Dear Democrat Party,...........

I am a senior citizen. During the Clinton Administration I had an extremely good and well paying job. I took numerous vacations and had several vacation homes. Since President Bush took office, I have watched my entire life change for the worse.

I lost my job.
I lost my two sons in that terrible Iraqi War.
I lost my homes.
I lost my health insurance.
As a matter of fact I lost virtually everything and became homeless.

Adding insult to injury, when the authorities found me living like an animal, instead of helping me, they arrested me.

I will do anything that Senator Kerry wants to insure that a Democrat is back in the White House come next year. Bush has to go.

I just thought all Americans would like to know how one senior citizen views the Bush Administration.

Thank you for taking time to read my letter.

Sincerely,

Saddam Hussein

Ummm...Aren't a majority of Democratic politicians pro-war?

That being said, Hussein (who was in fact installed to power by American interests looking to stop a socialist revolution in Iraq...He was supposed to be to Iraqi socialism as The Shah was to Mahathir and his left-wing, pro-democracy, anti-Islamist nationalists) is better than Al-Sistani and his gang of assholes...

At least he didn't openly declare a fatwa calling for homosexuals and Muslims of other sects to be slaughtered in tthe streets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CommieCowboy

Ummm...Aren't a majority of Democratic politicians pro-war?

---

Whaaaaa? Where have you been for the past decade? :rolleyes:

Actually Ayla, they are. Unless it's a war started while a Republican is president. I'm not calling out Democrats in general, just the Democrat politicians.

You can't look at just the past decade to be fair. Let's see... in the 20th Century...

Woodrow Wilson - WWI
Franklin Roosevelt - WWI part 2
Harry Truman - Korea
John Kennedy - Vietnam - the beginning (but it might have been Ike... depending on your perspective. But Kennedy definitely escalated Nam when the French left)
John Kennedy - Bay of Pigs - the closest we came to a nuclear war
Lyndon Johnson - Vietnam - the escalation part 2

I'll give you Reagun for Grenada and
Bush Sr. for Iraq part 1
and the Shrub for Iraq part 2... but I think that's the only reason the Democrats are so antiwar right now. :rolleyes: The Republicans are stealing their thunder......

A fairly accurate account of history, Ozme52, that leaves no doubt that Democrats have been pro-war in the past - but that was not what I disagreed upon.

When CommieCowboy said that most Democrats are pro-war, I assumed he referred to the "Iraq War part 2", since he responded to Rabbit1's post about such. On this occasion, they are quite anti-war, which roused my response. :D

But otherwise, yes - I agree with you entirely - certain Democratic politicians have been quite pro-war.

Actually, it was Johnson who really escalated Nam and under Kennedy the closest we came to nuclear was the Cuban Missile Crisis.

As for Iraq the majority of Democrats in Congress voted to go war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ayla Silver

A fairly accurate account of history, Ozme52, that leaves no doubt that Democrats have been pro-war in the past - but that was not what I disagreed upon.

When CommieCowboy said that most Democrats are pro-war, I assumed he referred to the "Iraq War part 2", since he responded to Rabbit1's post about such. On this occasion, they are quite anti-war, which roused my response. :D

But otherwise, yes - I agree with you entirely - certain Democratic politicians have been quite pro-war.

---

Yep, I just figured I'd add some history... LOL I find it helpful to view modern events in the perspective of past events.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DungeonMaster6

Actually, it was Johnson who really escalated Nam and under Kennedy the closest we came to nuclear was the Cuban Missile Crisis.

As for Iraq the majority of Democrats in Congress voted to go war.

---

Kennedy put in the US Military advisors, without whom, there would have been nothing to escalate. We shouldn't have filled in behind the French abandonment.

The Bay of Pigs and the Cuban Missile Crisis were, for all intents and purposes, a linked sequence of incidents in the same theater. But technically, you are correct.

We started it at the Bay of Pigs, which put Castro firmly in bed with the Soviets, the missile crisis was the result of the co-escalations, them emplacing missiles, us blockading the high seas. etc. etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DungeonMaster6

As for Iraq the majority of Democrats in Congress voted to go war.

