• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should the US reduce its global military presence?

Should the US reduce its global military presence?

  • Yes, drastically

    Votes: 50 75.8%
  • Yes, just slightly

    Votes: 8 12.1%
  • I don't know

    Votes: 3 4.5%
  • No, the current situation is fine

    Votes: 2 3.0%
  • No, even more troops should be deployed overseas

    Votes: 3 4.5%

  • Total voters
    66
Socialism is an economic system, as is capitalism. They are opposites with one having no private ownership, and the other having only private ownership.
Socialism is state capitalism, capitalism is communism for the rich. The false alternative of socialism followed the capitalist model of absolute and isolated power. The Socialist party members are the only stockholders in state capitalism.
 
True, One major reason for this is because Americans are a greedy people. We(Americans, not me) as a whole, are never satisfied and because of this, We(America) are always ready to invade and attack other countries to satisfiy our lusts for more wealth from oil, gold, or just to de-stabilize them or whatever.

It's a reason Muslims say "Death to America"..it's because we highjack their oil and don't care whose upset about it.

That's their sand, so therefore, their oil. America has it's own oil, but so greedy and pompous, would prefer to atack a country that has it, to keep from breaking ground on some national Park land, citing "It's too beautiful to mess up"

Remember the kid that would come to the playground with their new bike, but wouldn't let nobody ride it, but at the same time they wanted to ride everybody elses bike? That's America.
Nature is not a real estate agent. To advance the prosperity of the whole world, the land should belong to those who get the most out of its resources. Use it or lose it. The oil does not belong to the Arab rabble, who never would have developed it if left to their severely limited intelligence. Their natural place is in the useless parts of the desert. Their ancestors were driven there as fugitives from civilization. As do all such feral tribes, they are natural thieves who want what others built. Our cowardice in allowing their rulers to get rich off our technology shows the lack of pride that dooms every civilization.
 
Nature is not a real estate agent. To advance the prosperity of the whole world, the land should belong to those who get the most out of its resources. Use it or lose it. The oil does not belong to the Arab rabble, who never would have developed it if left to their severely limited intelligence. Their natural place is in the useless parts of the desert. Their ancestors were driven there as fugitives from civilization. As do all such feral tribes, they are natural thieves who want what others built. Our cowardice in allowing their rulers to get rich off our technology shows the lack of pride that dooms every civilization.

Hey, Arabs! You didn't build that!
 
Socialism is state capitalism, capitalism is communism for the rich. The false alternative of socialism followed the capitalist model of absolute and isolated power. The Socialist party members are the only stockholders in state capitalism.

I think you are confusing pure socialism (which is a theoretical model) to a corrupted version of socialism which would occur in the real world. The same can be said for capitalism. There is no such thing as a free market (other than in theory).

That being said, on an economic model basis, to say that socialism is state capitalism is an oxymoron.
 
Socialism is an economic system, as is capitalism. They are opposites with one having no private ownership, and the other having only private ownership.

This is a typical missconception - particularly in western nations such as the USA where the corporate propaganda system is very effective and widespread throught the public domain.

Let me provide you with an example.

the USA has a quasi Capitalist economic system that is Corporately run

CHine also has a quasi capitalist economic system that is State run

Both systems are centralised and protectionist economic systems that can function in quite different political domains

Corporatism is the modern form of fascism - originating from the the same fascist totalitarian seed that Boslhevism and Nazism sprouted

I realise it may be difficult to accept, but if you approach any politics department in the USA they will not descibe the political system in the USA with the word "capitalism". They will not even use the word democracy. Words such as Oligarchy or Corpocracy are usually used. The political system in the USA is best described as a Corporately run Oligarchy that has embedded in it political protectionism and barriers to prevent democratic forces from challenging this fascist tyrannical entity.

I am afraid, you are not free, you are NOT a citizen, you are NOT even a voter - YOU ARE A CONSUMERISED SLAVE TO THE CORPORATE AND PRIVATE TYRANNY THAT ENSLAVES YOU

Have you not noticed that every 4 years the casting of your so called DEMOCRATIC vote is totally worthless?
 
Socialism is state capitalism, capitalism is communism for the rich. The false alternative of socialism followed the capitalist model of absolute and isolated power. The Socialist party members are the only stockholders in state capitalism.

You make some excellent points in your post.

Points which are very difficult for the citizenry to even recognise in a system that is saturated with the spin of the Corpocratic and/or State machines
 
The US government is a privately owned, closely held corporation. In order to frighten citizens demanding participation, its flunkies have even come up with the definition of democracy as "mob rule." That only shows their contempt for the excluded American people. The Republican stockholders say, "We got ours and we're not going to let you get yours," while the Democratic stockholders say, "We got ours and we're going to give yours away."

indeed - and the US COngress was purchased without payment, and without even an official floating on the stock exchange.

