Even though the Obama administration has been routinely promising troops would not be deployed into Syria, evidence has emerged detailing just the opposite is likely, should the US intervene.
Barack Obama even used his weekly address Saturday to continue echoing the very same mantra both he, Secretary of State John Kerry, Senators John McCain, Lindsey Graham and others have been repeating since the administration publicly revealed their desire to engage in an act of war against the Syrian “regime.”
For an entire week, since Congress returned early from vacation last Tuesday, the American people have been subjected to news saturation of Kerry assuring a Congressional committee, while begging for authorization for war with Syria, there are to be “no boots on the ground” and that only “limited” missile strikes would be used in response to Syria’s alleged, yet unsubstantiated, usage of Chemical weapons against its own people.
It was also revealed Obama would be addressing the nation on Tuesday, when he’s likely to continue repeating the exact same talking points. Just as he did during last week’s G20 Summit. This time however, complete with emotionally-charged details of the anguish the children who were subject to the latest alleged chemical attack were forced to endure. In an effort to coerce Congress into supporting the endeavor.
The very same way his administration and its closest allies unsuccessfully attempted to sell the country on the need for stricter gun control legislation, after the Aurora theater and Sandy Hook school shootings. Striking while the iron was hot and using emotional-based political rhetoric, tricking people into supporting political agendas through emotion, as opposed to fact-based, rational decision-making to lead the nation.
Tactics that, while successfully used on the American people in the past (Iraq War after 9/11), no longer seem to be as effective as the information-age and the public’s ability to find credible alternative news sources continues to progress.
But even as politicians like Obama and Kerry repeatedly argue for ironically unconstitutional authorization from Congress to intervene in Syria’s so-called “civil war,” with promises that US troops would likely not see Syrian soil and with assurances only limited, pre-determined strikes would be used as a “deterrent” to Assad ever using chemical weapons in the future, not everyone agrees those particular promises can be kept so easily.
At the very same time Kerry sat in front of the American people and continued to promise the nearly impossible last week, not only was it revealed what would actually need to happen to bring about what the establishment would like to see has already been revised over 50 times (meaning they don’t even know how big this thing could get), a damning report recently published by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) surfaced, additionally disproving almost everything else he and the Obama administration have been suggesting.
Not only was it revealed in the report that it was not clear who was actually behind the August 24th chemical weapons attack (pg. 9) that killed almost 1500 people, including over 400 children, due to only having a “mosaic” of intelligence information (pg. 9) about the source of the attack, should the US become militarily involved it is very likely up to “75,000 troops” would have to be used in Syria (pg. 1) to “neutralize” and secure the stockpiles of chemical weapons Assad is said to possess.
And since the US is likely to “go it alone,” as has been suggested Obama may do, even if Congress votes down the authorization (something that seems likely at this point), since almost every other country in the world is against what would ultimately amount to being both domestically and internationally-illegal strikes on a sovereign nation, the likelihood US troops are who would be deployed skyrockets astronomically.
But considering the government almost always underestimates just how many troops will be used and just how much things are going to cost in the long run, in addition to the reality a war with Syria would also likely be much larger in size and scope than both Iraq and Afghanistan combined (even if countries like Russia and China ultimately decide not to get directly involved) 75,000 troops immediately becomes an extremely conservative number.
Which is very likely the reason why Rep. Charles Rangel also recently pitched bringing back the draft.
But when Obama and Kerry have admitted multiple times recently to the Syrian part of a decades-old agenda to overthrow multiple Middle-Eastern and North-African nations and implement “regime change” (PNAC), which then included the sovereign countries of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Iran, Syria and others, “boots on the ground” and much more than just a small-scale attack becomes a virtual guarantee.
Especially taking into consideration Assad had begun to gain almost insurmountable momentum against the US-backed al Qaeda “rebels” in Syria, even prior last month's alleged chemical weapons problem. Which is likely what this whole thing is truly about anyway.
And if, because of a US attack, Russia or even China also gets involved, Obama would then have been successful at possibly starting WWIII.
Considering Russian President Vladimir Putin warned Obama, as the G20 Summit came to an end Friday, that he would be supporting Syria should the US go through with the attack, it looks as though that may very well end up being the case.
One can only “hope” at this point Obama does the right thing and listens to the American people, who have overwhelmingly said no.
But considering Obama’s actions after America also said no to tighter gun-control legislation, by simply issuing executive orders (multiple times) to attempt implementing those changes anyway, expecting Obama to actually do the right thing when it comes to Syria as well becomes a risky proposition of its own.
Spread the word and visit, like and follow these related pages: