this is the same logic as if someone wearing a sexy too curvy t. shirt went around robbing liquor stores i am not responsible for the actions of people like this program and it's not like i'd ever advocate robbing liquor stores and i doubt the shocked your management secretly arranged for fans to slaughter the sheep at the stadium when the slaughter of animals is acceptable to you or not well that's one thing but we don't need to regulate the morality of individuals of other countries via soccer especially if that regulation means punishing the football clubs who aren't responsible for the actions of individuals but that's just my opinion. i want them to sit on syfy shevardnadze and today we're talking about syria the us

congress is voting on about his proposal to bomb syria an operation he claims will be surgical not intended to instigate regime change that was cynical and if we have why aren't we learning. striking syria an absurdity were righteousness city america's ships sit on the horizon but do they carry hopes for a solution or nails for the coffin of assad's presidency. in the west region the reality of conflicts in the east. the chemical trail poisons it all is syria the next iraq. is assad then you said. will surgical strikes cure the patient or spreads disease inside the borders and beyond . i guess today is the person directly

involved in taking a similar decision to launch an attack on another country without a complete picture jack straw that's right member of parliament and british foreign secretary when britain went into war with iraq mr have you with us today. thank you so do you think the congress will approve the strike. i assume that congress will approve the strike if only because it would not make sense for president obama to decide to put this before congress without having done the numbers in advance on the other hand all of us made that assumption about the british house of commons. about twelve days ago. the assumption was that prime minister cameron had done the numbers particularly on

his own side to ensure that he would win the vote and he failed to do so so. for president obama's point of view it's really rather important that he does win. what effect that will have on the situation in syria i don't stability in the middle east but you've said it you never know for sure what do you think will happen in case of a no vote do you think you will go on with a strike without the support of the people and politicians. are can't see any circumstances in which president obama would press ahead with a military strike if congress voted against that strike you can't go to the democratic. institution of a government of a country like the american congress asked them for a decision and when you get decision you don't like that ignore it and it would be very serious indeed for president obama words to do that so you have to respect.

the decision whether it's yes or no just to progress to cameron is done so. it is a fact that i sat had been advancing against a rabble senior weeks leading up to the august twenty first do you think that maybe that an informed obama's reaction to the alleged attack. well look i think there is an absolutely no doubt that chemical weapons were used in this of damascus weight final confirmation by the u.n. weapons inspectors but no one is seriously disputing that chemical weapons were used and almost certainly it was sarin the second question is were they used at the instigation of the assad regime the evidence is overwhelming although it's not completely conclusive. one of the reasons why it's not absolutely conclusive is because people are scratching their head and thinking why would any chemical weapons attack in the interests of the i said regime given the fact that in recent months they've been making advances rather than retreating and why would. by all

accounts it's extremely pleasant and so is regime but it's not irrational why would he decide to risk the rules of the united states when he was making progress in any event however stranger things have happened in warfare what we have in syria is. it could have been. a commander down the line who took this action but moreover there is i think very little evidence that the rebels would have any capacity to launch a chemical weapons attack so let's just assume for a moment this was a chemical weapons attack launched by the assad regime and the question then arises what do you do about it and one of the reasons why there was such hesitation in the british house of commons when we debated this the end of august was because no one was clear and we will suppose that spoke out to see. what the consequence would be

we were told that there were going to be. some tomahawk missile strikes that morning president obama said that this would be a shot across the bow of the syrian regime but shots across the bow of toucan they don't cause damage so the question then was what happens if the shot across the bow doesn't work and. that was never started. except we learned from. communications which had taken place between the head of the u.s. military chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and leading congressmen that the united states fully understood that they had no plans and no capacity short of quotes hundreds of ships and thousands of special forces to take out our sites chemical weapons capabilities so we were left scratching our heads what was going to be the consequence of this action and that remains

