Comments Posted By steve sturm
Displaying 31 To 40 Of 65 Comments
LOSING MOMENTUM IN IRAQ ISN'T THE PROBLEM
The reason we are not 'winning' in Iraq is simple: we don't want to win enough... and by that I mean that we're not doing what it really takes to win.
We have our troops fighting with one hand tied behind their back, we let Syria and Iran get away with destabilizing the area, and so on.
The concerns you raise about dealing with Iran exemplify the half-way approach. Sure, if you try to deal with Iran and Syria part-way, they have the ability to screw things up. Show them we're serious, really serious, and surprise, surprise, they'll cease - one way or the other - being a problem.
Comment Posted By steve sturm On 6.10.2006 @ 17:21
GOSSIP AS POLITICS: WOODWARD'S WHITE HOUSE HIT JOB
Hey, if Bush is stupid enough to give Woodward access to his Administration, he deserves whatever Woodward dishes out.
Comment Posted By steve sturm On 29.09.2006 @ 13:50
POPE TRIES AGAIN TO APPEASE THE UNAPPEASEABLE
If the Pope caves, there will be nobody left to man the gates. While not Catholic, I am sure hoping he has the guts to stand his ground.... but I doubt he will.
Comment Posted By steve sturm On 17.09.2006 @ 08:29
OUR WHOLE ROTTEN, SMELLY, SEWER OF A GOVERNMENT
Ok, Rick, now you've gone too far, insulting those who live in the DC suburbs!!!!! Not all of us have our mouths open to the federal spigot. A lot of the local wealth is tech driven and there are a lot of businesses (like mine) which just happen to be located in the DC area. While the Abramoffs get the headlines, they (thankfully) are a minority.
Comment Posted By steve sturm On 30.08.2006 @ 18:25
Space: while I wholeheartedly agree with you that this administration can't be trusted to deal with Iran and Syria, just who are the adults you are referring to? Please, just please, don't tell me they have a 'D' after their name...
Comment Posted By steve sturm On 20.08.2006 @ 20:39
Rick: it doesn't really matter that the majority of Iraqis don't support the crazies. The only issue is whether our sticking ourselves into the fight helps make America safer or whether it doesn't. And NOBODY (sorry for the caps, my finger slipped) has shown - or even made a really good argument - that bringing democracy to Iraq would do the least bit to keep America safe. It's a theory that frankly isn't sound enough to justify keeping American soldiers in harm's way. As I posted, giving crazies the vote only ensure that crazies get elected... it happened in Gaza, it happened in Lebanon, it happened in Iran (and, to many liberals, it has happened here at home). Here's a question: if the majority of Iraqis really truly were interested in peace, why aren't more of them out patrolling the streets, turning in the insurgents and doing more to advance their supposed interest in peaceful, liberal democracy? Sure, they say they want peace, but they're not willing to do a darn thing to really make it happen, are they? And if they're not willing to stand up for themselves, why should America send its young to die for them?
Comment Posted By steve sturm On 20.08.2006 @ 19:47
IDF, OLMERT AT LOGGERHEADS; BUSH FLASHING YELLOW LIGHT
Rick: did you see how quickly after France pulled the football away from him Bush put pressure on Israel to back off? It seems as if he's only willing to back Israel if others are on board. And the idea of a 'strong' multinational force taking over from Israel is defective on its face. Hezbollah needs to be disarmed and moved away from the border and since they're not willing to go peacefully (hence the fighting), force will have to be used... and who, other than Israel, has the ability and the will to do so? French troops won't defend France, why should anyone think they're going to take on Hezbollah?
Comment Posted By steve sturm On 10.08.2006 @ 12:16
It is incredible - and incredibly hypocritical - that Bush put pressure on Israel to accept a 'temporary' ceasefire. Whatever happened to Bush's claim that any ceasefire needed to reflect a new reality, that it wasn't sufficient to hold things as they were? When has Bush ever agreed to have the US military stand down in Iraq and take time off from trying to kill insurgents and terrorists?
And it is incredible that Israel agreed to stop as they ought to have learned by now that every time - yes, every time - they stop trying to kill terrorists, the terrorists who escape come back to kill more Israelis. And they're stopping because some supposed civilians died, civilians who were too stupid or supportive of Hezbollah to heed the Israeli warnings to evactuate? God, it's sad to watch. And what is sadder is that Bush and his headline loving Secretary of State are going to sleep tonight thinking they did good... when all they really did is impose the death sentence on a countless number of Israelis...
Comment Posted By steve sturm On 30.07.2006 @ 19:13
THE CIVILIAN PARADOX IN MODERN WAR
Rick: sorry to not be as fawning as Drewsmom (is Drew your kid? Is Drew your childhood nickname?), but I think you miss the point. The issue is not about civilians, it is about criticizing Israel. The complainers don't care about dead kids... certainly not if the dead kids are Israelis (heck, they don't care if the kids are Christians in Sudan, either). They only look to condemn Israel... and if that building hadn't collapsed, they would simply look for something else to criticize Israel about.
Comment Posted By steve sturm On 31.07.2006 @ 19:03
and besides: does Israel really need military help right now? Emotional support, yes. Bush to restrain himself from calling for Israel restraint, yes. But Israel doesn't need the 82nd Airborne to deal with what it needs to deal with.
Comment Posted By steve sturm On 15.07.2006 @ 18:30
