28-08-2016, 03:36 PM
I'm curious why the "three way alliance" of the US, Israel, and Saudi Arabia, (the image of them as "Ceberus", the three headed dog that guards Hell in Greek mythology, is a cute bit of propaganda) is considered "unipolar"; while the three way alliance of Russia, China, and Iran (sadly, not given a mythic characterization, I'd personally favor "Hecate", since "Loki" has but one head) is considered "multipolar" by Korybko. Aren't both sets of these countries working together to promote what they perceive as concurrent national interests? And should we expect countries not to work in their own interests, or refuse to form useful alliances?
It is of course true that NATO is supported by the US, but given all the countries that participate, isn't that multipolar? How about the UN? That seems to me to be the most multipolar organization in existence.
It is of course true that NATO is supported by the US, but given all the countries that participate, isn't that multipolar? How about the UN? That seems to me to be the most multipolar organization in existence.
"All that is necessary for tyranny to succeed is for good men to do nothing." (unknown)
James Tracy: "There is sometimes an undue amount of paranoia among some conspiracy researchers that can contribute to flawed observations and analysis."
Gary Cornwell (Dept. Chief Counsel HSCA): "A fact merely marks the point at which we have agreed to let investigation cease."
Alan Ford: "Just because you believe it, that doesn't make it so."
James Tracy: "There is sometimes an undue amount of paranoia among some conspiracy researchers that can contribute to flawed observations and analysis."
Gary Cornwell (Dept. Chief Counsel HSCA): "A fact merely marks the point at which we have agreed to let investigation cease."
Alan Ford: "Just because you believe it, that doesn't make it so."