a worry but one thing for certain is for certain is that if president obama does launch a series of sustained missile attacks then he would have explicitly joined the rebels and there's no way in which he can detach. publishing we're going to get to that in just a minute joining the rebels we're going to get we're going to get to adults in just a minute but just to just to make sure i'm sure you understand that we over here are getting a totally different intelligence data do you personally believe the evidence is sufficient it was us who carried out the attack. just your personnel of senior intelligence are not look are not see the intelligence i think that the high probability is that it was the assad regime not the rebels for a series of reasons but one of the things i would like to see is much better cooperation between the united states france the united kingdom and russia particularly including intelligence sharing about this some of the. mike long

experience of handling intelligence is that first good intelligence going from one country's sources there's likely to be parallel intelligence going to another countries sources. although russia and united states kingdom and france have typically been on quote different sides so it's been plenty of intelligence cooperation as well i think both sides need to sit down and could share the information they have got all between secrecy because we need to know if definite definitively who was responsible however as i say this then the larger question even if it is the assad regime. does launching tomahawk missiles on parts of damascus and elsewhere in syria what does that help or hinder the chances of peace over duction in the number of casualties you know you've said that cameron's

presentation of the case to parliament was actually quite convincing would you want to see the vote go differently. we voted for our resolution our resolution was not ruling out military action in respect of syria our resolution was laying down a clear process not least based on the lessons that all of us learned from iraq and that process included waiting for the reports of the weapons inspectors because although they're not allocating blame those reports i'm sure will be very important in terms of others making an assessment about responsibility and then have a. in the matter discussed and brought to a vote in the security council ok on current predictions it may well be that a resolution put to the security council to buy for example the rescue caring for others would fail as a result it would be so by either or both russia and china but we don't know that for certain we don't know what the terms the resolution would be and in any event

we need to see what the argument is when there is a prospect a vote so we want to both of those to happen and much clearer statement about the strategic objectives if there is little being forthcoming. including clear evidence about covered the couple ability that labor could have supported not saying would could have supported military action but those weren't forthcoming and instead we had this extraordinary situation where the labor opposition motion was voted on it then went to the government of the government bear in mind it's got a big majority normally in the british house of commons that then gets voted down as well our leader ed miliband simply stood up for what's called a point of order after that vote and asked mr cameron whether you could give an undertaking that he wouldn't put british forces into action without a further vote that was all he asked mr cameron used that to to read from

a prepared text to say words to the effect that he was going to bring the battle back to the house of commons at all so this is a situation afraid it was to cameron has brought on himself so little but just in a nutshell where are the big holes in cameron's case and his presentation what first of all was in the timing we were brought back from our recess our holidays four days before we were due to go back anyway so what he's thinking what's the urgency here is there about to be a missile strike launched over the weekend are we to be presented with. six significant intelligence. that we never offered a proper explanation so people were brought back without proper explanation and they were left wondering why that was secondly we were we were brought back before the weapons inspectors had reported certainly before that been any discussion on a resolution inside the security council that we were given an abstract summary of

some intelligence which didn't say any more frankly about culpability then one could read in the newspapers that simply use the phrase that it was very likely that they are said regime. was responsible the difficulty is that in the case of iraq we had much better intelligence than that and we had a very clear baseline of all the holdings of chemical and biological weapons that the saddam regime had held without any question. but because of iraq the bar that has to be overcome for decisions like this is now much higher. after the break we'll continue to ask them what can be won and what have we learned can we be a friend to your friends or enemy state.

escalation agenda us president barack obama has ordered the pentagon to double the attack force and expand the target list as part of these assumed assaults on syria it respect international opinion polls at home the us on its own is poised to carry out forced regime change in damascus well at least that's the plan. right the scene. for. and i would think that your. on our reporters would. be on the.

economic down in the final. days so long to do your song night and the rest because i think he makes you believe every week a. little . thank. you.

