The Coming Terrorist Attack, Syria, Iran, and WWIII

page: 1
264
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+238 more 
posted on Sep, 7 2013 @ 09:28 PM
link   
That title is not a prophesy. It is a realistic interpretation of several facts surrounding recent events.

I started to write a thread similar to this one many times... I would write it, realize how long it was, think about how many people would simply blow it off, and realize how many people simply don't care as long as the Democrats are playing the Republicans, and delete the file. If you are reading this, it simply means I didn't delete the file this time.

There's a line from a A Few Good Men: "Truth? You can't handle the truth!" I don't know how many will be able to handle the truth in this instance, but a recent realization has led me to believe that maybe, just maybe, it's time to again try and tell the tale I have so far only alluded to in various posts. Maybe someone somewhere somehow will read this and it will make a difference.

I apologize for the length, but so many things tie into this one story that it will take a few posts to explain even a condensed version.

The story has many facets, but I will start with the reality of why we are talking about going to war with Syria and let things tie in as they come up. It all starts with Iran and Saudi Arabia, way back in 1901 when a wealthy Englishman, William Knox D'Arcy, approached Mozzafar al-Din Shah Qatar, the ruler of Iran, about an oil concession. The oil industry worldwide was booming and growing, and local reserves, especially in England, were insufficient for the demand. Shah Qatar agreed, and the Anglo-Persian Oil Company was founded with vast oil reserves found under the sand. This started a boom in the Middle East with other countries searching for oil under various countries with various concessions... at least outside the United States, who was behind the curve in exploration of International oil.

When the Standard Oil of California (SOCAL) finally decided that perhaps foreign oil reserves would be a profitable venture, there were precious few countries left to explore. Europe and India had closed all concessions except for one: Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia did not have the geological signatures that at the time were thought to coincide with oil deposits, and as a result the Saudis watched as their neighbors became filthy rich while they were left destitute. So they were happy to grant a concession when SOCAL approached them in 1933. SOCAL struck oil, which would turn out to be the largest reserves in the area, in 1938, making the Saudis wealthy. Since that day, the Saudis have been friendly to US interests.

In Iran, there were problems brewing almost since the concession was signed. Iran's Constitutional Revolution started in 1905 and lasted for two years before giving way to various attempts by deposed Shahs to reclaim the throne from the ruling body, the Majiles. The Majiles were a democratically elected parliament that has for a short time served as a type of co-ruler beside the Shahs of the Qatar Dynasty, but the Majiles were unhappy about the concessions signed to the oil companies. The feeling was that too much control had been given to outside interests over what was an Iranian asset. Finally, after a series of internal events too numerous to list outside of a large book, the Majiles accepted Reza Shah as ruler in 1921.

What most people don't realize is that Reza Shah had help obtaining his position. American business men had begun investing in the Anglo-Persian Oil Company during this time, and both American and British interests assisted the new regime. Reza Shah was sympathetic to Western interests and would put to an end the turmoil that had threatened the concession rights to Iranian oil. The main accomplishment so far as the oil interests were concerned, was that he managed to decrease the authority of the Majiles. He turned out to be a fairly decent ruler, however, and in general had the support of his people. Reza Shah was responsible for the vast majority of the Westernization of Iran, even changing the name from Persia to Iran. In 1941, British troops forced his abdication to his son, Mohammed Reza Shah.

Mohammed Reza Shah was another story altogether. The Iranian people hated him; Mohammed Reza turned out to be a poor ruler who ignored the needs of his people and who ruled with an iron hand and according to his mood. In 1975, that mood saw proper to establish a single-party government and to declare any citizens who disagreed with the Monarchy as illegal activists. He did retain one characteristic of his father: he was happy to accommodate Western interests. He also was forced to abdicate his throne, but this time it was by the reformed Majiles who seized power in a violent revolution. In 1979, several Iranians seized the United States Embassy and held its occupants hostage until January 20, 1981, demanding the return of Mohammed Reza Shah to Iran for justice. The Shah was never returned, and that incident has left a deep scar in the psyche of Iranians who now see the United States as the major cause fo the tumultuous history they endured.

Why is this history lesson important? Because Iran is important. Mohammed Reza Shah was the leader of OPEC during its early years, and as he was friendly to US interests, he and Saudi Arabia conspired together with those interests to establish an oil distribution system that tied the value of Middle Eastern oil to the United States dollar. No country could purchase oil unless they had dollars; rubles, yen, lira, or pounds were not accepted. Monies had to first be converted to dollars. This was a boon to the US banking industry, and especially to the newly-created Federal Reserve. Instead of having to have gold and silver on hand to meet demands for redemption of gold and silver certificates, the dollars could be backed by the absolute need for oil shared by every developed and developing country across the globe.

In 1934, the United States, in response to the Great Depression, nationalized gold. This act effectively suspended the conversion of dollars for gold, since any citizen demanding conversion was assured of then having his money confiscated. While this did not last forever, it was an interesting experiment in that it proved that obvious monetary backing is less important for those using the currency than faith in the currency itself. When OPEC formed in 1960 and began the dollar-oil peg, movements began to completely remove the gold standard, movements which reached fruition in 1976. The dollar was now assumed to be fiat, although in actuality its strength was backed by the dollar-oil peg.

The foundation for this movement was laid shortly after WWII at the Bretton Woods Meeting. The United States, playing on its status after the devastation of the war left other countries in tatters, came out with the dollar as the International Reserve Currency, which made the dollar-oil peg easier to accomplish later on.

~~continued~~



+73 more 
posted on Sep, 7 2013 @ 09:29 PM
link   
~~continued~~

Everything went fine with this plan, especially with Saudi Arabia maintaining a leadership role in OPEC, until the dollar started showing some signs of instability. Under International Reserve Currency status, the dollar has value by definition to any developed or developing nation. That's how the United States has managed to get away with fiscal policy that would flatten any company if a similar measure of "borrow-spend-print more-pay back maybe someday" were used. That is why the US debty is hovering around $16 trillion with no end in sight. To Americans, this has become just the way things are: the United States can print whatever it needs and everything will be OK. But to the rest of the world, this extravagance began to be troubling... especially to the Middle East, with their most precious resource tied so closely to that stumbling dollar.

We now return to our history lesson... shortly after the Iranian Hostage Crisis, war broke out between Iran and Iraq, an essentially religious war between the Shia Muslims of Iran and the Sunni Muslims of Iraq. Concerned about Iran gaining too much power without the strong hand of an American-led Shah to guide them, the US turned to the enemy of Iran, a man named Saddam Hussein, who was also friendly to the West, having been assisted into power by Western operatives. As the enemy of our enemy, Saddam was aided in the war by Jimmy Carter's administration. After the war, however, an argument broke out between Saddam and the tiny port country of Kuwait. Iraq had protected Kuwait throughout the war, and asked that, in lieu of reparations for their protection and to aid Iraq in rebuilding a devastated country, Kuwait forgive a $30 million loan to Iraq. Kuwait refused, and also refused to cooperate with Saddam in other efforts to raise capital to rebuild Iraq. Finally, Saddam learned that Kuwait had been slant-drilling into Iraqi oil fields and approached the US with his grievances. The US refused to help, and Saddam took the only measure he could reasonably take: invasion of Kuwait in 1990.

This action had much more interest in the United States than his arguments had. Under George Bush Sr., the US went to war with Iraq. In the middle of the war effort, the United States stopped actions against Iraq, immediately after forcing them to withdraw from Kuwait. The American people were perplexed, but if they had realized that this was not a war but rather a "spanking" to an ally who was simply misbehaving, they would not have been so.

The aftermath of the war included severe economic sanctions on Hussein, which further exasperated his efforts to rebuild Iraq. Finally, after the UN implemented the Oil-For-Food program in 1996 in response to humanitarian concerns, Saddam found a way to get his oil sold for profit, with the assistance of an oil-hungry Russia. But this meant that in order to circumvent the oil embargo, Hussein had sold his oil for rubles... not dollars.

This revelation was coming to light in intelligence circles prior to the events of September 11, 2001, and the attack on the Twin Towers was just what was needed to get the American people behind a full military overthrow of Saddam Hussein. Suddenly pulling back after forcing a retreat was not enough; Iraq was invaded and Hussein's regime was overthrown, leading to George Bush Jr.'s infamous early declaration of victory. Bearing in mind the purpose behind the war, Saddam Hussein's complete overthrow, his declaration was actually quite well-timed. Unfortunately, the remnants of his regime were not so easy to eliminate, and continuous fighting kept us active in the region until it was finally realized that there was an even greater need to be in Iraq.

