The Roanoke Times: RoundTable

Comments

# 1

[December 29, 2007 1:55 PM]

BUD

Have the ALQEADA/TALIBAN types over played their hand AGAIN??Will the citizens of Pakistan rise up in a similar fashion to what we saw in IRAQ and fight terrorists?? Will the USA assist??

# 2

[December 30, 2007 12:33 AM]

Josh

When was the last time 'diplomacy' worked in resolving a conflict with dictators or terrorists?

What is it about the Left that it keeps trying the same things that have never worked? And the worthless MSM never reminds anyone of that fact.

# 3

[December 30, 2007 9:36 AM]

Blue John

Diplomacy (international pressure) seems to be working with North Korea. Time will tell if a lasting solution is obtained, but at least we haven't sent troops to die under the command of a chicken hawk.

# 4

[December 30, 2007 11:03 AM]

Josh

LOL Blue John. The 'diplomacy' you cite in North Korea is nothing more than their little midget dictator seeing we meant business with Saddam, and knowing we are willing to do the same to him.

The only so-called diplomacy that works is only that which has demonstrable military strenght behind it.

Liberals just aren't suited to lead, because they ignore simple and time-tested truths.

# 5

[December 30, 2007 1:21 PM]

Blue John

I thought Russia, China, South Korea, and others were involved in the North Korea talks. Hence the international pressure I mentioned. And yes, military strength is a vital part of negotiations with dictators. Too bad our leaders were blinded by the so-called WMD's and could not put together a better plan for Iraq.
By the way, Osama is still at large, and if I am not mistaken, is and was, a bigger threat (911) to the U.S.
And that my friend is a time-tested truth.

# 6

[December 30, 2007 1:41 PM]

Dan Radmacher

Josh,

Thanks to the distraction of Iraq and its weakening effect on our military, North Korea knows there's no chance in hell we'd have the strength to invade - and an invasion of North Korea would be far more difficult, against a far more formidable army in a far less geographically isolated combat theater. Seoul would be bombarded immediately.

We not only aren't willing to "do the same to" North Korea, we're not capable of it - again, thanks to Bush's unnecessary war in Iraq.

It was not fear of our military that drove North Korea.

# 7

[December 30, 2007 3:11 PM]

Josh

Dan,

You're statement is just too ridiculous for words. Do you really doubt we could vaporize the little Hitler anytime we wanted?

Dictators don't capitulate out of the goodness of their hearts; they change only when they see they could end up on the wrong end of a noose if they don't.

BTW. More bad news for the left. A record-shattering low of 20 casualties for December. Bush was right about Iraq. You were wrong. Be gracious enough to admit it.

# 8

[December 30, 2007 3:19 PM]

C Ramsey

Gimme a break. You are correct that Iraq has been a drain on our military, but there is a reason it has been such a tremendous strain.

Eight years of Clinton's cuts to the military left our forces with insufficient manpower, equipment and funding to effectively fight even one conflict at a time, much less the Clinton-predicted ability to fight one major conflict and two regional conflicts simultaneously with a "new" streamlined rapid-response, high-tech style military.

Clinton cut the military by over 500,000 active troops. The military budget was cut by over $50 billion. Reserve forces were also cut by over 20%. All because according to President Clinton, the world was now a safer place.

And for the past seven years, Bush has had to deal with this "safe" new world full of out of control rogue dictatorships all trying to develop atomic weapons. And to deal with it, he has the gift received from a departing Bill Clinton; a gutted military that had readiness levels at an all-time low.

Yep, it's all Bush's fault.

# 9

[December 30, 2007 4:12 PM]

Dan Radmacher

Josh,

Could we vaporize North Korea? Certainly. South Korea wouldn't appreciate the fallout, nor would the rest of the region. Somehow, I doubt even Bush is reckless enough to nuke another nation.

But Kim Jong-Il undoubtedly knows we don't have the manpower to mount and sustain a full-scale invasion.

And Mr. Ramsey - when will Republicans quit trying to blame everything on Bill Clinton? He's been out of office seven years now. The current condition of the military is Bush's fault alone.

And, by the way, Clinton cut the military far less than Bush the elder proposed.

# 10

[December 30, 2007 4:26 PM]

Henry

Why would we invade North Korea? We have never even pretended to have the military presence to invade NK? We just wanted to prevent them from invading South Korea.

