>> hello and welcome. coming up, just a matter of days is a western coalition on a military clash with syria. the defense secretary saying all options are ready to go when and if the u.s. president decides to strike. how would an intervention be done? that is what we are going to be talking about.

you can tweet us at f24debate. back upstairs to the newsroom. all of the stories making news. good evening. >> francois hollande says the alleged chemical attack in syria must not go unpunished. he says france has no obligations to protect civilians and david cameron. the syrian prime minister warns the west against intervention. the u.s. defense secretary says american forces are ready to act. elsewhere, a reshuffle in brazil over a spiking tensions. this after the flit across the border on a person wanted for charges. we start with syria and francois hollande saying a decision will be taken in the coming days in response to the attack in the damascus suburbs.

paris was increasing military support to those fighting president assad's army. >> the world is horrified following the confirmation of chemical weapons being used in syria. everything leads us to believe it was the regime that carried out this to spit able -- this despicable act. it must not go unanswered. france is ready to punish those who made the decision to gas these innocents. >> he joins me now. thank's for talking to. perhaps no greater price -- no surprise to what francois

hollande had to say. >> yes, some strong words from the french president. he said everything led to france believe the attack in damascus ws carried out by this year in government. he called this an abject actin said the chemical attack must not go unpunished. aside from the strong words, little in the way of concrete action being announced here it all eyes had to be on what steps would be taken next. he knows the french defense counsel would be meeting tomorrow in paris. that is the head of the armed forces and the defense minister he said france would take action when the major part of the work of the u.n. inspectors had been completed. he also announced france would be increasing its military aid to the syrian opposition group. strong words but little in the

way of concrete announcements from paris. >> should france with britain and america decide to interfere, almost certainly without a u.n. resolution. and he made a few legal points as well. >> he made of illusion's to the legal technicalities, the international law surrounding this. he did not direct it to the searing case. we have to say that. after opening his beach, talking about syria and french values. he says it was committed to international law but he said international law must evolve with the times. it must not be allowed to mask massacres, he said. he said he was committed to the responsibility of protecting civilians, and international legal norm which has been used by the u.n., which calls on

governments to intervene if they feel an individual state is not protecting it civilians or is submitting them to crimes agai hint of the legal stance france could take if the un security council remains blocked on syria. >> thank you for talking to us. david cameron has called parliament over the situation. here he is talking earlier about the uk's response. >> what we have seen in syria are scenes of death and suffering because of the use of chemical weapons by the assad regime. i do not believe we can let that stand. any action we take would have to be legal, in proportion, it would have to be specific to deter and degrade the future use of chemical weapons. let me stress this is not about getting involved in a middle eastern war were changing our stance in syria or going into

that conflict. it is about chemical weapons, their use is wrong in the world should not stand idly by. >> the syrian foreign minister does not accusations of government forces deploying poison gas. he said western intervention could till the balance of power. russia warns it would be a disaster. the deputy prime ministers twitting -- tweeting the west was like a monkey with a hand grenade. chuck hagel has said u.s. forces are ready to act if given orders. more on the military options available. >> the u.s. says it is ready to assist with any strike if asked and its capability is likely to be muted. washington committed much of the hardware to libya in 2011 and its firepower outstrips that of its allies, the uk and rance.

the u.s. navy has four destroyers in the mediterranean equipped with tomahawk missiles which have been used in previous conflicts such as the invasion of iraq in 2003. the deployment is far from straightforward. >> it would be incredibly difficult to do to make sure strikes are precise and on target. and actually hit what is required to be hit, the chemical weapons sites or whatever and to make sure there is no collateral damage. >> the main targets are likely to be the suspected chemical weapons stock piles and production sites. the u.s. and its allies could meet resistance. syria has one of the most capable antiaircraft missile defenses. the surface to air missile. war planes and military

