United States Gauges Sending 50,000 troops to Syria


While the Obama regime actively participates in the destabilization of Bashar al-Assad’s government, by aiding rebel groups and proxy governments to carry out a shadow war against Syria, the US government is also considering invading the country by putting 50,000 to 60,000 soldiers on the ground to “safeguard” the chemical weapons stockpile.

Main stream media accused the Syrian government of illegally moving chemical weapons to publicly undisclosed locations in the country, while the US allies on Syrian soil attack government forces in a struggle to gain control of the most important cities. The movement of the weapons, say corporate news outlets, is being done in preparation to carry out attacks on the Syrian people, should the country get attacked by western nations or their allies in the region. As expected, no media outlet has shown any proof that the Assad-led government has used or intends to use such weapons on its own people.

The discussion to invade Syria at any point, should the western invaders think that the chemical stockpiles “are in danger” has been extended to United States allies, who are debating their answer to the fall of the government of Bashar al-Assad, if the country’s security forces were to disintegrate. This exact scenario is what the rebel groups supported financially and militarily by the US government intend to carry out, the destabilization of the government in order to take the country over. The non invasion of US or other foreign forces would mean that the rebels would get a hold of the chemical and biological weapons that Damascus has, as reported by official sources. Isn’t that a win win situation? You cause the fall of a country to have an excuse to invade it and to keep everything in it.

Ultimately, the US is not even interested in the chemical or biological weapons in Assad’s hands, but on the existent resources the country has. In the worst case scenario, the US is considering the deployment of 50,000 to 60,000 troops to secure the stockpiles. The hypothesis that part in the talks is that, in the event that the security forces disintegrated, those stockpiles would be subjected to pillage and plunder.

The US is saying that the sites where Syria now keeps its weapons would not be bombed due to the danger that the chemicals represent for the people and the environment. That is another good excuse to promote the invasion as a better idea than to bomb the country from above while the rebels do the dirty work on the ground. It sure wasn’t the same kind of thinking when the same people in control of the US government today decided to bomb Vietnam with Agent Orange, or to use depleted uranium in Iraq. No worries about the people or the environment there.

Sources have said the United States still does not have among its plans to deploy troops in Syria and that the Pentagon has rejected the possibility of implementing a no-fly zone in the near future. The same information was reported by the Israeli daily Haaretz. “There is no imminent plan to deploy ground troops. This is, in fact, a much worse scenario,” added an official source, while he pointed out that U.S. troops probably would play a role in the mission if it came to an invasion.

In addition, two U.S. diplomatic sources have said that a force of 60,000 troops would not be enough for a peacekeeping mission and would be only the number of troops needed to secure the stockpiles. Therefore, it would have added the deployment of troops needed to support that effort.

Finally, the Diplomats have said that several European countries have already said they would not join such action if it were the case. Meanwhile, neither the White House nor the Pentagon have commented on this information, although the White House spokesman, Tommy Vietor, said the United States believes that chemical weapons are under government control.

He said that “due to the escalating violence in Syria and the increasing attacks of the regime against the population, there is concern about these weapons.” In addition to monitoring the arsenals, we are consulting with Syrian neighbors — and with our friends in the international community — to underscore our common concern about the safety of these weapons and the Syrian Government’s obligation to ensure their safety,” he concluded.

About Editor
The Real Agenda is an independent publication. It does not take money from Corporations, Foundations or Non-Governmental Organizations. It provides news reports in three languages: English, Spanish and Portuguese to reach a larger group of readers. Our news are not guided by any ideological, political or religious interest, which allows us to keep our integrity towards the readers.

Comments are closed.

Related Links:









Partner Links