If that was the aim they would have been left to their own devices against the arabs. Instead their economy and their army are subsidized by the US while their safety is also guaranteed by the US. There would be no need to go that far just for those reasons. The border of the empire is defended with cheap (read free) expendable barbarians, not hugely expensive usurious jews.

Hostile neighbors of their own making by coveting their neighbor's land. Funny enough I think they had a commandment about that, but I guess it doesn't apply to non-jews, those are just goyim- cattle, slaves.

Really ? It seems to me wages are adjusted only down- by inflation or outsourcing to poorer countries while the price of goods is more or less adjusted for inflation. In that equation where's that increase in standard of living coming from ? You're assuming prices would and could be adjusted down to meet demand at lower prices. Problem is most companies operate on bank debt and simply can't afford that. It is proven in the 1929 crisis that companies will hold their prices, cut production and if that doesn't help go bankrupt- reducing prices is not an option since that would bring immediate inability to repay loans and bankruptcy.

I imagine it's for contingencies involving inmates taking over the prison. The ability to leave them without water would be quite a decent leverage against them, don't you think ?

Right, enjoy forking all your wealth to the banksters and their freemason cronies while laughing at those who see the truth. I wonder if you'll still be laughing when they'll starve you like they did with millions after 1929.

It was also a jewish state before Hitler took over. Only difference is now they allow more goyim in the middle-upper classes. Before WW2 they simply pissed of way too many people by personally controlling absolutely everything, including all the retail stores- hence the swastikas the nazis painted on them to point out the level of control it got to.

And if king Louis XVI would have found a better way to spend the country's money other than further bankrupting it and inviting unrest by funding the american freemason rebellion, like for example paying an army to kill a bunch of bankers like his ancestors did with the predecessors of the freemasons- the templars, then maybe the world would be a somewhat better place.

I suppose. If you'd have replied saying this is anything else than bullshit I'd suggest that you be declared a public slave by law which you'd naturally have no choice but to support given your unquestioning obedience to the law. :)

And pray, are you a cretin or just a government employed psychopath ? If the government leaves you no option but to be a criminal or close up an otherwise non-harmful (and funny enough, legal) business why do you support the government ? Not to mention they're just prosecuting something as fraud where there's no injured party. Or are you one of those idiots that support the law no matter how wrong and unjust ? And don't give me an answer like "I'm just stating the facts". If you care to emphasize such insanity without condemning it, you are in fact supporting it like the state owned slave that you are.

Umm, nope. It's more like the government one morning covering all the sidewalks with sharp spikes and then arresting anybody that avoids the spikes the only way left available- the road, for jaywalking or for blocking traffic.

Your and maybe DNS-and-Bind's mistake is to consider corporations and the US as separate when in fact they are one single conglomerate. But I don't suppose you'd agree on that either. It's not the corporations that further american interests, it's the other way around: the US furthers corporate interests. The US doesn't have interests of its own, it only expresses the interests of its true owners who are not the american people, but when you go up the food chain the owners are the banking elite which in turn control all the major corporations. In short America and its corporations indeed pursue a hegemonic agenda but they're not doing it on behalf of a nation. They're doing it for a small mafia network. That's how the Roman and the british empires were run and that's how the american one is run today. If the US controlled Egypt just to dominate it militarily or politically getting rid of Mubarak would indeed make no sense. But if you consider the overriding concern of the US mafia state is the control of resources and not much else it makes perfect sense. After all the egyptian sheep must be convinced that the coming selling of their state corporations and natural resources 1 cent on the dollar was done by a "legitimate" government for legitimate reasons.

I understood your stupid point. I just don't agree with it. Do you understand the notion that everybody doesn't have to agree with your asinine logic ? And about there being a difference between corporate interests and American interests maybe you should look up the term "banana republic" and see how the only interest of the US in banana republics was to maintain and further corporate interests. Before you call someone a dumb ass maybe you should make sure you are not one.

Really ? That's your logic ? Mubarak was a good american stooge therefore it's stupid to believe he would get replaced ? It was only stupid for Mubarak to believe he would be safe if he did all the boot licking required of him. The power to appoint someone to run a country implies the power to replace that someone at any point. The only thing that's happening now in Egypt is they're setting up a bought and paid for "democracy" so the wealth of Egypt can then be "legitimately" transfered to foreign corporations.

A system that doesn't account for human nature IS broken. There are plenty of people that proclaim the superiority of "democracy" over monarchy. But a monarch has a vested interest in his country's prosperity: the country is basically his property, his domain. The only interest elected representatives have is to sell their country to the highest bidder and so the place is run into the ground for the benefit of outside interests. So tell me now where is that superiority of the republican system, cause a democracy it ain't ? From my perspective, you can only judge a political system by how it actually works, not by the theory it proclaims. There are monarchies that survived thousands of years while the current 200 year old republics seem destined to disappear shortly because they won't defend their countries interests. The roman republic collapsed when the rulers decided to cut costs by employing slaves on a massive scale competing free people out of business. That's exactly what's happening now: the rulers think they can replace well paid work in the west with slave labor in the east. Where does history tell you that will lead ? Oh and the roman empire after that collapsed because it thought it could tax the people to death to fund the army and still have a working economy necessary to keep funding that army. Guess what ? They were wrong. And the nightmare republics today do nut just one of these 2 mistakes: of the roman republic or of the empire- they're doing them both at the same time, therefore they have no survival chance at all.