys! There is a war! For two years, they are fighting in Syria! 100000 people died there, what diplomacy are you talking about? Do you really want another two years and another 100000 people dead or one blow which will end this?

  20. avatar
    Maro Kouris

    Yes we need US military intervention.With the overthrow of the Syrian Regime, the Sovereign Democratic Republic of Kurdistan will be established , and Turkey will be chopped into 4 pieces , with the Kurds taking half of Turkey- Eastern Anatolia, the Armenians taking the north East, the Greeks reclaiming Eastern Thrace and the Aegean coastland’s of Asia Minor, and Turkey retaining Central Anatolia, with the Turks expelled from Cyprus as well.- No Turkey on the European Continent!!! The French , and Germans will be very happy with that !!!!

    • avatar
      Limbidis Adrian

      This isn’t about “who is going to be happy”.
      It is about is it RIGHT or not?
      And it isn’t.

    • avatar
      No name

      What does Turkey have to do with Syria? You didn’t mention Syria once. Secondly Turkey is Turkey. Maybe a devolved Government for the Kurds would be best. Thirdly I actually agree that North Cyprus should be returned to Cyprus, it was illegally taken by Turkey. Fourth, start a new topic don’t write this here, it’s about Syria.

  21. avatar
    catherine benning

    This is a civil war aided and abetted by the West. chemical weapons have been used by the West when it suits them. Napalm and Agent Orange are chemical weapons which, along with other chemical elements, are regularly used by US/UK etc. in their warring games. Why is this more alarming when on the scale of things, it has been recoded as killing so few in comparison? It is an excuse. And I don’t believe it was used by Assad recently, as he was well aware UN weapon investigators were already making their tour of his country.

    Assad had no reason to use these weapons at this time. He was winning the battle. The only advantage in using them would be to the losing side. The rebels, which are financially backed by the West as they have an agenda. And who is selling these horrendous weapons to these people? Anyone know? Want to take a guess?

    Here is an enlightening revelation by a Syrian woman who is in the know. Take note of what she says.

    The US gives Israel 11 billion dollars a day of US tax payers money Yes, 11 billion a day as 100 million American people are living below the poverty line. And for years Israel has used illegal weapons in their war against the Palestinians and acted against the legal direction of the UN. Even though they try to cover it up it is known by all. This is simply an extension of that outrage.

    The UK and Europe have no business joining in a further attack on women and children in this matter, other than to free themselves of their US connection and work on whatever it takes to otherwise alleviate the ordinary people from this battlefield. There is a Western agenda here that is to do with oil and gas. Nothing else.

    • avatar
      No name

      You seem bias. haha. But no seriously this is the most bias thing I’ve seen. One since the signing of the treaty banning certain weapons, the west has not used them. You also forget that actually the west has been reluctant to enter into the war, yet Russia and Iran are funding Assad, and the Saudi Arabians, Egyptions, Turkish are supplying the Rebels. Note, not the west.

      Also if you can prove that the west sent Chemical weapons to the Rebels, that is against international law to sell chemical weapons or stock pile chemical weapons, and western nations can be prosecuted, however I doubt their is evidence of this at all, and you just made that up.

      What does Israel have to do with anything. And no Israel hasn’t used illegal chemical weapons. Don’t get me wrong, not great fan of Israeli settlement building but they have not used chemical weapons, or Napalm etc. so again another made up fallacy.

      And attacking women? The EU is the best place in the world to be a woman. We have equality laws like no other place. So hurting women and children? Middle eastern countries do this, regularly and deprive women and children of fundamental human rights. Nor have the west commenced any attacks.

      What I’m saying is, don’t make up bull-sh*t.

  22. avatar
    Paul X

    Forget all the political rhetoric from the “experts” on here…blame the US for this, Israil for that, conspirasy theories left right and centre, blah, blah, blah….

    The green on this map are the countries that have signed up to the Chemical Weapons Convention.

    It is logical that if one of very few who have not signed up uses CW then the responsibility for policing their action falls on all those who have signed up, it is an International responsibility and should involve EVERY country that has signed up or else it makes their participation in the convention meaningless

    • avatar
      catherine benning

      Ignorance, no name, is bliss for you, no doubt.

      So, Israel doesn’t use chemical weapons. ..Pleeease, give me a break… What is phosphorus? Used regularly by that little country on its captive imprisoned neighbours. And the money to buy it comes from the USA. As I wrote above, at the rate of 11 billion dollars a day.

      The US drops drones on innocent people, women and children in Pakistan. No chemicals in that weapon. Agent Orange was and is a US stand by. As is torture. What kind of a propagandist are you. Not a very good one.

      Take a look and educate your infantile mind. War is not a game grown men should play. It is a corrupt business, And yes ‘business’ is exactly what it is.

      Why would they want to keep what they do not intend to use. And if they had them, why would they not have used them? Any ideas? And the Western world know all about this. Including Europe.

      Israel does not use chemical weapons because they are illegal? Oh, really. Could have fooled me.

      An that is only the tip of the iceberg.

      So grow up and stop playing the innocent bystander.

    • avatar
      No name

      @catherine white phosporous is not classed as a chemical weapon. Look at the laws honestly at what is classed as chemical weapons and what isn’t. White phosphorous is used in many weapons as a smoke screen, as is legal to use on enemy forces, once its main purpose is the smoke screen and not to use as a primary weapon.

      Also, Israel as of may 2013 is destroying its stocks of white phosphorus and will no longer be using it in its military operations. Israel has previously used it though, however it was stated to be used on military fighters, which is deemed legitimate.

      Also, European stocks of any chemical weapons is band, and US stocks are gradually being destroyed and should be gone by 2016.

      Next point is that the US drone war has actually killed more militants, and has had less civilian casualties than any other form of warfare when it comes to bombing things. So on occasion civilians have been caught in the cross fire, however the chances are much reduced then say home made explosive suicide bombers who kill a lot more civilians. Its only controversial point is that no international laws have come into place about unmanned drones and others air space. But these laws are currently being written. Till then the US is working in the law at the time.

      Now to the point. The use of Sarin gas is illegal under international law, it has been confirmed to be Sarin, the only thing now is who supplied it? Most likely Syria. The US and EU have not supplied military arms yet. The rebels get arms from other Sunni arab nations. Assad, Russia and Iran supply and support. The only person with the stock piles would be Assad, so probability at the moment is that it was Assad. Not 100% certain but it can be presumed that he is the most likely candidate.

  23. avatar
    Akos Tarkanyi

    No, it shouldn’t. Governments of developed countries kill unborn children by the million every year and noone cares about it.

    • avatar
      No name

      That’s because they’re not born, thus I’m taking it you mean abortion, which is legal in most western countries. It is an argument that can never be won, when is human life human life. As there is constant potential for human life. So the catholic teaching states that even masturbation is a sin, and that wasting the male seed is immoral. However each country to their own. What it isn’t is a chemical attack against anything, which is actually illegal under international law.

  24. avatar
    Christos Mouzeviris

    No Maro Kouris… If such thing is to ever take place do you think that will happen with absolutely no casualties or damages for Greece or Cyprus? Careful what you wish for.. If borders are redrawn what tells you that we are going to win all as you say?

  25. avatar
    Joachim Ott

    Going to war is a difficult decision, because there is the one bad guy (of course it is not only Assad, but the military and politival leadership of Syria), but also a number of people fighting him that are not necessarily standing for democracy, human rights, etc. So you could say, realpolitik requires not to touch this. But there are also the many ordinary people like you and me who had arranged with the political system and simply focused on their families and businesses. It is them who are suffering now. Damascus now is as Srebrenica 15 years ago. Raw terror against the civil population to make them shut up. We needed the US in the Balkans to end the civil war and I am afraid without the US it will be impossible to end the Syrian one. I can perfectly understand the hesitation to risk the life of soldiers in particular because there is no strong alternative that can over the country and rebuild a free and democratic nation

    • avatar
      No name

      Not only this but the threat from Russia, China and Iran could lead to a more global war in worst case scenario.

    • avatar

      The opposition used terror against the population who refuse to support them.

      And opposition owned the chemical weapons that blew up when the place they were stored in was bombed.

  26. avatar
    olivier le roux

    Civil war in Congo (RDC), 5.000.000 dead, 300.000 raped women since 2001…

    • avatar
      No name

      Yeah, but there are already UN forces in the DRC, as well as a hell of a lot of western aid. It is constantly in our news, but what can the west do in that country realistically. There is also not a threat of alqueda there. It also has not affected the other regions, where the neighbouring countries aren’t likely to be enveloped.

  27. avatar

    No war, but ready for a Blue Berets intervention

  28. avatar
    Diogo Miranda

    what are “unborn” children? and what to do they have to do with Syria? starting WW3 because of a Gas pipeline is just absurd.

  29. avatar
    Manuel Goncalves

    Enquanto no pensar que sei o que se passa na realidade, visto que h notcias contraditrias, no arrisco opinio quanto perda ou no de soberania!

  30. avatar

    It is sad that we in Europe have not learned the lessons from the Holocaust. Those apposing intervention in Syria, are not saying that we should work on preventing such human atrocities at best we can (even if we can’t intervene militarily). They are simply shrugging their shoulders and saying “it has nothing to do with us!”

    • avatar
      Limbidis Adrian

      No, we’re saying we’re being SWINDLED to do ‘Murika’s dirty job for them.
      They want a reason to destabilize that already shaky country and we don’t want to.
      We don’t support these so-called “freedom fighters” ( actual TERRORISTS ) and we consider the Assad regime better than a rag-tag band of savages who cut people down in the streets.

