Topix Chitown Regulars

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Detroit, MI

#100368 Sep 11, 2014
"I promise a complete troop withdrawal from the middle east region by twenty fift-.... Ah... actually, never mind. I'm sending MORE troops to the region, and parts of Africa too...."

“I looked, and behold,”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#100369 Sep 11, 2014
"sit back do nothing and let highly adverse circumstances arise and dictate your responsive actions."

^^^ that's been Obama's international strategy. That and being repeatedly out maneuvered by Putin.

“Where is Tonka?”

Since: Feb 09

Neda, stay with me! Charlie

#100370 Sep 11, 2014
Herald and Sentinal only allow X # of articles per month for free, and they dont even bother to proofread, there are so many grammatical errors and typo's, they make me look like an english major.
Mister Tonka wrote:
<quoted text>
What about the miami herald. Sun sentinel. Palm beach post.
Damn northern transplant!
responsible party

Pittsburgh, PA

#100371 Sep 11, 2014
I coulda sworn I said (that) "neither their lives nor deaths should be taken lightly."

And I didn't mention McCain but, since he was brought up (for some telling reason...) he is a war hawk of the first order. His non-distinguished flying career is not good portfolio to make him an expert on which wars to fight. He tends to choose "D: all of the above" whenever a camera is put in front of him and war is the question. Not very selective.

There are often excellent reasons for going to war. WWII was full of them. Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor and FDR declared war on them. Notice, he didn't declare war on Argentina instead. He knew what he was doing. WWII certainly was a case of, if we didn't fight them in the Pacific, North Africa and Europe, we most likely would have fought them here, eventually. Hitler and Hirohito were intent on world domination. Stalin maybe too but, he didn't choose his friends wisely. I'm sure it can be argued that ISIL wants to make the word Islam but, they ain't Hitler. They can't do it. You may not realize how prepared the German army was and how unprepared Europe was to thwart them. We were even less prepared.

Now, we do everything to prepare for war with a military budget of a trillion and a half dollars, every m-effing year. One byproduct of that degree of spending is, like a lot of budgets, you use it or lose it. War has become a business. Bush's response to 9/11 was to invade Afghanistan and Iraq. At best he was batting .500 with that. But, follow the money. Dick Cheney's old pals at Haliburton KBR made $39.5 Billion from Iraq. I can't help but believe that was THE mission all along.

If you're worried about Islam taking hold here, you worry too much. If you're worried about communism taking hold here, you're on the right track. No country in history has chosen communism because they tired of having a prosperous middle class. No, it's always been when ALL of the money and power was with the ruling class- the one percent, if you will. Take away the minimum wage (other wages will fall as well and by that I do mean "yours") and take away workers rights, social services and infrastructure and people's right to vote and participate in government and this country will be ripe for revolution. The powers that be make communism happen because they give people NO choice.

“I Am Mine”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#100372 Sep 11, 2014
RACE wrote:
Herald and Sentinal only allow X # of articles per month for free, and they dont even bother to proofread, there are so many grammatical errors and typo's, they make me look like an english major.
<quoted text>
Hah. I found 3 easy ways around the number of articles limit.

1) multiple devices. They can't keep track that my cell phone, tablet, laptop, work computer are all me

2) multiple browsers. Limit reached and you use IE? Pull it up in chrome. Then firefox. Different cookies, different counts.

3) incognito mode - like using a new computer each time

Since: Jun 09

Saint Petersburg, FL

#100373 Sep 11, 2014
Sublime1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I donít think he advocated sending troops over there for politics or money. You just completely made that up.
I donít think Obama is using airstrikes for politics or money, and I don't think Race suggested that boots on the ground may be necessary for that purpose. Iíve also heard reports that we already have boots on the ground Ö most likely special forces. It's okay, tho, because your messiah made that decision, right?
I think the argument for intervening is that stability in that region is in Americaís interest. I think the argument for intervening is that without American involvement, ISIS will likely control a large swath of territory over there and have a lot of wealth from oil resources and they can use that to further expand and threaten America.
While I agree sending in troops is not something that should be done for trivial reasons, I do agree that advancing Americaís interests and promoting stability sometimes calls for intervention, especially when the alternative to acting is the likelihood of massive instability and potential danger to the U.S.
If you donít want to get sent to war or are afraid to go when our leaders deem it in our national interest to do so, donít join the military. Thatís why we have a military, and in the present day, we donít have a draft. So one makes anyone join the military.
Unfortunately, there is only one world power, who is responsible for stability in the world. It's us. We aren't perfect ... in the past, without a doubt, we've intervene in situations before where we shouldn't have, but that is not to say we should never intervene. The world would be a much more dangerous place for everyone, including us, if we just retreated into our shell and let things play out. I think that was one of the main points of Race's comments.
At the same time, to races point, I think we can accomplish our goals with very limited numbers of boots on the ground (special forces). We can probably prevail with airstrikes, special forces, and arming and training other groups. If ISIS can't control the skies (and they can't), they can't control the ground if we arm local groups.
Well said.