welcome back to the show we're looking at the perils of the attack on syria with jack straw u.k. foreign secretary at the time of the iraqi war great to have you back all right so it seems to me that if you're british public opposes this attack on syria the british parliament doesn't want it in particular who does. well it's certainly the case that there is a very high level of opposition ranks the british public view much higher i think than most parliamentarians including myself. dissipated and you've drawn attention to the votes at the end of august in the british house of commons with that. british governments have to take responsibility so does the british parliament so if we in parliament were convinced about both the process for decision and the need for a decision in favor of military action in respect of syria then we would take it notwithstanding

the fact that it was going to be unpopular i mean i can tell you that in my own constituency parliamentary district the military action against iraq wasn't popular at the time it was taken but i made every effort to explain why i thought it was right and i subsequently had my position endorsed in the following election so you can take unpopular decisions indeed as part of the responsibility of government but you've got to be able to explain them and that has so far not been the case but if you could if you were in charge would you argue. not as i'm sitting here today. no because i would need to have much more information i also need intelligence which i don't get as a member of your position i didn't have much clearer idea about what the consequences would be all of us are shocked and. very upset about the fact that there's been a chemical weapons attack in syria and the consequences of the deaths of some

hundreds of if not thousands of people including women and children and the elderly so that shock is. regardless of anybody's political or religious opinions but shock. and fear is not enough to make a policy and the question is this which is got to be answered. if there are missile attacks of any kind of scale in syria. how does that advance the cause of peace and i hope both sides the other point is here i understand the importance of chemical weapons of course i do but it is fair enough for some people that said in the british house of commons to point out that the west has been relative in its condemnation of the use of chemical weapons and notoriously when the iraq is backed by the west used various

chemical weapons against the iranians against innocent iranians there was no hullabaloo from the west at that time and that is very much in the balance and i'm sure it's something producing some amount of cynicism in some quarters in the middle east. you know what i'm thinking this for and saying that it is being framed in western terms but it's not a western warrant out and decisions are still. being taken on basis of western perception rather than proven facts as of now we are still learning from the damage of such orientalism watching libya aren't we. well i my own view libya is concerned is that it was right for france united kingdom the united states and others to take the action that we did in libya i understand that it's

a cause of very great concern in russia that the russian government felt that they were blindsided in the security council but that. it's not a view we accept it is also the case that there was a very clear mandate from the security council which russia had endorsed in favor of that military action and i think that libya is a better place than it was before and will become an even better place so i don't think it's a parallel with libya but what you had in libya was the mass of the population pretty united against a very small pretty corrupt elite around the gadhafi clan. in syria you've got a very much more complicated situation it is multi sect multi religious so you've got the alawite the shia the christians on one side and the sunni on the other side but it's even more complicated than that as we know you've also got

different. interests in that country including historically that of france after the carve up of the middle east at the end of the first world war they got. what became syria and you've also got russia which has seems to me perfectly legitimate interests in its naval base and as a traditional ally of syria so you've got that complexity and you've got the neighbors turkey on one side and the iran on the other both of which have separate . but the gist of it interests and it's for this reason that. we feel a lot that we want to see through russians are his or british allies but we need to examine the strategy through the eyes of what is best for the people of that benighted country the neighbors and have been calls very recently the british house

of commons in order to be a friends of syria which essentially friends of syrian rebels but for there to be a contract a contact group which brings together the western interests with russia and with iran particularly as well as some of the gulf states to see whether we can finally produce some solution to this crisis because how many people are killed or maimed in gassed in the end there has to be a political solution to what is happening in syria a lack of threats from syria to attack israel i mean surely there will be plan consequences if this strikes take place. this is one of the great concerns about this. military action where some of the consequences of not being unintended i may go wrong but i've seen no. reports from israel that they are pushing for an immediate strike by the americans on the syrians and that's understandable some of the reports are. exactly it's all the reports i've seen suggest that although there

was no love lost between the israeli government and the assad regime. at least that he was the devil they knew and was reasonably predictable. here's another question why do you think the west cautiously is waging military campaigns against secular leaders when we know if they are toppled right or wrong because toppling dictators is obviously a good thing but in this case the only alternative that you know the western policies or your policies can create are heartless. islamist is it isn't it like simply what sort of policy contrary to best interests. it's not it's not automatic that you get. but one of the reasons why. such caution by the british government as well as the british house of commons about providing lethal support weaponry to the rebels was because of concerns as