---

If they did, they're certainly not above complaining about it now.

As for the rest of the stuff you guys talked about - you sorta lost me.

Just out of curiousity, I'd like to direct a question to both of you. Are you liberal or conservative?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ayla Silver

Just out of curiousity, I'd like to direct a question to both of you. Are you liberal or conservative?

---

I swing both ways. LOL

It really depends on the topic. You'd probably say I am

a fiscal conservative (but that apparently puts me pro-Clinton and anti-Bush over the last 15 years....)
a social liberal but I don't like doing it on credit...
pro-choice, pro-death penalty...
anti trade tariffs, pro-immigration, anti-illegal immigrants. :confused:

...just for starters.

That's rather interesting. What's your take on evironmental issues? Religion? War?

I would you tell what political party I'm leaning torwards, but being the generous person I am, I'll let you guess first. :)

Me? I'm moderately undecided...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ayla Silver

That's rather interesting. What's your take on evironmental issues? Religion? War?

I would you tell what political party I'm leaning torwards, but being the generous person I am, I'll let you guess first. :)

---

LOL, You want to know it all, yet you hold back.

It was a good joke. It had me going. And it was as good a flame bait as I've seen in some time. But let's face it, this war in Iraq has been totally and completely mismanaged. And it has the US in a position where we are unable to use allies to effectively exert pressure on other dangerous and out of control regimes. The US would be in a lot better position if we have not made a physical invasion of Iraq. Saddam was not more a demon megalomaniac dictator than the others in the top ten list. It was bad policy. And it was foisted upon the US through a calculated disinformation program. Now we've shot our wad. We have inflamed the Moslem world, depleted the ranks of moderates, committed the discretionally deployable bulk of armed forces. If we had invaded only Afghanistan, caught and killed Osama, and further isolated Saddam, we would be in a much better footing to dial with South Korea and Iraq. They would have respect for but our military will and our political will.

Now isn't this the sort of thinking we expect of our elected leaders?

Former armed forces member.

PS: Sorry, it was such GOOD flame bait. No disrespect intended to anyone's sincere and considered views.

hellbent,

I couldn't agree with you more. At first, Bush tried to tie Saddam Hussein with the terrorists of 9/11. Nobody bought that. Oh, but Saddam had weapons of mass destruction that he would use against us. But, uhoh! Nobody could find any WMD's. Now what? We would stay in Iraq until that country became a democracy. Well, they've had their elections. So why are we still there? Insurgents. But those insurgents weren't there before we invaded. We will stay in Iraq until we've completed our mission. Which is exactly what Mr Bush? Until we control Iraq's oil? Am I being cynical? Or will we be there until Mr Cheney becomes a billionaire? Yes I know his salary for being the CEO of Halliburton is withheld. But I bet it's being held in escrow, so by the time he leaves office, that amount should be a hefty sum.

Iraq is a quagmire that will be felt for generations.

Ayla,

I'd call myself a moderate with liberal leanings

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ayla Silver

A fairly accurate account of history, Ozme52, that leaves no doubt that Democrats have been pro-war in the past - but that was not what I disagreed upon.

When CommieCowboy said that most Democrats are pro-war, I assumed he referred to the "Iraq War part 2", since he responded to Rabbit1's post about such. On this occasion, they are quite anti-war, which roused my response. :D

But otherwise, yes - I agree with you entirely - certain Democratic politicians have been quite pro-war.

---

Doesn't that depend on which day you ask the Democrat Politicians???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozme52

LOL, You want to know it all, yet you hold back.

---

I'm just curious. :D Besides, you never asked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hellbentforleatherr

PS: Sorry, it was such GOOD flame bait. No disrespect intended to anyone's sincere and considered views.

---

It was good "flame bait". That's why I wondered why no one had responded to it yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by todd

Doesn't that depend on which day you ask the Democrat Politicians???

---

Lol....well, "day" is a little too harsh. Unless I've been misinformed, the Democrats have been pretty negative about the war for quite a while now.