    • avatar
      olivier le roux

      The geoplitical sitation during WW2 is totally different from the current one in Syria. The Nazi decided to kill millions of people, in Syria extremists financed by the gulf monarchies and Turkey and supposrted by the USA and some EU countries are attacking a country for economic reasons mostly. By supporting these extermists the USA and EU countries are financing islamists and will destabilised even more this very unstable region. We can today see the outcome of the military intervention in Irak, hundreds of thouands dead civilians, deterioration of living conditions (education, health…),… There are many other options on the table if the USA were willing to sit around the table with Russia. Even if an intervention is necessary why not sending commandos to overthrow this regime rather than bombing the civilians? if the western governments really want to stop the killing of civlians!

    • avatar
      No name

      Actually, the Assad regime is not a good thing. Don’t know who is saying it is. He is still a dictators, supported by Russia and Iran. Syria is one of the only countries with mass stockpile of chemical weapons. The intervention being shrugged, is that the US and EU don’t like either side. We prefer the rebels due to democratic reasons, as some are democratic secularists, however some are terrorists. Assad is purely a dictator, however is secular due to his religious affiliation with the Alawites.

      All in all a bad situation for the people of Syria who are suffering. But to be fair, apart from blocking Russian support and punishing Assad if he used chemical weaponry there is little else to do. (Sarin was used, most likely Assad, as he’s the only Government with large stockpiles of chemical weaponry.)

      The middle east is sadly a thorn in the worlds side. Full of religious nuts who happen to have oil. The west really just wants stability to keep oil prizes in check, if democracy happens as well all the better, but not very likely.

  31. avatar

    Yes, if you want to help muslim extremists kill christians who live there, I suppose it’s time you attack Assad regime. Wouldn’t surprise me. After all, you westerners have done it before in Bosnia as well as Kossovo, which by the way is an entity created by another terrorist organisation as well as by organized crime.
    Also, there is another democrat administration at the White House, just as there was the case with Bosnia and Kossovo.
    You failed to support Mubarak and even the recent coup seeking to contain islamic extremism there, making way for fundamentalists in Egipt, which are now into the business of burning coptic churches there.
    Why was it not time for military intervention in Egipt when coptic churches were burning? Why did western peace-keepers look the other way while albanians in Kossovo were burning orthodox churches dating from the middle ages?
    You complain about islamic terrorism in the West, but you help or ignore islamic terrorism agains other nations (in the Balkans for instance) or against the vulnerable christian religious minorities in muslim countries.
    If there is one thing you should do, it is to support the christian population in the Middle East and northern Africa, help those who help them and attack those who are attacking them. Christians in the Middle East won’t detonate bombs in your cities, muslim extremists will.

    • avatar
      No name

      Yeah Kosovo, was the stopping of what was a genocide against a race in Kosovo. It is deemed as a NATO success and stated that NATO should have acted sooner. Also the west is secular, we don’t support a particular religion. Basically you’re a racist. The west does what it can to promote freedom of speech, but we all know that it is for the people to throw off the shackles, not for the west, as people don’t like being liberated, they like liberating themselves. France was liberated and they still try to ignore that part of history and have tried to separate themselves as much as possible from the US and the UK. Libya was probably just the right amount of western support, with no ground troops. Or Mali, with an in and out action, then support from surrounding areas troops under the UN.

    • avatar

      No Name, you claim albanians in Kossovo are a race and call me a racist?
      You are deluded! Albanians are not racially different from the serbs. Also, most christian syrians aren’t even ethnically different from muslims in Syria. Most of them are arabs just like the muslims.
      What NATO did in Kossovo was to stop a nation from defending itself against muslim terrorism. And leave the serbs in Kossovo pray to KLA muslim terrorists. Guess what? It wasn’t the serbs (depicted as murderous terrorists in a long trail of bad Hollywood movies) but the muslims who attacked US two years later.
      According to your own loose definition of racism, it is you who are a racist. You don’t even bother to deny the burning of christian churches in muslim-dominated territories (40 coptic churches in Egypt according to Huffington post), since you are probably fully aware of it. But you choose to look the other way when it comes to pogroms perpetrated by muslims against christian minorities. Muslims killing christians seems to be OK in your view, or at least not something to worry about. Only christians or christian-tolerant regimes killing muslims is genocide in your view.
      You only “care” about preventing a fake genocide supposedly intended by the serbs in Kossovo, but look the other way when it comes to stopping another genocide against the christians in the Middle East. By “gentle” folks who only want their freedom such as al Qaeda affiliated terrorist groups in Syria.
      I don’t suppose you heard about other deeds in the area by freedom-loving muslim folks, such as the genocide against armenians, syriacs and pontic greeks by the turks or another round against the syriacs in Irak in 1933. Or care about it.
      You say the West is secular. In that case, it’s interesting how it brings down every secular regime in the arab world only to make way for muslim fundamentalism. Freedom and peace loving fundamentalists, of course. Democratic and all, not like the evil secular dictators.
      You also say that the West promotes the freedom of speech. But what about the freedom to worship which muslim fundamentalists deny to other religions?
      What would you do if the serbs bombed 40 mosques in Bosnia & Kossovo?
      You’d be asking the West to stop the genocide at once.