Gee, some people will find any excuse to engage in Bush-bashing.

# 11

[December 30, 2007 4:28 PM]

Josh

Dan,

You don't have to use nukes to depose any dictator, obviously, as we did to Saddam.

As for Clinton, yes, unfortunately, he is to blame for the war we have had to fight against terrorism, given his complete inattention to the matter, given his refusal to take Bin Laden, and given the 9-11 terrorists who were actively training right in this country the day Clinton left office. 9-11 and our predicament today lay directly at the feet of Bill Clinton.

Sadly, he cut our Intel and military so drastically, Bush has been forced to play make-up. When you consider the deferred work Bush inherited both at home and abroad, one would have to conclude his administration is one of the most successful of all time.

# 12

[December 30, 2007 5:51 PM]

Blue John

Dan,

The reason the Republicans want to blame everything on Bill Clinton is their Hatfield and McCoy mentality. They are desperate to undo the damage to their party from "I am not a crook" Richard Nixon. Unfortunately, some of the most vocal aren't aware of the past wrongs. Just like the Hatfields and McCoy's.
Let's face it, they aren't even aware of the damage nuclear fallout will have when carried by the tradewinds.
I understand that China was instrumental in the talks with North Korea. Maybe the close proximity to the potential devastation had something to do with their influence.
Further, God help the country that starts a war with leaders that don't know the strength and capabilities of their own military. Don't blame the past leader, blame the current one.

# 13

[December 30, 2007 8:41 PM]

C Ramsey

Hey guys, you liberals have already started blaming Bush for the mistakes and misdeeds that Hilary has made, and she isn't even in office yet. Just look to the pages of this newspaper if you don't believe me. So it would seem that Republicans don't have a monopoly on blaming things on the other party.

At least in the case of our military, Bush did actually inherit a problem he had no part in creating.

BJ, only speaking for myself, I guarantee you I know more about nuclear fallout, conventional bombs, terrorist tactics, troop strength levels and the actual situation in Iraq than you will ever think about knowing. But thank you for very aptly demonstrating the reason many free thinking people so despise liberals; that being the smug, name-calling condescension to which you resort anytime someone disagrees with you.

I have never heard a liberal admit a mistake or concede wrongdoing. Instead they play semantics and assume a position that if we just keep telling the lie it will work because we are smarter than everyone else. If the facts don't support your position, attack the person as close-minded or ignorant.

The ultimate irony is the liberals think of themselves as enlightened, as more sociologically developed, as vastly superior to the ignorant masses who would disagree with them, all the while earnestly believing themselves to be the great protectors of free thought and individual freedom. And while liberals will ardently spring to the defense of any criminal or subversive element, they constantly argue for restrictions on the law-abiding. Kidnap a child and sexually abuse them in New England and you should get compassion and treatment, but say something racially insensitive on the radio and you should be subject to fines and the loss of your livelihood.

The PC police should tell us all what to think, what to say, and how to say it. We should all be free to believe anything we want as long as it is politically correct. Ironic that Orwell was correct in his prediction of the thought police, he was just wrong about the source and the date. Instead of the government in 1984 we have liberals and the MSM in 2007.

# 14

[December 30, 2007 8:46 PM]

Cindy

Josh,
Son, you need a history lesson and some reading on current events that do not come from the far right.
Violence breeds violence and war is never the best solution to anything.
So do yourself a favor and do some unbiased research and reading before inserting your foot into your mouth again.
There were no terrorists. We have met the enemy and he sits in the White House.

# 15

[December 30, 2007 10:02 PM]

Blue John

C Ramsey,

I know you are smarter and more enlightened than I am because you told me so. Too bad the current administration did not consult you before starting a war without sufficient manpower and equipment.

# 16

[December 31, 2007 7:05 AM]

BUD

Cindy,
War is NEVER the best solution?? so we should still be a territory of England?? Hitler was just temporarily misguided and would have been appeased?? There were no terrorists?? Beirut//WTC 1993//Khobar 1996// Embassy bombings in Africa 1998// USS Cole 2000--- and it's JOSH that needs a history lesson?

# 17

[December 31, 2007 8:55 AM]

Will

I would agree with Cindy that was is never the best solution; however, sometimes it becomes the only solution.

