23-09-2012, 02:40 PM
What you are saying makes no sense Bill. On the one hand you are saying the US government and corporations (is there a difference these days?) need stability. I suppose that is why the US is supplying arms and equipment to maintain the stability in Bahrain, home of the 5 fleet, for the billionaire family of sheiks there? Libya and Syria were all stable before. But why did the US and others fund and supply arms to the small number of rebels there? Then when that didn't work because no one really wanted to join the 'uprising' they sent in NATO to force the matter? So much for stability. Now it is unstable. Have you read 'Shock Doctrine' by Naomi Klein Bill? Do you know about the Strategy of Tension? What you say also flies in the face of historical fact. The US has destabilised almost every country that would not do their bidding or tow the Washington consensus and replaced them with some one who would. Iran, Australia, Italy, All of South and Central America, Congo. The list goes on and on and on.
"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it." Karl Marx
"He would, wouldn't he?" Mandy Rice-Davies. When asked in court whether she knew that Lord Astor had denied having sex with her.
“I think it would be a good idea” Ghandi, when asked about Western Civilisation.
"He would, wouldn't he?" Mandy Rice-Davies. When asked in court whether she knew that Lord Astor had denied having sex with her.
“I think it would be a good idea” Ghandi, when asked about Western Civilisation.