transporters have been spotted in britain in cyprus located 160 kilometers from the syrian coast. >> in brazil, a reshuffle and easing tensions with bolivia. relations soured after a diplomat admitted he helped a senator wanted on corruption charges escape across the border. >> a border dash and a switchover. this man has just resigned as the foreign minister. while the u.n. envoy has taken his place as foreign miniser. the job swap is a bid for brazil to quell tensions with bolivia. one of his diplomats admitted he helped an opposition senator wanted on corruption charges escape and cross into brazil

over the weekend. he was reportedly escorted by marines all the way from the past. the government is furious. >> the convention of international law has been violated. >> this person had avoided arrest by seeking refuge in an embassy. he had accused the bolivian government of england to drug traffickers. brazil granted him asylum but bolivia warned they would arrest him as soon as he left the embassy so he ended up living there over a year. once he arrived, a letter he wrote to his fellow senators was read to the press. the power system is two-faced and conflicting. today the world knows the true face. >> as brilliance read up on their country's quarrels, brazil

hopes its foreign minister's resignation will improve relations with its neighbor. >> if you have ever wondered how much the superrich are making, the latest information is available. forbes put together its annual list of celebrities who earns the most cash. topping the list, madonna and steven spielberg. >> on the ultimate list of the rich and famous, the material girl reigns supreme. forbes assessment on a was the highest earning celebrity of the past 12 months, an estimated $125 million. much of that money came through her tour as well as sales from her clothing and fragrance lines. bawling her with $100 million was director steven spielberg. he was boosted by his 2012 film "lincoln" and his classic hits. in a three-way tie was simon

cowell, howard stern, and the 50 shades of grey author. $95 million last year. oprah winfrey tumbled to 13th place this year. tiger woods and roger fetter where the top earning athletes and the youngest was lady gaga at 27. four of the top 20 celebrity earners were women and all but four were american. >> that isn't from the newsroom for now. time to go to douglas. >> thanks ray much, chris. tonight's debate, is the united states on the brink of military action against syria? a day after john kerry warned that the obama administration

would hold the searing government accountable for "the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians," the germ breed for intervu -- drumbeat for intervention is growing louder. a strike could come as early as thursday. officials are in the process right now of declassifying documents to justify that intervention. you just heard in the past few minutes those documents could be released in the next couple of days without a u.n. mandate. the white house insists barack obama has yet to make a decision but his actions including telephone diplomacy with australia and the french president françois holland suggest he is trying to forge and coordinated approach. his secretary of defense says the u.s. is ready to go with all military options. when and if the order comes down from the u.s. president. the uk, david cameron cut short his summer holiday recalled

parliament to debate the response to the crisis. a vote is set for i thursday. tonight we are asking how it would be legally justified. is it even legal under international law? what would be the aims of the military action? what would be the risks? my guests joining me tonight in studio, i will start with you. you are a former state department official. very active during the coast of oh p -- kosovo period. and to your right, the ambassador, a professor of international law. and diplomacy at the american graduate school in paris. and to my left, thanks for being here. you are a researcher at the institute for prospect and

security in europe. we will be talking to you about intervention a little bit. and joining me from london tonight, philip stoner, a former deputy defense attache. thanks for being here as well. i am going to get to all of you shortly. i promise. first i want to get the very latest from washington tonight. someone seems to be happening on the u.s. front. our correspondent, good evening, philip. i want to ask you right away, i said the drumbeat 04 it appears to be getting louder. a strike could come as soon as this thursday. are we laying the groundwork for public opinion? >> absolutely. it is the obama administration's responsible for this drumbeat of war because all arms of the government are preparing public opinion much everybody for what

is to come very soon in deed. as early as this week. that is the latest from the white house. just coming from the white house briefing, they say they are certain chemical weapons were used but they are not 100% there in terms of saying it was the asad regime they used them. there is a method to what the white house is doing right now without information being given to senior administration officials who are leaking information. and we have heard from john kerry, the next step, that is president obama. we could hear from him as early as this week. the method we are seeing, may be similar to what we before military intervention in libya. the difference being the united nations security council is not part of this. diplomatically what the president is doing now, he is

