welcome to the capital account i'm laura mr. pepper spray just burns your eyes right right i mean it's like a derivative of actual pepper it's a food product essentially. much stronger than anything you'd buy off. our rooms of times stronger than any kind of ever put you know. well from the drumbeat of war with iran to the escalating civil war in syria president bashar al assad today announced a new referendum on a constitution that would be held in just eleven days time changes to the

constitution was one of the key demands by opposition groups at the start of the eleven month uprising but the rebels now say that they will accept nothing less than of saws departure washington agreed to the move with criticism with the white house press secretary calling the referendum quite laughable but for a look how it's all playing out on the ground in syria let's turn to our tease maria finish up. since the beginning of the uprising in syria last march the regime of bashar al assad has been accused of refreshen torture and killing but with a bodman to the homes blame has souse focused on assad's forces attacking civilians and shelling residential areas. the beautiful yard calls himself a member of the opposition and intellectual not everyone his tresses from a social democratic group originally from homes 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 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 he 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 fame 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 little 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 the 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 if the west and the arab states support them 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 qaida urging muslims to unite efforts to help overthrow bashar. recent reports suggest iraqi weapons qatari troops and libyan rebels are 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 to come of the no one figure more than five thousand employees civilians only but that's bigger leaves out any mention of pro-government forces killed in the conflict some say the numbers are destroyed to meet a political objectives our number so for six thousand six thousand but you would be surprised to know that over two thousand eight hundred. 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 now with violence from opposition forces which has been a key factor in the country's present turmoil they warn that find it

a solution to the country's crisis isn't possible without recognizing all its causes written off now to damascus syria. and from syria to libya it was supposed to be a humanitarian intervention an effort to help the people who rose up against a blue brutal regime blood to prevent a bloodbath or so when the argument but a year later the outcome of the nato intervention in libya remains murky reports of militias roaming wild chaos on certainty and the rule of law seemingly nowhere to be found now the growing pains of democracy or is this a continuation of civil war well that's the question i posed to journalist stephen lemond earlier today here says take. really you know word loosely is the charles libya before the insurgency. before and he'll support it insurgency was peaceful and. africa's i had

a standard of living the libyan people. americans can only dream of free education free al qaeda stuff newlyweds free housing you know it was not hopeless in. libya now is rabbit. came in whatever man you know shows up lucy violence mass killing mass destruction follows and then it continues to rage it will rage it will be protracted conflict i think the easiest because you've got these rogue killer games the same morons the same size around she syria the iraqi regime lose the libyans are being killed is green resistance this is the g.m. of the real oil it's the people who supported the reason he supported them

he gave them all these wonderful social benefits they were all gone nato took them away a country is absolutely in turmoil 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 people as distinct allies ation or intervention in syria for the west doesn't that threaten the west if it leads to more instability and chaos. oh well washington thrives realty lucy instability is washington reason into being and washington seems very simple backed by. backed by israel washington once complete dominance over the region the middle east north africa is centrally to russia and china is orders is need

instability to justify globally even if it doesn't exist it creates it in libya was syria was a red. all three of good reasons independent regimes. not pro-west washington won't tolerate this and want to progress then the client states which they don't exist or she says into beings anyway needs to the best chance even in the case of syria for example if we look at who the opposition is right we have these sunni many of them have been radicalized after years of sort of living in the in the minority there and if we do back the rebels if there is intervention if these guys come into power what the guarantee that this would be some sort of a government that would be subservient to or even open to working with the u.s.

we haven't really had the best history of working with radical islamists say for arming the mujahideen in afghanistan and our fights and against the soviets. created by during the reagan administration. is is the washington created and to see. in the and an ally issues is an ally to get a stand. about how to use as an ally. i'm sorry how about how do you have an ally. with the soviets in afghanistan and that was the ally but rhetorically. al qaida is demonized is an enemy but al qaida is used bin ladden when he was alive was used to realize who's being used to pakistan's interior services intelligence is i.s.i.