Saddam Hussein had started a trend, and with the dollar's strength in question, other countries decided to depeg their oil from the dollar as well. Starting in Egypt, the Arab Springs saw several countries overthrown and new pundits placed into power amid rumors that each was influenced by American black ops. When one looks at the revolutions compared to each countries fiscal policies regarding the dollar-oil peg, it becomes clear these are more than just rumors; each revolution occurred soon after an intent was shown to depeg from the dollar.

~~continued~~


+67 more 
posted on Sep, 7 2013 @ 09:31 PM
link   
~~continued~~

This correlation has one major exception: Iran. Iran depegged from the dollar officially in 2007 and in 2008 unveiled the Iranian Oil Bourse, a commodity trading exchange based in Iran and open to all currencies. The only reason this was allowed was because the United States was unable to stop it; Iran's intense hatred of the West makes covert operations inside Iran notoriously difficult, if not nigh impossible. As a result, the United States has had to take other steps to protect its economic interests. Enter the Iranian nuclear weapons program. To date, no uranium enrichment has been found that tested for over the 20% enrichment limit for LEU fuel, save a tiny amount so small it was reported by the UN inspectors not as an amount, but as a "trace." Considering that Iranian centrifuges have been tampered with by Western interests via the infamous Stuxnet virus, some amount of anomalies is not surprising. Stuxnet operated by reprogramming the PLCC interfaces between the Iranian nuclear research network and the centrifuges used to enrich the uranium. BY making minor adjustments rapidly while the centrifuges were turning, the virus caused them to literally shake themselves apart. The virus could have very easily caused the centrifuges to increase their spin speed, causing anomalies in the resulting uranium enrichment.

It was never officially proven who created and released Stuxnet, but the code bears strong resemblance to US and Israeli code used elsewhere in the defense departments.

Yet, this trace amount combined with a few national security delays when inspectors showed up unexpectedly, have been used to stir up a firestorm of sentiment against Iran. Everything is now set to not just invade Iran, but to remove Iran from existence. All that is needed is for one country to decide that it has no choice but to respond to these "obvious" threats than to take immediate proactive measures and launch a pre-emptive strike. I am talking about Israel. Israel has some legitimate concerns: their small size means a single nuke would wipe them out of existence, and since Israel is a strong ally of the US, Iran has indeed made as many strong comments against them as they have toward us. Should the US strike against a sovereign country without direct provocation or obvious cause, it would be seen as ghastly an act as Hitler's actions at the beginning of WWII. But Israel, with its concerns, might be able to pull it off, especially with a little covert help from the US.

One problem still exists, and this of course is where we started: Syria. As Iran's major ally in the area, Syria under Assad is a loose cannon waiting to go off should Israel strike against Iran. Syria must therefore be subjugated just like the other countries in the Arab Spring. But Syria has not given in to revolution quite as readily as did Egypt or Libya. Doubtless with aid from Iran, who obviously can see what's going on, Syria has stood... and stood... and stood... until now we must get involved personally to correct his heinous abuse of chemical weaponry.

It's not about religion... it's not about oil... it's not about Israel... it's all about the dollar and its relation to global oil supplies. Should we lose the International Reserve Currency status, our economy will collapse into something unrecognizable overnight. The dollar will become so worthless it would take a wheelbarrow to carry enough money to buy a week's worth of food. The stock market will crash to an extent that it will not recover from. The Great Depression will look like a hiccup in a ticker tape by comparison... and the politicians, power brokers, and bankers know it. It will not just affect the middle class and below; this one will take everyone invested in the dollar out.

The real problem now, and the reason I have decided to put this out there for all the ridicule and disbelief that will inevitably be the result, is that the American people aren't buying it this time. The public and even the Congressional sentiment is against direct intervention in Syria, despite the chemical weapons card being played to great advantage. It's almost as bad as in the days prior to our involvement in WWII, when FDR wanted badly to bring America into the war and America refused. It took an attack by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor in 1941 to bring American sentiment around. Memos found after the war indicate that the Japanese were not just deciding to commit suicide on the US for the fun of it; American military actions, intentionally leaked information, and International posturing tricked the Japanese into believing America was about to strike them, and they simply chose to strike first. Those brave soldiers who died that day died for one reason: so we could fight the war.

