The best way to ?punish? the Syrian regime is to enable the popular uprising to break it, not to bomb the country.
In a rare instance of the executive in a Western imperial state taking ?parliamentary democracy? in earnest, the UK government consulted Parliament about military action against the Syrian regime without being certain in advance that it would win the vote, and decided to respect the outcome that repudiated its plan. As a staunch opponent of the Syrian Baathist regime from a radical democratic perspective, I have several reasons to welcome this outcome.
Great Britain became more European on Thursday, August 29th, when the parliament refused to give its Prime Minister the support he wanted (but did not need) for air strikes against Syria. Now David Cameron has been humiliated and a precedent for future war authorizations has been set.
Blair’s deceptions on Iraq were a central theme of last night’s debate and even if Chilcot has been deliberately stalled, the House yesterday passed a damning judgement on both Blair and Cameron.
Western readers need to understand why some Syrians support, while others oppose, a military intervention in their country.
I want here to present the question from different Syrian points of view. Western readers need to understand why some Syrians support, while others oppose, a military intervention in their country. In what follows, I will bypass the supporters of the regime, and talk only about the opposition, the rebels, and the normal Syrians who support them.Eurozone crisis threatens Southern Europe?s public goods
Crisis-hit southern countries are selling state-owned goods to reduce their budget deficits, with Spain mulling the privatisation of national heritage sites and Greece is under pressure to have historical buildings managed by a foreign holding company.
A unique natural reserve, buildings, fields, altogether about a quarter of Spain?s national heritage, will be sold in order to fill in the country’s ?70 billion public deficit gap for 2012, reports French newspaper Le Monde.
A couple of days now political and military mobilization is being stirred over the possible invasion of NATO in Syria. As of 2001 or 2003 when the United States pressed for invading Afghanistan and Iraq under the pretext of the war against terrorism, President Obama, and from the EU leaders mainly UK?s PM David Cameron, have launched their polemic against President Assad under the pretext of the use of chemical weapons against civilians. A new war might be ahead, but the reasoning lacks serious justification.
Britain’s House of Commons on Thursday voted against the country’s participation in astrike against Syria. This was an historic defeat for Prime Minister David Cameron, commentators observe. They see it as a victory for the UN that the lack of clear evidence of a toxic gas attack has forced the US and its partners to postpone military action.
Members of resistance movements from Egypt, Turkey and Tunisia come together on Gezi Radyo to compare experiences, discuss ways to cooperate and debate how to build a better future.
The government was defeated 285 to 272.
US President Barack Obama says he hasn’t yet reached a decision on intervention in Syria. Meanwhile the UN Security Council was unable on Wednesday to agree on a resolution presented by the UK that would authorise military action. Commentators criticise the United Nations’ incompetence and stress that a military attack must aim to bring down Assad.
The years-long conflict in Syria between the government and rebel forces took the international stage this week after President Bashar Al-Assad’s regime reportedly used chemical weapons in an Aug. 21 attack near Damascus, killing approximately 800 people. Now the U.S. government and some of its allies, including the UK, are contemplating a military strike on Syria
More than 100,000 people have been killed since violence erupted in Syria in 2011, according to UN estimates from June. The map above, assembled by Mashable, plots the major battles of the Syrian war. It also highlights the rebel- and government-controlled areas (with populations of 100,000 or greater) and the major military landmarks Read more…More about Google Maps, United States, War, Syria, and Bashar Al Assad
Slowly British politics is coming to terms with reality and this is welcome, the Syria debate viewed from Scotland.
Parliamentary debates about military intervention are often rightly solemn occasions. They carry the weight of history and memories of past triumphs and disasters.
What does Syria vote mean for Britain’s place in the world?
Part One of a two-part analysis of the geopolitical sectarian dynamics and possible fall-out of military intervention in Syria. Read Part Two here.
The Syria situation continues to burn unabated ? a conflict which becomes not only consistently more entrenched, violent, embittered and bloody, but which, in its quest for oxygen, has increasingly drawn in regional players like Israel, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Lebanon and Iran.
If Germany’s chancellor Angela Merkel decides in favour of supporting the intervention in Syria, the German electorate is likely to punish her on September 22. But if she decides against joining the coalition of Western forces, Germany may soil its reputation with its Western allies, writes Judy Dempsy.
Judy Dempsey is a nonresident senior associate at Carnegie Europe and editor-in-chief of Strategic Europe. This op-ed was first published here.
The United States and Britain are lining up their naval forces for a possible attack on Syria. France is right behind them. All three countries are reacting to mounting evidence that chemical gas was used against Syrian civilians, leaving hundreds dead and injured.
In rejecting participation in any military action against Syria, the country is turning its back simultaneously on the US and on France
The U.S. says it is committed to Turkey’s defense against any possible Syrian attack
Europe has reacted with surprise – and a degree of shock – to David Cameron’s defeat in the House of Commons, which has de facto ruled out British participation in any potential military operation in Syria, at least for now. Here is a first round-up.
Britain will not join any military action against Syria after a government motion was rejected in parliament, dealing a setback to US-led efforts to punish Damascus over the use of chemical weapons against civilians.
Following a 285-272 vote against a motion by British Prime Minister David Cameron to authorise a military response in principle, British Defense Secretary Philip Hammond confirmed Britain would not be involved in any action against Syria.
Genocide is both taking on new forms in the era of democratic revolution and exposing the defective reactions of western states, says Martin Shaw.
“I just want them to attack sooo much, because I want them to make this huge mistake of beginning something that they don’t know the end of it.”
War rhetoric in the media this week seemed to imply the impending end of Syria?s Assad regime and the spread of Syria?s civil war into a larger regional conflict, while key players carefully chose their words to emphasise the limits of conflict, and responses to any breach.
With the United States moving closer to military strikes in Syria, the Syrian Electronic Army, a pro-Assad hacking collective, isn’t content on the sidelines. On Tuesday, the group appeared to hit the New York Times’ website and managed to redirect some visitors to SEA-owned servers.