That being said however, an ill conceived and poorly planned war is far worse. The current administration and its cronies failed miserably on many fronts not the least of which was under-estimating the ability of our adversary to recruit in mass numbers people who were and are willing to die for their beliefs and in fact believe there is no greater honor than death.

Consequently, Bush et al., tried to fight this situation using conventional methods that haven't done anything to stem the anti-United States sentiment of the radical nations. What has happened in reality is that we have now been handed a course that will commit your children, your grand-children and countless generations to come to a life that will never know any kind of peace.

It's sad to know that generations to come will never be able to know what it was like to live in relative peace but that's the legacy that this administration is leaving us.

Quoting Josh from above "When you consider the deferred work Bush inherited both at home and abroad, one would have to conclude his administration is one of the most successful of all time."
If that, my misguided friend, is the example of the most successful of all time with the loss of life on 9/11 as well and the subsequent loss of life fighting his poorly planned war then God help us should we ever witness the worst of all time.

# 18

[December 31, 2007 9:59 AM]

Josh

Will,

"It's sad to know that generations to come will never be able to know what it was like to live in relative peace but that's the legacy that this administration is leaving us."

We were handed that situation long before the war, Will. Tell me again what Bush did to provoke 9-11?

You also keep talking about a poorly planned war. Things are going pretty well now. Only 20 casualties for December. How about some kudos for the proper handling of the war we are seeing now?

Or do you just want to gripe?

# 19

[December 31, 2007 10:22 AM]

Henry

"Violence breeds violence and war is never the best solution to anything."

Besides ending slavery and stopping the Holocaust and preventing one country from oppressing another and ending massacres of innocent civilians and prevent Nazism from taking over the world, what has war ever done besides kill butterflies?

# 20

[December 31, 2007 12:13 PM]

Will

Josh...

We were handed a situation long before this Bush, the last Clinton, the previous Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Truman...I'll keep going if you like.

The fact of the matter is that the fundamentalist extremists have been around for hundreds of years. They've just become a lot more sophisticated in how they carry out their perceived mission in life or death if you will. Our problem is that we haven't yet figured out a way to deal with the situation long term.

Sure, war will squelch them for a few years, but eventually they'll come back with more vengence and hatred than before and we'll be right back where we started.

Kudos for the way this war is being handled now? This is something that should have been done correctly in the first place. A soldier's life is not something that should be toyed with until "the administration" gets it right.

When you commit troops to battle, you better damn well have it right in the first place. "Kudos" for getting it right after all this time?

Simply put, no.

# 21

[December 31, 2007 12:27 PM]

Josh

Cindy,

Since you called me, 'son', can I call you 'granny'?

Honestly, dear. Given that you think there are no terrorists, I doubt we can have an intelligent rational conversation on the subject.

# 22

[December 31, 2007 12:34 PM]

Blue John

I suppose we could award "kudos" to Bush for making the list of those that started wars. Right up there with Hitler.

# 23

[December 31, 2007 1:07 PM]

Josh

Will,

Can you name one time when a war went exactly as planned with no hitches? Particularly one as complicated as this? Even the best military minds aren't infallible. The important thing is that the overall vision is correct, and that they get it right in the end. Which Bush has done.

BTW. You backtracked on your assertion that Bush was the one who left us wars. Good for you to admit otherwise.

# 24

[December 31, 2007 2:57 PM]

BUD

BLUE... BUSh started the IRAQ war??? there were about 25-30 other nations who joined in one way or another AFTER SADDAM violated umpteen UN resolutions and was then asked to leave the country to AVOID the invasion... nice try at revising history.

# 25

[January 1, 2008 9:27 AM]

Will

Josh...

It may be true that those who put our country at war are not infallible; however, this administration is so far beyond infallible that it's maddening. Bush hasn't gotten it right yet and don't sit there pretending that he has.

As for backtracking on anything about Bush...I'm not clear what you're talking about. I give Bush kudos for nothing but being the worst leader the United States has ever elected to the Presidency.

As a country, we're more vulnerable than we've ever been with the lack of border protection. Our airport security is a farse and our ports are like Swiss cheese.

We've been just plain lucky since 9/11. I give little or no credit to Bush and his cronies for anything but making this country continually on edge.