contacting his counterparts. chuck hagel has been in touch with his french and british counterparts. public opinion, absolutely it has to be prepared. it is currently against military intervention. that is why it is so crucial. what we can expect in the next few days to come, any announcement will come from the president. he is the last one to speak on this. he will also reveal the proof the white house used chemical weapons at that time and the one thing still missing in that equation is when that type of military intervention, and what type, might happen. >> enzyme moving fast and furiously in washington. we are waiting to hear what is next. i want to go to paris where catherine noris trent has been a

trending -- attending francois hollande speaking to all of his ambassadors gathered at the palace. good evening. he has taken a tough line on syria. he had tough words this evening as well. >> he did indeed. there was a ramping up of the rhetoric from president hollande . he opened his speech by talking about syria and he said everything led france to believe the authors of the attack in damascus, which he qualified as a chemical massacre, was perpetrated by the syrian regime and said the world could not stand by and allow that to happen. he said france would be working on generating what he called an appropriate response to what has been happening in syria. he's going to be holding a meeting tomorrow in paris.

the talk is continuing. he was strong on words but short on concrete measures. he did talk about international law. he did not link this to the syrian question. he said, france was committed to international law but that could evolve and must with the times. he said he was committed to this responsibility to protect civilians and it must not be used as a shroud for countries to hide behind while they commit massacres. what people are reading into it is that france, hollande talking about a way to bypass the un security council, which is looking blocked. >> that is where we are going to begin our debate. thank you very much from palace in paris. i want to go to the chase and i want to go to you, ambassador. i want to ask you what we just heard about international law.

we talk about the u.n.. is an intervention legal under the norms we know? how do you justify it? >> talking about the commitment to international law, we have to look at it twofold. one is the security council. blocked. there is international law outside and above. it is called international customary law. part of the emerging customary law is the responsibility to protect the general assembly resolution and the un security council as lucian on libya. -- resolution on libya. it gives us a clear definition on our responsibility to protect. it is to take all necessary measures to protect civilians

and civil populations under threat of attack. including foreign occupation in any form. >> i want to cut in. right to protect them from comical weapons or a general right? is it the chemical weapons we are talking about? >> chemical weapons is a threshold issue for president obama and president hollande. i do not think that precludes them from making the argument which has been an evolving trend in international law. there is a long-standing tradition of the commitments not to use poison gas. syria, although it did not sign to the chemical weapons convention, it is a member of the 1925 geneva protocol, which laid the groundwork for that. there is a violation in that regard and that is important.

>> pertaining to chemical weapons. i want to ask you, we are hearing the white house, barack obama saying this is beyond any doubt that this chemical weapons attack, was perpetrated by bashar al-assad. you were telling me earlier you are still not for an intervention. >> yes, of course. we are not sure. we are waiting for the declassified documents to arrive within a few days. at this time we have no proof at all bashar al-assad -- >> i want to correct myself. it was not barack obama saying that. it was a white house spokesperson saying there was no doubt chemical weapons were used in the attack. in other words, you feel we need to wait for the results of that inspection team to come through.

>> exactly. the u.n. inspector on the ground right now, because of a problem of security. i cannot imagine going to war after tomorrow without having proof. >> i want to bring phillips into this debate. few have been waiting patiently in london. sir, do you think there is too much precipitation tonight, everybody rushing without the full proof, especially david cameron, he has recalled parliament. we could have a vote on thursday. >> that is one way of looking at it. you have to roll this back a couple of years. this has been going on for some time. there has been a buildup of pressure, the problem with syria .

