They have already warned North Korea against sharpening their rhetoric against the US, and conducting further missile tests. What more should they do (to prevent a war)?

The US literally leveled all major cities in North Korea with bombs from 1950 to 1953. Since then, they have maintained a military base in the South, in which 30,000 American soldiers are stationed. They have yearly exercises to simulate the destruction of the DPRK, right next to its border. Who is the aggressor here? Who has the main responsibility to seek deescalation? The aggressive empire, the traumatized victim of said empire, or the neutral ally?

I don't have the specific answer but they should do more and they have the power to do more than just like well I told them to stop and throw their hands up in the air.

So passive and isn't going to get anything accomplished.

The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity : Bring the Troops Home From Korea

I'm not usually one to agree with the Ron Paul gang, but this time they have a point.

But Ron Paul has always been about having no military presence overseas.

I think he means he disagrees with Ron Paul types when it comes to issues like having their money taken away from them etc.

Since all value is generated through labor, profits for employers can only be generated through exploitation. Workers have "their money taken away from them" every day at work, as they get back less value in the form of wages than what they generate in production (surplus value).

But for some reason, Ron Paul seems to be one of few reasonable voices when it comes to foreign policy in the US. This is not the first time I've sympathized with libertarian types. Rand Paul correctly opposed the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal, critizised US arming of Syrian rebel groups, and voted against further sanctions against Russia (the only one to do so, apart from Bernie Sanders).

Thanks for keeping it up

Places of employment grow on trees. Nobody has running costs or loans to pay back or has to put in the work of hiring, delegating, managing and general upkeep. They just have a place that employs people and intentionally pays them so they can keep their money.

The bonkers you have to believe to actually be a legitimate anti-capitalist is unreal.

Edit: I know what I said was a straw man.

I see you admit to having made a straw man, but I'll gladly reply to it.

State-run enterprises and workers' cooperatives are perfectly capable of employing people without enriching owners. Both of these exist and are perfectly productive.

Management is legitimate work - simply a necessary role in production - but it can be done for an average wage. However, owners who take out profit are not necessary in production. Many personal fortunes are made from people who simply inherit money or own stocks and shares while they get rich on other people's work, or own companies without participating in neither work nor management.

(At this point I suggest moving the discussion to the "let's talk about capitalism" thread, so as to not derail the conversation)