that stand to suffer from these kinds of rhetoric and actions so that here thank you so very much for joining us to q. and that was from all of the policy director for the national iranian american council well from the drumbeat of war with iran to the escalating civil war in syria president bashar al assad has ordered a referendum on a new constitution to be held in eleven days at least that according to the country's state run news agency now the move could effectively end nearly fifty years of single party rule and is aimed at stemming the ongoing violence in that country and the announcement of the referendum was greeted with criticism here in washington the white house press secretary called the move quote laughable and said it makes a mockery of the syrian uprising the move may also be too little too late for other once western countries who have grown louder in their condemnation of president assad's brutal handling of the uprising in syria calling for potential intervention whether in terms of aid military humanitarian or arms or she's maria from the ocean has more. since the beginning of the uprising in syria last march the regime of

bashar al assad has been accused of repression torture and killing but with abad much of holmes blame has since focused on assad forces attacking civilians and shell in residential areas. the beautiful yard calls himself a member of the opposition and intellectual not the re one his tresses from a social democratic group originally from holmes he blames assad for mistakes which allowed bloodshed at the start but he just defies what the regime is doing in his native city now he is the two i mean he is trying to. protect civilians i think that in homs many gangs you know there is a title and everyone can claim that he belongs with that this title and no one can ban him the danger posed by the armed forces was seen in the killing of a french journalist last month and b. says when he went to homs he put in his mind that the syrian

opposition is very peaceful and the g.m. is trying to frame them so he he was like a pioneer in the call and he was killed by the some gang attacks on government targets have become increasingly bloody themselves with twenty eight people killed and scores injured one attack on a military base in a letter last week an f.s.a. free syrian army recruits entered to admit its responsibility before the organization later denied it claim and government forces a claim ridiculed by regime. insurgents and terrorists have committed this attack only an insane person could say that the government is killing its officials and officers and destroying its own administrative buildings these armed terror groups were created to commit these crimes and they have committed them in the past and will continue to do so you. the west and the arab states supported last sunday the

arab league vote still for full political and financial support for the opposition to unify its ranks it is similar call from the leader of al qaeda and muslims to unite efforts to help overthrow bashar al assad recent reports suggest iraqi weapons could tare troops and libyan rebels a role in syria on the opposition side this makes for a volatile and highly dangerous makes one of many western powers interested in fomenting unrest and syria and so they'll turn a blind eye to extreme weapons coming in through borders like lebanon and turkey to create the very militants i won't call them terrorists but very dangerous armed groups but the west has its eyes wide open when it comes to the reported death toll becomingly no one figure more than five thousand employees civilians only but that

figure leaves out any mention of pro-government forces killed in the conflict some say the numbers are destroyed to meet political objectives our number so far of six thousand i don't six thousand but you would be surprised to know that over two thousand eight hundred from the army and this is the. good the commented foreign pressure has focused on the assad regime but the syrian government and its international supporters say there's been a total failure talk knowledge of violence from opposition forces which has been a key factor in the country's present turmoil they warn the find it a solution to the country's crisis isn't possible without recognizing all its causes written off now to damascus syria. well is supposed to be a humanitarian intervention an effort to help the people who rose up against a brutal regime blood to prevent a bloodbath or so when the argument but a year later the outcome of nato intervention in libya remains murky reports of

militias roaming wild chaos uncertainty and the rule of law seemingly nowhere to be seen now are these the growing pains of democracy or the continuation of a civil war that shows no sign of resting up well journalist stephen lemon joins me now he's been covering this issue so let's take the question to him stephen what's what's your assessment of the current events in libya a year later. in a word lucy is that cheryl's libya or before the surgeon seeburg him before and here all that supported insurgency. was peaceful and. africa's idea of standard of living the libyan people who benefits americans all the dream world free asia cation free health care no state newly with is free housing you know it was the whole us this.