as far as the international community is concerned, the key players have been concerned about it a long time. now there is clearly a tipping point where they u.s., france, and the uk sees this has gone beyond the pale. something has happened. they have to step up to the plate and do something. public opinion in the uk is moving not necessarily toward screening but demanding for some sort of action, some kind of, somebody to be held accountable for what happened. i think that is what we hear when we listen to francois hollande and david camera -- david cameron and john kerry yesterday when he made his emotional plea to the world. >> and actually john kerry did say yesterday, he he called it a

moral insanity. he did not mince words. he accused bashar al-assad direct lieff covering up up responsibility for a crying. what is interesting is the u.s. defense, chuck hagel, has been saying he wants to do this with full legality, i would actually like to listen to what he said regarding intervention. >> united states is looking looking at all options in the situation in syria. we are working with our allies and the international community. we are analyzing intelligence. we will get the facts and if there is any action taken, it will be in counsel with the international community and the

framework of legal justification. >> i want to ask you, we have seen action taken before where russia has ended up giving its backing. in libya, russia said look what happened. we had military intervention in terms of the rights of observations and look what it turned into. it turned into regime change. they are saying the same things again. do you see the danger this will not be short or limited? >> do not think the u.s. is calculating how the russians are analyzing the situation. it is long-standing over many conflicts in the past. all sides recognize it is extremely complex, which has been part of the hesitation to get involved. all of that is already part of the debate over the last month as we have seen the small-scale

tragedies continue one after another. now they are sitting down. laying the groundwork for the message saying this goes beyond syria. so that is where the argument, this violation, what we saw, this is beyond our debate of whether we should get involved. so this is how they will frame their argument. also in terms of a limited intervention, not going in full scale. not going in with a big campaign but focusing -- >> a limited strike. we will remember, philip stonor, when we were talking about iraq, france was very much opposed. france refused to go along with the coalition. i want our viewers, listen to

the then prime minister. >> such an intervention could have untold consequences on the stability of this region. it would reinforce the feeling of injustice, worsen tensions, and could lead to other conflicts. >> fast-forward 10 years and we spoke to our correspondent earlier. let's listen to it francois hollande had to say. >> the chemical massacre in damascus must not go unanswered. france is ready to punish those who made the decision to gas these innocents. >> you don't get any more direct than that. france is ready to punish those. >> of course. we are right to punish people

because it is a terrible thing. so many people died. it's not possible to let this go unpunished. the question is, nobody is asking this question, who is behind it? we are not sure. i can tell you there are al qaeda people linked. they have infiltrated the rebels. there is a suspicion someone else could be behind this chemical. i am not trying to, how do you say, i am not trying to help the regime. we are not sufficiently trying to know -- i know people of i

qaeda are everywhere. another thing i want to tell you, i heard that in iraq we found chemical weapons in the hands of a qaeda. -- al qaeda. so we can't put this and say it is bashar al-assad because we decided -- of course he is not a good guy. >> i take your point. i want to share with our viewers a tweet that has come in saying, i understand those who say western intervention will unsettle the region even more but really, what other solution is there? a real sentiment out there. in these tweets, perhaps the best of many bad options.

we are going to have to leave it there. we are going to talk some of the military aspects and the risks we are possibly facing. we will be back after this short break. talking about syria tonight and are we on a march to military action?

>> welcome back to our debate. a quick look at some of the news making headlines. francois hollande says france is ready to those -- punish those behind the attack. he is also alleging to step up military support to the syrian opposition. tunisia declares al-sharia a terrorist organization saying it has proof they they were responsible for the assassination of two secular politicians. and yosemite a blaze. fireighters in the u.s. state of california battle to contain a raging wildfire. a swift reshuffle in brazil. this after a bolivian senator fled across the border into brazil.

thank you, and again. we are back with the second part of our debate. we were talking about syria, whether or not the west is headed for a military clash with syria. we have media reports suggesting a military action could be imminent, as early as thursday. declassified documents are being declassified at this moment to justify such an intervention. we have been talking about the legal justification. i would like to move on with my guess, we are going to look at the military risks. does the military action, what would it look like and what are the nouns in the unknowns of such an action? once again joining me in paris on my right, laurie dundon, a former u.s. state department staffer. we also have ambassador wilfried bolewski, professor of