I call myself a left-libertarian Canadian nationalist who staunchly opposes both WAshington and Beijing.

I'm assuming the purpose of the letter is humor. That being said, I'd like to quote my favorite politicain:

"The great fundamental issue now before the Republican party and before our people can be stated briefly. It is, Are the American people fit to govern themselves, to rule themselves, to control themselves? I believe they are. My opponents do not. I believe in the right of the people to rule. I believe the majority of the plain people of the United States will, day in and day out, make fewer mistakes in governing themselves than any smaller class or body of men, no matter what their training, will make in trying to govern them. I believe, again, that the American people are, as a whole, capable of self-control and of learning by their mistakes. Our opponents pay lip-loyalty to this doctrine; but they show their real beliefs by the way in which they champion every device to make the nominal rule of the people a sham....

" I prefer to work with moderate, with rational, conservatives, provided only that they do in good faith strive forward toward the light. But when they halt and turn their backs to the light, and sit with the scorners on the seats of reaction, then I must part company with them. We the people cannot turn back. Our aim must be steady, wise progress. It would be well if our people would study the history of a sister republic. All the woes of France for a century and a quarter have been due to the folly of her people in splitting into the two camps of unreasonable conservatism and unreasonable radicalism...

"Friends, our task as Americans is to strive for social and industrial justice, achieved through the genuine rule of the people. This is our end, our purpose. The methods for achieving the end are merely expedients, to be finally accepted or rejected according as actual experience shows that they work well or ill. But in our hearts we must have this lofty purpose, and we must strive for it in all earnestness and sincerity, or our work will come to nothing. In order to succeed we need leaders of inspired idealism, leaders to whom are granted great visions, who dream greatly and strive to make their dreams come true; who can kindle the people with the fire from their own burning souls..."

-Theodore Roosevelt

"THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO RULE" March 20, 1912 Carnegie Hall, New York City

Text: http://www.theodore-roosevelt.com/trrotptr.html
Audio: http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/10155

George W. Bush is one of the ultraconservatives that Roosevelt warned us about. The reaction to his presidency is worldwide hatred, nationwide hatred (his approval rating is something like 32% as of this morning, and every time he gives a press conference it drops) and the literal collapse of the American economy. The national debt is higher today then it has been since the second world war. We cannot sustain this kind of stress, and without relief economists are pointing to potential stock market collapse. China will soon own a significant number of our corporations, and this is frightening because of the fact that when china owns an american company, it's not a chinese businessman, but the chinese government that owns a peice of the United States.

George W. Bush and his people have used the media quite well to fool americans into thinking he's the best man for the job. What Karl Rove and his people did to McCain in South Carolina was inexcusable. The american people have realised that the NeoCons are terrible for america.

As far as Saddam Hussein is concerned? Who bloody cares? Where's Osama? Do we have any idea where he is? Iraq was politically and militarily incapable of attacking anyone. Iran hated saddam and his regime, and was waiting for their turn to take over. This is why Iran is causing so much trouble. They were once focused on a cold war with Iraq. Now, that doesn't exist anymore so they're building nuclear bombs.

Is the world a better place with Saddam out of power? I don't know. Iraq has never been ruled by any kind of government other than a dictatorial theocratic or monarchical. The reason that Germans, Italians, and to some extent, The Japanese were able to become effective democracies after the 2nd World War is beacause they had democratic governments before the imperial forces within took power. Yes, Japan had a Democracy prior to Hirohito. There was a military coup that led to it's demise. So I don't know if the world is a better place. Is civil war preferable to a dictatorship?

Is the world safer without Saddam in power? No. Saddam and Osama were bitter enemies. Osama had declared a fatwa against saddam, and encouraged people to kill him if possible. THis is because Saddam is a Sunni and a westerner, while Osama is a Shiite and a fundamentalist. Osama is the crazier one.

Al Qaeda didn't exist in iraq until about a year ago. They're there now because the iraqi civillians have been given rights. We're fighting insurgents now because the iraqis have rights. They have the right to hide, to do process, to the courts, to be left alone. In Saddam's regime, a rumor of rebellion was enough to allow his secret police to murder everyone in a building. Rebellion can't work effectively in that position.