    • avatar
      No name

      Im not going to reply to you again mate. You called me racist for not denying sectarian violence. Of course there is. Like there is in thailand or burma against the minority of muslims. All religions are terrible when it comes to violence. However I’m not the one stating that we should defend the christians, kill all the muslims. I have Islamic friends, and they’re fine, and peaceful. And buddhists burnt muslims out of their homes. In kosovo, women and children were murdered for being muslim. These are genocides, and sectarian violence which you condone. You’re racist and not worth my time.

    • avatar

      That’s too much! I told you’re deluded.
      I never said the West should kill all the muslims. I was against the Irak war, for instance. The West should only defend christians there when they are victims of pogroms instead of helping the perpetrators of the genocides.
      I notice that you keep brushing under the carpet muslim perpetrated genocides as “sectarian violence”.
      When muslims do it against religious minorities, it’s “sectarian violence”. When serbs do it as you claim (although certainly not on the genocidal scale in the Middle East), things change. That’s genocide and the West must step in.
      This guy calls genocides like the armenian, syriac and greek pontic genocides “sectarian violence” and still calls me a racist!
      By the way, I think the French lobby to involve the US in the war is a mere attempt to appease the large muslim community in their country at the expense of other nations – US as well as nations in the Middle Eats.

  32. avatar
    Paul X

    Some people need to do their homework on what is considered a chemical weapon
    Phosphorus is not defined as a chemical weapon, it may well be a chemical but then again so is cordite which propels bullets, there are lots of unpleasant chemicals on the battlefield but they are not all defined as chemical weapons. Phosphorus is a very nasty substance but its use in war is strategic, like agent Orange (which was classed a defoliant), no one is naive enough to assume people were not deliberately targeted by these substances but basically they were not designed for that purpose
    Where as a chemical weapon is one that’s sole purpose is the mass indiscriminate killing or injury of people

    • avatar
      catherine benning

      Are you of sound mine, Paul X? What is the difference? Phosphorus is not classified as a chemical weapon? My God you people take the cake. Maybe a little of it aimed at and dropped on you, your family and neighbours may bring you to a sense of proportion.

      Whilst people of your nature have any place in the political say of government the people must insist on Direct Democracy, otherwise, civilization is seriously at the crossroad of lunacy.

      Worried about some real opposition are we?

    • avatar
      No name

      @ catherine again, it’s not a band substance once its used for its purpose of smoke screening and not as to directly harm, especially in civilian areas. Read the law. We’re not talking feelings, we’re talking international law. Look at the law, evidence. Not off occasions not fully investigated. I hate it when people do that, conspiracy theories or taking things out of context.

  33. avatar
    David Eaton

    It depends on what moral economic and social repercussions the EU would have to deal with regardless of who are support is behind

  34. avatar

    No. Definitely no interventions by the EU site. Europe must stay peaceful. We cannot support any military action. I mean this is not what the Europeans want.

  35. avatar
    Catalin Vasile

    NO! for it is strictly the problem of the sirian people, an internal matter!Why is that nobody talks about the part of sirian people who supports the government?Why the western media does not present to the European citizens the killings and the massacres comited by the so-called rebels against Christian sirians, mostly elders, women and children?And how comw those who claim to hunt down Al Qaeda now are so hurry to arm the Al Qaeda fighters against the government of a sovereign nation?

    • avatar
      No name

      Because they haven’t used chemical weapons, and we do hear about the Al Qaeda and massacres the other side.

    • avatar

      No name seems like a paid shill for the military industrial complex.

      Those chemical weapons were of the opposition/rebels and blew up when the place was bombed.

  36. avatar
    Alex Semiserios

    This question is totally biased, because it assumes an Eurocentric role of “world’s police force” in the same spirit of the USA’s “spreading democracy” foreign policy facade towards the oil-rich Middle East.

  37. avatar
    Natasa Jevtovic

    No. We don’t know for sure which side used the chemical weapons. We should continue diplomatic efforts, and by all means consult the Security Council.

  38. avatar
    Henrique Calqueiro

    No, we should not intervene in this war. Let the United States handle this if they want.

  39. avatar
    Sten D. Hübinette

    Why attack now, after all those people were killed by conventional weapons? What changes the situation? Also why was there no support earlier when the secular arabs could have been given the upper edge?