international law and diplomacy at the american graduate school in paris. you have been helping us out. patricia lalonde, you are a researcher at the institute on europe. you look at security issues and scenarios regarding security issues. and we have in london, we have a crowded cast in the second half, once again we have philip stonor . a former uk defense at cachet -- attache. and a new guest joining us from oregon in the united states, colonel rick francona. thanks for being on the show. i want to start with the french foreign minister. he said the other day the only option, the only thing he does not see is no action not all. that is absolutely impossible. i want to show our viewers this

newspaper, their editorial agreed. it said military action bears risks. there are no good options mr. assad poses to his own people in the world. to do nothing would be the worst one of all. i want to go right to you, colonel rick francona. you are a middle east specialist. you know that region well. you also know about the military. do you agree with that sentiment, doing nothing is absolutely worse than going in there for a limited time of intervention? >> i think we have reached the tipping point. we have been watching the civil year for two years. it has taken the catalyst of the regime using chemical weapons to bring us to this point. many in the world community had been advocating for some kind of intervention for some time.

i think military action is inevitable. it's only a matter of when. >> laurie dundon. just said it's inevitable. do you agree with the basic tenor of the editorial, it is the worst of many options? there are no good options? >> people have been looking through the list of options but now we have said over and over, no large-scale capital -- chemical weapon use. it has happened. we have to respond. if not, there is no credibility. but if you're going to decide to use force, what type of campaign? if you're using this to change the leverage, what are you asking from assad? do you expect this will be one strike that turns it over to the opposition? the list can go on and on. there are a lot of questions that need to be asked. >> the western leaders are per

trying this as a one-off action to punish assad. hollande wants to send him a warning. i want to once again show, there was the opinion piece in mother jones, an online magazine. he basically made the case as to why airstrikes against syria won't work. he said a punishment airstrike is a joke. little more than a symbol of hopelessness to be laughed off. if we want to change his behavior, we will have to declare war against him. philip stonor in london. is it true. airstrikes are going to do the job? if we go in there, if the west goes in, if it means you're going to have to declare war? >> i think what he is saying is true. look at the possibility of

picking up certain chemical weapons sites and destroying them. then it's all over, we can go home, that's not going to happen. the point is once we started to take the gloves off, we are going to go win. i was actually in nato in 2002 in preparation for the iraq war. i saw what was going on. there was definitely a point where it did not matter, the west, the coalition was going to go in. i remember the words of richard perle who said saddam hussein has become an intolerable threat. now i see the same things happening. bashar al-assad has become an internal threat and something has to be done about it erie it the evidence is almost becoming

[indiscernible] >> wilfried bolewski, something has to be done. we were talking about limited action under international law. what if it is not limited? but they are in there much longer than the intended? is it still legal? >> looking at the legal framework of any action you have to keep in mind these actions are only accepted by the international community as a measurement of law. what is necessary and appropriate are the circumstances. one aim is obvious. to stop the crime against humanity. not to punish. there are other ways for punishment. therefore any action should be

measured against this limited aim. let me continue with four more points. >> if you have one pertinent points, i have a question. >> the limits his sovereignty independence, integrity, the open question is regime change. >> that is the question. patricia lalonde, how do you draw the line? when do you know you are going from punishing to all of a sudden toppling bashar al-assad and trying to change the regime? >> yes, i think the red line is when we know exactly what happens with his arms. things are changing every day. we have to know who is the enemy.

to me it is not bashar al-assad. the enemy is al qaeda. i think sometimes al qaeda has a bad name. they are fighting with the rebels against the regime. al qaeda is making politicians everywhere. nobody is thinking about this. >> this is interesting. if you want to reply to that. >> this question of regime change, whether or not we' the s doing doing everything possible to stay as far away as a regime change. they had been resistant to go in at all. i really think they are struggling with how to scope this so you don't get dragged into a deeper involvement and at the same time preparing for those contingencies. is there a strike back at turkey? are you obliged to -- >> a giant chess game.

donald rumsfeld said -- i want to bring in rick francona from oregon. the white house, sir, said earlier tonight barack obama has a variety of options right now. not just the use of force. the white house also says there is no doubt to is responsible but they are not naming names. can you give us a sense, what are some of the military options? what are we talking about? >> you have to look at what you're trying to achieve. if you want punishment, which is a bad idea, because if your goal is to tell the syrians they can no longer use chemical weapons, he is allowed to use explosives and white phosphorus or is the goal to change the situation on the ground? are we trying to cripple the air force?

are we trying to cripple his control? i do not know what the objective of the mission will be. the president has to decide what he wants to accomplish before he unleashes weapons. if it is just to punish assad, i do not think it is going to work. he does not need chemical weapons. why he used them is a mystery. he can accomplish his goals without them. >> patricia, you say you are not for an intervention until we have the evidence. you are suggesting al qaeda is responsible. what about people saying the rebels allied, should there be an equal element to punish those people? >> of course. we have to punish -- i do not like the name punishment.

punishment is like children. when we are at war it is not a punishment when so many people are dying. we do not know what is going on after bashar al-assad. we have no exit strategy. we have nothing. when i say al qaeda, i am speaking about an islamist group linked to al qaeda who could fill the vacuum after assad could be toppled. >> and talking about i question and what comes next and what could result, you wanted to add something. >> for the time being, there was a geneva convention, in october. so now if we are going to

strike, striking damascus now, what is going on with geneva? are we sure with all of the groups, we fight al qaeda very much in all of these people, we have to bring these actors to the table. i fear that going to war, even if it is by some strike, it will fail. >>i see wilfried bolewski waiting, raising his hand to speak. you have the floor. >> the condition for regime change in legal terms would be as a last resort. it is the only logical conclusion to defend the entire population.

against these inhuman -- >> we are not there by any means right now. >> the chairman of the joint chiefs in the u.s. wrote a letter to congress answering some of these questions a few weeks ago. we are reluctant to pick anyone horse. we don't want to pick one side. there is no one side versus assad. this is a multifaceted set of actors. we going to focus on some interests. >> philip stonor in london, i want to ask you right now, we were talking about the uk parliament being recalled from its recess to discuss the syria crisis. to you here cause right now in britain for regime change? are there people who want to go that far or is this a limited

debate? >> absolutely not. it is a very much a case, they see the shocking images on television and they are deeply affected by them. they feel like something should be done. the point i would add, from a military point of view, we have not mentioned russia in all of this. they are basically saying we are not going to get involved. do what you have to do. it's not going to be with us. syria is a client of russia. russia will probably be supplying arms to its client. we have to be careful about how that goes. that was not the case with libya. there was nobody recent plying libya -- re-supplying libya. >> we have been speaking a lot about that in the past few days, whether russia would intervene

or react in any way. we have actually a tweet right now saying basically, assad should be captured and tried for his chemical weapons use against civilians or there will be more to come. that raises an interesting issue, ambassador bolewski. in the name of deterrence against future syria --assads, if it is seen he has that state of mind. greg said is why we have an international criminal court of justice. he would be brought to this court. the un security council can easily bring him to the court. but that is a long, takes a long time and the procedure does not

have all of the deterrent effects of others. >> so ultimately the military action. i want to show our viewers right now a tweet by a russian diplomat than a politician. he has been a controversial character. a pretty scathing tweet today. he said the west behaves toward the islamic world like a monkey with a hand grenade. rick, rick francona in oregon, you are a middle east specialist. do you agree with that sentence? there is a sense of recklessness in this behavior, it lining up the pins to go in for military intervention so soon? correct side do not know i would agree it is reckless.

