Subject: »NEWS AROUND THE WORLD

Or to reject democracy because the government is not 'different'.

that's wrong, imo,
you can't reject something because you're not doing it work properly-
The same time you can't believe in something (market) because it works 1 time on 10.

You have to look at the structure.
in democracy you have a chance to get what you believe in.
in a market you should accept what he need and take.

But I'm sure You'll believe the magical wonders of market will solve everything, won't you?

I just hope this time will Russia help Assad much more than just by guns delivery...

What would you like Russia to do? In diplomacy they were already pro-Assad. So should they send their troops there? I don't think that Syria would worth a WW3 for anybody.

The UK kissing Americas butt again i see, where have i seen that before??? Oh wait...

I hope both Russia and the States don't interfere. Nothing good can come from bombing Syria.

Morally, the world must take some action to punish any government that would use chemical weapons. Whether Assad's government ordered the attack can be debated.
When/how did they get chemical weapons and the rockets to propel them? There are so many factions of the rebels that IF one of the factions thought another rebel group with 'gasses them' would they not report this? None of the many rebel groups, that I know of, are blaming anyone but the Assad government.

read my post. I said THE WORLD - as previously stated, I DO believe the world has a moral obligation to punish any country that uses chemical weapons were. Do you not? And if not, why?

your picture is 'cute', but I did not say that action should be taken because of 'bombs', RATHER if chemical weapons were used. Do you not agree?

What do you think the USA will accomplish with the bombardments? What's going to happen after that?

First, what we the world allow to happen not just in Syria but elsewhere if we do not punish those who use chemical weapons? Sit on the sidelines and let more dictators use larger amounts of chemical weapons?

now to answer your question about what would be accomplished? I do not know. It is very complex. If the world community takes military action, would this lead to Syrian attacks on Israel? What would Iran do? Would Syria make a strike against a NATO nation? Would military action taken cause the Assad regime to fall, and what would takes its place in a political vacuum? would an Islamist state emerge in Syria, allied with Iran?
There are MANY things to consider. But mostly we as the world community should be concerned about the use of chemical weapons.

I think:

would this lead to Syrian attacks on Israel?
Would Syria make a strike against a NATO nation?

Both would be a stupid move on the Syrian part.

What would Iran do?

I don't think they would openly confront the American intervention. They also have a new president, who seems to be less radical as his predecessor.

Would military action taken cause the Assad regime to fall, and what would takes its place in a political vacuum?

That's the real question, and the USA was not very successful with handling these things in the past.

It wasnt serious argument and not directly on you.

About moral obligation...define world and define punishment. There is 2 years civil war in Syria full of atrocities and punishments. How is chemical weapons use worse than napalm, using children as shields and killing civilists? Both sides involved are morally corrupt. I do not feel any responsibility for war. My government hadnt support, supply or train any side, if they would I am morally obliged to protest againist it. If there is some moral obligation its protecting innocent, but nobody offers solution.

Obamas and Camerons reasoning about "giving clear message to Assad" is like from 10-old children. Do not involve in conflict without plan.
(edited)

dennis54, if you read online real media (so not US :-D) you had to know that saudi was author of that attacks and saudi=usa.

so thx to your politicians for killing hundreds people...

.
(edited)

I was listening also UK MP debate.... there was one old man who said big true.... that when israel used chem. weapons nobody cares just because that country is "on right side of civilized world" :-DD

This is the moral compass the world should follow

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Protocol

world= signature nations of the Geneva Protocol
punishment= I do not really know, honestly. There is no easy answer. Do you diminish Assad's ability to attack the rebels by bombing his airfields? lessen his airforce? I do not have all the answers.

NOTE- I myself am torn about military action against Assad, honestly. My country is tired and weary of war.

We are all talking about Assad. What you some of you who are 'hating' on the USA say to those rebels who HAVE been the targets of chemical weapons? tough luck.
pretend the US does not do anything for a week or so and there are more chemical attacks. what then. when YOU say Assad had done too much and we much weaken his regime?

if you read online real media (so not US :-D) you had to know that saudi was author of that attacks

the is 'online media' and there is legit news organizations.

I do not believe this account. What about the missiles that were launched?

Hmm... I was wondering where could this come from.

I've found this about the Saudi version. The news agency is independent, but is based in th USA, as I understand, and the reporter is also working for bigger Western agencies such as AP and BBC.

I've also found this from NY Times. They still say that the chemical attack was made by Assad's forces, but now they say, they don't have any proof, and maybe it was made by some rogue government unit. So now they're not so sure.

So it does seem quite questionable, that the attack was made by Assad's forces.