*Emergency Alert* *ACUTE DANGER OF WAR OVER KOREA* SIGN the ongoing ONLINE PETITION

[ckaihatsu]

> *Emergency Alert* -
>
> *ACUTE DANGER OF WAR OVER KOREA*
>
> *Antiwar movement calls for Emergency response actions at 5 p.m. should
> fighting break out:*
>
> *NYC -- Times Square Washington, D.C. -- the White House*
>
> *In Many Cities - Federal Buildings on**Day-of or Day-after*
>
> *
> SIGN the ongoing ONLINE PETITION to the Obama Administration and s.
> Korean Govt.
> at http://www.iacenter.org/korea/stopattackondprk
> <http://www.iacenter.org/korea/stopattackondprk> NOW! (join with
> thousands who have already signed on)
> *
>
>
> The right-wing government in South Korea is once again threatening
> live-fire war "exercises" from an island right off the coast of north
> Korea (the Democratic People's Republic of Korea). The DPRK has made it
> very clear that this would be an act of war to which it would respond
> vigorously.
>
> A huge crisis is in the making. The U.S., which over the last month has
> been conducting joint naval exercises in the area with both Japan and
> South Korea, could tell its client state in Seoul to cancel these
> provocative military maneuvers. But instead, the U.S. again blocked any
> agreement to resolve the crisis during a day-long meeting of the
> Security Council at U.N. headquarters on Dec. 19.
>
> The anti-war movement must prepare to respond immediately to any
> military action by South Korea, the U.S. and/or Japan against the DPRK.
> With tens if not hundreds of thousands of U.S., Japanese and South
> Korean troops mobilized in the area -- on land and on hundreds of
> warships and aircraft carriers --*the danger of a general war is acute.*
>
> China and Russia have also made it clear that these provocations from
> the south are very dangerous.
>
> A look at the background shows why this aggression is so
> dangerous for world peace:
>
> .The U.S. still has tens of thousands of troops occupying South Korea
> and Japan, which have been there since the end of World War II -- 65
> years ago.
>
> .Washington still refuses to sign a permanent peace with the DPRK.
>
> .This island and the waters in question are north of the Demilitarized
> Zone and only eight miles from the coast of the DPRK.
>
> .The U.S. deployment of thousands of troops, 50 to 70 ships, and
> hundreds of aircraft to the area while South Korea is firing thousands
> of rounds of live ammunition and missiles is an enormously dangerous
> provocation, not only to the DPRK but to China.
>
> *It is important that antiwar and social justice organizations begin to
> make plans now for emergency response actions all across the country
> should the crisis break out in fighting.*
>
> *The United National Antiwar Committee,www.NationalPeaceConference.org
> <http://www.nationalpeaceconference.org/>is also circulating a call for
> Emergency Response Demonstrations in the event of an attack.*
>
> *Many groups are sending out Emergency Alerts and circulating calls for
> Day After Actions. Together we can make our voices strong and unified. *
>
> *
> *
>
> *SIGN ONLINE AT http://www.iacenter.org/korea/stopattackondprk NOW!*
> *
> *
> *
> About the IAC <http://iacenter.org/about/> | Donate
> <http://iacenter.org/donate/> | IAC Books & Resources
> <http://iacenter.org/books_resources/> | Contact Us
> <http://iacenter.org/comments/>**| Sign the Petition!
> <http://www.iacenter.org/korea/stopattackondprk>*
>
> *International Action Center
> c/o Solidarity Center
> 55 W 17th St Suite 5C
> New York, NY 10011
> 212-633-6646
> [email protected]
> www.iacenter.org
> *
> **


---


To: President Barack Obama, President Lee Myung-bak, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

CC: U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, U.N. member delegations, U.S. Congressional leaders, members of the media.

* Stop the U.S./South Korean War maneuvers and provocations against the DPRK (north Korea) immediately!

* Remove the south Korean and U.S. war ships! DO NOT SEND ADDITIONAL U.S WARSHIPS AND PLANES INCLUDING THE U.S. AIRCRAFT CARRIER GEORGE WASHINGTON!

* End the U.S. sponsored sanctions against the DPRK!

* Sign a peace treaty NOW to end the state of war that has existed for 57 years since the Korean war!

* Withdraw all of the 30,000 U.S. troops that still occupy south Korea, so that the Korean people can freely decide their own destiny.

It is an undisputed fact that on Nov. 23, the government of South Korea mobilized 70,000 troops for a week of military maneuvers just off the border of the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea. The DPRK said that these military maneuvers simulated an invasion of the north.

On Nov 23, at 1:00 p.m., South Korean forces fired many shells into waters right off the DPRK. This is an area that the north has a longstanding claim to be within its territory. This claim had been accepted by prior south Korean governments.

An hour and a half later, the DPRK retaliated to what it saw as an attack on its territory by firing shells at the South Korean island of Yeonpyeong.

And now the U.S. has announced plans to send the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS George Washington and its battle group including war ships, destroyers and hundreds of fighter jets back into the area to participate in new war maneuver provocations.

The U.S. military has been involved in all the war maneuvers by South Korea, going back to the 1950-53 war, and has occupied South Korea since the end of World War II. AND THE WAR DANGER IS GROWING!

Clearly the military provocation is from the U.S. government and the south Korean government of President Lee Myung-bak.

For there to be peace on the Korean Peninsula, the U.S. must withdraw its troops so the Korean people can decide their own destiny.

Sincerely,

[FreeFocus]

I signed but I don't think the US would go to war in Korea unless US troops were attacked (which North Korea might do). Talk about imperial overstretch, three wars at a time? "Two, three, many Vietnams" as Che said? If the US tried to occupy North Korea (presumably with South Korean forces as well) it'd be a disaster.

I don't think North Korea will respond with serious force. I could be mistaken, but I don't think it would be a smart move.

[synthesis]

I thought this sort of thing was a regular occurrence. No?

[ckaihatsu]

South Korean military exercise raises danger of war

By John Chan
20 December 2010

In a calculated and reckless provocation directed in the first instance against North Korea, the Obama administration has encouraged South Korea to hold live-fire drills in the vicinity of Yeonpyeong Island. The highly sensitive island was the site of artillery exchanges on November 23 between South and North Korea.

South Korea has ignored North Korea’s threat of retaliation and calls by China and Russia for calm and restraint. The live fire exercise not only has the potential to provoke a military confrontation between the two Koreas, but carries the danger of a broader conflict involving the major powers.

[...]

http://wsws.org/articles/2010/dec2010/kore-d20.shtml

[The Douche]

War with north korea.:laugh:

[ckaihatsu]

War with north korea.:laugh:


It may not be so much about North Korea or the size of the initial conflagration -- the way the world economy is right now there is a leading tier of countries, particularly the U.S., that is slipping rapidly while an up-and-coming, "challenger" tier -- the BRIC countries, basically -- is racking up trade surpluses and cash accounts in the black. These are volatile geopolitical conditions -- in the past such similar conditions have enabled a spark of minor violence to become a flashpoint for all-out world war:





Franz Ferdinand (18 December 1863–28 June 1914) was an Archduke of Austria-Este, Austro-Hungarian and Royal Prince of Hungary and of Bohemia, and from 1889 until his death, heir presumptive to the Austro-Hungarian throne.[1] His assassination in Sarajevo precipitated Austria-Hungary's declaration of war against Serbia. This caused Germany and Austria-Hungary, and countries allied with Serbia (the Triple Alliance Powers) to declare war on each other, starting World War I.[2][3][4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archduke_Franz_Ferdinand_of_Austria

[Robocommie]

I signed but I don't think the US would go to war in Korea unless US troops were attacked (which North Korea might do). Talk about imperial overstretch, three wars at a time? "Two, three, many Vietnams" as Che said? If the US tried to occupy North Korea (presumably with South Korean forces as well) it'd be a disaster.

I don't think North Korea will respond with serious force. I could be mistaken, but I don't think it would be a smart move.

I just wish the Soviets were around still. If they did, this two, three, many Vietnams thing wouldn't be happening. The US is generally only pushing its interests on so many fronts because they're not worried about touching off WW3.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

Nothing will happen. It's not WWIII. Stop Doomongering.

[IndependentCitizen]

DPRK haven't retaliated yet, I don't think they will. Not with a larger U.S imperialist forces in the region..

[FreeFocus]

I just wish the Soviets were around still. If they did, this two, three, many Vietnams thing wouldn't be happening. The US is generally only pushing its interests on so many fronts because they're not worried about touching off WW3.

I wouldn't be so sure. The US pretty much did what it wanted to do in the Third World, even with the USSR. It was only really cautious in Europe (and Cuba because there were missiles there).

And Che called for many Vietnams as a strategic broadening of global conflict to bleed American imperialism. This is more plausible than the USSR or a USSR-like superpower smashing American imperialism.

[L.A.P.]

Well I believe a second Korean War is inevitable and as much as a hate Kim Jong-il as the dictator he is I believe he probably is a brilliant military strategist especially since such a small country has the fourth most powerful military in the world.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

Well I believe a second Korean War is inevitable and as much as a hate Kim Jong-il as the dictator he is I believe he probably is a brilliant military strategist especially since such a small country has the fourth most powerful military in the world.

Fourth Largest, not powerful. It largely consists of old soviet weapons and conscripts of dubious quality.

[L.A.P.]

Fourth Largest, not powerful. It largely consists of old soviet weapons and conscripts of dubious quality.

Well in that case.....wait! Why in the hell does China and Iran not help provide them weapons? Well I think I can answer my own question about China but Iran?

[pranabjyoti]

I want to know how the North Korean Workers and people will know about our solidarity with them? Is there any way?

[Magón]

Well in that case.....wait! Why in the hell does China and Iran not help provide them weapons? Well I think I can answer my own question about China but Iran?

Well according to Wikileaks, and some of the stuff that's come out on China, the North Koreans and Chinese aren't all that friendly when it comes to a war happening apparently. As for Iran, I do believe that they support each other, but just not weapon wise or something?

Also, just FYI, the First Korean War never ended. It's just simmered to a ceasefire. :thumbup1:

[Rafiq]

Because China does provide them weapons, and north Korea is the one who sells weapons to Iran.

[L.A.P.]

Also, just FYI, the First Korean War never ended. It's just simmered to a ceasefire. :thumbup1:

I realize that.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

Well in that case.....wait! Why in the hell does China and Iran not help provide them weapons? Well I think I can answer my own question about China but Iran?