Voters = Odebient Consumerised slaves
 
This is a typical missconception - particularly in western nations such as the USA where the corporate propaganda system is very effective and widespread throught the public domain.

Let me provide you with an example.

the USA has a quasi Capitalist economic system that is Corporately run

CHine also has a quasi capitalist economic system that is State run

Both systems are centralised and protectionist economic systems that can function in quite different political domains

Corporatism is the modern form of fascism - originating from the the same fascist totalitarian seed that Boslhevism and Nazism sprouted

I realise it may be difficult to accept, but if you approach any politics department in the USA they will not descibe the political system in the USA with the word "capitalism". They will not even use the word democracy. Words such as Oligarchy or Corpocracy are usually used. The political system in the USA is best described as a Corporately run Oligarchy that has embedded in it political protectionism and barriers to prevent democratic forces from challenging this fascist tyrannical entity.

I am afraid, you are not free, you are NOT a citizen, you are NOT even a voter - YOU ARE A CONSUMERISED SLAVE TO THE CORPORATE AND PRIVATE TYRANNY THAT ENSLAVES YOU

Have you not noticed that every 4 years the casting of your so called DEMOCRATIC vote is totally worthless?

and yet, every four years a either a new president is chosen, or an existing one gets a second term, and the deciding factor is a vote of the people.

Definition of CORPORATISM

: the organization of a society into industrial and professional corporations serving as organs of political representation and exercising control over persons and activities within their jurisdiction

Corporations do wield a lot of power in government, to be sure. Can we really say that we're divided into corporations that have control over the people who live in their jurisdiction? Do they have a jurisdiction at all?

so·cial·ism

NOUN:

Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

The government does not own the means of production in this or any successful modern nation.
 
and yet, every four years a either a new president is chosen, or an existing one gets a second term, and the deciding factor is a vote of the people.

You formally ratify one of two preselected Corporately filtered puppet clowns

If you wish to stay in the delusional world that the system is there FOR THE PEOPLE, and that the PRESIDENT does what is best FOR THE PEOPLE, then that is your choice.

Freedom is not just about making A CHOICE, but making an informed decision with the truth laid out in front of you.

Can you honestly say that the US Corpocracy provides you with the truth so that you can excercise that choice?

How much does it cost for a citizen of the USA to run for COngress let alone run for the Presidency?

Who are allowed to represent these puppet position?

Can You>?
 
I think you are confusing pure socialism (which is a theoretical model) to a corrupted version of socialism which would occur in the real world. The same can be said for capitalism. There is no such thing as a free market (other than in theory).

That being said, on an economic model basis, to say that socialism is state capitalism is an oxymoron.
I wish people would quit getting their vocabulary from the ignorant hacks in the media. I'm really fed up with those dumbed-down nobodies being treated like they deserved their high positions. Oxymoron is being used in a way that is the opposite of its real meaning. When used the way it always had been before this decadent era, it was a complimentary term, a clever truth that sounds like a contradiction if taken literally, such as "boneless ribs, less is more, paid volunteers." In these dysfunctioal times, it is being misused to mean a stupid saying that sounds consistent if taken literally, but is nonsense according to the judgment of the speaker (whose knowledge of English is nonsense). For example, if someone thought firemen were lazy, he would express his judgment and confused English by saying that firefighter is an oxymoron. Before people starting to take role models for language from the ignorant media, that was called " a contradiction in terms." I also see here the silly idea that "oxymoron sounds like something moronic, so that's what it must mean."

Don't quote me some permissive dictionary authority, which itself is a contradiction in terms and typical of the kind of irresponsible mediocrities we look up to today.
 
Last edited:
You make some excellent points in your post.

Points which are very difficult for the citizenry to even recognise in a system that is saturated with the spin of the Corpocratic and/or State machines
They both came from the same malignant tumor of class privilege. Heirheads have the illusion that they are born to rule, so it was inevitable that anything thought up by them would turn into a party dictatorship. Ideology is a food fight at a prep school.
 
Don't quote me some permissive dictionary authority, which itself is a contradiction in terms and typical of the kind of irresponsible mediocrities we look up to today.

So...you know better than a dictionary what the definition of a particular word is, huh? Interesting....then I guess it's no surprise that a term such as "state-run capitalism" would make so much sense in your mind.
 