Today, the President finds himself in a similar position. He has to bring the US military to bear in an unpopular action, directly against the will of the American people and Congress. How to do it? Look at history. We tricked the enemy into attacking us back in 1941, and we will do it again. This time the target will not be military, and the attackers will not appear out of a blue Hawaiian sky. This time the attackers prefer homemade bombs set off in civilian targets to cause the most devastating effect possible.

I believe we will see a terrorist attack on par with 9-11 within the next short time frame. I also pray I am wrong.

*********************
The preceding was a condensed version of a much more detailed explanation. This is necessary due to post size limits and the unfortunate concentration limits of many readers. Many of the details have been omitted or glossed over quickly and many of the events mentioned have only been mentioned in summary fashion. Also, links are not generally included because all of this information is either found elsewhere on ATS or is easy found by doing a simple Google search. All I do is put it together as the pieces fit.
*********************

TheRedneck

edit on 9/7/2013 by TheRedneck because: (no reason given)


+6 more 
posted on Sep, 7 2013 @ 09:47 PM
link   
Of course many complexities and alliances come into play and often contrast one another but, yeah, ditto, what Redneck said.


Governmental Doom Porn: Chaos in the U.S. or Chaos in the M.E. You Decide

Brilliant writing and superb grasp of history, brother. Bravo.

edit on 7-9-2013 by The GUT because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2013 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 




Why is this history lesson important? Because Iran is important. Mohammed Reza Shah was the leader of OPEC during its early years, and as he was friendly to US interests, he and Saudi Arabia conspired together with those interests to establish an oil distribution system that tied the value of Middle Eastern oil to the United States dollar. No country could purchase oil unless they had dollars; rubles, yen, lira, or pounds were not accepted. Monies had to first be converted to dollars. This was a boon to the US banking industry, and especially to the newly-created Federal Reserve. Instead of having to have gold and silver on hand to meet demands for redemption of gold and silver certificates, the dollars could be backed by the absolute need for oil shared by every developed and developing country across the globe.


Well said and there are many who would agree the latest round of wars is all about the protection of the petrol dollar. S&F



It's not about religion... it's not about oil... it's not about Israel... it's all about the dollar and its relation to global oil supplies. Should we lose the International Reserve Currency status, our economy will collapse into something unrecognizable overnight. The dollar will become so worthless it would take a wheelbarrow to carry enough money to buy a week's worth of food. The stock market will crash to an extent that it will not recover from. The Great Depression will look like a hiccup in a ticker tape by comparison... and the politicians, power brokers, and bankers know it. It will not just affect the middle class and below; this one will take everyone invested in the dollar out.


I totally agree!!

edit on 7-9-2013 by 727Sky because: ...


+13 more 
posted on Sep, 7 2013 @ 09:53 PM
link   
To anyone paying attention, this is common knowledge. Not to dismiss your thread because it's spot on and hits the nail on the head but the problem seems to be that even though this knowledge is free flowing and now more than ever, prevalent among the masses, there still seems to be some cognitive dissonance because acknowledging the facts you bring up turns average peoples lives upside down and people don't like drastic change of paradigms.

Our war of attrition isn't with our government or it's criminal behavior regarding the petro dollar, it is within our own ranks and getting the average citizen to see past their own tiny bubble of self importance to care.


+18 more 
posted on Sep, 7 2013 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Helious

Hence my concerns about even posting this thread. There is nothing that we can do about the situation at this point; what is, is. This is a no-win situation for all sides. So is it better to let people keep their heads safely buried in the sand, or to point out the obvious and help them see the truth?

I honestly can't answer that this time. But with the recent problems getting the American people to back the Syrian strike, and the associated probability of a terrorist strike in the US to change that dynamic, I decided to speak up one more time.