Iran imports most of its High-end weapons systems from Russia. Iran's aims are not the same as the DPRK's, there is no 'grand alliance' of anti-american nations.

[L.A.P.]

there is no 'grand alliance' of anti-american nations.

And this is why anti-imperialist nations will never get anywhere while the pro-imperialist nations have NATO.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

And this is why anti-imperialist nations will never get anywhere while the pro-imperialist nations have NATO.

All Nations are imperialist. Iran is out to futher it's own sphere of influence. Simply because a nation opposes Imperialism against itself, does not mean that it doesn't have imperialist intentions. Case in point: Japan from the later half of the 1800s to 1945, India in Kashmir/Bangladesh, etc etc..

[thesadmafioso]

The power in economic clout far eclipses that of raw military might, it is impossible to analysis the situation in Korea with such outdated terminology. Military build ups are nothing more than a hollow gesture, and they have lost any meaning they may have had a few decades ago in the era of polarized political rivalry between the east and west. Commerce and trade are the driving forces behind the political and military developments in the region, displays of pseudo aggression are mere conduits for the underlying conflict between the DPRK and the modern western world. This little act is a sort of a proxy war for economic competition, a scaled down Vietnam or Afghanistan waged not with the lives but with capital. It would be foolish to view such in a literal manner of actual direct military engagement and conflict, as that is not the root causation for the regions troubles.

In short, no large scale conflict is likely to come of this, and this notion of impending doom is nothing short of nonsensical drivel steeped in irrational fear.

[ckaihatsu]

This little act is a sort of a proxy war for economic competition, a scaled down Vietnam or Afghanistan waged not with the lives but with capital. It would be foolish to view such in a literal manner of actual direct military engagement and conflict, as that is not the root causation for the regions troubles.

In short, no large scale conflict is likely to come of this, and this notion of impending doom is nothing short of nonsensical drivel steeped in irrational fear.


Fortunately, no one here's been sowing any seeds of irrational impending doom.

I'll remind everyone, though, that North Korea was on *Bush's* shit list, so, therefore, it's on *Obama's* shit list.... This is realpolitik at play, over decades....





Also, just FYI, the First Korean War never ended. It's just simmered to a ceasefire. :thumbup1:





Well I believe a second Korean War is inevitable

[thesadmafioso]

Fortunately, no one here's been sowing any seeds of irrational impending doom.

I'll remind everyone, though, that North Korea was on *Bush's* shit list, so, therefore, it's on *Obama's* shit list.... This is realpolitik at play, over decades....

If I recall correctly, the title of this topic had the phrase "*Emergency Alert* *ACUTE DANGER OF WAR OVER KOREA* " contained in it. Pardon me if I interpreted that as a bit irrational or if I viewed that as a prediction of conflict in the near future in Korea.

[Jazzratt]

I'd still like to know how, if this war is right on the horizon writing this petition will be anything more than a fart in a hurricane? If hundreds of thousands of demonstrators in America did sweet fuck all about the war in Iraq what makes you think a handful of emails will do anything? Or are you deliberately reading from the "how to accomplish jack shit" playbook?

[ckaihatsu]

If I recall correctly, the title of this topic had the phrase "*Emergency Alert* *ACUTE DANGER OF WAR OVER KOREA* " contained in it. Pardon me if I interpreted that as a bit irrational or if I viewed that as a prediction of conflict in the near future in Korea.


Note that a prediction of conflict and being "a bit irrational" are two different things.





I'd still like to know how, if this war is right on the horizon writing this petition will be anything more than a fart in a hurricane? If hundreds of thousands of demonstrators in America did sweet fuck all about the war in Iraq what makes you think a handful of emails will do anything? Or are you deliberately reading from the "how to accomplish jack shit" playbook?


It's very easy to be blithely dismissive with a wave of your hand, but I think there *have* been some gains in the world's public consciousness due to the anti-war efforts of the period c. 2002-2005. Sure Iraq still got obliterated and Afghanistan is the Orwellian war-that-never-ends, but I think that once the Hurricane Katrina incident happened in 2005 it exposed the U.S.'s domestic flank and now the general consensus is that allowing too much war will let the government get overextended to the point of leaving natural disasters to ravage the home-front. The overt jingoism here has been practically nonexistent since then.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

It's very easy to be blithely dismissive with a wave of your hand, but I think there *have* been some gains in the world's public consciousness due to the anti-war efforts of the period c. 2002-2005. Sure Iraq still got obliterated and Afghanistan is the Orwellian war-that-never-ends, but I think that once the Hurricane Katrina incident happened in 2005 it exposed the U.S.'s domestic flank and now the general consensus is that allowing too much war will let the government get overextended to the point of leaving natural disasters to ravage the home-front. The overt jingoism here has been practically nonexistent since then.

But that involved people actually going out into the streets to make their voices heard, not signing some petition that will be completely ignored, just watch.

[progressive_lefty]

I would just say that the media is intellectually insulting with how they keep on reporting that 'Korea is on the brink of war'. If you really get to know the situation or sit down with some Koreans, war is pretty unlikely. The only chance that war is likely, is if you factor in the United States Military, Fox News and any other pathetic News Agency.

[ckaihatsu]

But that involved people actually going out into the streets to make their voices heard, not signing some petition that will be completely ignored, just watch.


Sure, but usually a renewed movement will *initiate* with a mass petition-signing....





I would just say that the media is intellectually insulting with how they keep on reporting that 'Korea is on the brink of war'. If you really get to know the situation or sit down with some Koreans, war is pretty unlikely. The only chance that war is likely, is if you factor in the United States Military, Fox News and any other pathetic News Agency.


We *know* that the military needs to get its fix -- the war hysteria has been decidedly lacking, for their tastes, since around '05.... I'm quite sure that world public opinion is in no mood for any more of the bunker-mentality mindset that prevailed during the Bush years.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Sure, but usually a renewed movement will *initiate* with a mass petition-signing....

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc)

[ckaihatsu]

I'm not arguing anything about *causation* -- I'm merely noting past practices, or empirical realities.

Also, by saying "some petition that will be completely ignored" you're being overly dismissive, too -- the neoconservative hawks were soundly evacuated from their public roles because of widespread disgust with the War on Iraq. (It's just that the actual *policy* is being continued, as before, into the Obama presidency.)

[thesadmafioso]

Note that a prediction of conflict and being "a bit irrational" are two different things.


Well I suppose I should thank you for reminding me why I rarely visit this site, and in a manner of such great clarity too.

Though it couldn't hurt much to bestow upon you the pleasure of receiving a response, and I am sure your it would be to your benefit presuming you actually read and/or understand it this time. So if I may be so bold as to direct you back to my original statement, which I can only conclude either went completely over your head or went unread, I think we can easily conclude that in this case the two are equatable. I do recall making a rather strong case against the probability of conflict on the Korean peninsula, and that you did not bother to address such remarks. Thus leading to the conclusion that statements predicting conflict in this context are in fact irrational, and that the two are actually very similar.

[ckaihatsu]

---





I do recall making a rather strong case against the probability of conflict on the Korean peninsula, and that you did not bother to address such remarks.








In short, no large scale conflict is likely to come of this, and this notion of impending doom is nothing short of nonsensical drivel steeped in irrational fear.





I'll remind everyone, though, that North Korea was on *Bush's* shit list, so, therefore, it's on *Obama's* shit list.... This is realpolitik at play, over decades....

[thesadmafioso]

---

Yes, I read that bit. Thank you for posting it again though, it was quite nice of you. It's a shame that it does not address the question at hand here in the slightest or defend your stance here in any substantial manner. The title of this topic still contains a great deal of capital letters and says emergency alert, implying urgency. And my refutation of such still stands.

[ckaihatsu]

And my refutation of such still stands.


Yeah, it *stands*... ...like a straw man propped up against a utility pole...!!!

Hahahahahahahaha...!!!!!!!

[thesadmafioso]

Yeah, it *stands*... ...like a straw man propped up against a utility pole...!!!

Hahahahahahahaha...!!!!!!!

Do you actually know what a straw man argument is? I am fairly certain you do not based upon this pitiful attempt at a response to my previous comments. You do not make an argument a straw man argument just by accusing it of being such, a point actually has to be made against it.

The overly exuberant application of "hahaha" does not add any more legitimacy to your stance on this matter either, if anything it just weakens your position immensely as it goes without saying that a notable degree of ignorance and immaturity can be derived from the use of such in a discussion dealing with matters of potential military conflict and all other ensuing social, political, and economic ramifications.

You do realize that you never dealt with my original comments, and that you only responded with irrelevant quotations made by yourself, right? The actual substantial base of my argument of the improbability of conflict in Korea still remains untouched. As I mentioned earlier, you cannot simply insult an argument away and expect meaningful results.

But I anxiously await your next poorly chosen simile to completely skewer the reality of this situation, it should be good for a nice bit of "Hahahahahahahaha...!!!!!!!"

[Reznov]

*yawn* yeah, relax. This stuff isn't going anywhere. So don't get your hopes up.

[Psy]

The power in economic clout far eclipses that of raw military might, it is impossible to analysis the situation in Korea with such outdated terminology. Military build ups are nothing more than a hollow gesture, and they have lost any meaning they may have had a few decades ago in the era of polarized political rivalry between the east and west. Commerce and trade are the driving forces behind the political and military developments in the region, displays of pseudo aggression are mere conduits for the underlying conflict between the DPRK and the modern western world. This little act is a sort of a proxy war for economic competition, a scaled down Vietnam or Afghanistan waged not with the lives but with capital. It would be foolish to view such in a literal manner of actual direct military engagement and conflict, as that is not the root causation for the regions troubles.

In short, no large scale conflict is likely to come of this, and this notion of impending doom is nothing short of nonsensical drivel steeped in irrational fear.
It kinda is for the US, the US military is not that mobile due to the US military having a large logical overhead. For example the military build up in Kuwait leading to the invasion of Iraq was not saber rattling but because it was needed for the invasion and the US invasion force was only of field army strength at 300,000 troops. During the peak Korean War both sides were at army group strength with over one million troops so the US would require time to get the build up its would need to invade the north as if I remember right they only have about 30,000 troops in S.Korea.

So while yes this probably saber rattling the US can't hope to invading North Korea with a build up and for the US military it can't really do that covertly due to its massive logical overhead that increases the time it takes to build up its forces overseas.

