Obama paving of Australia to enter the massive ground in Iraq and Syria under the "pretext" to fight "Islamic state" in the event of control over nuclear weapons .. Where these weapons? It is owned by Israel? And why this condition now?
Those who live in the West, following the methods of governments in the
progressive boot, or marketing of political and military specific
public opinion stands, is well aware that US President Barack Obama when
he says in a press conference held on the sidelines of the economic top
twenty in the city of Brisbane, Australia on Sunday, "We will not
hesitate to send ground units to the area in the event of "Islamic
state" forces seized control of a nuclear weapon, for example, but we
want the Iraqi security forces take office ", this means, At first
glance, the decision to send US troops to Iraq and Syria may have been
taken early and waiting for an excuse , and we are at the doors of the
President Obama has doubled the number of US ground forces in Iraq to
3,100, said a week ago that the number will rise, and that the other
forces in the road, and justified the sending of these forces, old and
new to train the Iraqi army and re-military rehabilitation so that he
can address the forces of the "Islamic state".
We do not believe that the training of Iraqi forces needs to be this
huge trainers and advisers number, unless the census this army will
reach millions of officers and soldiers, and expect that there is a
US-Iraqi joint plan, a strong return of Washington's military
intervention in Iraq and Syria, but the "window" the fight against
"Islamic state", that is, they will not be invading forces, but
friendly, but what is the price you waiting for Washington?
What we tend to believe that several indicators of a large degree of importance are summarized in the following points:
First: There is a consensus among most military analysts Americans that
the US aerial bombardment of gatherings "Islamic state" in Iraq, and
Syria has not achieved little success in weakening it and reduce its
strength, and it is no substitute for the presence of troops on the
Second: The steady drumbeat of news for many, credible, from Western
sources about the "advisers" Americans accompany Iraqi forces in the
fight to restore the cities and towns in Anbar province, as well as
break the siege of the city of Baiji oil refinery, which provides sixty
percent of the country's needs of Petroleum products such as gasoline
and the necessary fuel oil.
Third: Visit Gen. Martin Dempsey, Chief of Staff of the US Joint Chiefs
of Staff suddenly to Iraq, and offer a bid for the involvement of US
troops in battles that may be launched in dangerous places (Nineveh, the
Iraqi-Syrian border) against al-Islamic state, a bid that Mr. Haider
Abadi, the Iraqi prime minister, he said rejected.
Fourth, most of the members of the coalition of Arabs, such as Saudi
Arabia, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates and Qatar refused
Furthermore Turkey to send ground troops to Iraq and Syria, Mr. Abadi
declined in contrast presence on the land of his country because he
believed that "Iraq does not need any land by foreign forces, and Iraqi
army, supported by the popular crowd and the sons of the tribes is able
to accomplish its functions without external interference. "
Mr. Abadi's remarks about the rejection of any US ground forces may
come to cover up the agreement reached actually during a visit by Gen.
Dempsey flash to Baghdad to send more troops land of America, because
denial is meaningless in practice, reflects the contradiction
"incomprehensible" US forces land actually exist and increasing, and
this first, and, secondly, we do not see any difference between the
ground forces or air, Valastaana foreign troops have been, in principle,
and the rest are details.
Another point can not be ignored and summed up in the words of
President Obama, he would not hesitate to send US ground units to the
region if it took control of the "Islamic state" on a nuclear weapon,
where there is this even a nuclear weapon is controlled by the state? In Iraq or Syria or Iran?
The only country in the region that has nuclear weapons is Israel Is
"Islamic state" and its forces have the ability at the moment to get to
the Dimona reactor, or the Israeli nuclear warheads stores and grab them
No doubt there is a "recipe" US being prepared for the entire region,
entitled the return of US troops to Iraq, but under the pretext of
protecting the region from the threat of "Islamic state", and was
reported in more than a Western capital, that there is a plan already on
the table to send eighty thousand troops, half the number of troops
that occupied Iraq in 2003.
Perhaps not coincidentally feet "Islamic state" the execution of former
US soldier who was held hostage to have (Peter Kaseg) in front of the
cameras in the "glutinous" area and telling a spokesman that "the first
crusader" buried there, and it was waiting for (any country) eagerly
rest US soldiers to be buried in the same area.
President Barack Obama said in an interview with US television station
that his country will move onto the offensive in the war against
"Islamic state"? Is Gen. Dempsey carry this offensive plan and details to his Iraqi counterparts? Are we in front of New American occupation of Iraq and perhaps Syria as well? Is America will repeat the same mistakes, or you will learn them the next time?
Likelihood of sinking America in the bloody quagmire of Iraq Syrian
again, and after three years of its withdrawal, a large, but very large,
and it will enter costly for them and the people of the region, said
this during the 2003 invasion, and repeat it now without hesitation, and
the days and months ahead pregnant surprises.