  40. avatar
    Paul X

    Catherine I’m of perfectly sound mind and what’s more I’m staying on topic
    I’m not saying phosphorus is any “nicer” than chemical weapons, it really is not a pleasant way to die. But 28 years in the service with regular CW training and not once was Phosphorus considered a chemical weapon
    You ask the difference? well nerve agent is covered by chemical weapons treaties and phosphorus isn’t, and it is nerve agent which is the issue in Syria and the topic of this debate
    If you really want to go off topic and widen the issue why stop at Israel’s Phosphorus and America’s Agent orange, Why not keep on going to Britain’s and Germany’s use of mustard gas in WW1, back to people catapulting diseased cows into castles in the middle ages?..oops sorry, that’s me going off topic, that was Biological warfare

    • avatar
      No name

      exactly… well done paul.

    • avatar
      catherine benning

      And, Paul X, hate it when people look at a topic with just one of their eyes. Can you not accept what you write is an anomaly. Playing the game of side track is not a way to win a debate. As with politicians that obscure their true agenda when questioned, that method is seen for what it is, obfuscation.

      Chemical weapons can never be legitimate no matter what you want to play at. Evidence in and of itself proves that.

      Wake up and smell the coffee.

    • avatar
      No name

      But this is what is discussed, and phosphorous is not deemed as a chemical weapon under international law. Sarin is, and you state it is a bad thing chemical warfare, and Syria, who has one of the largest stock piles of chemical weapons in the world, has used chemical gas on its people.

      Should we just ignore it.

    • avatar

      Syria has used chemical weapons on its people. And Irak used to have WMDs in 2003, we all know that.
      Actually, prior to Irak invasion in 2003, Bush administration made a stronger case for WMDs in Irak than Obama did now linking Assad to chemical weapons. At least, neocons weren’t telling people that they have proof, but it’s secret. Their proof was faulty, it was forgery, it was fabricated evidence. But they didn’t ask people to attack a nation based on evidence they can’t reveal because it’s secret.
      I mean, Obama administration officials as well as NATO secretary general are “convinced” Assad regime is responsable. Is it not enough?

  41. avatar
    Panos Mentesidis

    Of course the USE should intervin and don’t worry, unmployment in Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy and Ireland is very high so think of the expendable soldiers the EU will have in order to help the Syrian people be free and give away their cheap and abundant oil and gas reserves to the good Northern Europeans who helped them be free and create a stable and rich country in the middle east!!! SUPER!!! Lets start invading countries to bring them democracy just like the USA does…cos we can all see how successful that was!!! GO USE!!! 67% youth unmployment in Greece that means more than a 1,000,000 soldiers ready to serve the interestes of any multinational coorpations who wants to make more money!!! GOOOOOOOODDD attack all the oil rich countries and free the people of their misery!!! cos above all we do it cos we are ethical people and we want the world to be a safe place!!

    • avatar
      No name

      Yeah the countries planning war are never those countries. It’ll be the UK France or Germany sending men. Don’t get angry at northern europeans for having more stable economies. Also use of chemical weapons is a crime, do we stand back and watch crime, when we have a chance to intervene genuinely.

  42. avatar
    Catalin Vasile

    I do not understand this: there are no human beings in Europe, only robots who are taught what to think, what to feel and what to say? Nobodz understands that the media is the most terrible and powerful and pervert weappon of all?Wake up you supporters of war!It is so easy to fight on someone else’s ground and ruin their countrz and homes but when it comes on losing zour own possessions and life than everyone is a peace supporter. In Siria, the so called “rebels” are killing women, children, old people just because they are Christians or, simply, not muslims supporting the Al Qida fighters!The media shuts up about this massacres, about this genocide!The TV has brainwashed the Europeans!Hack I know for sure that 99% of the European citizens will accept the enslavement when a new Stalin or Hitler will rise and you know why?Because European people has lost the capacity to use it’s brain and lacks the exercise of thinking on their own!
    NO! for a military intervention of the E.U. in Siria!It is strictly an internal affairs matter and we must accept that the western way of living does not comply to other cultures and customs!Look at what happened in Libia!Way to go Europe and America against the so called terrorist that you are about to arm once more since Al Qaida in Afghanistan!

    • avatar
      No name

      It is not internal, both forces are funded externally and there are fighters joining both sides, its shia muslims vs sunni muslims, and the fighting is becoming sectarian, we know this. But the use of chemical weapons is forbidden, and phosphorous is not classed as one before you start that again. And if these massacre are happening either side, provide the evidence. News evidence of the attacks, and the numbers.

    • avatar

      “News evidence” is not evidence, it’s just news. But even so, a mere google search by “syria christians killed” will provide enough “news evidence” for which you seem to have a blind spot.
      Just a quick selection – at Homs, 11 christians killed.
      Plenty of “news evidence” here: . Estimated 1000 christians dead, christian religious leaders kidnapped.
      If I had to choose whom to believe between Western politicians and muslim terrorists on one side, and syrian bishops or patriarch, on the other side, I would have no dilemma.

  43. avatar
    Stephane Czajkowski

    Informed European poeple are well aware of the energetics project through Syria for feeding Europe. It is the rebells who are killing Christians and atheists in that country. Because of that economical interest, some European leaders want the end of the actual regime and suport the terrorists. It has nothing to do with any human value whatsoever. I as many others are against that intervention.

  44. avatar

    Informed European poeple are against any military intervention. We know that there is an energetics project through Syria for feeding Europe. It is the rebells who are killing Christians and atheists in that country. Instead of adopting a cynical position against poor innocent poeple, our European leaders should do what they promissed us years ago – the real developpment of green energies for freeding us of pollution and submission to other countries. But when we know how our European deputies are corrupted by the the lobbyists of the fossile energies, it seems to be only a prayer.

  45. avatar
    Stephane Czajkowski

    Instead of adpoting a cynical position, our leaders should do what they promissed us years ago – the developpement of green energies. But taking into account that many of them are corrupted by the lobbyists of the fossile energies, it seems to be only a prayer.

    • avatar
      No name

      But what about the use of chemical weapons most likely used by the syrian government. Should the west just sit back and say the world can’t use all the gas they want.

  46. avatar

    Military intervention would only generate a mutual assured destruction.
    It is true that something must be done, but military force is an invalid option.
    The International community should find better solutions,as long as they intend to help Syria. we cannot allow history to repeat itself.

  47. avatar

    Why would we want to help the socalled opposition, when many of the groups within it are affiliated with Al-Qaeda and some of them promote extreme forms of radical islamism?

    Plus that when the regime bombed an opposition stronghold, the chemical weapons dump of the rebels blew up causing what the pro-war crowd tries to pin on Assad.

    How did the rebels get chemical weapons? They got them from Saudi Arabia.

    Do France and the USA really want to act as Al-Qaeda’s air force?

    This is exactly why it must be prevented at all costs that the EU ever possess anything like what the US has in terms of army/navy etc. The undemocratic crowd in Brussels would love to have similar capabilities.

  48. avatar
    Paul X

    Catherine, it is you who is “playing the game of sidetrack” by introducing subjects that have nothing to do with the topic of this debate. I suggest you start your own debate if you want to discuss israel’s use of phosphorus or America’s use of agent orange, this one is about Syria

    ..and show me exactly where I’ve said chemical weapons are legitimate? on the contrary, I know far too much about the effects of chemical weapons and find them totally abhorrent ……. so please stop making things up

    • avatar
      catherine benning

      Paul X

      What kind of a clown thinks that this topic is simply about Syria and all other WMD have nothing to do with it? Pleeeease And why don’t you begin your own topic on why America alone should be able to use chemical weapons and any other weapon they want to use in order to rule the world and enslave its people? If you are lucky you may get a group who will vote for that because they, like you, simply love the idea of ‘red neck’ mass extermination. The way US livers love a neck tie party.

      You can’t take the truth when it comes to Israel and its need to do its US masters bidding. As without that little knee begging they would be in the frame for wipe out.

  49. avatar
    eusebio manuel vestias pecurto

    Eu já comentei muitas da vezes sobre uma intervenção militar dentro da Siria Como todos nós sabemos se não houvesses interesses dos recursos naturias de alguns paises do mundo esta guerra já tinha treminado por isso esse Sir Assad esta com os pés bem assentes no seu chão O que se passa é tudo um jogo politico de alguns paises do mundo Sobre a Intervenção eu estou no meio de todas as decisões dos Sir . comentadores Agora uma coisa é certa salvem a população civil da Siria ela é vitima desse jogo do Sir Assad e de alguns paises deste infeliz planeta

  50. avatar
    Paul X

    At least this clown can read, there is a big clue in the title:
    “Is it time for military intervention in Syria?”

    You really need to stop being so selective, your anti-US rhetoric is tedious to say the least. If you really believe this topic needs to be widened to include other abusers of chemical weapons then you should also include in your rants,Germany, UK, Italy, Japan, Yemen, USSR & Iraq…..

    • avatar
      catherine benning

      Strikes me it is you that is on the rant here. You are not at all bright, and clearly an American selling the rot you have instigated world wide.

      Americans are blinkered from the brainwashing they suffer from birth. Re- think your input and get real. Europeans are getting wise to the snow job.

  51. avatar
    Spyros Tsakos

    No because both the rebels and the government are wrong. Both sides seek extreme views. The rebels may support terrorist groups and extreme islamic ideologies and the government should have resign from the beggining to avoid the bloodshed alltogether allowing democraticaly the people to vote for a new one. Furthermore an intervention may distabilize the region further with effects on Europe, USA, Russia and north Africa.