this is always america great but america has no qualms in the slanderous government but it's only arabia the stream of the radicalized is not as close u.s. ally it would be very happy to a civil government in syria and libya anywhere in the region what america wants is any regime whether it's islam as secular or whatever radical not so radical is simply want to regime that supports western interests maybe washington's what's going on in syria you've got to up decision groups you've got a nonviolent one internally in the country and you've got a violent western generated free syrian army is the syrian national council based in turkey this they support violence but the nonviolent opposition assad doesn't affect. the status of lee when when the. insurgents attacked libyan people it was

a little bit different in libya the insurgents were violent there was only one answer see it was violent it was western supported. and that was steven lemon a writer and host of progressive radio news hour and be sure to stay tuned in for the big picture that's coming up right here on our teeth in just a half an hour now tonight the host tom hartman is going to tell you why bang stars are poised to make big bucks off of europe's economic facelift and grief of sturdy measures from our policy about economics tom will explain what's wrong with greece as a sturdy plan and then he'll also debate a panel of conservatives on all kinds of issues everything from the keystone pipeline bill to wall street reform to make sure not to go away and stay tuned for that in the meanwhile that does it for now here on news but for more on the stories that you saw today you can always get more details by going to our web site that

address is r t v dot com slash usa and don't forget to check out our youtube page all of the videos are posted up there in full you tube dot com slash r t america you can also follow me on twitter that addresses at lucy kathy enough for now have a great evening. you know sometimes you see a story and it seems so you think you understand it and then you glimpse something else and you hear or see some other part of it and realize that everything you thought you knew you don't know i'm tom harpur welcome to the big picture. mission free cretaceous and free cones for charges free. range month free is free. to tide free.

download free broadcast quality video for your media projects and free media and on to our teton tom. wealthy british style sign. on the title. market why not come to. find out what's really happening to the global economy with mike's cause or for a no holds barred look at the global financial headlines tune into cars a report. on . more news today violence is once again flared up the

film these are the images the world has been seeing from the streets of canada. the giant corporations or the day. story. below in welcome to crossfire computer all about take your pick of the falkland islands with a 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 guest in washington larry burns he is the director of the council on hemispheric affairs

alex gibson he's a fulbright scholar specializing in contemporary argentinian 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 auction time military and the british military are really in no shape to. fight a war that's thousands of miles separating the disputants and oh so it's very current 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 nine hundred eighty 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 now and 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 how it's made an issue 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 that's rather peculiar too because i mean there's

so much as it riskier i mean britain and argentina these are important countries and they should have good relations why is it isn't it with their 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 at here is what are the underlying motives why are we talking about this now other 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 and 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 is 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 escalated into conflict it's

a political issue but it's also something that's at the core of argentine identity these these islands have been under argentina's claim since before its independence this is not just something that came off as a when argentina leaves 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 agree if we're going to 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. 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 is 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 well 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. other 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 nine hundred eighty 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 tyrants or were about to do and we also had ambassador jean kirkpatrick that evening the evening of the invasion which at the auction kind 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 rocking back commission which is looking into these matters but this war this conflict this issue has an extraordinary potential for being explosive not because of rich and hair and importance 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 new and also it's

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 that means 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. download the official location on the phone oh i pod touch from the i.q. saps to. life on the go.

video on demand ati's minefield comes an r.s.s. feeds now in the palm of your. question on the t. dot com. led mission free critique should be free zones for chargers free. arrangements free risk free studio time free. download free blog counseling videos for your media projects and a free media dog are teton tom. fifty fifty. fifty . wealthy british style.

markets. come to. find out what's really happening to the global economy with max concert for a no holds barred look at the global financial headlines tune into the report. and. welcome back to cross talk i'm peter lavelle remind you we're talking about what the british call default when i. became. a 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's seems like the they are sometimes have a pretty strong case for the sovereignty over the falkland islands i mean in many many ways and 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 of terms of.