Comments Posted By steve sturm
Displaying 41 To 50 Of 65 Comments
I think Kristol and you are both right, it is 'our' war, a war that is being fought on a number of fronts: Israel is fighting on one, our troops in Iraq are fighting on another, as is India and even Russia. That said, there probably is no reason or need for us to get involved in this particular battle (just as it didn't make sense for Rosevelt to send troops to the Russian front during WWII). And it may not make tactical sense for us to open a new front with Iran now. But we are at war with Iran, we are at war with Hezbollah... just as we are at war with the terrorists and insurgents in Iraq and at war with Al Qaeda across the globe. It's simply a matter of picking the right time and place to have the battles we must eventually have.
Comment Posted By steve sturm On 15.07.2006 @ 18:28
While I hope Israel makes Syria pay for having supported terrorism (and I wish the US had done something to Syria for what Syria has done in Iraq), I don't see it, as Rick does, becoming a general war. By all accounts, Syria can't match Israel and will go down quickly. As for those who would help Syria, Iran is a ways away, with no easy way to get to the scene. Neither Egypt nor Jordan will jump in (not because they love Israel but because, I presume, Israel is well-prepared to fight on those fronts and those two countries know it). The rest of the Israel-hating Middle East/Arab/Muslim world may send support of some kind, but nothing of any substance. Russia isn't coming in to save Syria, nor will it come in to save Iran should Iran be dumb enough to get openly involved. And, as far as the EU sending in its military to set things right... yeah, right, they can't send the little they have without US airlifter support.
So I'm looking at this as a free shot for Israel... all upside and very little downside. Upside: they deal a serious blow to Hezbollah, they create a 50 mile buffer on the Lebanese southern border (or however much they need to keep Hezbollah rockets away from Israel), they get to bloody - at a minimum - Assad's nose for his support of Hezbollah and they expose Iran as all bluster. downside: the EU hates them anyway and Iran was going to target Israel with its nukes anyway; this isn't putting Israel any higher on the target list.
Comment Posted By steve sturm On 15.07.2006 @ 16:33
"OPERATION JUST REWARD" PENALIZING THE LEBANESE
Rick: Echoing mariner, bob zimmerman and riverrat, by (paraphrasing) your own words, hezbollah is extremely popular, the lebanese lack the political will to do anything about them, the lebanese lack the military ability to do anything, hezbollah's involvement with syria doesn't seem to count against them, the current lebanese president may very well have been involved in assassinating harari, and a 'larger than life' presidential candidate is in bed with hezbollah... and Israel is supposed to restrain itself in order to protect what?
The sad fact of life is that if you're not going to do anything to protect yourself, you're going to get taken advantage of. this applies to israel and the terrorists and it applies to the lebanese people who have done next to nothing to take control of their own country.
perhaps if Israel is able to, without the likes of Condi Rice calling for Israel to pull back because she is enamored with the positive press that she gets for being at one with the 'international community', really kick some hezbollah butt, then that would create another vaccuum in which the peaceful people of Lebanon could fill...
putting my argument another way, there's no way israel should be expected to bend over and ask for another so because some people think they need to help prop up the ineffectual, corrupt and terrorist-sympathizing lebanese government.
Comment Posted By steve sturm On 14.07.2006 @ 20:06
MIDDLE EAST: TEETERING ON THE EDGE OF THE ABYSS
The goal for Israel is not to merely get its two soldiers back. Israel must take the action needed to prevent future attacks. What goes does it do Israel if they get these two guys back, if Hezbollah simply does the same thing next week?
Comment Posted By steve sturm On 12.07.2006 @ 20:39
SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS MOST OF TEXAS GERRYMANDER
Just because gerrymandering has been around a while, and just because the Supreme court says it is pretty much legal, it doesn't mean it's something we ought to celebrate. What DeLay did was use his power to push and tweak the rules and law in order to further solidify his power... just like he did to help get the medicare bill passed and just like the way he was able to neuter the house ethics committee.... all so he could use that power to push for more Republican lobbyists, hitch rides on corporate aircraft, take golfing trips to Scotland and so on.... just the kind of behavior that makes me proud to be a Republican.
And it doesn't matter that the Democrats have and would do the same... we're supposed to be better than they are. what a terrific tagline for the GOP: The Republican Party... no more corrupt and self-serving than the Democrats!
Comment Posted By steve sturm On 28.06.2006 @ 13:46
THE IMMORALITY OF THE DEMOCRATS' POSITION ON THE WAR
crosspatch: when I take my kid to a doctor, I better see some measurable progress within an acceptable timeframe or I will definitely yank my kid from that doctor and go somewhere else. There's no way I'll entrust my kid to somebody who offers me no specifics as to what they hope to accomplish and the time frame in which that is to happen.... I would hope no doctor would be silly enough to say "stay the course" to me without making it real clear what the course is and how long it will take....
