The Roanoke Times: RoundTable

Comments

# 1

[April 14, 2008 1:08 PM]

Josh

OK. Now let's estimate the number of lives that have been saved as the result of our invasion.

100,000?
500,000?
2 million?

Had only FDR had GWB's foresight. Tens of millions of lives would have been saved during the 1940's.

How fortunate was America in 2000 to get not only a strong leader, but a president who is also a visionary?

# 2

[April 14, 2008 1:57 PM]

olive

I think I just threw up a little.

# 3

[April 14, 2008 3:22 PM]

Henry

There is nothing more accurate than an estimate that ranges from 30k to 790k.

# 4

[April 14, 2008 3:35 PM]

c. trejbal

Henry, perhaps I and the report were unclear. If so, I apologize. It is not one estimate. There are six estimates with different methodologies that lead to different results. The high end is an extreme outlier.

# 5

[April 14, 2008 4:45 PM]

Henry

Every estimate makes the others look rather foolish then. In short, they are just guessing.

# 6

[April 14, 2008 6:45 PM]

BUD

wait a second.."how many Iraqis died as a result of the American invasion.." Kind of like blaming automobile accidents on Henry Ford.

# 7

[April 14, 2008 8:02 PM]

Gary

Since I was born during the Great Depression and lived thru WW II I am thankful we had FDR. I hate to think what we would have gotten under a GWB. Maybe a Tax Cut during the Depression, but my daddy made no money and paid no taxes so nothing there. Who would he have attacked after Pearl Harbor - Canada, Mexico, Iceland???

# 8

[April 14, 2008 9:51 PM]

Josh

I was thinking the same thing, Bud. Does this mean every negative occurrence in Iraq is traceable to five years ago? A guy has a heart attack, somebody offs his girlfriend. Yep, it's all part of the statistics and goes back to G.W. Bush.

# 9

[April 14, 2008 9:55 PM]

Josh

No, Gary. We attacked Germany, a country that had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor. Preemptively, I might add.

Oopsie!

# 10

[April 15, 2008 6:49 AM]

Gary

Dec. 7, 1941: Japanese bomb Pearl Harbor; attack Phillippines, British possessions, US declars war against Japan. Dec. 11, 1941: Germany, Italy declare war on US.

# 11

[April 15, 2008 8:25 AM]

Josh

Saddam threatened the U.S. with terror a number of times. Why wouldn't that constitute a declaration of war?

# 12

[April 15, 2008 11:34 AM]

olive

Saddam threatened the U.S. with terror a number of times.

when did this happen?

# 13

[April 15, 2008 1:07 PM]

Henry

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

# 14

[April 15, 2008 1:21 PM]

Blue John

I like all of these quotes.

Too bad that we didn't have a statesman for a President, with the ability to forge a coalition of nations to sanction and control this little dictator, without going to war.

# 15

[April 15, 2008 1:44 PM]

olive

i still don't see actual threats made against the US.

# 16

[April 15, 2008 2:36 PM]

Henry

Blue John

You mean like Clinton?

We are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

# 17

[April 15, 2008 3:22 PM]

Blue John

Exactly like Clinton Henry.

Rhetoric and saber rattling have been used with great success for years. Given that Saddam only had unreliable Scud missles, the rhetoric places the responsibility for restraint on Sadaam. If Saddam continues his rejection of peace, Clinton has laid the framework for a coalition of nations to pursue other options. Exactly what one would expect from a statesman.

Thanks for more great quotes!

# 18

[April 15, 2008 3:58 PM]

BUD

BLUE---how is it the USA's place and what gives us the power to gather other countries and post sanctions on another?? Do you forget the U.N.? Remember the oil for food fiasco?? The U.N. had nations limiting trade with IRAQ-AND THE RESTRICTIONS AND SANCTIONS WERE BEING CIRCUMVENTED. Remember also it was the Clinton admin. that made the overthrow of Saddam official USA policy toward IRAQ. There's your statemanship.

# 19

[April 15, 2008 3:59 PM]

Henry

But Clinton never did lay a framework. He unilaterally launched cruise missiles on the eve of impeachment. That was the extent of his involvement.

# 20

[April 15, 2008 4:39 PM]

Blue John

Bud,

I was responding to quotes posted by Henry.

The United States used to be a respected member of the international community, and was looked upon as a leader of the free world. Of course that was before we took it upon ourselves to invade Iraq... you know, gather other countries and start a WAR on another. In other words, become the aggressor.

Henry,

Where are all of those conservatives that made it their mission to spend millions of taxpayer dollars on an impeachment witch hunt now?
And did the lovely and talented Linda Tripp always carry plastic evidence bags?

"That was the extent of his involvement".

How do you know this? Were you there? Do you have inside information? Do you know people in the CIA? Are you a spy?

# 21

[April 15, 2008 7:20 PM]

Josh

Olive,

Here you go. Yeah, Saddam threatened America.

"Terrorism is coming. I told the Americans a long time before August 2 and I told the British as well, I think," Hussein tells then-Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz. "I told them that in the future there will be terrorism with weapons of mass destruction."

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/benamon/060320

Gary,

So how do you justify our attacking German territory first, when they had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor?

LOL.

# 22

[April 15, 2008 7:57 PM]

BUD

Blue... I responded to your 14 and 17--in the end SADDAM was laughing at Clinton and the U.N.--had both wrapped around his finger. to say we're no longer a respected nation flies in the face of recent european elections where pro US figures Merkel, Sarkosky and now Berlusconi (probably butchered the spellings)have been elected. Who is leader of the free world now?

# 23

[April 15, 2008 8:14 PM]

Blue John

Bud,

That's an easy answer - BIG OIL!

# 24

[April 15, 2008 10:30 PM]

Gary

Josh earlier you wrote:

"No, Gary. We attacked Germany, a country that had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor. Preemptively, I might add.

Oopsie!"

I can only assume you are trying to make an analogy to the U.S. preemptively attacking Iraq in 2003 to the U.S. attacking Germany in 1945 (although the U.S. began fighting the German army in 1942 in occupied countries.) From a Modern History web site,"On September 28, 1940, Japan, Germany, and Italy signed the Tripartite Treaty, which declared that if any of the three were attacked, all three had to respond. So if Japan attacked the U.S., and the U.S. declared war against Japan, they would also be at war with Germany and Italy." So a de facto state of war between the U.S. and Germany was created due to (1) Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor, (2) Germany’s signature on the so-called Tripartite Treaty and (3) the U.S. declaration of war against Japan. Of course, Germany made their declaration against the U.S. official 4 days later. So if Germany had not signed the Tripartite Treaty then your silly pursuit might have some basis for further discussion.

# 25

[April 15, 2008 10:54 PM]

C Ramsey

In re: post #14

"Great danger lies in the notion that we can reason with evil." - Doug Patton

# 26

[April 15, 2008 11:00 PM]

Josh

Gary,

As I said, Saddam threatened the US many times. You could easily consider any of those threats "declarations of war." What the hell do Saddam or OBL care about "formal" declarations anyway? These thugs don't give a rat's rear end about what we consider proper military decorum. This isn't 1940.

# 27

[April 16, 2008 8:43 AM]

Blue John

In re:post #25

It would be naive to think that a coalition of nations could not control one small dictator without starting a war.
With the imposition of sanctions, one has passed the reasoning stage.