By Michael Snyder:If Barack Obama is going to attack Syria, he is going to do it without the support ofthe American people,
without the approval of Congress, without the approval of the United
Nations, and without the help of the British. Now that the British
Parliament has voted against
a military strike, the Obama administration is saying that it may take
"unilateral action" against Syria. But what good would "a shot across
Syria's bow" actually do? A "limited strike" is not going to bring down
the Assad regime and it is certainly not going to end the bloody civil
war that has been raging inside Syria. Even if the U.S. eventually
removed Assad, the al-Qaeda affiliated rebels
that would take power would almost certainly be even worse than Assad.
Even in the midst of this bloody civil war, the rebels have taken the
time and the effort to massacre entire Christian villages.
Why is Barack Obama so obsessed with helping such monsters? There is
no good outcome in Syria. The Assad regime is absolutely horrible and
the rebels are even worse. Why would we want the U.S. military to get
involved in such a mess?
By Wolf Richter:No debacle is allowed to interfere with Chancellor Angela Merkel’s
efforts to hang on to her job, and any debacles get swept under the rug
at least until after the elections on September 22. Every time uppity
opposition voices stir up some controversy, it’s brushed off, denied,
ridiculed, or minimized – and it has worked admirably well so far. Even Edward Snowden’s revelations in the media detailing German
involvement in NSA spying activities, among other sins, were
successfully shuffled off. Llike in the US, it's a bi-partisan debacle,
compromising political figures on both sides. The scandal is festering,
but apparently without political fallout. So time is running out for Peer Steinbrück, the SPD’s candidate to
unseat one of the most popular German politicians. And when Finance
Minister Wolfgang Schäuble, for whatever reason, mentioned a week ago
that Greece would need a third bailout, Steinbrück jumped on it. Another
debacle! Turns out, Greece, though it has disappeared from the media,
hasn’t disappeared from the list of bankrupt euro states. And Steinbrück
needs to do something fast to change the election math. If the election were held next Sunday, a series of weekly surveys,
has been fairly consistent: 41% of the vote would go to the governing
CDU/CSU and 5% to their coalition partner, the FDP, barely squeaking
over the 5% minimum to get into the Bundestag. Together, the coalition
would have 46% of the vote. On the other side: the SPD would garner 22%,
the Greens 11%, and the Left Party 10%, giving their coalition 43% of
the vote. The remainder wouldn’t clear the minimum.
than that, it was very sad to see Dave Silvermans actions this week.
It is however not a new trend. Dave Silverman was almost the first in
line to voice his support for Amy Roth after her famous 'being reduced
to tears by a tshirt' incident at TAM a year or two back.
By Simon Black:Rome, Italy -As everyone is now completely distracted with the looming prospect of
yet another illegal war to be waged by the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize
recipient, let’s look at a few other things going on while no one is
Gun control Today, the Obama administration announced fresh measures to restrict the availability of firearms in the Land of the Free. This time around, they want to ban the re-importation of firearms
that have been exported from the US to allied nations. They also want to
raise the bar on federal background checks. But rather than go through Congress, the Obama administration is simply going to create a new ‘rule’. ‘Rules’ are a type of regulation created directly by agencies within
the Executive Branch. They’re not laws, but they carry the same weight
and effect as laws, complete with criminal and civil penalties. Oftentimes, hundreds of new rules are proposed every single day in
the Land of the Free. It’s the easiest way for the baby bombing President to
circumvent the Constitution and simply decree whatever he wants.
Submitted by Tyler Durden:The UK House of Commons, in a
razor thin vote, rejected the Cameron proposal for military action in
Syria with a vote 285 to 272.
Cameron promptly said he would respect the
will of the House of Commons and UK Defense Secretary Phillip Hammond
confirmed there would be no UK military intervention in Syria.
Incidentally, this may have been the best outcome for an already
humiliated British premier who will avoid being dragged into an
unpopular war having both sided with his greatest ally, the US, and also
relented and listened to the voice of the people. More importantly, the
"people" in the UK actually had a voice, which is more than can so far
be said about developments in the US. And speaking of the US, the NYT reports that
even as the Syrian war "option" is slowly being shut out for staunch US
allies (except for France of course), that Obama is "willing to
move ahead with a limited military strike on Syria even while allies
like Britain are debating whether to join the effort [ZH: and have now voted against it] and without an endorsement from the United Nations Security Council" citing senior administration officials.
The ETA for a unilateral move by Obama may be as soon as Saturday: