Syria War “Coalition” Dissolves: Britain, France, Canada and Most Other Countries Say NO to Syrian Attack.

Beware of Greeks carrying gifts?

Syria War “Coalition” Dissolves: Britain, France, Canada and Most Other Countries Say NO to Syrian Attack.HT: Washington's Blog

The U.S. Is Isolated
Britain, France, Canada, Nato, Israel, Italy, Jordan and the rest of the world have said no to a Syrian attack.

The Arab League – which backed the war against Libya – has also said no to an attack on Syria.

After it was revealed that U.S. claims that the Syrian government carried out recent the chemical weapons attack are wholly unsubstantiated, the U.S. has become isolated.

World opinion is firmly against war.

Congressman Grayson argues that nobody wants a war except the military-industrial complex.

Only Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas supporter Turkey is pushing for War.

Video - Former Egyptian Presidential Candidate Hamadeen Sabahi: An Attack on Syria Is an Attack on Egypt.

Former Egyptian Presidential Candidate Hamadeen Sabahi: An Attack on Syria Is an Attack on Egypt. 

Following are excerpts from an interview with former Egyptian presidential candidate Hamadeen Sabahi, Leader of the Egyptian Salvation Front, which aired on Al-Nahar TV on August 28, 2013.

Hamadeen Sabahi: A strike on Syria would be a barbaric crime by the U.S. administration. If the U.S. attacks Syria, this will constitute an attack on the entire Arab nation.

Let me bring something to people's attention. If Egypt is going to be attacked, it will come from the north, from Syria. An attack on Syria is an attack on Egypt.

An American attack on Syria will repeat the tragedy of Iraq.

Interviewer: What should Egypt's position be?

Hamadeen Sabahi: The Egyptian government and people must stand firm against the American and Western aggression against the Northern Region of [the union of] Egypt and Syria, which used to form the United Arab Republic.

On the popular level, Egyptians need to be clear. We will not accept American aggression against Syria. An American attack on Syria will not liberate the Syrians from oppression and dictatorship. It will destroy Syria and will turn it into… Such aggression will not be successful, Allah willing.

But if we say, for the sake of argument, that it will succeed – the state that would be established under American auspices and in the service of the Zionist enemy would become a breeding ground for terrorists, who would kill in Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt.

We cannot allow such a danger to our national security. Today, defending Syria is tantamount to defending Egypt.Source: Memri.

UK MPs vote down military intervention in Syria.

UK MPs vote down military intervention in Syria.(Guardian).

A British Government motion for possible humanitarian intervention in Syria has been defeated in Parliament by 13 votes.

After the motion was lost 285-272, Prime Minister David Cameron said it was clear the British Parliament does not want action and “I will act accordingly”.

David Cameron:

"It is very clear tonight that, while the House has not passed a motion, it is clear to me that the British parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action. I get that and the government will act accordingly."

Here is what David Cameron said to Ed Milband. Miliband asked for an assurance that Cameron would not use the royal perogative to launch an attack on Syria (ie, without consulting parliament) and that instead he would only launch an attack following a Commons vote.

I can give that assurance. Let me say, the House has not voted for either motion tonight. I strongly believe in the need for a tough response to the use of chemical weapons, but I also believe in respecting the will of this House of Commons.It is very clear tonight that, while the House has not passed a motion, it is clear to me that the British parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action. I get that and the government will act accordingly.

Hmmm.... Perhaps they're afraid Putin might turn of the Gas supply this coming Winter?

US Officials: Obama “Willing to Act Without Britain”

“Senior Administration officials” — presumably among the supporters of airstrikes — have said that President Obama is willing to move ahead with limited operations even though allies like Britain may not join the effort.
The officials also said that Obama would consider intervention without an endorsement from the United Nations Security Council.

Obama Disappoints.........again on the Falkland Islands.

Obama Disappoints.........again on the Falkland Islands.(Heritage).This week in 1982, Argentine forces were probably preparing their equipment and checking plans ahead of their invasion of the Falkland Islands, to happen a couple of weeks later. Thirty years on, even after heaping cringe-worthy amounts of lavish praise on the Obama Administration during his recent visit, British Prime Minister David Cameron is still no closer to receiving explicit American support for British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands. This is a shameful disregard of the Special Relationship.
The Special Relationship is not about basketball games, barbeques, state dinners, or as one U.K. paper curiously described, “bromance.” The Special Relationship, as described by Winston Churchill in his famous Iron Curtain Speech, is first and foremost built on military cooperation, defense and security issues, and hardheaded geopolitical concerns of the U.S. and the U.K.
The fact that President Obama could not bring himself, or his State Department for that matter, to publicly support and acknowledge Britain’s control over the Falkland Islands is, at best, embarrassing for Cameron and at worst, dangerous for the Special Relationship. Especially when the subject of the Falkland Islands is so important to the U.K.
However, Cameron is at fault as well. He should have ensured that the issue of the Falklands was raised publicly so there would be no doubt in the minds of the British, the Argentines, and the Falklanders about where America stands on the issue.
Surprisingly, at the very end of an article on David Cameron’s visit, The New York Times reports:
“On Wednesday, Mr. Obama offered Mr. Cameron some comfort. The United States, he said, would stop prodding Britain and Argentina to talk to each other, but stick to its historic position of neutrality.”
There are two problems here.

First, there is no direct quote from President Obama, the White House, or the State Department. There is no source for these unattributed comments. This is important, because if what The New York Times reported is actually true, then this would mean a reversal of the Obama Administration’s policy on backing U.N. mediation over the status of the Islands.

Secondly, even if the Times report was true, “neutrality” is still not good enough. America should fully back Britain in its claim on the Falkland Islands. The British people should not accept America’s neutrality on the issue but should demand America’s support.

The strongest argument the United Kingdom has for its claim on the Falkland Islands is the inhabitants’ right to self-determination—a principle on which America was founded and in which most Americans believe.
The 3,000 residents of the Falklands overwhelmingly want to be British and not Argentine. Linguistically, culturally, and historically, nobody can deny that they are British. The right to self-determination is guaranteed by the United Nations Charter and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights—and Argentina is a signatory to both.

Once again, President Obama has shown how little he cares about the Special Relationship. No number of flights on Air Force One, state dinners stuffed with wealthy political donors, or basketball games in swing states can change this fact.

As previous analysis from The Heritage Foundation has pointed out:

“The Special Relationship is vital to the interests of both the United States and Great Britain, and its preservation is of paramount importance to the defense of freedom and liberty across the world. It is time for Washington to recognize and support British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands and stand by America’s closest ally, not least at a time when nearly 10,000 British troops are standing shoulder to shoulder with their U.S. allies on the battlefields of Afghanistan.”

An unattributed overture of American neutrality in The New York Times hardly amounts to the policy statement Britain deserves. The Obama Administration needs to make it crystal clear that it backs the United Kingdom over Argentina regarding the status of the Falklands. The sooner it does this, the better.Hmmmm.........The US would support an Argentine "accommodation" as its national interest supports stability in the area. "This tells us all too clearly which way the wind is blowing." The Organization of American States, a talking shop for north and south American countries, last week adopted a declaration calling for negotiations between Britain and Argentina over the "sovereignty" of the Falkland Islands.President Barack Obama's administration also made clear in early 2010 that it would endorse calls for talks over the islands when it adopted the Organisation of American States useage of Malvinas instead of Falklands.Hmmmm....."Trust me said the scorpion to the frog" starts to sound familiar.Read the full story here.