The whole idea of giving the Nobel Peace prize to a military aggressor in the NATO war against Yugoslavia discredits the whole notion of the Nobel Peace prize.

Marzip an = Wrong
"the intended use of the other was by combatants against other combatants for the purpose of halting Serbian military aggression against the people of Kosovo."

YUGO SLAVIA, not Serbia , was protecting its sovereignty by all rights of international law against EU/NATO aggression. 

Marzipan6 (unregistered) wrote in #14 > Having said that, there nevertheless is a difference between the use of cluster bombs in Syria and Serbia.

Surel y there is a difference - use of cluster bombs in Serbia by NATO is proven and confirmed. Extremely biased HRW report on Syria is based on the youtube videos - it's laughable. It's not really hard to make a video showing something that looks like bomblets and claim that they were supplied e.g. by France to Germany and dropped by Merkel from the helicopters on the Berlin residents.

> The intended use of one was by a government deliberately against its own civilians for the purpose of keeping its own a discredited dictatorship in place

Once again you are relying on the propagandist rhetoric instead of facts.
Do you have any proofs that cluster bombs were used by Assad, or that they were supplied to Assad by Russia, or you simply believe because you want to believe?

> the intended use of the other was by combatants against other combatants for the purpose of halting Serbian military aggression against the people of Kosovo.

Of course, in Syria there are no combatants, just Assad with his army against harmless unarmed civilians that are peacefully protesting... Right?

> "Media war" may be warranted or unwarranted, and in either case it is unpleasant to those at whom it is directed. But it is not war; it is a figure of speech.

"Medi a war" is a first step to real war, and why would you make a first step if you don't want to go in that direction.

> Why in the world would EU want a war in Syria? Which problem of the EU would that actually alleviate? "The EU wants war" is a breathless -- and frankly brainless -- throw-away propaganda line.

You might want to call it "military intervention" instead of "war", but does it make any real difference? How would you call it when one state is bombing another state, as it was with Libya? Of course your hypocrisy may make you call it "humanitarian operation" in attempt to hide a real meaning behind the words.

While there is a war somewhere, you can be either neutral or one of the participants, degree of involvement may vary. And you can't claim you're neutral while you obviously support only one side of the conflict, not only in words but in deeds.

To "C":

(1) Cluster bombs are particularly reprehensible whenever and wherever they are used, not only because they cannot be precisely targeted but also, because unexploded ordnance will lie around, possibly for years, tempting especially children to pick it up and be maimed or killed.

Havin g said that, there nevertheless is a difference between the use of cluster bombs in Syria and Serbia. The intended use of one was by a government deliberately against its own civilians for the purpose of keeping its own a discredited dictatorship in place; the intended use of the other was by combatants against other combatants for the purpose of halting Serbian military aggression against the people of Kosovo.

(2) "Media war" may be warranted or unwarranted, and in either case it is unpleasant to those at whom it is directed. But it is not war; it is a figure of speech.

(3) Be logical. Why in the world would EU want a war in Syria? Which problem of the EU would that actually alleviate? "The EU wants war" is a breathless -- and frankly brainless -- throw-away propaganda line.

(4) Yes, the PACE communiques about depleted uranium shells is ineffective bureaucratic talk. Just as is the recent PACE report on Russia. But since our friend, Guest, implied European hypocrisy by asking where was Europe's condemnation of Europe's use of such weapons, I obliged by showing him where. I shouldn't have done that??