TheRedneck


+1 more 
posted on Sep, 7 2013 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


"It all makes perfect sense. Expressed in dollars and cents, pounds, shillings and pence."
- Roger Waters, "Amused to Death"

Stars and Flag



posted on Sep, 7 2013 @ 10:06 PM
link   
I just finished reading it all, it made sense to me and this is not my area of expertise so thanks for the info. You explained yourself so well, probably better than I'd ever learn from a history class. At least now I have some perspective when I ask myself (alot lately) why we need to get involved in yet another war. I'm sure it will turn into something nasty and I almost would prefer for the other alternative you spoke of, to be honest. Obviously I'm not one of the wealthy elite
. If something does happen in the near future here, I will mark your words.



posted on Sep, 7 2013 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


" I believe we will see a terrorist attack on par with 9-11 within the next short time frame. I also pray I am wrong. "

Disturbing indeed . If you were to hazard to guess , what would be the Majority of Opinion at this moment in time if that should transpire ? Most Americans see this possible Attack as nothing more than another " False Flag " , or somehow Rally Around the Flag once again and Support yet another Foreign War our Goverment deems Necessary for National Security Reasons ?



posted on Sep, 7 2013 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Helious

Hence my concerns about even posting this thread. There is nothing that we can do about the situation at this point; what is, is. This is a no-win situation for all sides. So is it better to let people keep their heads safely buried in the sand, or to point out the obvious and help them see the truth?

I honestly can't answer that this time. But with the recent problems getting the American people to back the Syrian strike, and the associated probability of a terrorist strike in the US to change that dynamic, I decided to speak up one more time.

TheRedneck


In my opinion, it never hurts to try to educate others about the truth. If it does hurt, it usually hurts those trying to spread truth. Most people in this country don't really care about truth, they care about consistency, they care about the security of their 401k and property taxes on their house not going up the following year.

When you attempt to remove people from their comfort zone with information that would remove them from their manufactured happy place, it can be ugly, hurtful and discouraging. I have always tried to approach it the opposite way of those people that knock on your door at 8am and hand you a biblical pamphlet. I am pro active but I don't preach because I know that true knowledge comes from people seeing the truth themselves.

I honestly feel that we are beginning a change in history, not only in America but across the globe. We can see this evidenced by the British Parliament voting no for war for the first time since America's revolution or by the 95% disapproval of the strikes on Syria. Hell, to be honest, I can almost just kind of feel it in the air.

The key is too balance the fact that you can not change or inform those that don't wan't to know but at the same time can not give up hope that they will learn on their own. We do what we can and honestly, thats all we can really do.




posted on Sep, 7 2013 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Zanti Misfit

I honestly don't expect a "false flag" attack in the usual sense of the phrase. I don't think it is necessary. There's a reason the borders are wide open and the government is busily spying on everyone: they know where terrorist plots are and they can easily just decide to do nothing when one pops up.

Worst case, it is not unheard of for US agents to covertly agitate groups in the US and create a real terrorist attack on demand without doing the dirty deed themselves.

I've been thinking about location... the last time an attack happened in the heartland (OK City), there was outrage but not a lot of support for the government to do something about it. The Trade Towers had the exact desired effect. With the current demographics and political leanings, perhaps somewhere in Texas? Dallas, Houston, Austin?

Just guessing of course.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 7 2013 @ 10:17 PM
link   
A+.

I was looking on with a weary eye at that infowars report of the moved nukes- in reference to the next "needed" terror attack. I think a lot of people were. But if that turns out to be BS, there are still so many other ways they can incite such a thing. All we can do is keep our eyes and ears open, and hopefully decipher through the BS. Great thread, Red.
edit on Sat Sep 7th 2013 by TrueAmerican because: (no reason given)


+21 more 
posted on Sep, 7 2013 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Flagged............

America: "Middle East, you have a BIG problem"

Middle East: "And, what would that be?"

America: "Our Oil is under your dirt"


+8 more 
posted on Sep, 7 2013 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Helious

The sad thing to me is, as you say, if the truth were truly known the people would vote for war and even possibly genocide instead of chancing their 401ks turning imaginary overnight. Some would even consider a party line rather than the implications of the war. That is the saddest commentary on our present society I can imagine.