This is why George Bush Sr. opposes the war. We now have tribal warfare, and what is basically civil war. Bush 1 knew this, and didn't invade iraq last time because of it.

The british were once successful in colonising Iraq. The reason we're failing is this: When the british invaded, they had one soldier for every 18 iraqi civillians. Counting the new units standing up within iraq, we have one soldier for every 270 iraqi civillians.

We need at least 350,000 boots on the ground to maintain order, and those numbers are impossible without international help or a draft. Furthermore, rumsfeld has been micromanaging the war. The british hate him, because he has no sense of military planning and strategy.

"Then why haven't the generals said anything?" They have, and they've been fired. This is why retired generals are calling for Rumsfeld's resignation. Rumsfeld fired the general who told him that 300 to 350 thousand troops would be neccesary to pacify iraq. This presidency doesn't even listen to their own military advisers, and then expects to win a war.

That being said, enjoy the cartoons.

Sorry Claymore but the cartoons had copyrights on them so I had to delete them. - Aesop

Lol!

Here's something I discovered:
Go to google and type "failure". Click on "I'm feeling Lucky".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Claymore

... excerpted...

" I prefer to work with moderate, with rational, conservatives, provided only that they do in good faith strive forward toward the light. But when they halt and turn their backs to the light, and sit with the scorners on the seats of reaction, then I must part company with them. We the people cannot turn back. Our aim must be steady, wise progress. It would be well if our people would study the history of a sister republic. All the woes of France for a century and a quarter have been due to the folly of her people in splitting into the two camps of unreasonable conservatism and unreasonable radicalism...

...


The british were once successful in colonising Iraq. The reason we're failing is this: When the british invaded, they had one soldier for every 18 iraqi civillians. Counting the new units standing up within iraq, we have one soldier for every 270 iraqi civillians.

...

---

The T.Roosevelt quote... the part you highlighted, is very telling. It was true about the French then... probably true about them now.... and unfortunately looks like where we in the U.S. are currently headed. Our watch-phrase should be 'Moderation in all things.' I believe we'd be better off without the polarization we're seeing in this country.

Regarding the Brits vis-a-vis Iraq, let's not forget that the British Empire was wide and far-flung because they were ruthless overseers of their holdings. When they stopped being ruthless, they began losing their empire.

So it's not about the number of troops we have per se, it's about how violent we're willing to be. Nothing more, nothing less. As with Nam, if we're not willing "to do whatever it takes to win" we shouldn't be there.

That being said... we shouldn't be there. We do not need to be a ruthless oppressor.

...and to our British buds... the above was noted with admiration for the past and admiration for the present. The world was different then. I certainly recognize who are most stallwart friends have been and remain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ayla Silver

Lol!

Here's something I discovered:
Go to google and type "failure". Click on "I'm feeling Lucky".

---

Gotta love those guys at Google.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozme52

That being said... we shouldn't be there. We do not need to be a ruthless oppressor.

---

I agree that we shouldn't be there. But we have a choice: do it right, send the troops to the nation that we need, or get the hell out. It's incredibly irresponsible of this administration to persue a failing strategy at the cost of american lives.

The google thing made me happy, btw. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Claymore

I agree that we shouldn't be there. But we have a choice: do it right, send the troops to the nation that we need, or get the hell out. It's incredibly irresponsible of this administration to persue a failing strategy at the cost of american lives.

---

Doing it right.... is very difficult.

During WWII, Germany found out how easy it was to conquer (what is now) Yugoslavia, and Greece and how hard it is to pacify 'conquered' nations. Something on the order of 10,000 troops to invade and destroy the defending armies and sitting governments; 500,000 troops to try to maintain the occupation. (If the numbers aren't quite right, I'm pretty sure of the magnitudes...)

At this point we'd need 400,000 infantry.

Solution: Leave.

