Comments Posted By steve sturm
Displaying 11 To 20 Of 65 Comments
OBAMA: NOT READY FOR PRIME TIME - EVER
Busboy, although it turned out Hussein didn't have anything, we were justified in attacking because we weren't sure that he didn't. In this day, I put the burden on others to prove they are no threat to us, rather than have the burden on us to absolutely positively (fedex proof) prove they are an 'imminent' threat. You may call it paranoia, but given that there are no slam dunks, and because waiting until something has happened is ridiculous, I call it prudence. Look at it this way: where we have less than perfect intelligence, not acting in a given situation puts some number of us at risk of harm. And as with any statistical model, the more events, the higher the likelihood such an outcome (dead Americans) will occur. So, to avoid being paranoid, how many Americans are you willing to have die?
What did distinguish Hussein from the others is that (1) he had and had used WMDs, (2) he was definitely hostile to the United States, (3) a supporter of terrorism, and (4) had many chances to totally open up but never did to our satisfaction... and thus, 'deserved' what happened to him and moved him to the top of the list of all those who are giving us the evil eye. Of course as I wrote above, taking care of Hussein quickly and getting out was supposed to deter those giving us the evil eye. Unfortunately, Bush's screwing things up has emboldened them. I doubt Iran would be pushing ahead if we didn't have 100,000 troops bogged down in Iraq, nor would Musharaff have given refuge to the Taliban.
Oh well,
Comment Posted By steve sturm On 5.08.2007 @ 22:37
busboy: it was more than just 'he's a cruel dictator...'. I didn't care that he oppressed his citizens, I've never felt it was America's obligation to rescue all the poor people of the world. Nor in fact do we have the resources, of men or money, to get rid of every cruel dictator in the world.
Our military interventions need to be justified on the basis of improving America's safety. To me, it was right to go into Iraq and getting rid of Hussein because: Hussein supported terrorists that struck at Americans and American allies (and I'm not saying he was connected to 9/11), because there was a serious concern he had or was developing WMDs that could very well be used against us or our allies (whether by him direct or by surrogate doesn't matter, he was a threat to the region, so much so that our economy would have been threatened by another mideast war (and I note how well our economy has done in light of another mideast war) and in the hopes that our taking action against Iraq would 'encourage' others (such as Libya, Iran, Syria and so on) to stop screwing with us and our allies. Once we got rid of him and determined that there were in fact no WMDs, it was time for us to get out, let the Iraqis fight it out for control of their country, and we'd move on to whichever country was next on the list of threats to us (which, by the way, is Iran). Unfortunately, because Bush got on his sowing democracy seeds jag, we've spent way too much on Iraq, haven't been able to deter or take action against anybody else.
It wasn't Bush's tough talk that got him into trouble. It was his lack of insight, his reliance on idiots for advice (see: Colin Powell) and his insistence on sticking around in Iraq long past the point at which we should have gotten out that got him - and us - in trouble.
Comment Posted By steve sturm On 3.08.2007 @ 19:35
Rick:
We're no more looking at an Iraq-style invasion in that scenario than we need to be looking at an Iraq-style invasion to deal with Iran. We don't need to occupy an entire country and try to turn it into a garden of democratic eden to protect ourselves. We didn't need to do what we're doing in Iraq to get rid of Hussein and whatever WMDs he had, and we don't need to occupy Iran/Pakistan to target their nukes, terror camps, military infrastructure and so on.
And, no offense, but why the infatuation with what the Islamic 'street' does or cares about? The street doesn't control the military, the generals do and it's wrong to assume the next batch of generals would open their nuclear doors to the street. Perhaps a coup would be comprised of those sympathetic to the street, perhaps not.
But whether or not that is the case, my point remains: if Musharraf isn't going to clamp down on those who want to kill us, we have the right to protect ourselves. And, unless you buy into the whole idea that our protecting ourselves only creates more terrorists, I see very little downside in striking at terrorists, no matter where they are.
