arming of the people?

but isn't it better to get rid of the root of all evil that happens there? What would the regime do without weapons? If they don't have weapons they cannot shoot people. I think the major problem is (like always) that companies which sell weapons will especially do so in hot spots like Syria. If goverments would really want to help they would stop those companies from doing so. But unfortunately the governments earn a big chunk of the money as well, e.g. by the taxes that those companies have to pay for their sold 'goods'... I know it's tricky and I don't want to be in a situation like this. Who would want that anyway? I only want to underline that arming those people is wrong. If you give people weapons they'll use them. If they use them others will die. No matter if that is the regime people or the rebels. And who says who's good and who's evil? The rebels - if they get into power via an armed confrontation will probably start the same sh*t again and those who are really innocent peope - which btw will not use weapons anyway - will be the victims... again. So to get rid of the sh*t get rid of the weapons. That's all I say and it's true. No weapons, no war. No war, no bloodshed. Often it is said that people need weapons to protect themselves against others. But this is only true if the others are armed, too. So if none of the parties has weapons there's also no need for weapons in regard to protecting oneself. It is a parity issue, just that the parity armed regime/ armed rebels is different from the parity disarmed regime / unarmed rebels. Both will have an result. Former will result in bloodshed, casualties and a new imbalance between the winners and the losers (what will sooner or later cause trouble again). Latter will result in much less bloodshed and casualties and hopefully a balanced society. Look at Iraq, Afghanistan, Lybia, Egypt ... the situation has changed, yes. But changed to the better? A shift of powers perhaps. New masters, new slaves and people who are naive enough to believe that everything has turned out good... even on a global scale the imbalance caused by all wars in the past has not brought peace to every nation, far from it. The difference is that we don't have the imbalance within one nation but between several nations so that people living in one nation will say everything's fine while other people living in other nations will say nothing is fine. And who's to blame? Those who advocate the use of weapons.

sovereignty, ridiculous. The government has obviously gambled away every right of sovereignty. It's the people who must be sovereign. And yes, they have to do it from inside, the people that live there that is. But blocking delivery of weapons is even more important and THAT has to be done from outside because the weapons and ammo mainly come from outside. Those countries which deliver weapons there must be stopped from doing that, e.g. by UNO enactments or by sanctions of those countries. There are always methods for sabotage and theft, you have to spy out the weak points which there will always be. Arming the rebels is completely wrong unless they use those weapons only to destroy other weapons, i.e. those of the regime. Otherwise it may cause an endless conflict and many casualties (see Palestine/ Israel). What counts is the ban - in whatever way - of weapons because weapons are what kill people. And no, it's not an impossible mission but one than necessitates wit.