[thesadmafioso]

It kinda is for the US, the US military is not that mobile due to the US military having a large logical overhead. For example the military build up in Kuwait leading to the invasion of Iraq was not saber rattling but because it was needed for the invasion and the US invasion force was only of field army strength at 300,000 troops. During the peak Korean War both sides were at army group strength with over one million troops so the US would require time to get the build up its would need to invade the north as if I remember right they only have about 30,000 troops in S.Korea.

So while yes this probably saber rattling the US can't hope to invading North Korea with a build up and for the US military it can't really do that covertly due to its massive logical overhead that increases the time it takes to build up its forces overseas.

I am not denying that a large buildup is necessary for large scale military action, but rather that such military action itself has become an antiquated means of conducting foreign policy for nations as wealthy as the US. Its obsolete nature makes it unnecessary, leaving its only practical remaining purpose one of intimidation, as physical manifestations of wealth in the form of military hardware are more symbolic of power than a large GDP or what have you.

[Red Future]

Because China does provide them weapons, and north Korea is the one who sells weapons to Iran.

They also train combat brigades for African nations

[Psy]

I am not denying that a large buildup is necessary for large scale military action, but rather that such military action itself has become an antiquated means of conducting foreign policy for nations as wealthy as the US. Its obsolete nature makes it unnecessary, leaving its only practical remaining purpose one of intimidation, as physical manifestations of wealth in the form of military hardware are more symbolic of power than a large GDP or what have you.
How is it obsolete? Russia in Georgia made it clear they are ready to use military force to protect their interests from US interests. Russia didn't seem threatened by US capital, the opposite happened US with Russian threatening to deny European capitalists access to Russian markets that caused Europe to temporary fall into line with Russia on the matter.

[ckaihatsu]

Okay -- then start with the content at post #32.

[thesadmafioso]

How is it obsolete? Russia in Georgia made it clear they are ready to use military force to protect their interests from US interests. Russia didn't seem threatened by US capital, the opposite happened US with Russian threatening to deny European capitalists access to Russian markets that caused Europe to temporary fall into line with Russia on the matter.

You seem to be missing the fact that it is all relative. Yes, you provided an example of the use of conventional military force recently, but you fail to take in the in grand context of its effect comparatively speaking of that of economics. What you have provided here is an entirely one sided interpretation of this equation, when the reality of matters demands a far more developed analysis of such. The example you mentioned at first appears to be a legitimate point, but upon making the realization that no scale is provided it then ceases to have such weight in this discussion.


Okay -- then start with the content at post #32.

I would love to if you had actually posted something of any real substance in post #32.

[Psy]

You seem to be missing the fact that it is all relative. Yes, you provided an example of the use of conventional military force recently, but you fail to take in the in grand context of its effect comparatively speaking of that of economics. What you have provided here is an entirely one sided interpretation of this equation, when the reality of matters demands a far more developed analysis of such. The example you mentioned at first appears to be a legitimate point, but upon making the realization that no scale is provided it then ceases to have such weight in this discussion.

Okay how is military build up suppose to economically intimidate China? China knows the US can't blockade them as it would hurt US capitalists far more then Chinese capitalists as most of the factories that would be effected are owned by US capitalists anyway and it would give China an excuse to nationalize US property in China.

[thesadmafioso]

Okay how is military build up suppose to economically intimidate China? China knows the US can't blockade them as it would hurt US capitalists far more then Chinese capitalists as most of the factories that would be effected are owned by US capitalists anyway and it would give China an excuse to nationalize US property in China.

If you had actually taken the time to properly digest the contents of my previous statements you would know that I previously cited the power of economics as one of the primary reasons for the increasing irrelevance of mass military force. You have misinterpreted my statement and then went on to argue against the skewered view of my stance which you have, how do you expect me to respond to this nonsense exactly?

[Psy]

If you had actually taken the time to properly digest the contents of my previous statements you would know that I previously cited the power of economics as one of the primary reasons for the increasing irrelevance of mass military force. You have misinterpreted my statement and then went on to argue against the skewered view of my stance which you have, how do you expect me to respond to this nonsense exactly?
Mass military force is not irrelevant if it were the ruling class would not use it so often. Also China is too large to intimate economically as it is already a regional imperial power, thus just like how US economic intimidation just speed up Imperial Japan's expansion the same is probably true for China. As like Imperial Japan China knows the US can't economically do anything to China only militarily does the US pose a threat to China.

[thesadmafioso]

Mass military force is not irrelevant if it were the ruling class would not use it so often. Also China is too large to intimate economically as it is already a regional imperial power, thus just like how US economic intimidation just speed up Imperial Japan's expansion the same is probably true for China. As like Imperial Japan China knows the US can't economically do anything to China only militarily does the US pose a threat to China.

Increasingly irrelevant does not equate to irrelevant. Reading comprehension is a helpful skill to work on if you plan on attempting to play a part in a text based discussion.

And you really need a lesson in just the basics of economics, as your statements are so deprived of any economic sense or reason. One essential component of economics which you were quite quick to underwrite was the need that an export driven economy requires for continued growth, and that is a market. And so as to avoid having any other miscommunication here I will try to dumb this down to the core most principles at play in this nonsensical proposal of yours, America is that market. China needs a large, wealthy market for its goods to be sold in, and that happens to be America. America needs cheap manufactured goods, and China has the cheap labor which allows its manufacturing sector to boom. So you sort of have an economic MAD here, with both sides unwilling to risk upsetting the equilibrium here too much for fear of causing dramatic damage to their economic interests. This goes to highlight my previous point of the power held by economics, where in such military strength is just but another pawn.

It should also be noted that I never once mentioned the use of economic intimidation and its effectiveness between large powers, such as the US and China. So I haven't the faintest of an idea in regards to how you managed to work that into your argument.

[Pravda Soyuz]

Both sides of the DMZ are fueling the tensions. The truth is, Korea's current political geography cannot be maintained. Tensions will rise until something happens. I am not advocating war, but something will need to resolve this. A socialist revolution could do the trick.....

As my Political Statement says, many less developed nations would be greatly improved by non-totalitarian socialism (such as South and North Korea). America however, persists on forcing their capitalist views onto Korea, even though the Korean people don't want them. I do not support the government of either Korean nation, and advocate revolution in both.

[Psy]

Increasingly irrelevant does not equate to irrelevant. Reading comprehension is a helpful skill to work on if you plan on attempting to play a part in a text based discussion.

And you really need a lesson in just the basics of economics, as your statements are so deprived of any economic sense or reason. One essential component of economics which you were quite quick to underwrite was the need that an export driven economy requires for continued growth, and that is a market. And so as to avoid having any other miscommunication here I will try to dumb this down to the core most principles at play in this nonsensical proposal of yours, America is that market. China needs a large, wealthy market for its goods to be sold in, and that happens to be America. America needs cheap manufactured goods, and China has the cheap labor which allows its manufacturing sector to boom. So you sort of have an economic MAD here, with both sides unwilling to risk upsetting the equilibrium here too much for fear of causing dramatic damage to their economic interests. This goes to highlight my previous point of the power held by economics, where in such military strength is just but another pawn.

It should also be noted that I never once mentioned the use of economic intimidation and its effectiveness between large powers, such as the US and China. So I haven't the faintest of an idea in regards to how you managed to work that into your argument.
If your theory was true Imperial Japan would have never challenged colonies of Britain,France and the USA.

Like Japan leading up to WWII China is quickly moving away from an export driven economy to the point where it now requires more and more imports, historically this has made regional imperialist powers expansionist as they look to exploit workers abroad to fuel their growing industry.

I don't see anything fundamentally different between the global economy of today and that of the 1930's (in terms of how it relates to imperial strategy) thus I can see China growing from a regional imperialist power to a global imperial power and this causing military conflict.

[thesadmafioso]

If your theory was true Imperial Japan would have never challenged colonies of Britain,France and the USA.

Like Japan leading up to WWII China is quickly moving away from an export driven economy to the point where it now requires more and more imports, historically this has made regional imperialist powers expansionist as they look to exploit workers abroad to fuel their growing industry.

I don't see anything fundamentally different between the global economy of today and that of the 1930's (in terms of how it relates to imperial strategy) thus I can see China growing from a regional imperialist power to a global imperial power and this causing military conflict.

I don't care if you don't see anything fundamentally different between the contemporary economic conditions of today and the 1930's, because such a view is dead wrong. It is very nice that you are so readily open to admitting your ignorance of modern economic developments, but that doesn't really add much to the quality of debate here.

But I won't try to lecture you in the finer points of modern economic theory, as I doubt it would really do much good here. So enjoy your outmoded thought structure and I hope to get back to you in a few decades when we find that China has not turned into a militaristic machine rampaging through Asia hellbent on securing natural resources and the like.

[Psy]

I don't care if you don't see anything fundamentally different between the contemporary economic conditions of today and the 1930's, because such a view is dead wrong. It is very nice that you are so readily open to admitting your ignorance of modern economic developments, but that doesn't really add much to the quality of debate here.

But I won't try to lecture you in the finer points of modern economic theory, as I doubt it would really do much good here. So enjoy your outmoded thought structure and I hope to get back to you in a few decades when we find that China has not turned into a militaristic machine rampaging through Asia hellbent on securing natural resources and the like.
Then why does the US ruling class think it has to rampage throughout the world hellbent on securing markets? Why does military conquest work for the US economy but wouldn't for the Chinese?

The law of value still applies, Capitalism has not evolved past imperialism on the contrary capitalism is even more dependent on imperialism now then it was in the 1930's as the only solution the ruling classes have to the crisis of capital is to use imperialism to displace the crisis
geographically.

[synthesis]

I'd still like to know how, if this war is right on the horizon writing this petition will be anything more than a fart in a hurricane? If hundreds of thousands of demonstrators in America did sweet fuck all about the war in Iraq what makes you think a handful of emails will do anything? Or are you deliberately reading from the "how to accomplish jack shit" playbook?

If wars could be stopped by online petitions, I would seriously reevaluate my belief in the need for revolution.

(inb4 someone totally misunderstands what I'm saying)

[ckaihatsu]

Korean tensions ease—temporarily

By John Chan
21 December 2010

Yesterday, the Korean Peninsula teetered precariously on the brink of military conflict after the United States and its allies blocked moves by China and Russia in the UN Security Council to defuse tensions between North and South Korea. Ignoring warnings by Beijing and Moscow, Seoul went ahead with live-fire military exercises close to the disputed maritime border between the two countries, despite threats of retaliation by Pyongyang.

http://wsws.org/articles/2010/dec2010/kore-d21.shtml

[ed miliband]

lol: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/23/north-korea-holy-war-warning

[thesadmafioso]

Then why does the US ruling class think it has to rampage throughout the world hellbent on securing markets? Why does military conquest work for the US economy but wouldn't for the Chinese?