# 26

[January 1, 2008 11:59 PM]

Josh

Will, 23 coalition casualties for December. Lowest month in the entire war. You still won't give credit to Bush for doing something right as in the surge?

Take off the partisan blinders, Will.

# 27

[January 2, 2008 8:18 AM]

Henry

Lucky since 9/11? That was 6 1/2 years ago. It's no longer just a mere coincidence that we have not had a terrorist attack in the US. We have obviously been doing something right.

# 28

[January 2, 2008 8:46 AM]

Will

Wow Josh...only 23 DEAD soldiers in December. Yes, I'm thrilled that there were only 23 soldiers killed; however, tell that to the famiies and friends of those 23 soldiers and see what kind a response you get. For that matter, tell that to the families and friends of all the other soldiers who have died or who have been injured before December '07. We have an administration that didn't listen until we lost troops that we didn't necessarily need to loose.

My point is and always has been that Bush et al., has never had a true plan of how to go about this "War on Terror" as he as proclaimed it. He has reminded me of the cartoon character "Yosemite Sam" riding in with guns blaring but in the end continually getting hammered by a smarter and more savy adversary.

The root enemy, Bin Laden, is still running free; the millions of dollars we've put into Pakistan have litterally gone up in smoke, and no one can account for billions that we've dropped in Iraq and we're no closer to having our borders, ports and airports secure than we were 10 years ago.

Now tell me again, why am I supposed to give Bush credit?

# 29

[January 2, 2008 1:35 PM]

Dan Radmacher

Henry,

How many years between the first attack on the WTC and 9/11?

Were we obviously doing something right all those years, or were we lucky?

# 30

[January 2, 2008 3:42 PM]

Will

To Dan and Henry...

We've been lucky both times. We didn't do what we needed to do prior to the 93 bombing of the Trade Center nor did we do what should have been done after.

Neither party has done a good job.

# 31

[January 2, 2008 4:37 PM]

Henry

Actually, we arrested several people who were complicit in the first WTC bombing. The mastermind was due in court...on 9/11/2001. That's why we received a warning about a possible terror attack a few hours before the plane hit the WTC

# 32

[January 2, 2008 9:14 PM]

Josh

Dan,
Seems to me there were five or six attacks on Americans by Bin Laden between the WTC attacks. What exactly were we doing right then?

Will,
Leave it to you to say the same stupid thing when someone mentions how casualties have dropped, like "Ask the families of the 23 what they think."

Yet you won't answer why Bush doesn't deserve credit for making the adjustments in this war.

# 33

[January 2, 2008 10:19 PM]

Dan Radmacher

Josh,

Five or six attacks on Americans?

How many hundreds of attacks on Americans have there been in the nearly five years of the Iraqi war?

If "attacks on Americans" is the yardstick of failure, then George W. Bush has clearly been a failure.

Or are attacks on Americans under his watch somehow a sign of success?

# 34

[January 3, 2008 8:50 AM]

Henry

Dan, that happens during a thing called a "war". But I am glad to see you have recognized that we are being attacked by terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan. Gladly, we are killing them at an alarming rate.

# 35

[January 3, 2008 9:23 AM]

Will

Josh...

You ask why I won't give Bush credit for making adjustments in his war strategy?

I'll tell you: He waited entirely too long and ignored the countless pieces of advice from people who were knowledgeable about needs and sizes of the troops but continued to ignore them until we lost over 3800 troops.

I'll give him credit for being an stupid, stubborn and arrogant. Those are his good qualities.

# 36

[January 3, 2008 9:37 AM]

Josh

Dan,

This is like comparing Pearl Harbor to Iwo Jima. The former was an unprovoked surprise attack that we should have been prepared for but weren't. That was akin to the surprise Al-queda attacks on U.S. targets including 9-11 due to Clinton's negligence.

The Iraq attacks are in context of a war in which we have directly engaged the enemy. It would be like saying FDR was a miserable failure because we lost so many at Iwo Jima in a war we eventually won.

In other words your conclusion is, as usual, ridiculous.

# 37

[January 3, 2008 11:31 AM]

Will

Josh...

Why is it "stupid" (to quote you)to take into consideration what families and friends of dead or wounded soldiers think of a flawed plan of war?