Comment Posted By steve sturm On 2.08.2007 @ 17:04
rick: Pakistan is the most anti-american country in the world and they're not an enemy? they let terrorists hide out to plan attacks on America and they're not an enemy? their nuclear scientists have shared secrets with our enemies and they're not an enemy? Just what do they have to do to rise to that level in your mind?
As I've had fun writing elsewhere tonight, whatever happened to the Bush doctrine of going after terrorists wherever they may be? What happened to Reagan's '... you can't hide'?
No offense, but you're sounding like a scared little Democrat, afraid to do something because some bad things might happen as a result. By that standard, was it bad for Bush to have invaded Afghanistan, seeing as that was the supposed catalyst for Pakistan being mad at us and threatening Musharraf's hold on power?
Our position ought to be very clear. If countries, such as happened with Afghanistan, don't keep their countries free of terrorists, we reserve the right to do the dirty work for ourselves. I'd sure hate to have to explain to the families of the next Americans killed by those hiding out in Pakistan that we could have prevented their deaths but were too afraid to act.
We don't have to, nor should we, invade in the classic, Iraq-style definition. What we need to do is disrupt their camps, make them spend their time hiding instead of plotting, to make others in the area afraid that harboring terrorists will make their own lives miserable. Airstrikes and tactical ground operations could go a long way to keeping America safer than we are with our hands-off policy.
And as far as Obama picking a country that is already an enemy of ours, other than asking who you have in mind, my complaint is that he didn't go far enough. He singled out Pakistan, but should have made clear that nobody - Iran, the Palestinian territories, Indonesia - is safe if they provide safe harbor to our enemies.
Comment Posted By steve sturm On 1.08.2007 @ 22:10
Not going after Iran because of what might happen in Iraq is a classic example of our current President's stupidity/stubborness.
It's only because Bush has invested so much in Iraq that he refuses to see that Iran getting nukes is a far worse threat to us and our allies than whatever might happen in Iraq as a consequence of us attacking Iran (and remember, it's no sure thing that the worst case scenario in Iraq would in fact take place).
Comment Posted By steve sturm On 25.02.2007 @ 16:34
Are you really surprised at this? Did you ever think there was the proverbial snowball's chance of France ever coming through and helping to pressure Iran to give up its nukes? Wasn't it just a question of when - and not if - France would pull a stunt like this?
I'm not upset at Chirac... he's only living up to the (low) expectations I have for him. It's Bush and the rest of his delusional foreign policy team that I am upset with. They've wasted the past two years pretending that they could bring France on board... and, as a result, they have even less chance than we once did of keeping Iran from getting their hands on the nukes that Bush oh-so-publicly declared they wouldn't have.
Comment Posted By steve sturm On 1.02.2007 @ 19:23
DEMOCRATS SAY THE DARNDEST THINGS (PART 5,197)
I want to make cleaer that while the Democrats and I both want the troops out of Iraq now, we do so for very different reasons.
I want them out because I think we accomplished what we set out to do (get rid of Hussein and whatever WMDs there were), because I don't want American military lives lost because the Iraqis don't like one another, because I don't think Bush has any chance of ever changing that dynamic, and because I view the proper role of our military as protecting America and not babysitting crazies halfway around the world.
The Democrats, on the other hand, could care less about our military. They don't like those who serve, they don't mourn the loss of those who serve. Given their druthers, they'd gut the military budget to free up money for their social programs. They object to what Bush is doing because (1) it is Bush and (2) it is Bush.
Comment Posted By steve sturm On 19.01.2007 @ 21:42
I don't think Bush has any chance of pulling off what he is trying to do, so the sooner he admits defeat, the fewer American troops will die pursuing the unattainable and the faster we can get our military focused and prepared to focus on doing things that protect Americans rather than Iraqis.
so does this mean I'm rooting for him to fail?
Comment Posted By steve sturm On 19.01.2007 @ 16:16
Rick: the first batch of 24isms are up
Comment Posted By steve sturm On 14.01.2007 @ 23:07
I didn't know you could determine how many blogline subs you have... how do you do it?
Comment Posted By steve sturm On 10.01.2007 @ 21:18
