The rule of three is a principle in writing that suggests that things that come in threes are inherently funnier, more satisfying, or more effective than other numbers of things. The reader/audience to this form of text is also more likely to consume information if it is written in groups of threes. From slogans ("Go, fight, win!") to films, many things are structured in threes. There were three musketeers, three little pigs, three billy goats Gruff, Goldilocks and the three bears, three blind mice and three Stooges.
This is the definition of the 'Rule of Three' as explained in Wikipedia.
The U.S. may be taking the 'Rule of Three' to new heights; if we are to examine the war machine that animates defense contractors and excites Wall Street to ecstatic frenzy, we could say that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were appetizers paving the way to a more promising entree. Depending on non-MSM sources is essential especially when getting to the truth of the matter is so very difficult. What is really going on in Korea?
Extrapolating from two articles in OpEdNews (and here) and one other in WhatReallyHappened, there appears to be very strong consensus that America is begging for a war. Not like the Iraq or Afghanistan wars, which have been mired in less than honest reasons for their execution. The US is in dire need of a 'sexier' war; a war that would be viewed as being fought against the forces of evil, (read China via North Korea) where a staunch US ally (South Korea, and by extension Japan) has been 'injured'.
Based on the premise that all war is a lie, the articles go as far as suggesting that the US may have been the one to sink the South Korean submarine Cheonan and plant an extremely rusted North Korean missile as evidence. We also know that China is extremely sensitive to these war games, and has repeatedly voiced its opposition to them. One way to retaliate against China, is to attack its closest ally in the region. There is also speculation that in order to militarize the region, it is not to the advantage of the US that the two Koreas reunite. If there were to be reunification, there would be no need for U.S. troops and materiel to be on the ground in South Korea.
There is no mistaking of US decline in manufacturing, except for its weapons program. There is also a decline in US global influence, as witnessed by the results of the latest G-20 meeting and the recent NATO summit in Lisbon.
Like any bully, the U.S. military is poking a sharp stick at North Korea (and China) and basically daring them to fight back. The U.S. (and their junior partners in South Korea and Japan) are out to militarize the region and are just itching for a military response that would then "justify" an overwhelming response.
The U.S. weapons corporations love this game of hardball, or as it used to be called, gunboat diplomacy. The power tripping U.S. government intends to keep pushing North Korea into a corner and will keep pissing on them until they get another response. At the rate things are now going it likely won't take long.
Apparently, because of our enormous national debt, and historical precedent, it is expected that the US is going to provoke a war. Reference is made to the economic crash of 1907 and our entry into World War I, and the Great Depression of 1929, and our entry into World War II. The dispatch of the USS George Washington to the area is meant to provoke a response.
And the eventual conclusion to these scenarios all lead to the use of nuclear weapons. This is not what the people in America want, but the interest of the war machine may usurp the needs of the people.
Comments