little you know i was ravaged new york came in when it ever knew you know it shows up lucy violence mass killing mass destruction for us and now it continues to rage it will reach they'll be protracted conflict i think the ears to occur you get these roll killer games the scene mourns the same time it's there ready to syria your average in libya libyans are being killed is green resistance this is the job of a real lawyer it's the people who supported good does the we're good research he supported them even though all these wonderful social benefits they were all gone nato took them away the country is absolutely untrue more of and this thing will go on well let's not paint that off as a saint of course

a lot of atrocious crimes committed by that government too but that still doesn't necessarily rise to the level of interventionism and so you mentioned syria what do you think the motivation would be for some sort of destabilization or intervention in syria for the west doesn't that threaten the west if it leads to more instability and chaos. or well what you can throw so just ability lucy instability eve's loyalty to the reasons into being in washington is seen as very simple backed by key nato leaders backed by israel washington wants complete dominance over the region the middle east north africa it's a centrally show to russia and china's borders it needs instability to justify global even if it doesn't exist it creates it again libya was syria was car bomb iran has been all three of targeted for one reason the independent

regimes do not so for a western washington warm tolerate this and once pro-west them client states with they don't exist what they did in two beans anyway it needs to but there's a sense even in the case of syria for example if we look at who the opposition is right we have these sunni youths many of them have been radicalized after here is a sort of living in the end the minority there and if we do back the rebels if there isn't a invention if these guys come into power what the guarantee that this would be some sort of a government that would be subservient or even open to working with the u.s. we haven't really had the best history of working with radical islamists if for arming the. d.n.a. in afghanistan in our fights and against the soviets well who you know even were created by the wisteria really no ministration al qaida is is

a washington created entity ok leaders who support this enemy and. it uses that it will show the unit afghanistan how to use as an ally. i'm sorry how is al qaeda used as an ally well for the soviets in the f.b.i. was there and it was the l.a. but a rhetorical e. al qaeda is demonized is an enemy but al qaeda is used then well when he was alive it was you realize that he was being used to pakistan's interior services intelligence is i.s.i. this is a way america for it but america has no qualms about in this war on this government look at saudi arabia the stream really radical islamists close u.s. ally it would be very happy if you were a symbol of government in syria in libya if you were to reach him what america

wants is any any regime whether it's islamist secular whatever radical not so radical is simply wants a regime that supports western interests maybe washington's with calling on syria to opposition groups you go nonviolent internally in the country and you get a file with western generated more the free syrian army the the the syrian national council based in turkey this they supported violence but but the pocono one by one opposition assad doesn't attack them attacks defensively when the weller's in syria just attacked the libyan people it was a little bit different in libya the insurgents were violent there was only want to answer it see it was violent it was western supported it was supported. by

u.k. by french placatory special courses u.s. and british intelligence earlier on before the bombing began an actual of the six six u.k. special forces were coming and they were caught and were dressed in black. mass it wherever. and the u.k. government said this about them. i'm going to have to run for unfortunately we're going to have to leave it as a cliffhanger what did the u.k. government say i'm sure you'll be writing about this unfortunately we're out of time stephen leatherman a writer and host of the progressive radio news hour thank you so much for your time if you. are old don't go away and be sure to stick around for the ilona show coming up in just happen hour as a valentine's day gift from president obama the new f.a.a. and the bill was just signed into law yesterday not everyone loves a bill that's because talk of deep into the writing is language about the use of

drones to spy on you and on american citizens right here in the u.s. alone is going to tell you why you should keep your eyes on the skies. and that does it for now for more on the stories that we've covered is what our t. dot com slash usa our youtube page of you tube dot com slash artier america and as always please feel free to follow me on twitter i want to see what you have to say about the segment you've seen today that addresses at lucy catherine of one hundred .

the lead mission and free accreditation free zones for charges free. range once the free is free. to tide free. download free broadcast quality video for your media projects and free medio dog tom you. will see a story and it seems so you think you understand it and then you glimpse something else you hear or see some other part of it and realize everything you thought you knew. welcome to the big picture.

please. more news today violence is once again fled the film these are the images the world has been seeing from the streets of canada. the giant corporations are today plenty coups. hello and welcome to crossfire time people about take your pick the falkland islands or the melvina britain and argentina are again sparring over the legal status and future of these islands is this dispute about self-determination and sovereignty or one of the last vestiges of british imperialism. still. to cross-talk the endless dispute over these