I believe they above all else have as much right to speak as they have the most at stake...their lives.

Don't talk about disrespect for our troops by liberals if this is they way conservatives think...don't say how much you respect them and then say that kind of tripe. It comes off disingenuous to say the very least.

# 38

[January 3, 2008 6:34 PM]

Josh

Will,
We've had this discussion repeatedly. OF COURSE it's a tragedy that 23 died. It's a tragedy when one dies. But America is involved in a war against terrorists, and is trying to bring democracy to a populous and influential middle eastern country. When we accomplish that noble goal, and it appears we are doing so, it will save many lives by providing stability and removing the reason many become terrorists in the first place. The fact that we have turned it around and are heading towards this goal, is something you should celebrate and give credit where it is due.

# 39

[January 3, 2008 7:04 PM]

traderd9

Dan,

Could you provide a brief synopsis of your military experience?

Thanks

# 40

[January 3, 2008 7:09 PM]

Blue John

Too bad Bush waited until his party leaders deserted him to make changes in his administration. Bush stuck with his incompetent advisers too long, and he still has Cheney running the show. And this is the guy we are supposed to show support for? If he had been a true leader and made changes earlier, how many lives might have been saved?
Oil at $100.00 a barrel and the Chickenhawk sees no reason to release our reserves to help regulate the price as he stated today. Of course he was buying oil for the reserves when prices were heading to all time records. Didn't Clinton regulate oil prices with his judicious use of the oil reserves? Too bad we don't have a true leader in charge now.

# 41

[January 3, 2008 7:47 PM]

Josh

Blue John,

Bush called for drilling in ANWR, the region of the Arctic set aside for drilling.

Something tells me you wouldn't support that simple solution to the oil crisis.

# 42

[January 3, 2008 9:28 PM]

Blue John

Josh,

I have read conflicting reports on the amount of oil that would we would recover from that area. I read one report that said the oil would only last a couple of months at the current amount of usage. If that is true, it would appear that it would hardly be worth the time and effort. I don't want to get off course, but do you know of any reputable estimates of the oil in the region? The Roanoke Times may want to save this topic for later.

# 43

[January 3, 2008 9:41 PM]

Will

Josh...

I find it interesting to say that we're (the United States) is trying to bring democracy to this region of the Middle East. A democracy and free elections is what happened in another part of that region and we have shunned it.

It almost seems as though the United States is okay with democracy and free elections if and ONLY if the country in question elects someone that looks favorably upon the United States; however, when the election doesn't go that way, then we're mighty upset.

Seems to me that if a nation wants a democracy, then they themselves should be willig to fight and die for it themselves. Looks like we're the ones who have been instituting this on their behalf whether they wanted it or not.

This war on terrorism will be going on long after you and I are dead and gone unfortunately. We've just beaten the "hornet's nest" a little harder and now we're going to get stung a bit more frequently than any of us would like.

# 44

[January 3, 2008 10:15 PM]

C Ramsey

Oh yes, Bill Clinton the true leader, the liberal hero of the 20th century. Liberals speak of the economic prosperity under Clinton because he had a budget surplus. But what was the cost.

We had a budget surplus because he mortgaged our future by gutting the military, crippling our intelligence services by all but eliminating our HUMINT resources and, best of all, enacting NAFTA which led directly to the outsourcing of our jobs to other countries.

Now its a free for all of "free" trade agreements, all of which seem to have done nothing more than to allow more outsourcing. And when the great Hillary was asked if Ross Perot was right in his prediction of the outcome of NAFTA, she, surprise surprise, couldn't remember what he had said. When reminded of his prediction of the "great big sucking sound" that was our jobs going to Mexico, she, in her best "true leader" fashion, just ignored the question and refused to answer.

We don't need to go back to the "leadership" of the Clinton days. We'll be paying the price of his leadership for decades.

# 45

[January 4, 2008 12:23 AM]

Blue John

C Ramsey
If Bill Clinton did such a terrible job as President, why hasn't your boy George repaired the damage in his two terms? Oh, that's right he was more concerned with taking care of his cronies by awarding no-bid contracts in Iraq. Nixon would have probably done the same things if given the chance.

# 46

[January 4, 2008 8:13 AM]

Henry

Blue John

You are confusing the Executive Branch with the Legislative Branch. The Legislative Branch handles the money.