  52. avatar
    Paul X

    Not that it is any of your concern of yours but I am a degree qualified professional who was born and lives in the UK, so that shoots down most of the theories in your post
    And blinkered would be trying to blame all the woes in the world on the Americans, you need to get out and get some more life experience in this world and you will find there are a damn sight worse countries than the US
    Anyway, as you now seem reduced to making belittling personal comments this discussion is clearly going nowhere so it seems a good time to end it
    Adiós Amigo

    • avatar
      catherine benning

      LOL, Paul X. I lived in the USA, that wonderful land of the free, for ten years. East and West coast, as well as severe time in Atlanta and Palm Beach. You, in the UK know nothing of the US way of life on the ground and the horror of it. And as far as getting a life is concerned, it is you who needs to broaden your horizons dramatically. For, you are more than a little naive and full of government controlled propaganda. It must be your job to come to websites that open themselves up for public political debate. Just to keep your eye on the feeding of false information.

      I, unlike you, put my money where my mouth is. And see for myself. reality.

  53. avatar
    David Fuzzey

    Why waste Britain`s cruise missiles when there are 2 better targets much closer?.

  54. avatar

    The Iraqi people continue to suffer the consequences of the war, even after the withdrawal of foreign troops, with millions of homeless refugees and the resumption of sectarian violence. Meanwhile, eleven and a half years after the U.S invaded Afghanistan, that nation has yet to form a functioning democracy or to free itself from the Taliban and fundamentalist warlords.
    What is going to happen in Syria also, if US start a war. The only solution is political. And besides, the big winners of these interventions are the weapons industry who lobby for their own pockets.

  55. avatar
    Surkhan Latifov

    War in Syria inevitable. But the international community shouldn’t forget that the armed opposition is not an angel in Syria.

  56. avatar
    Egon Witte

    WAr is no solution…makes things worst .. Who want to split Syria, kick the Kurds, take some land for water..then you find the boys..

  57. avatar
    Alex Semiserios

    Of course they will. And the EU should step back from their self destructive imperialistic agenda and actually try to do something productive about the issue. It has already proven that it can challenge US foreign policy by not supporting Jewish settlements into Israeli occupied Palestinian territory, and it should go further. Diplomatically, of course. Obviously it is hard to take a stance in this issue, because there is also Russia who supplies the current Syrian regime with weapons, but going head on into a military conflict can only make things worse.

  58. avatar
    Emmanuel RODARY

    How can we say «No way, no war» ?
    The events in Syria that leads to 110.000 people killed since 28 months is not a war ? I thought it was. You can say «No way, war» ! Or propose alternative solution (which is the best in my mind) but no intervention is not «no war» : It’s war !
    It’s time to request from Poutine that he should be the architect for a political issue of Syrian war because Russia can not accept to loose it’s last vassal in the Middle East as nearby Mediterranean see : It’s Russian credibility and strategic positions that are challenged !
    The only political issue due to this MUST be leaded by Poutine.
    First pressurise him to make the chemical arms eradication proposition a reality, then Europe as well as USA should open their eyes and accept that blocs policy is back… and that Syria is a vassal state of Russia.
    This is cynical… I know, but it’s reality of blocks strategy.

  59. avatar

    No, the EU should NOT use any “outward wars and strife and fightings with outward weapons, for any end or under any pretence whatsoever”.

    War has never really solved any issue. Even “easier” issues in “easier” situations. In this case, it’s such a mess with so much influence of groups of “rebels” – reportedly fighting against the Syrian regime – that are more or less linked with groups that are known to have used or tried to use or supported terroristic methods in various countries around the world, including in the EU…

    The solution should be political.

    The longer-term political solution would also need to include some form of:

    (a) training and organising nonviolent peace forces in all countries and internationally;

    (b) creating and empowering an international police and improving enforcement of international law: if leaders / governments / the military commit crimes against humanity, the world should be able to enact something better than war: international police, international law.

    Let me underline the difference between a war-like intervention of military forces with e.g. air strikes (or the like), on the one hand, and a police intervention. I shall do this with an analogy.

    Suppose Mr A living in a EU country goes with his closest relatives and friends to family B’s house and kill all people there, committing a crime, maybe using some poisons but in the end the kind of arms illegally used does not make the difference… Now, suppose for the sake of the argument that the EU is like the Far West, there is no law enforcement, no powerful police, no judge… Then families C and D, appalled by the great violence that family B suffered, send a number of strong and well-armed men to family B’s village and destroy everything.

    This is what war to Syria would look like.

    As we live in the EU what would happen is that police would come and put Mr A and those who helped him under arrest. Hopefully this would (in future) happen in a well-designed system that is not geared towards punishing but rather towards protecting society and restoring also the offender as much as possible.

    We should NOT go to war, but rather do all we can to finally hold governments and people in power accountable to higher principles of international law. For the latter to be enforced, we need stronger UN with a real international police force.

  60. avatar
    Nikolay Pavlov

    The syrian people need humanitarian aid and peace. Its such a shame the only thing that the international community is going to offer them is more war and suffering. I think EU must intensify its diplomatic pressure for peace not only on Assad but on Saudi Arabia too, because they are those who control the so called ‘rebels’ in Syria.

  61. avatar
    Ivan Ivanov

    To punish murder with murder,is this a right?
    Is this democracy?
    What happened to the other tricks such as diplomacy and possibly embargo?
    Or purpose is simply to close our eyes again to the “great” U.S. Army

  62. avatar

    The EU was created with one main goal, to prevent wars and the military interventions wrongly justified with fake or manipulated “evidence”.
    The case of Syria is precisely the kind of situation where the EU should NOT intervene with military force but with diplomacy and negotiations.
    Even IF the “syrian” rebels were indeed victims of a brutal regime, the answer is not to bomb a sovereign country or arm these rebels.

  63. avatar
    Ari Rusila

    There’s little dispute that a chemical agent was used in an Aug. 21st attack outside of Damascus – and probably on a smaller scale before that – but there is a reasonable doubt if the Assad regime used sarin gas in this operation. Since then new aspects what happened are emerging and when there is some perspective about diplomatic solution it is also important to note for future developing that the roles of actors are changing in operation theatre. While these newest developments are shaping the future in Syria it is in my opinion still important to study Aug. 21st attack as it might help to plan further actions – and alliances. (More about this eg: Whodunnit in Syria and
    Syria:From War To Dissolution With Help Of Media )

    Related to CW attack in Damascus I refer only one of the core conclusion from the ISTEAMS report (http://STUDY_THE_VIDEOS_THAT_SPEAKS_ABOUT_CHEMICALS_BETA_VERSION.pdf/ ):
    “Contrary to the claims of the Free Syrian Army and the Western services, the only identified victims of the Ghouta massacre are those belonging to families that support the Syrian government. In the videos, the individuals that show outrage against the ‘crimes of Bashar el-Assad’ are in reality their killers.”
    September 25 is the date of dramatic turn of events in Syria. The consequences may affect the way the situation unfolds further on. The plans to stage a provocation and get the West involved in the conflict had failed, so the opposition threw away the democratic veil and showed its real face. Thirteen most combat capable groups severed ties with the National Syrian Coalition and the Free Syrian Army to form an Islamic alliance of their own. Jabhat-al-Nusra, an Al Qaeda affiliated group, is the core element of the new coalition. Liwa al-Tawhid, Liwa al-Islam and Suqur Al-Sham and a number of smaller groups joined the new alliance. The US-Russia deal is a brilliant Russian maneuver and right too as the right address for planned air-strike might be Qatar-funded mercenaries led by Al Qaeda and not al-Assad regime.
    There is no other way to preserve any influence for secular opposition but to reach a reasonable compromise with Bashar Assad within the framework of Geneva peace process. More in my recent article Demolition Of CW Stockpiles Is Only Contributory Factor In The Syria War ( )

  64. avatar

    Oh no many people die in Syria what shall we do? I have it i have it, lets send them Weapons, because as we know Weapons bring Peace and Harmony. The Rebells would not win the War without our Weapons, it would be a pitty if the killing ends with and Anti West Leader, if we could just make it a little bit worse, i meant even of course, maybe the outcome is more beneficial for us. The Weapons of course magically disapear after the War so there will be Peace for ever.

  65. avatar

    The real answer to these global conflicts won’t be found by any governments or rebels. Only Jehovah God’s government described in Daniel 2:44 will bring real peace to the earth. First all governments will be judge and removed by the only true God Jehovah . As humans we have never solved any conflicts on earth. Wars are always waging. The media only reports the ones that are important to their particular state. Most wars go unreported. Don’t like the truth well it’s reality. Stay neutral . Cause in war all those who have died will come back to life again . God will never forget the innocent cause he is a god of justice and love. All of today’s governments are only seeking their own personal and national interests. That’s why borders divide and create wars. Violence with more violence is a recipe for , I think we all know for what. The knowledge of God will cover the earth earth very soon. Satan is in control of this world. god is is certainly not controlling this world now. But soon he will.

  66. avatar
    nikol kidman

    until Interests of the power-hungry and ambitious countries is Creation of insecurity and insurgency in other countries ؛ is the peace of the world Never to be seen.

  67. avatar

    Europe has no job in Syria. If EU wants to help they should stop backing the rebels.

Your email will not be published

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Notify me of new comments. You can also subscribe without commenting.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

By continuing to use this website, you consent to the use of cookies on your device as described in our Privacy Policy unless you have disabled them. You can change your cookie settings at any time but parts of our site will not function correctly without them.