PLEASE READ BEFORE VOTING

Right now the US military has:

90,000+ troops in Afghanistan
50,000+ troops in Germany
35,000+ troops in Japan
28,000+ troops in South Korea
15,000+ troops in Kuwait
10,000+ troops in Italy
9,000+ troops in the UK
etc.

These troops are deployed for a variety of reasons. Most of these countries are in strategic locations (West Germany was our frontline against the Soviets), but the Cold War is long over. I think our deployments are quite excessive. In fact, I think that at least 90% of these soldiers should be brought home. I'm curious what other users think about this.


Also the source for these numbers, from the Department of Defense itself, is here:

http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/MILITARY/history/hst1112.pdf

28,000 seems low for Korea.
 
We need to drastically reduce our global military presence. We have the tech to deploy quickly to wherever we need anyway, and in many areas the continued presence only ferments anti-American sentiment.
 
Why? North Korea is a third world country, not some military superpower like some people think it is.

Because I was stationed there, and there's a lot of us in South Korea. You can't go anywhere in South Korea without seeing US Military personnel. Our numbers there also have nothing to do with the level of threat that North Korea presents.
 
So...you know better than a dictionary what the definition of a particular word is, huh? Interesting....then I guess it's no surprise that a term such as "state-run capitalism" would make so much sense in your mind.
Better than a permissive dictionary that gives credibility to the misuse of words. Once I saw on TV someone from the dictionary publishers who refused to condemn an obviously non-existent word (similar to Sarah Palin's "refudiate"), saying that if enough people used it, then it would become acceptable. Yet you look up to people like that and think that anyone who doesn't is arrogant. The reason these hacks appease the dumbed-down is that they make most of their money from selling dictionaries to college students. Realizing that college graduates are not really educated, but not wanting to offend their best customers by proving their English is so ignorant, they go along with any illiteracy that the media role models inflict on the public. So anything goes. People today are under the illusion that anyone who achieves a position of authority must deserve it.
 
Why? North Korea is a third world country, not some military superpower like some people think it is.

It's a third world country with a million man army and an absolute ruler. That's kind of a scary combination.
 
Better than a permissive dictionary that gives credibility to the misuse of words. Once I saw on TV someone from the dictionary publishers who refused to condemn an obviously non-existent word (similar to Sarah Palin's "refudiate"), saying that if enough people used it, then it would become acceptable. Yet you look up to people like that and think that anyone who doesn't is arrogant. The reason these hacks appease the dumbed-down is that they make most of their money from selling dictionaries to college students. Realizing that college graduates are not really educated, but not wanting to offend their best customers by proving their English is so ignorant, they go along with any illiteracy that the media role models inflict on the public. So anything goes. People today are under the illusion that anyone who achieves a position of authority must deserve it.

Yes, and making up your own creative definitions to common words communicates so much better than those old, mediocre definitions found in the dictionary.
 
It's a third world country with a million man army and an absolute ruler. That's kind of a scary combination.

Not when it's right next to a country with a much stronger, better equipped, and more technologically advanced military. It's kind of silly how some people think so little of our allies.
 
Not when it's right next to a country with a much stronger, better equipped, and more technologically advanced military. It's kind of silly how some people think so little of our allies.

You mean you think China would step in if their little protege started to get out of hand?
 
Corporations do wield a lot of power in government, to be sure. .

They wield the only power - overtly and covertly!

THe USA is an Oligarchical Corpocracy - everything the US COngress does is merely a rubber stamp by puppet clowns who parade themselves before the people every 4 years screaming their lungs out about the critical issues of the day - abortion and gay marriage

There are only two prerequisites for a US President to be rubber stamped by the Corpocracy. THe first one is that they MUST be a WAR PRESIDENT

I think we all know what the second one is dont we ladies and gentlemen

Even Orwell would be shocked at the state of the US tyranny today
 
Last edited:
You mean you think China would step in if their little protege started to get out of hand?

*sigh*

China and NK aren't allies... I don't know why people keep pushing this. China is the US's #1 trading partner and we're not going to be fighting for that very reason. The Chinese no longer care about the little third world country that barely touches them.
 
*sigh*

China and NK aren't allies...

Have you told the North Koreans this? They may be surprised to hear it.

I don't know why people keep pushing this. China is the US's #1 trading partner and we're not going to be fighting for that very reason.

Just as a side note, are you aware of how many people believed that war between the British and German empires was impossible due to this same logic?
 
The only troops that should be abroad are the ones assigned to embassy's for their protection. The rest should be brought home. We have the technology to send a missile to any point on the Earth. Use it if we need to help defend an ally or even take out a country should the actual need arise. There is no need to send troops to thier deaths on foreign soil at all.
 
Back
Top Bottom