On the no-bid contracts, are you trying to tell me that no-bid contracts were designed to take care of cronies?

# 47

[January 4, 2008 9:11 AM]

Will

It's so funny that everyone is still trying to blame an administration that has been out of office now for about seven years for the woes the current administration is supposedly saddled with today.

In reality, if you go back and check the facts...had senior Bush (41) been re-elected in 1992, the level of troop reductions he proposed would have been greater that what Clinton actually did during his administration.

Both administations took their eyes off the ball and we've paid a price for it.

As for no-bid contracts...please wake up and smell the coffee. It has always been a back-slapping, good ol-boy network when it comes to letting gov't contracts. Cronyism is at its horrible best in that arena. Can anyone say Halliburton?

# 48

[January 4, 2008 9:29 AM]

Henry

Who else in America does the same work as Halliburton?

# 49

[January 4, 2008 9:56 AM]

Josh

Will, Funny that both you and Dan chide us for blaming previous administrations while you both blame Bush 41 for something he never did.

# 50

[January 4, 2008 10:02 AM]

Blue John

Sorry Henry, there is no confusion on my end. I know exactly how it works having spent greater than thirty-five years working the system. And don't forget that Bill Clinton had to deal with a Republican controlled Congress during his terms.
The intent of the no-bid contract is to allow the selection of a contractor that has the proven ability to complete the assigned tasks in a timely manner. The contracts are not designed to allow the contractor to operate carte blanche.

# 51

[January 4, 2008 10:24 AM]

Henry

I know Clinton gave a lot of work to Halliburton. I don't think giving work to Halliburton equals cronyism. I know the Bush-bashing conspiracy theorists like to push that but Halliburton is the "go to" group for that kind of work.

The Republican Congress balanced the budget although Clinton also had a hand in it. Clinton stayed out of the whole budget mess except to close down the government at one point. Presidents dabbling in budgets can get sticky as we have seen for the last few years. Budgeting for terrorism is tricky. The American people will tolerate a deficit as long as they feel safe.

# 52

[January 4, 2008 10:42 AM]

Will

Josh...

What I've pointed out (if you bother to read carefully) is that BOTH sides took their eyes off the ball. The conservatives are the ones that seem to conveniently forget what their like predecessors did while blaming their "unlike" predecessors for doing similar things.

What has really been pointed out is the hypocracy of the conservatives.

# 53

[January 4, 2008 11:53 AM]

Blue John

Halliburton, Fluor, and Bechtel are the big three. KBR which was a division of Halliburton until recently had a lot of problems with billing for work in Iraq that was not verifiable.

# 54

[January 4, 2008 2:30 PM]

C Ramsey

Whew, liberals chastising the hypcrisy of conservatives is like a crack dealer chastising a bartender for selling intoxicants.

Will and Blue, if you bother the read my post carefully, I said it will take decades, or in other words, more than eight years, to recover from Clinton's legacy.

Apparently the voters in Iowa don't share the universal love of all things Clinton either.

# 55

[January 4, 2008 4:19 PM]

Will

C. Ramsey....

It will take lifetimes, not decades, to recover from the past 7 years. Quite frankly, we've probably been recovering from the gaffes of many administrations probably starting back as far as G. Washington.

Democracy is a relatively youthful form of government...a grand experiment to use the words of some of our fore-fathers.

I don't know if greed and corruption were as prevalent in the United States in 1776 as it is today but if it was, I suspect there was just as much hand wringing then as there is now.

As for the love of Clinton...people either intensely love them or intensely hate them. The same can be said about Bush (43). I actually liked Bush (41). His son though is pathetic.

The issue is whether we find enough common ground as a country to move forward or do we get too tied up in the politics of winning and power to do anything meaningful as a country.

Only time will test that theory.

And by the way, I'm neither a crack dealer nor bartender.

# 56

[January 4, 2008 10:11 PM]

C Ramsey

I didn't say you were either of the two, it was just an analogy. I'm growing tired of the whole 'pot calling the kettle black' cliche.

# 57

[January 4, 2008 11:44 PM]

Josh

Will,

No, common ground between liberals and conservatives is not the answer. Liberalism has always failed whenever implemented; conservativism has always succeeded. Why on earth would one seek common ground with a failed ideology?