The law of value still applies, Capitalism has not evolved past imperialism on the contrary capitalism is even more dependent on imperialism now then it was in the 1930's as the only solution the ruling classes have to the crisis of capital is to use imperialism to displace imperialism geographically.

It doesn't work for the US economy, Iraq and Afghanistan have brought about nothing but economic decay for the American economy, minus an elite few private contractors and other similar business interests. The US holds a different place in the worlds foreign affairs than China, so they can get away taking the liberties that they do in invading certain nations. Though this not be mistaken for action with the sole intent of economic gain, as it is larger than that. What the US does in its military intervention across the globe has the grander intent of securing its position as the worlds only remaining superpower, and it is done not only out of short term economic gain for a few but rather to establish like minded satellite states in key regions of the world. It should also be noted that Iraq was incredibly isolated from the international community and economy, with the exception of its coveted oil exports, meaning that it was a target which few cared for. It had no grander economic relevance to the world aside from its value as an oil exporter, and it had no allies with such value, putting it in a prime position to be a target for a larger power such as the US. The imperial strategy being implemented by the US would not work with a nation like China though, as it would cause a great deal of competition and tension with the world, and this is quite undesirable for the Chinese. They do not need to apply raw military force to acquire resources, like what was seen in the example of Japan in the 1930's, as much more stable and effective economic routes now exist. I am not by any means denying that the basic fundamental underpinning of capitalism still exists, nor that its principles are still in many ways the same as they were in the 1930's, but rather that they have taken on a different form. The same forces of this era are still at play, with the ruling elite of the world all vying for limited wealth, class conflict, and the exploitation of the proletariat for such ends, but the actual makeup of how such is accomplished has evolved. As you have said, capitalism has not evolved past its basic themes and concepts, but that is not to say it has not developed new ways through which they can be achieved. And by that I am referring to the realization of the outmoded nature of large scale military conflict. Nuclear deterrents exist to keep most any conflict in check, and the world community is far more organized than it was in the early 20th century. The globalization of recent decades has set in place a structure of advanced capitalist economics which makes for a far more effective means of oppression than the strongest of military force, no longer is the man who controls the gun in power, but rather the men with the capital.

In short, though I am not denying the relevance of military conflict on the world stage, it is still quite clear that its role has become secondary to economics in recent decades in regards to the desired methods of assuring the continuation of the global status quo of capitalism. Subtlety is more adapt at bring about positive results for the modern rulers of capitalism, and it is a much more cost efficient manner as well, making it a more dominant factor in equations such as the current situation in Korea as well as Asia itself.

[Psy]

It doesn't work for the US economy, Iraq and Afghanistan have brought about nothing but economic decay for the American economy, minus an elite few private contractors and other similar business interests.

Yet the Democrats has continued the strategy suggesting a conscious within the American ruling class and only the proletariat has doubts about US military adventures in the Middle East.



The US holds a different place in the worlds foreign affairs than China, so they can get away taking the liberties that they do in invading certain nations. Though this not be mistaken for action with the sole intent of economic gain, as it is larger than that. What the US does in its military intervention across the globe has the grander intent of securing its position as the worlds only remaining superpower, and it is done not only out of short term economic gain for a few but rather to establish like minded satellite states in key regions of the world.

It should be noted that that if the US superpower status fades it would mean a return to the multi-polar world of the 1930's with just competing imperial blocks and odds are the US would be kicked back into the Americas as competing imperial blocks claim US oversea interests for their own.



It should also be noted that Iraq was incredibly isolated from the international community and economy, with the exception of its coveted oil exports, meaning that it was a target which few cared for. It had no grander economic relevance to the world aside from its value as an oil exporter, and it had no allies with such value, putting it in a prime position to be a target for a larger power such as the US. The imperial strategy being implemented by the US would not work with a nation like China though, as it would cause a great deal of competition and tension with the world, and this is quite undesirable for the Chinese. They do not need to apply raw military force to acquire resources, like what was seen in the example of Japan in the 1930's, as much more stable and effective economic routes now exist. I am not by any means denying that the basic fundamental underpinning of capitalism still exists, nor that its principles are still in many ways the same as they were in the 1930's, but rather that they have taken on a different form. The same forces of this era are still at play, with the ruling elite of the world all vying for limited wealth, class conflict, and the exploitation of the proletariat for such ends, but the actual makeup of how such is accomplished has evolved. As you have said, capitalism has not evolved past its basic themes and concepts, but that is not to say it has not developed new ways through which they can be achieved. And by that I am referring to the realization of the outmoded nature of large scale military conflict. Nuclear deterrents exist to keep most any conflict in check, and the world community is far more organized than it was in the early 20th century. The globalization of recent decades has set in place a structure of advanced capitalist economics which makes for a far more effective means of oppression than the strongest of military force, no longer is the man who controls the gun in power, but rather the men with the capital.

Then why did the US have a proxy war with Russia through Georgia? Documents prove that Georgia attacked Russian troops on the advice of US military advisors and their plan was to blow the tunnel before Russian reinforcements could move through tunnel (which they failed to do). Also the richer Americans lost to the more military powerful (in the region) Russians.



In short, though I am not denying the relevance of military conflict on the world stage, it is still quite clear that its role has become secondary to economics in recent decades in regards to the desired methods of assuring the continuation of the global status quo of capitalism. Subtlety is more adapt at bring about positive results for the modern rulers of capitalism, and it is a much more cost efficient manner as well, making it a more dominant factor in equations such as the current situation in Korea as well as Asia itself.
There is no global status quo of capitalism any more, the long boom is over now capitalism is in perpetual crises thus why ruling classes turn to military might to solve their problems more then before.

Even the Pentagon admits the US no longer has the economic clout to influence anyone anymore and their only means of influence is through military force.

[thesadmafioso]

Yet the Democrats has continued the strategy suggesting a conscious within the American ruling class and only the proletariat has doubts about US military adventures in the Middle East.


It should be noted that that if the US superpower status fades it would mean a return to the multi-polar world of the 1930's with just competing imperial blocks and odds are the US would be kicked back into the Americas as competing imperial blocks claim US oversea interests for their own.


Then why did the US have a proxy war with Russia through Georgia? Documents prove that Georgia attacked Russian troops on the advice of US military advisors and their plan was to blow the tunnel before Russian reinforcements could move through tunnel (which they failed to do). Also the richer Americans lost to the more military powerful (in the region) Russians.


There is no global status quo of capitalism any more, the long boom is over now capitalism is in perpetual crises thus why ruling classes turn to military might to solve their problems more then before.

Even the Pentagon admits the US no longer has the economic clout to influence anyone anymore and their only means of influence is through military force.
I don't even know where to begin with the actual rationale applied by Democrats which is used to remain in Afghanistan, but this comment implies that you need to read a lot more than a brief statement over the internet to gain a proper understanding of the geopolitical situation here. Democrats do not use the same models of thought as you do, and they view the situation very differently. I am not saying they are viewing it correctly, but merely that their objectives differ from yours. A difference of objective does not put you into a position where you can question the rationale behind American involvement in Afghanistan. A distorted and fictitiousness myth is still some peoples reality, and that is a threat we need to recognize if we are to actually do anything to combat it.

History does not repeat itself beyond the most broad and inapplicable ways, you need to move beyond that horribly flawed mentality. Sure, certain limited historical analogies can in many circumstances help to better explain points or what have you, but broad sweeping comparisons can very easily lead to a skewered interpretation of reality. Certain variables remain similar in many different historical cases, but this is by no means absolute enough to even attempt to make such a questionable contrast between these two situations.

And that proxy "war" lasted how long? Remind me again of the grand scope of that conflict? That can hardly be considered a war, and if anything it goes to prove my point of the insignificance of conventional military force in this era, as the results from that conflict were minuscule at best when actually compared to the impact economic action can have in the political arena. As I already mentioned, you are providing no scale for your bold claims of the relevance of the conflict in Georgia to this discussion. You cannot simply ignore that point and continue on in your provenly inadequate structure of measuring the nature of global conflict. It also would appear that you seem to think that I have completely written off conventional military force entirely, which I have not. I suppose the only option I would be left with here is to kindly ask you to work on your reading comprehension skills so we can move beyond such simplistic misunderstandings on your part.

So one of those 'capitalism is about to collapse types'? I suppose that would certainly explain a lot. Logic and reason do not really fit well into such claims, and such individuals proclaiming capitalisms relatively imminent demise tend to cling dearly to it as it sure takes a lot of the difficult out of the glorious international revolution of the people and the like. I am afraid to break the news of this to you, perhaps an entry level economics teacher would be better suited to this, but capitalism has solidified its existence quite extensively. It will take more than an international recession to bring about its fall, and for that to happen, thought like this needs to cease. Underestimating the strength of capitalism will do leftism no good, and will only serve as a nice soothing bit of drivel to the diluted leftist mind. What purpose will fighting ignorance with more ignorance in this case serve, exactly?

The Pentagon? Certainly no conflict of interest here, and that should most definitely be treated as a reliable source. Oh wait, you provided no citation to back up that very bold claim. I call it bold as the Pentagon is a very large building, with many different individuals, factions, and viewpoints floating about it, making it hard to believe that the entirety of the Pentagon actually subscribes to such thought. But back to the conflict of interest for a moment, you honestly don't think that is anything beyond a transparent remark to send more funding the way of the military? That remark implies an increased value upon military assets, and it just so happens that if it were followed in a practical manner that it would also mean that the people who made such comments would be receiving a great deal more funding for their pet projects and the like. Presuming that you have a pulse, you surely are aware that funding is quite the sought after commodity in government, and that such comments were likely not designed to provide valuable insight to geopolitical affairs but rather to secure the financial future of the military.

I don't know why I bother though, your cognitive functions seem about as salvageable as your average right wing drone, though obviously in a different direction. No actual hope exists to further the discussion here in a meaningful fashion, as you are too far gone in your inability to comprehend my well developed analysis of the situation due to your inflexible and dated modes of thought.