this has been a long time coming. the chemical weapons use is the catalyst. i hope there is an objective rather than just the united states standing up to its redline. i disagree with the premise the chemical weapons should be the reason. the 100,000 dead should be the reason. i think we are treating the problem for the wrong reason. i support doing something to stop the killing. i support going after bashar and bringing him to justice but we have to know what we are in for when we do this. limited airstrikes are not going to do it. you need much more weaponry to take out this. air force. even just the temp -- chemical sites. >> one more pertinent tweet

coming in, there are a few extremist factions in syria, does not justify inaction toward the killing of thousands of innocent civilians. so, that is definitely a tweet in favor of military intervention. we have been talking about the u.s. military options. we have been talking about obama mulling what he should do. europe, i am curious. we have spoke about europe's inability to make a difference. the u.s. and up doing the heavy work. what do you see europe being able to contribute, france and the uk? patricia lalonde. >> i do not understand the question. >> what would france bring? barack obama has been on the

been speaking to davidlande cameron. is this the u.s. bringing the military hardware in and the europeans taking a supporting role? >> i think the french are ahead, they want to go to war. >> they do not have the means to do it. >> i think the u.s. will lead from behind. like they did in mali, libya. now i think americans don't want to go to war. the american people do not want to go to war. polls, 60%. >> the coalition is essential. the contribution from allies is critical. >> on the one hand you will a coalition of the arab league and

the west. and on the other side, russia, china, syria. that is not a good thing for stability in the region. >> we have another tweet i'm going to show. 60% of americans do not want to intervene in damascus. will obama listen to american? i will note, actually, that percentage of americans who do not want to intervene in damascus is probably less than what it was a few months ago. since chemical weapons have become much more of an issue, that number of people opposed has gone down. laurie dundon, obama, will he listen to americans? are americans massively opposed to military action? >> i think they are opposed to a

large-scale american ground force, invasion or in involvement for a significant time. we do not want to own this. that is why they are being careful. i think it is methodical, what they have been doing. they need a robust coalition. they need a legal justification, they need clear evidence, which is why they are taking all the time to build up the facts. they have to lay that out for the american people. and they need congressional support. with that, i think they will go in with a limited scope and objective. they have been on the phone with allies around the world. but we had a caveat, those are not new consultations. the friends of syria group, uk, many have been involved in working together over the last couple of years. now it is taking a new catalyst

and escalating the conversation. >> obviously, wilfried bolewski, under law, what the polls say is irrelevant. e lel analyst are not looking at what public opinion thinks. >> the national communities is of great importance. not only in terms of legality, you talk of the creation of international law. i emphasize the coalition of the willing. regionalization. the organization of the islamic conference. and in this context, europe might play a secondary role. >> not to and on a psimistic te, or a dark note but i want r viewers to take a listen to what the foreign minister said as a shot across the bow to any

possible western military intervention. take a listen. >> if they think they can stop the victory of our armed forces, they are wrong. we have two options -- either to surrender or to defend ourselves with the means at our disposal. the second choice is the best. we will defend ourselves. >> rick francona, i do not need to tell you syria is not libya. i think the syrian army has 200,000 soldiers. should we be taking that threat from the syrian foreign minister? i am sorry for saying "we." should the west be taking that warning more seriously? >> we need to pay attention to

the syrian defense. the russians have provided some sophisticated air defenses. that is why the cruise michelle option -- missile option is where we will see initial action. putting aircraft could be a problem. although the syrian army has been bogged down fighting the rebels, the air defense is pretty much intact. on the other hand, the israelis have demonstrated you can defeat the syrian air defense. it will not be easy but it will not be impossible. >> we are going to have to leave debate -- our debate there. we have been talking about the whole world on a war watch. a sense of a countdown to a possible military intervention in the syria crisis. and a continuing investigation on the use of chemical weapons.

i would like to thank all of my guess tonight. laurie dundon, patricia lalonde, a researcher. and also on the set, ambassador wilfried bolewski, professor of international law and via satellite, philip stonor, a former deputy uk defense attache and also colonel rick francona, retired intelligence officer. thank you to all of you for joining us tonight. a lot of questions, no clear answers. a couple of days, maybe wwill find out more. captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org--

 >> china prepares a plan for meetings for future reforms. >> as the nasdaq market site in time square new york, the prospect for u.s. military action in syria triggers a global equity market selloff.