Example Two:

Why do you think America spends more on its military THAN THE REST OF THE WORLD COMBINED? To enforce its political will, which is the interests of big business. They haven't spent all that money to destabilize other nations for the benefit of altruism, the people's lives of those countries, or to promote "democracy". It's business.

It's the arms business, the oil business, the petrodollar's business, and the opportunity for exploitation...like Dick Cheney being on the board of Halliburton that got the lion's share of contracts to "rebuild Iraq", while he was President of Vice.

So, if America wants something of Australia, what are the realistic chances of saying "no"? Less than zero. The last Prime Minister that did that, went swimming and is still swimming with the fishes. Harold Holt, who was anti Vietnam War.

The second Prime Minister that tried to say "no", returned from Washington with grey hair, despite leaving the country with mostly dark hair...Bob Hawke. He won his 1st election here on the platforms of the damming of the Franklin river in the Southwest wilderness of Tasmania, a 2nd issue that escapes me, and that we were NOT SELLING uranium to America anymore. As he was boarding the plane fly to the US, reporters asked him if he was really going to do it, and he was adamant that he was. Upon return, when asked, he meekly replied, "We're selling uranium to America." Not another public word spoken about it.

Paranoid? Conspiratorial? THEY INVADE COUNTRIES AND KILL MILLIONS OF PEOPLE FOR PROFIT!! So, it's not paranoia nor conspiratorial, it's calling a spade, a spade. Vietnam was little different, they dropped more bombs on Laos, that no war was declared upon, than all the bombs dropped by ALL SIDES in WWII, the number dead can only be calculated by estimates.

TBC...

I have watched the video Inside Job.
I found that there are a number of versions of this film.
The first I watched dealt at the beginning with Iceland and had Spanish
subtitles which were rather annoying so I found a different version;

https://archive.org/details/cpb20120505a

It is not as long as the first which was 2hours 17 minutes.
The content is not new and has been well discussed since the crash.
Only one or two had to face courts and the biggest criminals were
given $billions as compensation.

It is interesting to note that as the price of oil continued to rise
during 2006 & 2007 the number of loan defaults kept pace.
In July the oil price peaked and in September Leamans collapsed.
The US has not fixed the problem and if you listen to the language
it is obvious they do not even understand the problem let alone know how to deal with it.

The message is if you are big enough you will be bailed out no matter how stupid or criminal you are.
However next time that may not work as there might well be a systemic collapse of the real industry and economy.

The War on Terror...

Terrorism is as old as war itself, and is a concept. It's not a country, a group or a specific act outside of its dictionary definition. So the entire notion of instigating war against a tactic of war, the concept of terror, is at best moronic. Ultimately, virtually anything can be termed as an act of terrorism. Someone of authority just needs to say the magic word, "terrorism", and it is so.

So what's America been doing since 9/11 in the area of domestic policy? Implementing laws that enable them to arrest any citizen for any reason, denying them of all rights, due process, public hearings, and allowing torture, indeterminable detention, and even death.

Fascism is defined as a dictator using the military to control business interests. But what we're witnessing is a new form, whereby it's conglomerates and bankers that pay for the presidency (Wall Street backed Obama with something like $4 billion, it cost $6 billion for him to win the presidency), and the people elect which dictator of business interests they want. It's fascism in a new form, and I've often called it a "democratic aristocracy". But it's far more sinister than that.

America functions in the format of might is right. Technology is the citizen's enemy, for it tells government everything you do, you think and where you are. Naively, most of us view it as a tool, a toy, a convenience in communication. Yes, it's all those things to the politically meek. But to an activist, it's a death wish.

I am always a little surprised to hear the 'left' is dead in this country and that our two parties are basically the same. Sure things are relative, for instance the majors both support our universal health care system and thus would be consigned to the label of 'dirty socialists' in the eyes of the American political system, but in our little continent there are stark differences.

Gonski was left leaning, so was the insulation scheme, and the NDIS. State owned infrastructure like the NBN also smacked of 'leftist' leanings and even the much watered down mining tax spoke to redistributive measures that are definitely out of the socialist handbook. Compare that to Abbot morphing Costello's $5,000 baby bonus into $75,000 cash handout to our wealthiest mothers, paying billions to our biggest polluters, neutering Gonski and the NBN etc.

I'm not arguing the similarities between the two can on occasion be downright infuriating and depressing but there are differences that stand along ideological and dogmatic lines that are far too big to be ignored.

More interesting points have been raised.
And, please excuse my repeating what's
already been stated. However,
I also want to express my concerns.

It does make it difficult to try and
fight the international influence of
multinational corporations when so many of
their headquarters are in one country, the
United States. As has been pointed out the
international influence of these organisations
therefore is primarily an American one.
Decisions made by a small group of people in
the United States can mean prosperity or
unemployment in nations thousands of miles away.
These corporations dominate the economies of many
less developed countries, influencing the level
of wages, the kind of crops that are grown, or
how national resources are allocated.
Even developed nations are subject to their influence,
much of Canada's industry is owned by American
multinationals, making it difficult for
the Canadians to control their own economy.
How much of our industries are American owned?
Where will Chinese investment leave us?

This of course leads to the informal political and
economic domination of one society over another, such that
the former is able to exploit the labour and resources of the
latter for its own purposes. And as we know American-based
multinationals have an impressive record of interference
in the affairs of the host countries, with activities
ranging from bribery of local officials to attempts to
overthrow foreign governments.

As stated earlier - these huge organisations have developed
much more quickly than have the means of applying social
control over them. Dedicated to the pursuit of profit
and run by a tiny elite of managers and directors they
represent a distrubing and growing concentration of
global power and influence.
What can be done about any of this?
Perhaps I am being naive.

Foxy, what you say is 100% truth.

So far the USA has succeeded with this type of behaviour because, for many long decades now, it has been "THE" economic and military power in the world, with no real challengers. This is now changing, and within 20 years China no doubt will be "the" power, but the USA will still remain strong. The future behaviour of China will be no less immoral and corrupt than the past behaviour of the USA.

BUT- the difference this time is that there will be 2 all powerful, major players in intense competition for a big slice of the world's cake. The USA will not have the cake all to itself anymore. This will result in an even more aggressive and violent USA, and China will respond in kind.

The result? I see a major nuclear war within 50 years. Mankind is utterly primitive.