[Psy]

I don't even know where to begin with the actual rationale applied by Democrats which is used to remain in Afghanistan, but this comment implies that you need to read a lot more than a brief statement over the internet to gain a proper understanding of the geopolitical situation here. Democrats do not use the same models of thought as you do, and they view the situation very differently. I am not saying they are viewing it correctly, but merely that their objectives differ from yours. A difference of objective does not put you into a position where you can question the rationale behind American involvement in Afghanistan. A distorted and fictitiousness myth is still some peoples reality, and that is a threat we need to recognize if we are to actually do anything to combat it.

My point is that there seems to a consensus in the American ruling class that it is military influence not economic influence that is needed to defend US interests. That is primary because the US is economically much weaker then it was during the Cold War as the US economy has been stagnating since the Cold War with most of its growth being only on paper with not enough surplus value to back it and the US ruling class only solution to creating more fictional value with not enough real surplus value to back it.




And that proxy "war" lasted how long? Remind me again of the grand scope of that conflict? That can hardly be considered a war, and if anything it goes to prove my point of the insignificance of conventional military force in this era, as the results from that conflict were minuscule at best when actually compared to the impact economic action can have in the political arena.

That would be like calling the US invasion of Panama proof conventional military force is insignificant, like Panama the Georgian conflict was short because it was practically a one sided war that proved the significance of military forces as it was armed bodies of men not capital that decided the outcome.




As I already mentioned, you are providing no scale for your bold claims of the relevance of the conflict in Georgia to this discussion. You cannot simply ignore that point and continue on in your provenly inadequate structure of measuring the nature of global conflict. It also would appear that you seem to think that I have completely written off conventional military force entirely, which I have not. I suppose the only option I would be left with here is to kindly ask you to work on your reading comprehension skills so we can move beyond such simplistic misunderstandings on your part.

My point is the US economy is so weak it has to rely on conventional military more and more as its becomes economically weaker. The same is true for the British empire, it did rely heavily on economic pressure when it had a strong economy but as the British economy stagnates it turned to military pressure as a substitute.



So one of those 'capitalism is about to collapse types'? I suppose that would certainly explain a lot. Logic and reason do not really fit well into such claims, and such individuals proclaiming capitalisms relatively imminent demise tend to cling dearly to it as it sure takes a lot of the difficult out of the glorious international revolution of the people and the like. I am afraid to break the news of this to you, perhaps an entry level economics teacher would be better suited to this, but capitalism has solidified its existence quite extensively. It will take more than an international recession to bring about its fall, and for that to happen, thought like this needs to cease. Underestimating the strength of capitalism will do leftism no good, and will only serve as a nice soothing bit of drivel to the diluted leftist mind. What purpose will fighting ignorance with more ignorance in this case serve, exactly?

Capitalism was unharmed by WWII (it actually thrived on it). No, I'm saying Capitalism is in crisis causing a shortage of surplus value thus less surplus value to influence others.




The Pentagon? Certainly no conflict of interest here, and that should most definitely be treated as a reliable source. Oh wait, you provided no citation to back up that very bold claim. I call it bold as the Pentagon is a very large building, with many different individuals, factions, and viewpoints floating about it, making it hard to believe that the entirety of the Pentagon actually subscribes to such thought. But back to the conflict of interest for a moment, you honestly don't think that is anything beyond a transparent remark to send more funding the way of the military? That remark implies an increased value upon military assets, and it just so happens that if it were followed in a practical manner that it would also mean that the people who made such comments would be receiving a great deal more funding for their pet projects and the like. Presuming that you have a pulse, you surely are aware that funding is quite the sought after commodity in government, and that such comments were likely not designed to provide valuable insight to geopolitical affairs but rather to secure the financial future of the military.

I never said the entire Pentagon but the US adventure in Iraq and Afghanistan came from those in the Pentagon that pushed for the US to have a military able to fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars.

[thesadmafioso]

My point is that there seems to a consensus in the American ruling class that it is military influence not economic influence that is needed to defend US interests. That is primary because the US is economically much weaker then it was during the Cold War as the US economy has been stagnating since the Cold War with most of its growth being only on paper with not enough surplus value to back it and the US ruling class only solution to creating more fictional value with not enough real surplus value to back it.



That would be like calling the US invasion of Panama proof conventional military force is insignificant, like Panama the Georgian conflict was short because it was practically a one sided war that proved the significance of military forces as it was armed bodies of men not capital that decided the outcome.



My point is the US economy is so weak it has to rely on conventional military more and more as its becomes economically weaker. The same is true for the British empire, it did rely heavily on economic pressure when it had a strong economy but as the British economy stagnates it turned to military pressure as a substitute.


Capitalism was unharmed by WWII (it actually thrived on it). No, I'm saying Capitalism is in crisis causing a shortage of surplus value thus less surplus value to influence others.



I never said the entire Pentagon but the US adventure in Iraq and Afghanistan came from those in the Pentagon that pushed for the US to have a military able to fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars.

You honestly think that a 'consensus' exists amongst the ruling elite that military force surpasses economic force? You really seem to keep missing my point, which I find difficult to understand as I have repeated it multiple times, and I have witnessed you avoid it on just as many occasions. This is pointless if you are going to just ignore my points and ramble on with yours without any regard to the actual content of my response. If you are actually going to take the time to counter my points, then go right ahead, but please just stop wasting away my time with this sort of nonsense. Until then, your comments will continue to have the same effect as if you were just filling them into a blank word document or what have you, as you are not actually interacting with my points. Yes I realize that you took certain quotes and 'responded' to each, but you are only making the same counter points which you have been making since the start of this discussion if you can even really call it that due to the low value which it has been degraded to. Repeating something that is false does not make it any less so, and you really need to come to this realization for this to go anywhere. I would suggest you re-read my previous statements and look for the content which you appear to have missed.

I don't care what your "point" is, I know what your point is, and I have shown you on numerous occasions how mistaken you are in it. Quit making such a nuance of yourself and take the time to understand what I am saying before attempting to throw together some mediocre response to it all. I refuse to just run around in circles here in a futile attempt to force some reason and logic into your lifeless mind. Why you even thought a response was in order to my original statement is still quite beyond me, as it is now readily apparent that you did not actually fully comprehend the depth of what was contained within it. I am fairly sure that this site has a learning section to it or something along those lines, why don't you go mope around for a bit? It would be a far more effective use of our time clearly, as I would be freed of dealing with your youthful ignorance and shallow base of knowledge and you could perhaps work on making that not so.

The vast majority of what you have said can be answered by directing you to my previous posts, and any other remaining discrepancies are either caused by a blatant misinterpretation of my comments on your behalf and thus are irrelevant or straightforward ignorance in regards to the operational nature of capitalism.

For instance, you said that I was mistaken in viewing "There is no global status quo of capitalism any more, the long boom is over now capitalism is in perpetual crises" in a way which was commenting on the collapse of capitalism. How on earth is this caused by anything other than a lack of basic reading comprehension skills? You cannot possibly refute that what I implied from that statement was perfectly justifiable. As for the WWII bit, I have no idea how you thought that could be worked into a response to my comment, as I did not bring it up and it was discussing the future of capitalism, not its past. Yes it is obviously a factor which was influential in the development of capitalism, but the role of that information in the direction of this discussion is minimal at best.

Then we have the Pentagon bit, you just cited "the Pentagon" and nothing more. At the very least this is indicative of a majority, which is still more than enough to prove my point, regardless of any choice of technically incorrect wording on my behalf. Even if I may of misused one phrase, the connotative value was still more than present in the statement, and to focus only on such an error would be as illogical as taking my entire argument and ignoring it over a grammatical error. Which is in essence what you did, as I see no response to my note of a lack of actual citation or my statements regarding the present conflict of interest.

[Blackscare]

thesadmafioso, considering how snide you come off (I'm almost certainly not going to like you as a poster, I can tell that much), I kind of hesitate telling you this, but you're debating against a brick wall here.

Psy is the native forum wackjob/imbecile, he's extremely talented at dragging on debates and twisting them into bizarre spectacles. I mean, keep arguing with him, it's pretty funny watching a snob and someone too insane to realize he's being talked down to go at it. :laugh:

[Psy]

You honestly think that a 'consensus' exists amongst the ruling elite that military force surpasses economic force?

If there wasn't a consensus we would have seen the US switch to using economic influence over Iraq and Afghanistan when the Democrats got into power, they would simply make Iraq and Afghanistan in-debted to the US while handing all property to American capitalists then withdrawal their forces. The US is trying to do this but it lacks surplus value to impose its will on Iraq and Afghanistan through economic dominance.



You really seem to keep missing my point, which I find difficult to understand as I have repeated it multiple times, and I have witnessed you avoid it on just as many occasions. This is pointless if you are going to just ignore my points and ramble on with yours without any regard to the actual content of my response. If you are actually going to take the time to counter my points, then go right ahead, but please just stop wasting away my time with this sort of nonsense. Until then, your comments will continue to have the same effect as if you were just filling them into a blank word document or what have you, as you are not actually interacting with my points. Yes I realize that you took certain quotes and 'responded' to each, but you are only making the same counter points which you have been making since the start of this discussion if you can even really call it that due to the low value which it has been degraded to. Repeating something that is false does not make it any less so, and you really need to come to this realization for this to go anywhere. I would suggest you re-read my previous statements and look for the content which you appear to have missed.

You haven't answered my point that if economic influence trumps military influence then the US would have simply used economic influence to take effective ownership of Iraq and Afghanistan. Or how the US is suppose to do this when they lack the surplus value to even keep their own economy growing at a steady rate.



I don't care what your "point" is, I know what your point is, and I have shown you on numerous occasions how mistaken you are in it. Quit making such a nuance of yourself and take the time to understand what I am saying before attempting to throw together some mediocre response to it all. I refuse to just run around in circles here in a futile attempt to force some reason and logic into your lifeless mind. Why you even thought a response was in order to my original statement is still quite beyond me, as it is now readily apparent that you did not actually fully comprehend the depth of what was contained within it. I am fairly sure that this site has a learning section to it or something along those lines, why don't you go mope around for a bit? It would be a far more effective use of our time clearly, as I would be freed of dealing with your youthful ignorance and shallow base of knowledge and you could perhaps work on making that not so.

The vast majority of what you have said can be answered by directing you to my previous posts, and any other remaining discrepancies are either caused by a blatant misinterpretation of my comments on your behalf and thus are irrelevant or straightforward ignorance in regards to the operational nature of capitalism.

You still haven't answer my point.