My only issue with Mr Bush, is if i am not mistaken he made you seiuos error during the war currently going on, !st, when he annouced we were going into Iraq, he said and please correct me if i am wrong "We plan on being in there and out of there within 6 months" that I beloieve was 3 years ago, 2nd the day he landed on the aircraft carrier in his flightsuit" there wasa banner on the carrier that said "Mission Accomplished" would someone please expalin to ME what mission was accomplished, three years later and 2,500 plus killed service people"

Besides, if anyone looked, we buy more crude oil from Iran then anywhere else if my facts are correct, I belive that 25% of our crude is from Iran, the rest is split between Iraq, Venizuala, and other OPEC nations

Lastly, the recently had on the news this fact Mr. Bush hearned $approx $525,000 last year and paid a whopping $1,100 dollares in Taxes to the IRS, on the other Hand Mr. Chaney got a $1.5 million dollar refund

I am not taking political sides, be it Democratic or Repyblican, but history will show the Victor on this, we may be looking at another Viet Nam in Iraw and Both Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheny have investmemnts in Major Oil Companies to this day, intresting, they have invested in Iol Companies and we may be paying $4-$5 dollors a gallon soon,

My only issue with Mr Bush, is if i am not mistaken he made you a seriuos error during the war currently going on, 1st, when he annouced we were going into Iraq, he said and please correct me if i am wrong "We plan on being in there and out of there within 6 months" that I beloieve was 3 years ago, 2nd the day he landed on the aircraft carrier in his flightsuit" there was a banner on the carrier that said "Mission Accomplished" would someone please expalin to ME what mission was accomplished, three years later and 2,500 plus killed service people"

Besides, if anyone looked, we buy more crude oil from Iran then anywhere else if my facts are correct, I belive that 25% of our crude is from Iran, the rest is split between Iraq, Venizuala, and other OPEC nations

Lastly, the recently had on the news this fact Mr. Bush earned approx $525,000 last year and paid a whopping $1,100 dollars in Taxes to the IRS, on the other Hand Mr. Chaney got a $1.5 million dollar refund

I am not taking political sides, be it Democratic or Repyblican, but history will show the Victor on this, we may be looking at another Viet Nam in Iraw and Both Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheny have investmemnts in Major Oil Companies to this day, intresting, they have invested in Oil Companies and we may be paying $4-$5 dollors a gallon soon.
If you live in Iraq or Iran, you currently pay approx $.19-.25 CENTS per gallon, and yes gas is very plentyfull there (this info on prices in these countries is availble at cnn.com, i believe)

Also, the CEO of Mobil Exon the largest in the world recently recieved a "Thank You" bonus from his board of directors, in the last quarter of last year ExxonMobil post a $9.billion dollar PROFIT, this is for 3 months, his bonus was $1.2 Billio,n it was to thank him for giving ExxonMobil as they put it "A REspectable profit margin for the quarter. I wonder how many Mibachs or Burgati's he can buy with that, imagine a car for $1.5 milloin, it get's 222mpg @ say 3>50 a gallon, and all the money goes right back to Exxonmobil, wish I hada business this succcessfull, i cn barely afford to fill up my car, my personal profit from last year, being a Midddle Income American, was about $200 which was in savings til i needed it for gas for my car and food
I am physicaly disabled, I do recieive SSDI, i would love to see OUR Senators, Congrssman, President and Vice President live on my month income, pay for food, gas and just the basics and put money in the back, i got a 4.5% cli for 2006, prior to that my annual one was only 1.5% (2000-2004) yet every year without fail congrsss always approves a 5-6.5% coli for themselves, why do they merti more money every year in cost of living increases or me, they work for me i d o not work forthem ,

In addition, the CEO's of all the major oil companies were called to the White House for a meeting prior to the Iraq invasion. And like I've stated elsewhere, everybody knows Mr. Cheney was the CEO of Halliburton, a company who won a no-bid contract in Iraq. There is no doubt in my mind that his salary is being kept in escrow until he leaves office.

Quote:

---

You can't look at just the past decade to be fair. Let's see... in the 20th Century...