Comment Posted By steve sturm On 20.06.2006 @ 20:25
I'm in a quibbling mood...
First off, there were those (pat myself on the back) who argued close to four years ago that it was a mistake to include goal #3 into the mix, that getting rid of Hussein and making sure there were no WMDs in Iraq was sufficient (as well as believing that goal #3 was a waste of time, that even if we pulled it off, it wasn't going to make us any safer). And, fwiw, I will always think that Bush backed into goal #3, not because it was what he truly wanted to do ("no nation building for me"), but because he was convinced by Colin Powell and others that he needed more of a reason to invade Iraq than simply #1 and #2.
As for your claim that we weren't fighting in Vietnam to win, but merely to avoid losing, I've always thought our goal there was not to defeat and conquer North Vietnam but to defend South Vietnam against its internal and external enemies (as well as to stand athwart the communist surge.. you know, fight them in Vietnam so we wouldn't have to fight the commies in San Francisco... oops, bad example). IF (a big if, to be sure) North Vietnam had left South Vietnam alone after 1973, I wouldn't have thought we lost the war. Maybe you disagree.
Which brings me to a point about Iraq. While I didn't want our troops sticking around there in the first place, what they are doing there now is very similar to what I think our troops were supposed to be doing in Vietnam: defending the locals against foreign and internal attack, while train ing the Iraqi army and police to (hopefully soon) assume those duties for themselves. Let's assume that we're successful and the Iraqis take over security for themselves and we leave. How would that be different from our leaving Vietnam in 1973? If we 'lost' Vietnam, would you say our leaving Iraq under similar circumstances would mean we also lost there? If it was immoral to be in Vietnam merely to keep from losing, wouldn't it be just as immoral to be in Iraq for the same reasons?
And finally, I see nothing wrong with setting timetables and goals for getting our troops out. I have no interest in having a permanent presence in Iraq. I see no problem in giving the Iraqis a hint of when they have to have their act together. I see no problem with outlining the goals and objectives that we need to accomplish before we leave. In fact, I see those as requirements. How can Bush ever (again) claim "Mission Accomplished" without having told us ahead of time what was to be accomplished? how does Bush ever counter the inevitable terrorist claims that they 'drove us out' without having first outlined the circumstances under which we will leave? How does Bush ever give the Iraqis a sense that they will be running things themselves, that they will be free of us, without outlining what has to happen before we take off? And remember, just like at work, goals and timetables there can be adjusted to reflect changing conditions. If things work out better than expected, we leave earlier. If things bog down a bit, we stick around until we get down what we said we were going to do. So, bottom line, while I feel the Democrats are trying to do so for political advantage, I see no problem in the substance of what they are arguing for.
in fact, I believe Bush's reluctance to outline goals and timetables reveals a certain degree of "I have no clue, I'm trying to figure things out as we go along"ism...
(and still no preview button for comments... c'mon, rick)
Comment Posted By steve sturm On 20.06.2006 @ 16:45
WHY JOHNNY CAN'T FIND RAMADI ON A MAP
There wasn't a lot of popular support for going into Iraq... and there would have been even less support if we were forced be "full partners" in George's-not-so-excellent-adventure.
And Bush, giving credit where it is due, was smart enough to realize this. That's why he never forced the 'guns or butter' issue to the forefront of debate. That's why, to the chagrin on many anti-war types, Bush never demanded we 'sacrifice' anything... no revoking the tax cuts, no cutting domestic spending to pay for the war, no draft.
The (sad?) fact is that the public didn't and doesn't buy into the premise that Iraq (with Hussein in charge) was either in cahoots with the terrorists or that much of a threat to us. They were willing to let Bush go off and play cowboy just so long as it was volunteers who got themselves killed and so long as it didn't cause the folks at home a whole lot of problems.
Comment Posted By steve sturm On 19.06.2006 @ 16:03
Rick: Don't assume that Coulter and Carlin will share the couch, as some guests depart as soon as their time with Leno is over. Even if whomever goes on first sticks around for the second, don't assume that they will participate in the conversation, as most of the time, there are not a lot of three way discussions going on. And, for what it is worth, Carlin is there to plug a movie, not to engage in partisan bickering. The last thing Disney/Pixar wants to do is have their stars/movie dragged into a political fight.
I still plan on watching.
Comment Posted By steve sturm On 13.06.2006 @ 11:04
UN TO UNITED STATES: CRACK DOWN ON DISSENT OR ELSE...
the new definition of chutzpah: criticizing the guy who pays your rent for not liking the way you've trashed the apartment...
Comment Posted By steve sturm On 7.06.2006 @ 20:24