Your point is the imperial powers class can use capital to extort weaker capitalist states thus rendering military power less important. You fail to explain why there is still so many military conflicts or how this works when the imperial power in question is suffering from a crisis of capital.

You seem to have a simplistic theory of capital is the ultimate imperial tool but give no historical president or current examples.




For instance, you said that I was mistaken in viewing "There is no global status quo of capitalism any more, the long boom is over now capitalism is in perpetual crises" in a way which was commenting on the collapse of capitalism. How on earth is this caused by anything other than a lack of basic reading comprehension skills? You cannot possibly refute that what I implied from that statement was perfectly justifiable.

Crisis don't mean collapse if it did capitalism would have collapsed years ago, it is you that lack basic word comprehension skills. I mean come on did you even read Marx Capital as if you did you'd notice Marx himself talks about capitalism in perpetual crises without inferring that capitalism will collapse because it is going from crisis to crisis (only that it might collapse if it can't displace these crisis temporarily through space and time).



As for the WWII bit, I have no idea how you thought that could be worked into a response to my comment, as I did not bring it up and it was discussing the future of capitalism, not its past. Yes it is obviously a factor which was influential in the development of capitalism, but the role of that information in the direction of this discussion is minimal at best.

I was pointing out crisis of capital does not mean collapse of capital, nor does inter-imperialist wars.



Then we have the Pentagon bit, you just cited "the Pentagon" and nothing more. At the very least this is indicative of a majority, which is still more than enough to prove my point, regardless of any choice of technically incorrect wording on my behalf. Even if I may of misused one phrase, the connotative value was still more than present in the statement, and to focus only on such an error would be as illogical as taking my entire argument and ignoring it over a grammatical error. Which is in essence what you did, as I see no response to my note of a lack of actual citation or my statements regarding the present conflict of interest.
Do you even follow history of US imperialism?

Okay history lesson, after the Gulf War the Pentagon had internal debates over reforms. The idea was to move away from a military geared towards fighting the cold war. Now if the Pentagon believed you they wouldn't care and never reformed since it would be more profitable to build arms that were mostly just for show and don't have to be effective and it would mean the Pentagon would only have to intimidate and never had to risk military endeavors that often.

What came out of the internal debates was the US military had to geared towards being involved in wars far more frequently and during the 1990's the US military interventions increased. So let me get this strait you don't think there is consensus among the US ruling class about relying more heavily on military might even though this has been US policy since Clinton?

[thesadmafioso]

thesadmafioso, considering how snide you come off (I'm almost certainly not going to like you as a poster, I can tell that much), I kind of hesitate telling you this, but you're debating against a brick wall here.

Psy is the native forum wackjob/imbecile, he's extremely talented at dragging on debates and twisting them into bizarre spectacles. I mean, keep arguing with him, it's pretty funny watching a snob and someone too insane to realize he's being talked down to go at it. :laugh:

Well yeah, I kind of figured out the wackjob/imbecile bit a while ago. The history of dragging out and distorting debates seems to follow from that easily enough too, but it is reassuring to know that this sort of thing is not unprecedented and that I am not the only one witnessing this nonsensical charade. Hope you enjoyed the show.

[Psy]

Well yeah, I kind of figured out the wackjob/imbecile bit a while ago. The history of dragging out and distorting debates seems to follow from that easily enough too, but it is reassuring to know that this sort of thing is not unprecedented and that I am not the only one witnessing this nonsensical charade. Hope you enjoyed the show.
Yes I'm a wackjob the US would never invade Iraq, why would it with sanctions and its economic dominance and oh wait it did and leading up to the Iraq invasion it was clear the US even then lacked the economic dominance to even prevent its allies from interfering with US interests in Iraq with Iraq selling its oil through the Euro instead of the US dollar and European capitalists already making deals with Saddam to carve up Iraq when sanctions lift leaving US capitalists with only scraps.

Again you seem to give capital magical powers were the US can wield it as a weapon even when it lacks capital. Just image what would have happened in 2008 if OPEC switched to the Euro, would you still think the US's primary weapon would be its capital even though without OPEC its dollar would be worthless?

[thesadmafioso]

Yes I'm a wackjob the US would never invade Iraq, why would it with sanctions and its economic dominance and oh wait it did and leading up to the Iraq invasion it was clear the US even then lacked the economic dominance to even prevent its allies from interfering with US interests in Iraq with Iraq sells its oil through the Euro instead of the US dollar and European capitalists already making deals with Saddam to carve up Iraq when sanctions lift leaving US capitalists with only scraps.

Again you seem to give capital magical powers were the US can wield it as a weapon even when it lacks capital. Just image what would have happened in 2008 if OPEC switched to the Europe, would you still think the US's primary weapon would be its capital even though without OPEC its dollar would be worthless?

That is exactly what I said. Spot on, good sir.

No but seriously, it was a nice shot at it, but you still have quite the delusional image of what I was actually saying. How about we do this though, you can keep posting responses to my aforementioned stances on this matter, and I will respond once it seems that you have a working understanding of what I have previously exposed. Once you manage to throw together some words into a coherent statement which shows that your knowledge of my position is comprehensive enough, I will grace your underdeveloped mind with a response.

I wish you the best of luck in your continued endeavors though, and I truly hope that you will put me into a position where in I am obligated to respond. Of course if current trends continue onward, that seems rather unlikely, but it would be nice regardless.

[Psy]

That is exactly what I said. Spot on, good sir.

No but seriously, it was a nice shot at it, but you still have quite the delusional image of what I was actually saying. How about we do this though, you can keep posting responses to my aforementioned stances on this matter, and I will respond once it seems that you have a working understanding of what I have previously exposed. Once you manage to throw together some words into a coherent statement which shows that your knowledge of my position is comprehensive enough, I will grace your underdeveloped mind with a response.

I wish you the best of luck in your continued endeavors though, and I truly hope that you will put me into a position where in I am obligated to respond. Of course if current trends continue onward, that seems rather unlikely, but it would be nice regardless.
I know your positions you think the situation has changed since the cold war making military force irrelevant even though there is more military interventions now. You said you were referring to small nations when I bought up China but then what about Iraq or the many other US military inventions during the 1990? Why did the US army need to reform after the collapse of the Soviet Union if the US could just use its capital to consolidate its power using its military to mostly just intimidate?

You mention status quo but what status quo? The last status quo was the cold war, I doubt any of the ruling class plans on bringing that back. The US since the fall of the USSR has not been fighting the status quo but fighting to fill the power vacuum created by the fall of the USSR yet so has all of the other imperial blocks, meaning the collective outcome of the self-interest of the imperial blocks is a multi-polar world like that of the 1930's.

Now you seem to think capitalism has evolved past the 1930's in this regard, even though global capitalism existed long before the 1930's and protectionism came out from the capital crises of the time meaning capitalism is repeating what it did in past. As for nuclear weapons keeping military conflicts in check they only narrowly prevented the Cuban missile crisis from turning into WWIII and we came very close to WWIII many times between the Cuban missile crisis to the end of the cold war.

Lastly we are long past the long boom and returning to the natural state of capitalism of cycles, this means imperial powers have less economic power to influence others. So the US is stuck with diminishing economic power to impose its will that leaves military power.

[thesadmafioso]

I know your positions you think the situation has changed since the cold war making military force irrelevant even though there is more military interventions now. You said you were referring to small nations when I bought up China but then what about Iraq or the many other US military inventions during the 1990? Why did the US army need to reform after the collapse of the Soviet Union if the US could just use its capital to consolidate its power using its military to mostly just intimidate?

You mention status quo but what status quo? The last status quo was the cold war, I doubt any of the ruling class plans on bringing that back. The US since the fall of the USSR has not been fighting the status quo but fighting to fill the power vacuum created by the fall of the USSR yet so has all of the other imperial blocks, meaning the collective outcome of the self-interest of the imperial blocks is a multi-polar world like that of the 1930's.

Now you seem to think capitalism has evolved past the 1930's in this regard, even though global capitalism existed long before the 1930's and protectionism came out from the capital crises of the time meaning capitalism is repeating what it did in past. As for nuclear weapons keeping military conflicts in check they only narrowly prevented the Cuban missile crisis from turning into WWIII and we came very close to WWIII many times between the Cuban missile crisis to the end of the cold war.

Lastly we are long past the long boom and returning to the natural state of capitalism of cycles, this means imperial powers have less economic power to influence others. So the US is stuck with diminishing economic power to impose its will that leaves military power.

Well thank you for confirming my previous remarks, but why don't you have another go at it? It is now more obvious than ever that you clearly have some issues in regards to the fundamentals of reading comprehension and other assorted basic language skills. This is quite nice though, now we have a post to juxtapose with my actual statements, and everyone can see clearly how terribly inadequate your language skills are.

[ckaihatsu]

Thesadmafioso is simply using hyperbole and insults here, and is barely even addressing the substance of the themes raised on a point-by-point basis. For the purposes of discussion -- which is what a discussion board is for -- these kinds of responses are useless.

Outside of the main topics themselves -- which I am in full agreement with Psy on -- here are a couple of other, related points:





A difference of objective does not put you into a position where you can question the rationale behind American involvement in Afghanistan.


This is *beyond* "snobbery" or elitism -- it is counter-revolutionary and un-democratic as well, saying that a regular person should not even *attempt* to question imperialist and foreign policy actions.





And that proxy "war" lasted how long? Remind me again of the grand scope of that conflict? That can hardly be considered a war, and if anything it goes to prove my point of the insignificance of conventional military force in this era, as the results from that conflict were minuscule at best when actually compared to the impact economic action can have in the political arena. As I already mentioned, you are providing no scale for your bold claims of the relevance of the conflict in Georgia to this discussion.


Political actions are the *culmination* of aggregated business (economic) interests -- we could call bourgeois politics the representative *collectivization* of prevailing regional economic interests. Whatever side wins the *political* battle wins all of the underlying business / economic matters as well -- that's why so much attention and discussion takes place over *political* manifestations.

This characterization of the impact of Georgia's U.S.-backed invasion into Russia's South Ossetia in 2008 is simply way off-the-mark -- it was neither "insignificant", nor was it subsumed to the economic realm of dynamics there. The fact that the outcome rebuffed U.S. influence there, through its proxy Georgia, provides clear evidence that the U.S. empire is no longer able to extend its military influence to any part of the world as it pleases.