Woodrow Wilson - WWI
Franklin Roosevelt - WWI part 2
Harry Truman - Korea
John Kennedy - Vietnam - the beginning (but it might have been Ike... depending on your perspective. But Kennedy definitely escalated Nam when the French left)
John Kennedy - Bay of Pigs - the closest we came to a nuclear war
Lyndon Johnson - Vietnam - the escalation part 2

I'll give you Reagun for Grenada and
Bush Sr. for Iraq part 1
and the Shrub for Iraq part 2... but I think that's the only reason the Democrats are so antiwar right now. The Republicans are stealing their thunder......

---

Actually, Eisenhower sent in the first advisors to Vietnam when the French were flailing about and exiting over there. LBJ escalated the war, but Nixon involved Cambodia--illegally (imagine that).

And I think you left out the Iran-Contra episode with Reagan and Bush I. I did a research paper on this and discovered a lot of really bad stuff that the US did that was never brought out in the media. They may not have been convicted, but the men involved should have gone to jail with Reagan and Bush being impeached. And what does it say for the current Bush administration that it hired the majority of the crooks from the Iran-Contra episode?

And what else does it say for the current Bush show that all the players never served time in the "real" military yet they do not hesitate to send men and women to die for their cause?

Would someone please exaplin to me 1 major point regarding our Prsident, about 2 years ago or so, he landed on and aircraft carrier near Iraq, got out of a fighter jet in a flight suit, behind him in large letter was a HUGE banner that simply said "Mission Accomplished" would someone, anyone please inform me as to what Mission was accomplished?? 3 years and 2,500 dead later??
Also, if i am not mistaken the only reason he was re-elected is that in the histiry of this country, no incumbent President has ever been voted out of oiffce while we were at war?? If this is not correct please let me know

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mkemse

Would someone please exaplin to me 1 major point regarding our Prsident, about 2 years ago or so, he landed on and aircraft carrier near Iraq, got out of a fighter jet in a flight suit, behind him in large letter was a HUGE banner that simply said "Mission Accomplished" would someone, anyone please inform me as to what Mission was accomplished?? 3 years and 2,500 dead later??
Also, if i am not mistaken the only reason he was re-elected is that in the histiry of this country, no incumbent President has ever been voted out of oiffce while we were at war?? If this is not correct please let me know

---

Well that particular mission was accomplished ---we over threw a dictator and marched down the streets of Bagdad.

And being a democrat mysefl---the reason Bush was reelected was not because of the war----it was because the party failed to put a true leader in the race---I could not support a Person like John Kerry for president---and alot of other democrats could not either---John Kerry almost made me change parties ----he changed positions on issues so many times it was hard to keep up with ----Sorry ---but I support leaders ---and when the party puts up a leader to run ---not just one with the most money to throw in the race---then there will be a true coming together of the party --- We need someone with true values ---who sticks by his position because he truely believes in it ---weather it is popular or not---not just tell each group what he thinks they want to hear.

my thoughts are it is time to clean house in the senate and congress and put in people who will represent us not the big money companies---who are there for the specific reason to be guardians of the people not see how much more money they can squeeze out of us. And I am talking about both parties here, it has become fashionable for the rich to go into politics supposing to represent the people ---if they are rich to begin with why are they voting themselves a raise ---they know what the job pays before they run for office--if it is not enough money --they can do like us normal people do --find another job---that pays more

If you aren't a registered voter, register tomorrow! And make your vote count. If your representative in the government is not acting on "your" behalf then write them letters--senators and representatives. While it is sad that most politicians are owned by big business these days, let them know that when they come up for re-election you will be casting your vote elsewhere unless they start truly representing The People. We aren't "We The People" for nothing!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by heycarrieanne

If you aren't a registered voter, register tomorrow! And make your vote count.

---

Couldn't agree more. The people who complain the most are usually the ones who don't bother to take the time to vote.

You must not only vote but you should make every effort to become a well informed voter. I have my opinions but I'm not about to help anyone decide who to vote for. That is their responsibility.

Vote for who you believe is the best person to represent you. Party affiliation should have no bearing on your decision unless both candidates are equally qualified. Lately the problem seem to be that both candidates are equally unqualified.