islands i'm joined by my guests in washington larry burns he is the director of the council on hemispheric affairs alex gibson he's a fulbright scholar specializing in contemporary argentinean politics and a research associate at the council on hemispheric affairs and luke coffey he's a fellow in the margaret thatcher center for freedom at heritage all right gentlemen crosstalk rules in effect it means you can jump in anytime you want larry i want to go to you first here over the last few weeks and months we've seen a ratcheting up of tensions between britain and argentina over these islands the islands that these two countries fought a war over thirty years ago what's in play here what what we should be worried about the tensions here or is this something of a function of domestic politics in both countries. well probably a combination of all of those things i think that the the real danger that lies at the bottom of this whole issue is is an accident or some kind of unplanned

development that may deteriorate into a shooting conflict but the both the time military and the british military are really in no shape to. fight a war that's thousands of miles separating the disputants. oh so it's very far and that much of the motivation behind this conflict is there to ration of domestic conditions in argentina which was the same explanation for why the war in one thousand nine hundred two broke out that is the military which ruled the country in argentina at the time was. gay gene corruption and deep cation of funds and the government needed some kind of great patriotic issue to. pull the nation together roughly speaking the

same sort of thing is happening no. i think that is part of the explanation for what we're now seeing ok if i'm going to look i think it's very interesting here in britain most people don't really care much about the what they call the falkland islands and i mean of course that there was there was patriotic on the side of the the brits thirty years ago but it's not really a big issue and people aren't sitting in pubs talking about these islands but they are in argentina is that isn't that kind of a risk too and it seems odd if it people in britain don't care about it why does the british government care so much about it well i would have to say that your average person on the streets in great britain don't care much about the issues surrounding the falkland islands and tell it's made in this year by the argentinians. we saw that the front page of the sun newspaper today in britain had sean penn's remark. during his recent visit in the falklands so i think i think you're absolutely right about the political classes cared

a great bit about the falkland islands and britain sovereignty over those islands and i think the reason is because no british government could ever survive losing the falkland islands ok alex that's rather peculiar too because i mean there's so much is it riskier i mean britain and argentina these are important countries and they should have good relations why is it isn't it was there a risk for the british to put so much into this bad relationship over what three thousand people whose claim of self-determination is a bit dubious at best. if i can just quickly respond to mr burns point first and then get to luke and yourself we should be careful first about drawing parallels between the ninety two situation between argentina and britain and what we see today because as mr resolute two one thing that should ring very clear here is that no one's going to war in both countries know this so what's what's really really important question to get here is what are the underlying motives why are we

talking about this now rather than just the fact that it's the thirtieth anniversary of the conflict getting to this point about about the importance of the falklands to britain and well let me in let me add on that a bit to argentina i think the question of survival is a bit extreme i think anyone would acknowledge that britain would be absolutely fine with out without the falklands under their sovereign control but what would pose an even greater problem is the is if argentina were to continue on the track with its relationship with the falklands now what i mean is without some sort of sovereignty or at the very least nick sovereignty very basic things like trade agreements between the falklands in argentina just the effect of their geographical location is going to make it difficult to sustain a puzzle relationship not just for argentina but for those cultures which are what the falkland islanders are called one final point here and quickly also.

the main thing to remember about all of this is. this this isn't an issue that's going on like i said before is going to escalate and into conflict it's a political issue but it's also something that's at the core of argentina identity these these islands have been under argentina's claim since before its independence this is not just something that came off as a wind argentina believe that these islands belong to them and has felt that for over a century so i think we have to look at the deeper issues underlying this rather than just the political a grief if we go larry i mean there's a need for the mother. ok ok look but for many in south america this is just a colonial and you two it's a colonial issue for a lot of people in south america right go ahead well well yeah. and so far as the argentinians would like to call it is the three thousand british citizens and her majesty's subjects currently living peacefully in these islands that want to go back to a point alex smith i think you misunderstood me slightly when i was saying that the issue about survival is not the great britain as

a nation can survive with the loss of the falkland islands i was saying that the government of the day would fall if the falkland islands were ever taken now i do agree with you know there's not going to be a military there's not going to be military answer to this this is going to be resolved peacefully in the end i firmly believe ok look if i can stay with you it's been thirty years so why hasn't it been resolved and it looks like nobody on either side wants to resolve it. as far as the british government is concerned the situation is resolved they've made very clear that. it's a matter of self-determination is clearly a line in the un charter and that is so long as the people of the falkland islands want to remain british they shall remain british and this is a very simple the simple fact the people of the falklands want to be british ok i don't want to be arnold and i don't think it is that simple go to larry here i mean this is not indigenous people to these islands are they and this is what the