[Psy]

Well thank you for confirming my previous remarks, but why don't you have another go at it? It is now more obvious than ever that you clearly have some issues in regards to the fundamentals of reading comprehension and other assorted basic language skills. This is quite nice though, now we have a post to juxtapose with my actual statements, and everyone can see clearly how terribly inadequate your language skills are.
What minor point are you referring to?

If it is not about the nuclear deterrence you bought up, or that capitalism has evolved past having to rely so heavily on military force?

Looking back at your summary



In short, though I am not denying the relevance of military conflict on the world stage, it is still quite clear that its role has become secondary to economics in recent decades in regards to the desired methods of assuring the continuation of the global status quo of capitalism. Subtlety is more adapt at bring about positive results for the modern rulers of capitalism, and it is a much more cost efficient manner as well, making it a more dominant factor in equations such as the current situation in Korea as well as Asia itself.
Your only other point is subtlety and cost effectiveness. Well if the US lacks the means to influence by economic means cost effectiveness is going to side with military options. As for subtlety is not a concern of most ruling classes, as most have a strong enough hold on what information the proletariat in general receives.

[thesadmafioso]

Thesadmafioso is simply using hyperbole and insults here, and is barely even addressing the substance of the themes raised on a point-by-point basis. For the purposes of discussion -- which is what a discussion board is for -- these kinds of responses are useless.



Oh really? Perhaps you and Psy should go ahead and cease with this nonsense then, after all this is a discussion board. If you want substance, go read my earlier comments as you seemed to miss most all of the substance within those. Until then, I shall continued to wait for that coveted response based in reason and not delusion.

This is what I get though, trying to deal with idiocy in such a blunt manner. This is truly my fault though for actually think that ignorance in the quantity here could be dealt with effectively through logic and reasoning, and for presuming that some individuals which occupy this board were actually capable of reading and understanding written language.

[thesadmafioso]

What minor point are you referring to?

If it is not about the nuclear deterrence you bought up, or that capitalism has evolved past having to rely so heavily on military force?

Looking back at your summary

Your only other point is subtlety and cost effectiveness. Well if the US lacks the means to influence by economic means cost effectiveness is going to side with military options. As for subtlety is not a concern of most ruling classes, as most have a strong enough hold on what information the proletariat in general receives.

This is not an enigma which will be solved by blundering it continually with a large blunt object, it will require a bit more critical thinking and finesse than that. Why don't you take another go at it though, this is getting to be most amusing.

[Psy]

This is not an enigma which will be solved by blundering it continually with a large blunt object, it will require a bit more critical thinking and finesse than that. Why don't you take another go at it though, this is getting to be most amusing.
Meaning your point in question is so irrelevant that you didn't even bother to include it in your own summary.

I'm starting to wonder if you exist on the same planet Earth, you claim that military force is becoming somewhat irrelevant when since the Cold War we seen military force become the key factor in shaping the world, where the US with a stagnate and troubled economy is a the worlds largest imperial power thanks to military power as the US military ensures every country in the world has to trade oil in US dollars or they will invade you (which is what Iraq was about). Without military power the US would only be a regional power if that as it produces no commodities the rest of the worlds wants in any significant quantities, it only has economic strength through its military dominance over OPEC.

[thesadmafioso]

Meaning your point in question is so irrelevant that you didn't even bother to include it in your own summary.

I'm starting to wonder if you exist on the same planet Earth, you claim that military force is becoming somewhat irrelevant when since the Cold War we seen military force become the key factor in shaping the world, where the US with a stagnate and troubled economy is a the worlds largest imperial power thanks to military power as the US military ensures every country in the world has to trade oil in US dollars or they will invade you (which is what Iraq was about). Without military power the US would only be a regional power if that as it produces no commodities the rest of the worlds wants in any significant quantities, it only has economic strength through its military dominance over OPEC.

Meaning that you are still having trouble understanding the complexities of my position on this matter and that because of such I have not added anything to this discussion, as nothing needs to be added. Why bother when you are still having so much trouble with what I have said thus far? Why bother when you are simply arguing with a delusional image of what you believe that I have said as opposed to what I have actually said.

[Psy]

Meaning that you are still having trouble understanding the complexities of my position on this matter and that because of such I have not added anything to this discussion, as nothing needs to be added. Why bother when you are still having so much trouble with what I have said thus far? Why bother when you are simply arguing with a delusional image of what you believe that I have said as opposed to what I have actually said.
I'm arguing based on your summary.

Again


In short, though I am not denying the relevance of military conflict on the world stage, it is still quite clear that its role has become secondary to economics in recent decades in regards to the desired methods of assuring the continuation of the global status quo of capitalism. Subtlety is more adapt at bring about positive results for the modern rulers of capitalism, and it is a much more cost efficient manner as well, making it a more dominant factor in equations such as the current situation in Korea as well as Asia itself.
So lets recap



I am not denying the relevance of military conflict on the world stage, it is still quite clear that its role has become secondary to economics in recent decades in regards to the desired methods of assuring the continuation of the global status quo of capitalism
Problem #1 with this statement there is no global status quo of capitalism, global capitalism is still in transition from the collapse of the USSR and the USA the world's large imperialist power is leading this changing from the status quo.

Problem #2 since the collapse of the USSR the frequency of military conflicts has increased.

Problem #3 US economic power has degraded to the point that the US is now mostly just leaching off more productive economies



Subtlety is more adapt at bring about positive results for the modern rulers of capitalism
Since when was the ruling class ever subtle?



it is a much more cost efficient manner as well, making it a more dominant factor in equations such as the current situation in Korea as well as Asia itself.
The US only has military influence, it has problems even getting enough surplus value to bribe is allies so how is it suppose to afford to use capital it doesn't have to influence imperial blocks hostile to it?

You seem to not understand the US empire has devolved into nothing but a protection racket, US imperialism is now nothing more then a bunch of thugs demanding protection money from economies not as stagnant as the US economy.

[thesadmafioso]

I'm arguing based on your summary.

Again

So lets recap

Problem #1 with this statement there is no global status quo of capitalism, global capitalism is still in transition from the collapse of the USSR and the USA the world's large imperialist power is leading this changing from the status quo.

Problem #2 since the collapse of the USSR the frequency of military conflicts has increased.

Problem #3 US economic power has degraded to the point that the US is now mostly just leaching off more productive economies

Since when was the ruling class ever subtle?

The US only has military influence, it has problems even getting enough surplus value to bribe is allies so how is it suppose to afford to use capital it doesn't have to influence imperial blocks hostile to it?

You seem to not understand the US empire has devolved into nothing but a protection racket, US imperialism is now nothing more then a bunch of thugs demanding protection money from economies not as stagnant as the US economy.

That is most amusing, bravo. I was not sure if you would be able to top the outrageously incorrect and nonsensical levels of your earlier performances, but it would appear that once more you deliver. A spectacular showing too, you really went all out on that one, going as far as including numbered 'problems'.

That is absolutely brilliant, taking my overly simplified summary meant for the fool too intimated by text longer than a few lines, and then taking even those deluded comments horribly out of context. Not in my wildest dreams could I imagine an interpretation of my remarks so hilariously incorrect, or such counterpoints that are so dead wrong.

I am giddy with anticipate for the next batch of 'counter-points', please continue on.

[Psy]

That is most amusing, bravo. I was not sure if you would be able to top the outrageously incorrect and nonsensical levels of your earlier performances, but it would appear that once more you deliver. A spectacular showing too, you really went all out on that one, going as far as including numbered 'problems'.

That is absolutely brilliant, taking my overly simplified summary meant for the fool too intimated by text longer than a few lines, and then taking even those deluded comments horribly out of context. Not in my wildest dreams could I imagine an interpretation of my remarks so hilariously incorrect, or such counterpoints that are so dead wrong.

I am giddy with anticipate for the next batch of 'counter-points', please continue on.
How are they out of context? How can a summery be out of context when taken its entirety?

Also you still haven't said how the US (the sick man of global capitalism) is suppose to intimidate anyone with its capital. Yes nations like China wants to trade with the US but because the US has military intimation over oil producers meaning if China want to import oil it needs US dollars. If Iraq was not invaded and oil was decoupled to the US dollar it would cause the US economy to grind to a halt and China would stop trading with the US as they couldn't get that much value from US dollars.

You seem to think the US is acting from a position of strength when it is acting from a position of desperation. The US ruling class is reacting to situations beyond its control not shaping them.

[thesadmafioso]

How are they out of context? How can a summery be out of context when taken its entirety?

Also you still haven't said how the US (the sick man of global capitalism) is suppose to intimidate anyone with its capital. Yes nations like China wants to trade with the US but because the US has military intimation over oil producers meaning if China want to import oil it needs US dollars. If Iraq was not invaded and oil was decoupled to the US dollar it would cause the US economy to grind to a halt and China would stop trading with the US as they couldn't get that much value from US dollars.

You seem to think the US is acting from a position of strength when it is acting from a position of desperation. The US ruling class is reacting to situations beyond its control not shaping them.

You seem to think that I can still take you seriously, and that you are actually saying something that is even remotely true. Which is still more than amusing, so I won't interrupt.

[Psy]

You seem to think that I can still take you seriously, and that you are actually saying something that is even remotely true. Which is still more than amusing, so I won't interrupt.

Newsflash the long boom is over, the stagnation of the US economy became apparent in 1971 when it got so bad the US broke from the Bretton Woods system so the US economy could ride of the coat tails of world capital.

The reason for the crisis in 2008 was not too much fictional capital but not enough real capital to back it up since the US economy has been stagnating since 1971. Even US economic policy makers saw this thus why they encouraged a bubble economy driven by speculation as the theory was as long as there was constant speculation driven booms the US economy could continue to limp forward despite stagnation in the real economy.

Thus why the US has relied more and more on military intimation as it become economically weaker and weaker. You seem to be stuck in the 1950's when US imperialism was primarily driven by economic influence.

[thesadmafioso]

Newsflash the long boom is over, the stagnation of the US economy became apparent in 1971 when it got so bad the US broke from the Bretton Woods system so the US economy could ride of the coat tails of world capital.

The reason for the crisis in 2008 was not too much fictional capital but not enough real capital to back it up since the US economy has been stagnating since 1971. Even US economic policy makers saw this thus why they encouraged a bubble economy driven by speculation as the theory as long as there was another speculation driven boom the US economy could continue to limp forward despite stagnation in the real economy.

Thus why the US has relied more and more on military intimation as it become economically weaker and weaker. You seem to be stuck in the 1950's when US imperialism was primarily driven by economic influence.