I will say this: there is more.... much more. But I will only cover so much. The die is cast and the things that must be, will be. That's all I will say about the future, but the information is out there for those who feel it is important enough to search it out.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 7 2013 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Yep I think I got your point in the original opening post...Let us both hope some American city does not disappear in some binding flash or radiated heat as those who survive say "Oh my" and can't fathom the why...If evil or the last resort to protect the petrol dollar can only be done by a 9/11 or Pearl Harbor type event then we just might all be screwed...

I did a thread several months ago on this very same subject although not nearly as well done as yours...My thread was based on this following video starting at approx. 2:20 mark



www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Sep, 7 2013 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by 727Sky

While I didn't say anything about China in the OP(s), China is a huge part of this. They want oil... lots of oil... because they will be the next superpower. That means they need Iran pumping out oil, and they like the fact that they don't have to have our dollars to get it.

One big dynamic should it come to war with China is the geography between China and Iran. In order to access the Persian Gulf, or even the Gulf of Oman, Chinese ships have to navigate the South Pacific. That's a seriously rough journey should Australia and New Zealand ally with the US (as I believe they would). It is all but impossible to even conceive of a pipeline across the Himalayas.

They have one potential save in that area, though, and that would be a pipeline through Myanmar (formerly Burma). That country is seriously unstable right now, but it would be a prime location for a pipeline from an oil ort directly into the heart of China without any problems with sailing between it and Iranian ports.

I look for something to happen in Myanmar soon as well. It may already have and we just don't know about it; that's not an area which is easy to get info out of.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 7 2013 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Helious

The sad thing to me is, as you say, if the truth were truly known the people would vote for war and even possibly genocide instead of chancing their 401ks turning imaginary overnight. Some would even consider a party line rather than the implications of the war. That is the saddest commentary on our present society I can imagine.

I will say this: there is more.... much more. But I will only cover so much. The die is cast and the things that must be, will be. That's all I will say about the future, but the information is out there for those who feel it is important enough to search it out.

TheRedneck


Having the ability to comprehend what is and has been happening and possessing the natural will to oppose that which you know is wrong can be a very, very lonely place at times my friend. At times in my life I have experienced profound despair at the situation and more than that, confusion that more people couldn't see what I see and for a time, I actually thought I was special..........

I was wrong. When I started to see the whole picture is when I realized and came to grips that most people do see what I see, they just choose to ignore it, they just want to be inserted back into the matrix and often times will ostracize you for disturbing their life with truth.

Keep your head up my friend, your not the only one. Social conditioning is a powerful tool, especially so when wielded by those with unlimited resources, such as the US government.
edit on 7-9-2013 by Helious because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2013 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by 727Sky

While I didn't say anything about China in the OP(s), China is a huge part of this. They want oil... lots of oil... because they will be the next superpower. That means they need Iran pumping out oil, and they like the fact that they don't have to have our dollars to get it.

One big dynamic should it come to war with China is the geography between China and Iran. In order to access the Persian Gulf, or even the Gulf of Oman, Chinese ships have to navigate the South Pacific. That's a seriously rough journey should Australia and New Zealand ally with the US (as I believe they would). It is all but impossible to even conceive of a pipeline across the Himalayas.

They have one potential save in that area, though, and that would be a pipeline through Myanmar (formerly Burma). That country is seriously unstable right now, but it would be a prime location for a pipeline from an oil ort directly into the heart of China without any problems with sailing between it and Iranian ports.

I look for something to happen in Myanmar soon as well. It may already have and we just don't know about it; that's not an area which is easy to get info out of.


www.atimes.com...


While the US has publicly emphasized the importance of democracy and human rights in restoring bilateral relations with Myanmar, Washington's main concern is strategic: to keep China at bay and North Korea out. Myanmar has emerged as the frontline of the Obama administration's ''pivot'' towards Asia, or, in plain language, the US's China containment policy.

This was in 2011 and things have progressed with hand shaking, smiles and money! America has been all over S.E. Asia trying to find bases (or open old ones) and cement relationships...This time around I believe Asia is much more sophisticated and will demand more and play both China and America like a fine guitar. China is a big player in that area and they are a permanent resident, not a resident of convenience.



posted on Sep, 7 2013 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by 727Sky

Ah, thank you! I knew Myanmar would play into this, but I missed the fact that things were already underfoot in that area.

That's the problem with so many loose ends; it's easy to lose one or two in the mix.

TheRedneck





new topics

top topics



 
264
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join