argentine position is ok what is how strong is their claim to self-determination if they're not indigenous to the island and as a matter of fact i mean i read somewhere was that only forty percent of the population there is lived there for ten years what kind of self-determination is that. well trace of paternity of a lot of countries a lot of civilizations you may find kind of a murky antecedents but the interesting thing is of course the british had no difficulty in liquidating a vast empire its empire today consists of christian to. the falklands bermuda and a couple of other islands here and there so this is not exactly a country that's dedicated to colonialism or can you find an explanation of why this is happening in such a simplistic explanation as clueless and i think really what it is

is that. in both countries the issue is become wrapped in symbolism and there also is another issue here and that is what really brought argentina into the falkland war in one thousand eight hundred two and why is it posturing again right now i think the beginning of a discussion is we don't really know all the facts of the matter for example i would like to know why in general vernon walters was in the argentine military club when the issue is being of invading the falklands was discussed the being discussed and everyone turned to general walters who is raked president reagan's emissary from the united states and he simply shrugged this was taken interpreted by the argentine military as an ascent to archaeology and terence or were about to do and we also had ambassador jean kirkpatrick that evening the evening of the

invasion which at the arjun khan embassy in washington she knew the invasion was going to take place why was she there. i think that the argentine government has a point. body called the running back commission we should look into these matters but this war this conflict this issue has an extraordinary potential for being explosive not because of richard herring important but because of the emotionality you catch the issue on both sides ok alex what about the issue of self-determination i mean how strong do you think the case is for the people who live on the island for self-determination well i think. argentina has a very long history of angle argentine relations and not just that but english heritage within argentina there's no reason why the islanders the people who live

on the island can't live peacefully independently within the sovereignty of argentina i mean if you look at argentina today has had to go to you and i also was there give me about well because that they want to be british subjects ok well look you bring up a good point why you want to be british such as it can be why can't they just be british subjects within the sovereignty of argentina. what's wrong with that well they were under the siren control of argentina they wouldn't be british subjects. like it's very clear that some determination is based around the idea that these people are living in the falkland islands today a want to be british now this argument that they're not indigenous population well there's never been an indigenous population on the falkland islands ever in fact the closest thing we have to an indigenous population is what we have there today you're correct in saying that you know roughly forty percent of these people may have lived in the falklands for less than ten years i'm not sure those facts but that sounds about right but i mean sixty person have lived there longer and some of

them have been there for generations so quite clearly this is a matter of self-determination for the people of the falkland islands wanting to remain british now large and tina needs to do is if they if they think they have a solution to this problem they need to say what they would do with the three thousand people living on these islands who wish to remain british if these islands were to go back on or go back into argentine control all right let me jump in guys we're going to go to a break and after that short break we'll continue our discussion of the future of the south atlantic island state party. resistance is not of politics but a culture. is

couldn't speak against. critics on its own. cultures of resistance on our team. world for. science technology innovation all the latest developments from around russia we've got the future covered. please. try. to.

change. the elusive. welcome back to cross talk time peter lavelle remind you we're talking about what the british called the fall when i was. in egypt. ok alex and i we were talking about the issue of self-determination and and researching this program here i'm going to i'm not an international lawyer but you know it it seems like the they are sometimes have a pretty strong case for the sovereignty over the falkland islands i mean in many many ways i mean it was that they were themselves a colony of the spanish so i mean you know it is this this is not helping either side because either side is very rigid on that but they do have still a very strong case. yes i believe they do and i want to make it clear i'm not

a nut rallying for the falkland cause either i like to look at this of the perspective of a journalist but i'd be very happy to outline the arguments in argentina's favor and i think the biggest one just to respond to what luke was saying a moment ago the three thousand islanders that want to become british we should certainly respect that we should hear them and respect their their desires but also recognise the basic fact twelve million argentines to three thousand people who live on a colonial vest each is not exactly equal in terms of of what they're both of the weight of both causes what we have right now is a falkland fortress and the question is do we want to continue that you can you know cameron can keep sending out as many elite destroyers as he'd like but it seems a bit counterproductive and what we should really be looking at here again are the velvety of argentina's claims which as you alluded to go far back both her.