to the nature of the rebel course now some of them. perfectly respectable secular people i'm told that that is a majority but there are as we now know. people who are equated to the taliban and even more extreme people behind them salafist people attached to al-qaeda so this is another part of the complexity of the syrian situation personally i mean if you take the egyptian situation. you know i thought it was quite right that we backed elections in egypt and i believe that the west as well as a radio should have described what was happening before our eyes which was a military coup against an elected government albeit one people disagreed with the muslim brotherhood in those terms because people's confidence in the idea of democracy is undermined if they think that those outside not least people in the

west. want to have it both ways so they should be free and fair elections but when and if they are free and fair the results come through then removing that government doesn't seem to be to be in the long term very sensible but in this particular case is it possible to undermine the assad regime without playing into the hands of the radical islam. the way to undermine the i said regime would be for its external allies particularly russia and iran. to. give president assad council and advice is very strong about his need assad's need to see a political settlement which would not result in the destruction of the our white interest and we know what the what assad and his. clan fear which is that if they give up any power then that. they want some protection just to make sure

just to make sure do you really believe that if president putin were to say to president assad you need to go he will just get his stuff pack it up and leave well it's not it's not that simple but but i do believe that if there were a level of engagement by the west and an understanding by the west of russia's own needs in the area and legitimate interest russia has a base in syria well russia russia has a base in syria united states has bases and in the gulf kingdom has a base number of sovereign base areas in cyprus so. all the old great powers have got interests in that area including terrorists some territorial interests these people understanding about that they need to be understanding of russia's own high levels of anxiety about the possibility of islamism feeding further into the

caucasus into their own backyard and destabilizing southern part of russia so we need that we need to an understanding about iran's role as well not least as we now have the optimism following the election of dr hassan rowhani president and i'm not saying that if president putin picks up the telephone to present at president assad would jump. however that the assad regime is very sensitive to russian influence it relies a law. russia for problem and maybe in terms of financial support i don't know if as well certainly it's a national political support it receives russia is absolutely critical that if putin president putin were therefore to say you need to do this you need to start to moderate your attacks on the rebels and to start to take part as it were geneva two and get the iranians in there as well then i think we may be in

a more optimistic situation all right unfortunately that's all the time we have for today this was jack straw former u.k. foreign secretary thank you for being with us here and we'll see you next time. the main competitor girl on the market is mother nature. may customers struggle with to. fight for each drop from an interview supply. let people think i hear prices pure want to. live.

they use it up there and wash their hands. and flush their toilets with the same. mysteries is selling and spring water. it looks like. we're going to go digital the price is the only industry specifically mentioned in the constitution and. that's because a free and open process is critical to our democracy shred albus. rule. in fact the single biggest threat facing our nation today is the corporate takeover of our government and across several we've been hijacked lying handful of transnational corporations that will profit by destroying what our founding fathers once it's all just my job market and on this show we reveal the big picture of what's actually going on in the world we go beyond identifying the problem trucks

rational debate and a real discussion of critical issues facing america to find a job ready to join the movement then walk a little bit of. well known told you my language as well but i will only react to situations i haven't read the reports but i'm likely to push the know i will leave them to the state department to comment on your latter point of the month to say it is mr kerry you have a car is on the docket no god. no radio no more weasel words when you fade a direct question to me prepared for a change when you threw a punch be ready for a bad. freedom of speech and little down to freedom to cost.

we speak your language another day of. news programs and documentaries in spanish matters to you. a little eternity of angles stories. spanish. visit. good leverage or. was able to build a most sophisticated robot fortunately. found anything tim's mission to teach me why you should care about humans and. this is why you should care

only. why from moscow to lebanon syria says it's willing to put it seemed to tie a chemical arsenal under united nations control a proposal put forward by russia's foreign minister to avoid a u.s. military strike. while the flame game of the last month's salary and gas attack in syria continues r.t. sources in another development today sources in the close of the conflict say rebel fighters are now planning a chemical provocation strike against israel we've got reaction on that from our correspondent tell of the. blasts the battle for moscow is over acting mayor gay so began in selected for a new term in office but opposition runnerup alexy novelli refuses to concede defeat and his supporters staging a mass rally earlier to demand a recount.