“Where is Tonka?”

Since: Feb 09

Neda, stay with me! Charlie

#100375 Sep 11, 2014
WTF?? Lady, youre all over the map. Are you on drugs?

Put down the keyboard until after you have formed a cognizant thought.
responsible party wrote:
I coulda sworn I said (that) "neither their lives nor deaths should be taken lightly."
And I didn't mention McCain but, since he was brought up (for some telling reason...) he is a war hawk of the first order. His non-distinguished flying career is not good portfolio to make him an expert on which wars to fight. He tends to choose "D: all of the above" whenever a camera is put in front of him and war is the question. Not very selective.
There are often excellent reasons for going to war. WWII was full of them. Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor and FDR declared war on them. Notice, he didn't declare war on Argentina instead. He knew what he was doing. WWII certainly was a case of, if we didn't fight them in the Pacific, North Africa and Europe, we most likely would have fought them here, eventually. Hitler and Hirohito were intent on world domination. Stalin maybe too but, he didn't choose his friends wisely. I'm sure it can be argued that ISIL wants to make the word Islam but, they ain't Hitler. They can't do it. You may not realize how prepared the German army was and how unprepared Europe was to thwart them. We were even less prepared.
Now, we do everything to prepare for war with a military budget of a trillion and a half dollars, every m-effing year. One byproduct of that degree of spending is, like a lot of budgets, you use it or lose it. War has become a business. Bush's response to 9/11 was to invade Afghanistan and Iraq. At best he was batting .500 with that. But, follow the money. Dick Cheney's old pals at Haliburton KBR made $39.5 Billion from Iraq. I can't help but believe that was THE mission all along.
If you're worried about Islam taking hold here, you worry too much. If you're worried about communism taking hold here, you're on the right track. No country in history has chosen communism because they tired of having a prosperous middle class. No, it's always been when ALL of the money and power was with the ruling class- the one percent, if you will. Take away the minimum wage (other wages will fall as well and by that I do mean "yours") and take away workers rights, social services and infrastructure and people's right to vote and participate in government and this country will be ripe for revolution. The powers that be make communism happen because they give people NO choice.

“I looked, and behold,”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#100376 Sep 11, 2014
responsible party wrote:
There are often excellent reasons for going to war. WWII was full of them. Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor and FDR declared war on them. Notice, he didn't declare war on Argentina instead. He knew what he was doing. WWII certainly was a case of, if we didn't fight them in the Pacific, North Africa and Europe, we most likely would have fought them here, eventually. Hitler and Hirohito were intent on world domination. Stalin maybe too but, he didn't choose his friends wisely. I'm sure it can be argued that ISIL wants to make the word Islam but, they ain't Hitler. They can't do it. You may not realize how prepared the German army was and how unprepared Europe was to thwart them. We were even less prepared.
The lesson most historians take away from WWII is that appeasement of Germany was a failed policy and a policy that eventually lead to much greater loss of life. You on the other hand take the approach that the only just war is one where you do nothing and instead sit back and twiddle your thumbs until your enemy has immense power and sneak attacks you. LOL!

With biological and chemical and nuclear weapons, you donít have to be intent on world domination to be a threat. This isnít the 1940s where the only people who had access to these weapons were state actors. Thatís not to say we should go an invade every country like we did Iraq, under false pretenses, but it is certainly a different era than it was in 1940.

The ISIS was mopping up over there. They already control an area half the size of Iraq and are well funded with the sale of oil. Until U.S. airstrikes, they showed no signs of stopping their expansion. Should we just sit back and do nothing and wait until they control the entire middle east and the problem becomes even larger?

“I looked, and behold,”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#100377 Sep 11, 2014
And, uh, Germany was not prepared for WWII. Full militarization was not going to be complete until 1944-45. Most of Hitlerís generals did not want war. They did not think Germany was ready. They didnít think Germany could win.

There was an assassination plot by high ranking military members, leading up to the annexation of the Sudetenland, because the German military did not want war. The only reason why the plot was abandoned, was because Chamberlainís policy of appeasement and allowing Hilter to do what he wanted.

