Socialist freedom fighter, fighting against the tyranny that is Global capitalism. Stop the Capitalist take over of the entire world. stop the spread of US democracy. Oppose the IMF and the World Bank. Oppose Free Trade agreements. Oppose the New World Order. Stop the wars now, end the madness in the Middle East. Save local jobs, oppose immigration. 

It is easier for the world governments to deflate 1 billion people's wealth than lift the living standards of the poor 6 billion people in the world.

For these rich Capitalists trillionaires to maintain their top status in the western world they must enslave the poor with huge debt. The wars are a way of controlling population and strengthening US control and power by eliminating all opposition. Expansion of US Corporate Capitalism in every single country in the world. Easier to control the world when every country is ruled and controlled by the New World Order. New world Order = one world government controls the world's population. 

Too break the overly-seriousness of this thread

lol at the Anti-Obama ad right under the op and

inb4falloutqoute

Wow. You talk about yourself in the 3rd person?

All the major political and economic problems in the world, are created by giving an entity to much power.

When corporations have to much power, they abuse it. When governments have to much power, they abuse it (almost every time they abuse it worse).

The solution to less tyranny, is less centralized power. Socialism by it's nature creates centralized government.

So if the world moved from what it is today, to what you would like it to be, you would just be moving the tyranny from one group to another, giving that group even more power.. thus more tyranny.

If you want to be a "freedom fighter" and reduce tyranny, you need to decentralize power. Remove the ability of government to run your life, and remove it's ability to allow corporations to run your life. All a big government does, is gives the corporations a one stop shop to buy all the power they need. I want to remove that ability.

Of all the money collected by government, the person in the US who should have the most influence over it, should be your town mayor, or your county commissioner. Then your state Governor, and lastly, congress and the president.

If 10,000 mayors controlled all the money, where would a corporation go to try and buy political power? If a Mayor had to answer to 50,000 people to get elected, he would have to be a lot less corrupt then a president.

This is how you fix tyranny. Not by taking an organization who has half the power now, and giving them all of it. When you do that, you create a dictator, not a country free of tyranny.

Hmm, I know what you're talking about but be wary of saying things like "I agree" when the OP is so extreme. 

I mean, seriously, just no.  We're fighting them because of socialism?  Please.  The wars played a "huge role" in the meltdown?  No way.  But even numonex is right some of the time:  Afghanistan will not be permanently pacified by external force, we have to either get them to police themselves or just give up on trying to civilize the place. 

Afghanistan is a collection of tribes, each tribe ruller of it's own land. If you want to "win" in there, you first have to look at it for what it is. 100 different wars.

There is only one way to win there (extreme violence), and we are not willing to take those steps, so we should get out now.

While I am fully willing to admit that I may have been misinformed, I thought that the war in Afghanistan was predominantly NATO forces against (so-called) insurgents who are not from Afghanistan. Essentially, that the forces in Afghanistan were mostly imported from Pakistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia, and they were there to fight against the "Americans" not to fight for Afghanistan.

I am sure there is some of that (like we did to help Afghan beat the russians.) But the bigger issue, is Afghanistan is just not a centrally run country. Karzai does not have the full support of his country. Balance that with him being backed by the US, who is not well liked in many parts of the country, and in some cases, he has no power at all.

In Iraq, you could just take down Saddam Husain and Baghdad, and you took down the country. About 20% of the population lives in the city, and most of the country's population lives in metropolitan areas.

Afghanistan is tribal, with a majority of its people living in small towns. of a country with 30 million people, only Kabul has over a million (and it's half the size of Baghdad).

To win there, you have to win the hearts and minds of its people. You have two apposing forces. One is the Taliban, who look the same, talk the same, and have been recruiting and living there for years. They are the ones that beat the russians and earned Afghanistan it's freedom. On the other side, you have the US, who is backing a very corrupt leader who is trying to change the peoples way of life.

Who do you think is going to win that battle? A good example would be Obama and me. I hate everything he stands for. I think he is the worst leader we have ever had. If we were attacked by China however, I would stand next to him and fight by his side. Same thing is happening here. Yea, they hated the Taliban, but they were at least there own people. When a foreign country invades, they stand together. We need to just leave. There is no path to victory.

Yea socialism isn't good for the stability of the world, even though it is really bad it does leave open the possibility for power to be abused.

What you are talking about  doesn't stop the wars from necessarily happening.  All someone has to do is come up with a reason fake or real, make it look like it was a terrorist and go on a killing spree.  The problem right now is that the US is just too powerful, nobody wants to go against them. 

The US military budget is almost as big as the rest of the entire world combined, and 9 times bigger than China's which is the 2nd biggest.  Decentralization of power in the world both military and economic would be good. 

@ mafoo:  Obama the worst EVER, really? 

Yes. For two reasons.

One is the only way they US will ever fall, is if we destroy ourselves, and the only way any county in the past that was in our situation has failed, is economically. No administration before this one has been so carless with out economy.

To be honest, the real ones to blame for that is out Congress, but what's going to break America are the programs Obama is pushing. If Congress did there job well, they would have just told him no.

The other, and this might come from him growing up abroad, is his views on what a president of the united states should be is all wrong. He is nothing more then an elected official who's job it to represent the people. It's hard for 300,000,000 people to have a meeting with the leader of Russia, so we effectively hire a guy to be our voice in that meeting. Obama sees his position more as a ruler, as a position a King would have. He feels it's his responsibility to "improve" the US even if it's in a direction most of America does not want to take. He thinks he was elected to reshape us, to use his wisdom to teach us what's right.

He is not the first to have these views, but of all presidents before him, he is the most extreme at each individually, and so combined, he is by far the worse president we have ever had.

I would rather have a dumb lazy president, then a smart motivated one who does what this one is doing.