And you seem to think that I still care to read your comments in a serious manner. I mean, you have just logged so much nonsensically false drivel in your last few posts that I wouldn't know where to start in refuting it all, so I think that waiting this out is the most viable option at this point. My previous statements still stand, as it would appear you are somehow still are experiencing difficulty in understanding the positions exposed in such. Please continue bashing your head against that wall though, it still remains an entertaining spectacle.

[Psy]

And you seem to think that I still care to read your comments in a serious manner. I mean, you have just logged so much nonsensically false drivel in your last few posts that I wouldn't know where to start in refuting it all, so I think that waiting this out is the most viable option at this point. My previous statements still stand, as it would appear you are somehow still are experiencing difficulty in understanding the positions exposed in such. Please continue bashing your head against that wall though, it still remains an entertaining spectacle.
Wait you do know what I just said about US stagnation and the 2008 crisis is the official stance of many Marxist parties right? That since the 2008 crisis can be linked to insufficient destruction of capital from the crisis of 1971?

This is the context of US imperialism, they are trying to expand their influence from a position of over production and stagnation. They are also doing it from a position of massive debt as that was a tool to combat over production and stagnation.

Thus in the context of reality you expect me to seriously believe the US can use the fact the US economy is drowning in debt to intimidate foreign capitalists more then US military force.

[thesadmafioso]

Wait you do know what I just said about US stagnation and the 2008 crisis is the official stance of many Marxist parties right? That since the 2008 crisis can be linked to insufficient destruction of capital from the crisis of 1971?

This is the context of US imperialism, they are trying to expand their influence from a position of over production and stagnation. They are also doing it from a position of massive debt as that was a tool to combat over production and stagnation.

Thus in the context of reality you expect me to seriously believe the US can use the fact the US economy is drowning in debt to intimidate foreign capitalists more then US military force.

Wait do you know what what you just said is dead wrong, and could not possibly be any more incorrect? Do you also think you could skewer the nature of capitalism any more than you already have? So much is wrong here, and I imagine that it would require a response roughly the size of a textbook to properly refute. So back to waiting for some sense on your behalf, and on with the show.

[Psy]

Wait do you know what what you just said is dead wrong, and could not possibly be any more incorrect? Do you also think you could skewer the nature of capitalism any more than you already have? So much is wrong here, and I imagine that it would require a response roughly the size of a textbook to properly refute. So back to waiting for some sense on your behalf, and on with the show.
Okay since your obviously a n00b at Marxism

fhCecuZGKss

3kJaD_xiTCA

GJO_WD0ffWQ

Again you seem to be stuck in the 1950's thinking US economy generates enough surplus value to intimidate other capitalist nations through primary its surplus value (which it currently doesn't have enough of).

[thesadmafioso]

Okay since your obviously a n00b at Marxism

fhCecuZGKss

3kJaD_xiTCA

GJO_WD0ffWQ

Again you seem to be stuck in the 1950's thinking US economy generates enough surplus value to intimidate other capitalist nations through primary its surplus value (which it currently doesn't have enough of).

What a wonderful crescendo for this burning wreckage of debate, being called a "n00b".

Again you seem to be stuck in a mode of thinking which encompasses an overpowering tendency to continually misrepresent points of view which do not fall perfectly in line with your own.

[Psy]

What a wonderful crescendo for this burning wreckage of debate, being called a "n00b".

Again you seem to be stuck in a mode of thinking which encompasses an overpowering tendency to continually misrepresent points of view which do not fall perfectly in line with your own.
Well you said so much is wrong with me saying the US economy lacks surplus value thus the videos explaining the Marxist view on why the US economy lacks surplus value. Even though this is a key point in Marxist theory, so much so that the long boom caused a crisis within Marxism as at the time it seemed capitalism had broken away from the law of value.


Anyway now the US dealing with over production thus falling rate of profits thus lacking surplus value this puts US imperialism in context of the US lacking surplus value to use economic persuasion as a primary tool for US imperialism thus why the US reliance on military persuasion has increased over the past decades.

This is the context you have to put US military build up in S. Korea which you fail to do. You act like the US economy was as strong as it was in the 1950's and not the basket case it is today.

[thesadmafioso]

Well you said so much is wrong with me saying the US economy lacks surplus value thus the videos explaining the Marxist view on why the US economy lacks surplus value. Even though this is a key point in Marxist theory, so much so that the long boom caused a crisis within Marxism as at the time it seemed capitalism had broken away from the law of value.


Anyway now the US dealing with over production thus falling rate of profits thus lacking surplus value this puts US imperialism in context of the US lacking surplus value to use economic persuasion as a primary tool for US imperialism thus why the US reliance on military persuasion has increased over the past decades.

This is the context you have to put US military build up in S. Korea which you fail to do. You act like the US economy was as strong as it was in the 1950's and not the basket case it is today.

I never actually said that, but you did do a nice job at skewering my remarks into ones which did I suppose.

I will however say that you are exaggerating the value of literal economic surplus value in your analysis, so let that be a clue to the failings of your points of argumentation. Once more though, I wish you the best of luck in your next play, hopefully it will continue on with your trend of comedic excellence through intellectual mediocrity, as I have found it to be quite entertaining.

[Psy]

I never actually said that, but you did do a nice job at skewering my remarks into ones which did I suppose.




Wait do you know what what you just said is dead wrong,
That is your response to me saying

Wait you do know what I just said about US stagnation and the 2008 crisis is the official stance of many Marxist parties right? That since the 2008 crisis can be linked to insufficient destruction of capital from the crisis of 1971?

This is the context of US imperialism, they are trying to expand their influence from a position of over production and stagnation. They are also doing it from a position of massive debt as that was a tool to combat over production and stagnation.

Thus in the context of reality you expect me to seriously believe the US can use the fact the US economy is drowning in debt to intimidate foreign capitalists more then US military force.

So you said I'm dead wrong and didn't specify any part of which I'm right therefore you are saying:

- Over production is a myth

- The 2008 crisis of capital is a myth

- The 1971 crisis of capital is a myth

- US military interventions have not increased

Else you would have made exceptions for these points when saying I'm dead wrong.




I will however say that you are exaggerating the value of literal economic surplus value in your analysis, so let that be a clue to the failings of your points of argumentation.

Capitalism only measure surplus value, they don't measure all the value in the system as non-surplus value has no value in capitalism, thus only surplus value (and potential surplus value) is measured. No capitalists gives a shit how much utility the US produces or how much fixed capital the US has, they only care how much surplus value the US economy produces.

[thesadmafioso]

That is your response to me saying

Wait you do know what I just said about US stagnation and the 2008 crisis is the official stance of many Marxist parties right? That since the 2008 crisis can be linked to insufficient destruction of capital from the crisis of 1971?

This is the context of US imperialism, they are trying to expand their influence from a position of over production and stagnation. They are also doing it from a position of massive debt as that was a tool to combat over production and stagnation.

Thus in the context of reality you expect me to seriously believe the US can use the fact the US economy is drowning in debt to intimidate foreign capitalists more then US military force.

So you said I'm dead wrong and didn't specify any part of which I'm right therefore you are saying:

- Over production is a myth

- The 2008 crisis of capital is a myth

- The 1971 crisis of capital is a myth

- US military interventions have not increased

Else you would have made exceptions for these points when saying I'm dead wrong.



Capitalism only measure surplus value, they don't measure all the value in the system as non-surplus value has no value in capitalism, thus only surplus value (and potential surplus value) is measured. No capitalists gives a shit how much utility the US produces or how much fixed capital the US has, they only care how much surplus value the US economy produces.

Still haven't made the realization that you are arguing with yourself, well continue on then. You say that I say something, and then you make a pitiful attempt at putting up an argument against your other argument which originated in your own mind. Don't let me keep you from going on with your argument though, I can't wait to see who wins, yourself or yourself.

[Psy]

Still haven't made the realization that you are arguing with yourself, well continue on then. You say that I say something, and then you make a pitiful attempt at putting up an argument against your other argument which originated in your own mind. Don't let me keep you from going on with your argument though, I can't wait to see who wins, yourself or yourself.

You replied

Wait do you know what what you just said is dead wrong,

In response to my post explaining that the US is currently suffering from a crisis of capital.

You also said I'm exaggerating the value of surplus value in capitalism when the Marxist theory is that only surplus value exists in capitalism from the point of view of capitalists, thus why we are seeing military force is more relevant in today's global economic situation with a falling rate of profit.

Or did you think the US can influence N.Korea with worthless real estate and bad debt? Economic imperial power comes from surplus value, meaning the lower the US rate of profit (that capitalists see as rate of return on investments (ROI)) the less economic power the US has.

You still haven't explained how the US is suppose to influence N.Korea without using surplus value that it currently does not have.

[thesadmafioso]

You replied

Wait do you know what what you just said is dead wrong,

In response to my post explaining that the US is currently suffering from a crisis of capital.

You also said I'm exaggerating the value of surplus value in capitalism when the Marxist theory is that only surplus value exists in capitalism from the point of view of capitalists, thus why we are seeing military force is more relevant in today's global economic situation with a falling rate of profit.

Or did you think the US can influence N.Korea with worthless real estate and bad debt? Economic imperial power comes surplus value, meaning the lower the US rate of profit the less economic power the US has that capitalists see as rate or return on investments (ROI).

You still haven't explained how the US is suppose to influence N.Korea without using surplus value that is currently does have.

Why bother? You would just take my argument and turn it into something entirely different and then proceed to argue against that. I long since have resigned that you are not capable of carrying on a reasonable discussion, hence the position we are in. But feel free to continue on this personal discussion you are having with yourself, it is still quite the show.

[Psy]

Why bother? You would just take my argument and turn it into something entirely different and then proceed to argue against that. I long since have resigned that you are not capable of carrying on a reasonable discussion, hence the position we are in. But feel free to continue on this personal discussion you are having with yourself, it is still quite the show.
Because you are avoiding the issue of how the US is suppose to influence foreign powers without surplus value.

Case in point, the US economically cracked down on Latin American by short selling their currencies this required surplus value on the US's part as it had to spend surplus value in acquiring their currencies in order to dump it on the market to devalue Latin American currency in order to increase their indebtedness towards the US as the debt was in US dollars. In other words the US spent surplus value in order to devalue Latin American currency.

Military power is a alternative allowing imperial powers that lack sufficient surplus value to still influence weaker nations.