It wasnít that they were so well prepared that allowed them much success, but rather their novel tactics. The used combined arm tactics and they used blitzkrieg tactics where they amassed their armor in concentrated divisions and used these concentrated armor units to make fast deep penetrating thrusts behind the enemy lines and then to eventually to surround and cut the bulk of the enemyís army off from supplies.

The French army, was Europeís largest, but they were a largely defensive army that was completely incapable of offensive warfare and they relied upon the Maginot line, which was highly fortified. While the bulk of Germanyís army was in Poland, they could have attacked Germany in the west, but they werenít really structured for that kind of offensive warfare. They were fighting the last war, WWI and thought it was going to be a defensive war.

The Germans completely bypassed the defensive fortifications of Maginot line by going through the Arden forest (which was thought to be impassable by armor) with their tank divisions. They penetrated deep behind the French and British lines and then turned and headed North for the English channel, and were followed by infantry, which did the mopping up and holding of territory and towns. The British expeditionary force and most of the French army were completely surrounded at that point.

The French and the British also did not concentrate their armor into armor divisions. They largely spread them out across the army and intended to use them in the same fashion as they were used in WWI, as infantry support.

The Germans didnít even have the best tanks. The French had better tanks, with better armor, at the start of the war.

“I looked, and behold,”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#100378 Sep 11, 2014
responsible party wrote:
Now, we do everything to prepare for war with a military budget of a trillion and a half dollars, every m-effing year. One byproduct of that degree of spending is, like a lot of budgets, you use it or lose it. War has become a business. Bush's response to 9/11 was to invade Afghanistan and Iraq. At best he was batting .500 with that. But, follow the money. Dick Cheney's old pals at Haliburton KBR made $39.5 Billion from Iraq. I can't help but believe that was THE mission all along.
If you're worried about Islam taking hold here, you worry too much. If you're worried about communism taking hold here, you're on the right track. No country in history has chosen communism because they tired of having a prosperous middle class. No, it's always been when ALL of the money and power was with the ruling class- the one percent, if you will. Take away the minimum wage (other wages will fall as well and by that I do mean "yours") and take away workers rights, social services and infrastructure and people's right to vote and participate in government and this country will be ripe for revolution. The powers that be make communism happen because they give people NO choice.
^^^^ political rantings that have nothing to do with the topic at hand.
responsible party

Pittsburgh, PA

#100379 Sep 11, 2014
I wonder what a President Romney's strategy for Iraq and Syria would be? During Vietnam his strategy was to bicycle around France, trying to get the locals to give up coffee and cigarettes. Something tells me that as POTUS he might be quite a bit more war-active. Maybe because he can be?

Anyway- again- most of life is walking in other people's metaphorical shoes and considering if doing unto others is what you would accept being done to you. We never should have been in Iraq in the first place so we shouldn't be shocked to find the country we tore up is still in chaos. We broke it, we didn't fix it and it's a bigger mess than when we started. We have NO business in the middle east telling them how to run their lives and countries. We have democracy here and it barely works for us. We've got a popularly elected president and yet a minority of citizens (disgruntled 2nd place finishers) think they should take to the streets and overthrow the government. No wonder democracy is a tough sell in countries that never had it. No wonder bombing them into giving it a go has yet to work. Just ask yourself if you think you'd be OK with foreigners invading your country would be OK with you. If not, now you know how Iraqis feel.

“Where is Tonka?”

Since: Feb 09

Neda, stay with me! Charlie

#100380 Sep 11, 2014
Well, that was a lot of useless posturing.
Your arguing points nobody made.
Oh, and those iraqis?? Their inviting us back, seems once you get a taste of KFC, you cant quit it.

Germany,Russia,Japan, Korea...They all seemed to have made the transition to a democratic for of Govt just fine, so you tell me skippy, why does democracy flourish in those places but not in the Middle East?

Or, you could just leave because your really not contributing in any meaningful way.
responsible party wrote:
I wonder what a President Romney's strategy for Iraq and Syria would be? During Vietnam his strategy was to bicycle around France, trying to get the locals to give up coffee and cigarettes. Something tells me that as POTUS he might be quite a bit more war-active. Maybe because he can be?
Anyway- again- most of life is walking in other people's metaphorical shoes and considering if doing unto others is what you would accept being done to you. We never should have been in Iraq in the first place so we shouldn't be shocked to find the country we tore up is still in chaos. We broke it, we didn't fix it and it's a bigger mess than when we started. We have NO business in the middle east telling them how to run their lives and countries. We have democracy here and it barely works for us. We've got a popularly elected president and yet a minority of citizens (disgruntled 2nd place finishers) think they should take to the streets and overthrow the government. No wonder democracy is a tough sell in countries that never had it. No wonder bombing them into giving it a go has yet to work. Just ask yourself if you think you'd be OK with foreigners invading your country would be OK with you. If not, now you know how Iraqis feel.
responsible party

Pittsburgh, PA

#100381 Sep 11, 2014
Well, I post what I want to post, in my own style, as is my wont. Many Topix posters post and comprehend at a six grade level and I choose not to bring myself down to that level. Others can if they want. For some it might be a step up even.

