Comments Posted By steve sturm
Displaying 21 To 30 Of 65 Comments
The American people aren't abandoning their support because we don't have a 'stake', we're doing so because (1) we don't think we're 'winning' and (2) we don't think 'winning' will do much to protect America. While we're willing to sacrifice, we need to see the benefit of doing so. And while I doubt this was Bush's reason for not doing so, had he insisted Americans sacrifice in some way, support would have dried up a lot faster (imagine the outcry had there been a draft or a tax hike).
But I totally agree with you that Bush's leadership in this area has been one of complete failure. I started to list the ways in which he screwed up and got tired of typing after just nine. But I guess we really shouldn't be surprised as his list of failures as President greatly outnumbers his successes.
And as for me, I would yank the troops out as fast as I could get planes to fly them out. I'd destroy and leave our armor and other material as it would be cheaper to simply replace it than to stick around in Iraq long enough to move the stuff out. Then again, I never would have kept them in Iraq longer than it took to capture/kill Hussein and verify whether Iraq had any WMDs. Having our soldiers get killed to keep Iraqis from killing one another is one of the more ridiculous things I have ever heard. In fact, had I not known better, I would have thought that was something a Democrat would have thought of.
Comment Posted By steve sturm On 10.01.2007 @ 19:51
Comment Posted By steve sturm On 8.01.2007 @ 15:05
When's the last time a team in contention in any sport took serious action against a player who was a contributor? I don't know of any.
You willing to bet the Bears do what you think they will? GMs and coaches get fired for not winning games and championships; they don't get retained for being 'good citizens'. And I haven't yet heard of the owner who agrees to risk sinking the season in order to punish a player who acts improperly.
Screw up as a two-bit player and you're in trouble. Screw up on a team that is out of contention and you're in trouble. But if you're a star and you're team is in the playoff hunt, you can do what you want.
Comment Posted By steve sturm On 17.12.2006 @ 12:13
ONCE MORE INTO THE BREACH, DEAR JACK
What I would like to see is a story line that pulls together some of the elements left hanging from previous years. There have been lots of guys shown hanging behind the scenes and for all of his talents, jack's never been able to penetrate past the first line or so of villians.
and of course, I'll be keeping track of this year's 24isms (here's an example from last year)
Comment Posted By steve sturm On 14.12.2006 @ 12:25
IRAQ: THE "SCORCHED EARTH" ALTERNATIVE
got to disagree with you again, rick. while you say "No responsible nation would leave Iraq in the state that it is in now, would they?", I would argue that 'our' responsibility is to take care of the United States, not to play nursemaid to the world.
Comment Posted By steve sturm On 28.11.2006 @ 13:05
rick: I don't think it's silly semantics. the key to dealing with any problem is to come up with a clear assessment of just what the problem is. how do you expect Bush to come up with a plan to deal with the violence if he can't figure out what is going on, if he keeps thinking of this as us against al-qaida rather than what it is, an iraqi-on-iraqi civil war?
Comment Posted By steve sturm On 28.11.2006 @ 12:38
It does matter if Iraq is in the middle of a 'civil war'.
It's one thing to to go into Iraq to get rid of Hussein, or to defend Iraq from foreign threats. It's another thing entirely to stick around in the middle of an intramural gang fight - a gang fight driven by such hatred we shouldn't even dream of thinking we have the ability to stop it.
That is why bush's continuing to inject al qaida into the mix, like he did yesterday, is a sorry attempt to keep from having to recognize the current fighting for what it is. it seems that he thinks if he keeps saying al qaida over and over again that the american people will not see that the violence there is less the result of outside influences than good old family squabbles.... a country wide hatfield and mccoy type of thing.
They're going to keep on killing each other- and no matter how many troops we send in we're not going to be able to really stop it. And given my druthers, I would much rather have our troops safe at home than getting killed trying to keep one set of crazies from killing another set of crazies.
Comment Posted By steve sturm On 28.11.2006 @ 08:59
IS DEFINING "VICTORY" IN IRAQ AN EXERCISE IN FUTILITY?
Rick:
If the terrorists and insurgents really wanted us out, all they would have to do is to stop killing one another for a little while. Just a couple months of taking it easy - no bombings, no shootings - and Bush would be under incredible pressure - from both sides of the aisle - to bring the troops home. At that point, the crazies could go back to killing one another... and there's not a chance in the world that even Bush would send the troops back in.
Another thought: if the crazies really wanted us out, why would they be wasting their energy killing one another? America isn't losing any sleep over their intramural murders... any more than we're losing sleep over the deaths in Darfur... or how many North Koreans starve to death... or the deaths in Yugoslavia a while back... or, for that matter, Hitler killing Jews 60 years ago. The only thing that we really care about is how many US soldiers are being killed. If the crazies really wanted us out, one would suspect they would be spending ALL of their time trying to kill Americans (while October has been pretty bloody for us, I'm guessing an awful lot of our casualties came from operations designed to cut down on the intramural fighting.. and not primarily because American troops are being targeted).
That the crazies are not doing either of the above makes me think they're less concerned with whether we stick around or not than with trying to kill each other. And, if that's the case, then if 'victory' means a halt to the violence, then this is one war that will never be won.
Comment Posted By steve sturm On 26.10.2006 @ 19:25
OK, it's been 12+ hours. get over it, suck it up and get back in the game. you didn't see Peyton Manning sit out to yesterday to clear the cobwebs from his head, did you? You're as tough as Manning, aren't you? AREN'T YOU?
Look, I know it's tough on you superstars to keep yourself motivated, especially when it's getting late in the game, your team is getting abused and the clock is ticking down. But the fat lady hasn't sung yet. The bell hasn't rung. You can't let the Germans get away with bombing Pearl Harbor.
Get out of bed and get back on the keyboard. Your fans aren't paying you the big bucks so you can mope around all day. It's not like there aren't a few million other blogs we can read while you're puttering around in the yard. Oh, yeah, there are, but that's not important. It's you we want to read. Or maybe we're just too lazy to change our habits and find someone else with just the right combination of wit and wisdom.
Look, if you don't get back to giving me 5,000 words, and real fast, I'm going to report you. So there.
And if you don't, I'll make sure everybody knows that it was your fault we have to hear the words Madame Speaker for the next two years...
Comment Posted By steve sturm On 23.10.2006 @ 19:22
IRAQ: THE WITHDRAWAL CLOCK IS OFFICIALLY TICKING
I'll quibble with one point you made: "The only business government has in asking young men to die is in the cause of victory".
Actually, the only reason is to protect the country and its citizens. 'Victory' is a means of protecting America and not an end in of itself.
In fact, there could be times where it was more costly to America to 'win' than to merely 'not lose'. I believe that 'winning' in Iraq is one of those situations, where the costs to America - in lives and money of winning aren't worth the marginal (if that) improvement in making America safer... which is why, in the case of Iraq, if we have to be there at all, I'm happy with not losing.
Comment Posted By steve sturm On 13.10.2006 @ 16:46