It's tough enough engaging people who respond to what they *think* you said or hope you said to worry about people who smooth miss everything you say and STILL try to cherry-pick anyway.

“Where is Tonka?”

Since: Feb 09

Neda, stay with me! Charlie

#100382 Sep 11, 2014
Ah! Finally we can agree on something. We are alike in this regard. Except I can go to a 6th grade level at the drop of a hat. Heck, I can probably do a 2nd grade level without breaking a sweat.
responsible party wrote:
Well, I post what I want to post, in my own style, as is my wont. Many Topix posters post and comprehend at a six grade level and I choose not to bring myself down to that level. Others can if they want. For some it might be a step up even.
It's tough enough engaging people who respond to what they *think* you said or hope you said to worry about people who smooth miss everything you say and STILL try to cherry-pick anyway.

“I looked, and behold,”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#100383 Sep 11, 2014
RACE wrote:
Or, you could just leave because your really not contributing in any meaningful way.
<quoted text>
I think we are being trolled by a middle schooler.

Toj

“Where is Everyone?”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#100384 Sep 11, 2014
I don't mind posts that disagree with me nor that might have more depth than the original question.

Both sublime's and responsible party's posts are well thought out. I would not call those particular posts troll posts.

As for other countries going democratic, I never got how a lot of the U.S. wants everyone like us. I say as long as a government isn't oppressive to their people we should not impose our beliefs onto them. When you impose your government and/or beliefs on another country, you're really no different than another form of oppression.

“...,to wit”

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#100385 Sep 11, 2014
responsible party wrote:
<quoted text>Before I mock you for using "we" and "our blood" so cavalierly, should I first thank you for your service? Or are you rushing off tomorrow (9/11) to join the Marines?
These are people's children that "we" send off to die. It should NEVER be done for politics or money. Why don't you go?
You should thank Race and Edog for their service. Both are veterans and neither makes a big deal about it here but that has been common knowledge for several years.

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Braidwood, IL

#100386 Sep 11, 2014
Toj wrote:
I say as long as a government isn't oppressive to their people we should not impose our beliefs onto them.
Um, the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan WERE oppressive to their people

“Where is Tonka?”

Since: Feb 09

Neda, stay with me! Charlie

#100387 Sep 11, 2014
Yeah, installing democracy is TOTALLY oppressive. I think your bukra is too tight, or maybe its the ink from that serial # the tattooed on you.
Toj wrote:
I don't mind posts that disagree with me nor that might have more depth than the original question.
Both sublime's and responsible party's posts are well thought out. I would not call those particular posts troll posts.
As for other countries going democratic, I never got how a lot of the U.S. wants everyone like us. I say as long as a government isn't oppressive to their people we should not impose our beliefs onto them. When you impose your government and/or beliefs on another country, you're really no different than another form of oppression.

“I looked, and behold,”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#100388 Sep 11, 2014
Democracy doesn't work in a lot of places, because the environment is not conducive to it.

A lot of countries are just so corrupt. It's apart of their culture. It's just always been that way ... to get anything done, you have to pay people off. Democracy doesn't work when the public officials are completely corrupt.

A lot of countries are composed of different ethnic groups who have lived side by side for hundreds or thousands of years and over that time have developed so much animosity towards each other precisely because they've lived side by side. Democracy doesn't work in that environment, because the ethnic group that gains power tends to repress the others or tends to not share resources equally.

Iraq is a perfect example of both these things. It was that way when Saddam ruled. It has been that way post-occupation. You have a culture of corruption and you have 3 different groups of people, Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds, who don't like each other and have no history of working together for the common good.

It is going to be very difficult for democracy to function there. I think it would be better to split the country into 3. The kurds are basically giving the central government the middle finger and doing their own thing, already. I don't blame them.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 4 min Realtime 1,601,767
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 1 hr loose cannon 242,616
The Party of Racism. 5 hr Cant Deny History 29
Coffee with Jesus. 5 hr Ooftus Goofus 8
Black-Lives-Matter, saves goods, shoes etc. fro... 6 hr Jesse Js Buddies 3
Anne Coulter's X Boyfriend. 6 hr Makes Movies 1
Chicago has the Worst Women (Jun '16) 6 hr Justice League 152

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages