To All American Voters,

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 you would like to know how one senior citizen views the Bush Administration.

Thank you for taking time to read my letter.

Sincerely,
Saddam Hussein

What a pathetic letter, Mr. HaVok. What are you trying to convey here? That Kerry is somehow the same person as Clinton? That Kerry believes and thinks exactly like Clinton? Please, give me a break with your right wing trash.

The fact is, Saddam has lost his job. But, this is a war on terrorism, not democracy. The fact is, we don’t have enough troops to even give them a Democracy. Bush has failed, just give it up…. Terrorism has increased (2003 Terrorist Report). Most of our ports are not secure, and most containers are not searched (good job Bush! Our homeland is oh-so secure). Saddam had slim ties to terrorism, and no weapons. Those were the two main reasons as to why we invaded Iraq. Those are false reasons. Now Iran, North Korea and many other nations are far more advanced in weapons production. Those are the countries that have ties to terrorism, and those are the countries we should have been focusing on.

So, if you want my honest opinion…if Saddam had his job, and we had been correctly fighting terrorism (making us safer and keeping our homeland secure) we’d be much better off.

But you know what, Mr. Havok? I’ll be just like you and make a silly little claim….

I bet Osama Bin Laden wants George Bush for office. George Bush let him escape, in the top area of Afghanistan. I’m sure he wants Bush to win again, so he can run free for another few years…

You know OD, you could just copy and paste your last response to most any other post and substitute it for any other. Every thing you say is the same ole same ole.

I like it!

Originally posted by HaVoK
You know OD, you could just copy and paste your last response to most any other post and substitute it for any other. Every thing you say is the same ole same ole.

Care to refute anything, Mr. HaVok? The fact that your silly letter was wrong, incorrect, and downright stupid must hurt. But it’s okay, you just don’t understand little things like, this is not a war on Democracy but Terrorism and threats to the United States. But, I wouldn’t expect anything more coming from a right winger.

Why don't you explain why Saddam had it so good during the Clinton administration and so bad during the Bush administration?

Care to refute???

Care to refute what? Your sad attempt to try and make John Kerry look bad by trying to somehow link the fact that Saddam would somehow support him?

You know what? The conservatives are all about fear. They try and scare you into liking Bush. Typical trash that you neo-cons spew all the time.

Better vote for Bush, because Saddam supports Kerry!! How low does the right wing go?

Why did he have it good during the Clinton Era? He didn’t, if you knew your history. The world stopped all trade, and business with his country until Saddam said he would disarm all weapons.

What happened? He did disarm. And that thus shows, we had no reason for war. This is a war on terrorism, not democracy. And he had no WMD's or ties to terrorism. Which thus shows, we had no reason for war.

Your sad attempt to try and make John Kerry look bad

He doesn't need my help, Kerry does quite well by himself. :)

Better vote for Bush, because Saddam supports Kerry

Okay, you talked me into it!

Why did he have it good during the Clinton Era? He didn’t, if you knew your history.

Maybe not....but he sure had it a hell of a lot better then than he does now, wouldn't you say?? :>

He did disarm.

According the the reports I read, he partially disarmed, but was in a position to have chemical/biological weapons in a matter of weeks. Maybe you feel good about that, but I don't.

Originally posted by Karankawa
He doesn't need my help, Kerry does quite well by himself. :)
Cute, but only fuels your stupidity of not being able to debate the issues.

Originally posted by Karankawa
Okay, you talked me into it!
Neo-Cons resort to humor, when they have no more points to make.

Originally posted by Karankawa
According the the reports I read, he partially disarmed, but was in a position to have chemical/biological weapons in a matter of weeks. Maybe you feel good about that, but I don't.
Okay…so lets just play along.

I highly doubt that Saddam would have been able to make weapons, with the satellites and UN inspectors in Iraq. If you are so worried about the fact he could “someday” have weapons again, increase the watch on Iraq. Keep close monitors on his movement and everything. To go to war on assumption is wrong.

The Bush Administration said he had weapons. Not that he could someday have weapons. Their reason is false. The UN found no weapons, period. And the fact is…isn’t countries who already have weapons a much larger priority? North Korea, Iran etc.? They actually have weapons, that we can see. That we have proof of them having. They are the countries that are an imminent threat to America. So, before we worry about “future” threats, we should focus on the imminent threats. Don't you think...?

So basically, we would be like the eternal baby sitter of Iraq.

At this point, I have to point out that it would actually be more economically feasible to remove Saddam from power than patrol Iraq with planes, satellites and inspectors while the Hussein and Sons regime remained in power.

Just face it, the positives of the Iraq war far outweigh the negatives.

And about North Korea and Iran, I don't think we've heard the last chapter about those nations, do you? For someone that armchair quarterbacks the Iraq war as much as you do, and is as critical about "acting too fast" as you are, I'm not sure how to react when you seem to recommend we should take more action against Iran and N.Korea.

This latest stance of yours lends credulence to my theory that if Bush had not acted in Iraq, you would be the loudest cheerleader for a war in Iraq. Whatever Bush doesn't do is what you want to do. Am I wrong?

Originally posted by Karankawa
At this point, I have to point out that it would actually be more economically feasible to remove Saddam from power than patrol Iraq with planes, satellites and inspectors while the Hussein and Sons regime remained in power.
Yes, it would be better to patrol Iraq if we invaded their country…granted. But maybe if we had enough troops, we could do that. Yet, weapons and chaos is all around in Iraq. We don’t have enough troops to keep control over Iraq. So maybe if the Bush Administration had run this war correctly…you could make the point you’re trying to convey. Sadly, they didn’t bring enough troops.

The Bush Administration said that Saddam had weapons. Not that he “someday, might, have weapons”. The reason they gave is utterly false. Not only did they say he had weapons, but that we knew where they were. That too, was false and wrong.

And, with the technology right now, we could have kept close tabs on Saddam Hussein. Don’t think for one second we couldn’t have. Satellites can monitor almost anything these days.

When terrorists are trying to hunt and kill us, you think we should spend almost all of our time and money in Iraq to make sure that Saddam never gets weapons? That is illogical, and shows you are un-ethical, at the same time.

Originally posted by Karankawa
Just face it, the positives of the Iraq war far outweigh the negatives.
So, us having a huge deficit is a positive?
So, Iraqis suffering deformities from the Uranium in our bombs, is a positive?
So, not having enough troops to secure Iraq, and make it safe, is a positive?
So, the fact that Iraq never posed a threat to us (no WMD’s), is a positive?
So, the fact that terrorism can run free in the Middle East and around the world, because we are stuck in Iraq, is a positive?
So, the fact that nations like Iran and North Korea can now produce weapons, and trade with terrorists freely, because we are stuck in Iraq, is a positive?
So, the fact that the terrorists now have a new recruiting tool (Iraqi Abuse) to gain members, is a positive?
So, the fact that the world hates us because of this war, is a positive?
So, the fact that hospitals are not up to standard condition, because we don’t have enough money to repair the damage we caused to them, is a positive?
So, the fact that we can’t give them a democracy (even though this is a war on terrorism) is a positive?

Originally posted by Karankawa
This latest stance of yours lends credulence to my theory that if Bush had not acted in Iraq, you would be the loudest cheerleader for a war in Iraq. Whatever Bush doesn't do is what you want to do. Am I wrong?
Let me say this again. Maybe you’ll understand, this time. But, since you are a Republican, I highly doubt it.

If we had let the UN stay in Iraq, for the full time they requested, and Bush hadn’t rushed to war, we would have known what we now know…that Saddam never had weapons. That Saddam was never a threat.

Which would leave me no room to criticize Bush…

But maybe if we had enough troops, we could do that. Yet, weapons and chaos is all around in Iraq. We don’t have enough troops to keep control over Iraq. So maybe if the Bush Administration had run this war correctly…you could make the point you’re trying to convey. Sadly, they didn’t bring enough troops.

Lol!! I had assumed you were talking about maintaining the no-fly zones that we had before the Iraq war. You want the US to occupy? How would this be any different from what we are doing now? After reading and re-reading your post, I'm totally confused about what you are talking about here. Weren't we talking about your plan about containing Iraq rather than invading? I thought that was what we were going to discuss. But no, you have chosen to change the subject and give the JohnKerry.com spiel about their not being enough troops in Iraq. I guess that's what happens when you live and breathe that crap all day.

The Bush Administration said that Saddam had weapons. Not that he “someday, might, have weapons”. The reason they gave is utterly false. Not only did they say he had weapons, but that we knew where they were. That too, was false and wrong.

Oh....my....god.....
How many days in a row are you going to post this? Where is your answer for why the entire world and your beloved Clinton believed the same thing? Why do you constantly insist on pinning this on Bush? What do you do, just copy and paste from JohnKerry.com everytime or what?

And, with the technology right now, we could have kept close tabs on Saddam Hussein. Don’t think for one second we couldn’t have. Satellites can monitor almost anything these days.

I would have thought that you, of all people, would realize the fallibility of satellites, especially after the possible misinterpretation of satellite photos that led to the war we're in presently....the same exact one that you post against several times a day. So after we get bad intell from the satellites, you now want to rely on them to contain Iraq's WMD program?

Amazing.

When terrorists are trying to hunt and kill us, you think we should spend almost all of our time and money in Iraq to make sure that Saddam never gets weapons? That is illogical, and shows you are un-ethical, at the same time.


Where in the hell did this come from? Did I say anything that even remotely sounds like I said that? And un-ethical....wtf.... your accusations are wild!!! You create fictional quotes and then call me unethical for them. How convenient.

Maybe you’ll understand, this time. But, since you are a Republican, I highly doubt it.

Does anyone understand any of this?

Originally posted by Karankawa
I had assumed you were talking about maintaining the no-fly zones that we had before the Iraq war. You want the US to occupy? How would this be any different from what we are doing now? After reading and re-reading your post, I'm totally confused about what you are talking about here. Weren't we talking about your plan about containing Iraq rather than invading? I thought that was what we were going to discuss. But no, you have chosen to change the subject and give the JohnKerry.com spiel about their not being enough troops in Iraq. I guess that's what happens when you live and breathe that crap all day.
We are talking about the fact that we could have monitored Iraq just as well, if we had not invaded. I guess you should read it three or even four times. Satellites, no fly zones, and UN Inspections every 4 or so years…would keep Saddam from being able to have weapons. That is what I’m trying to convey. The other point, I’m trying to make is, since we didn’t bring enough troops into Iraq, countries, terrorists, are now even more likely to get a hold and use weapons. So, invading Iraq without enough troops isn’t helping us become any safer from terrorist or WMD attacks.

Originally posted by Karankawa
Oh....my....god.....
How many days in a row are you going to post this? Where is your answer for why the entire world and your beloved Clinton believed the same thing? Why do you constantly insist on pinning this on Bush? What do you do, just copy and paste from JohnKerry.com everytime or what?
I’m going to post it, until it goes through your thick neo-con head.

First of all, Clinton before 2000 only believed Saddam had weapons because he didn’t have the 2000 UN reports from Iraq. Second, the world did not think Saddam had weapons. That’s why we left the UN. Also, the part of the world that believed Saddam had weapons were only manipulated by the Bush Administration’s false claims to the UN, Senate and American public. That goes for John Kerry as well.

Bush wanted war. He gave speeches saying Saddam had weapons, and that we knew where they were. Tons of people believed him. And now he is wrong. So of course I blame him. He is the President, you know. The Commander In Chief? Yeah, that’s who everyone should blame.

Originally posted by Karankawa
I would have thought that you, of all people, would realize the fallibility of satellites, especially after the possible misinterpretation of satellite photos that led to the war we're in presently....the same exact one that you post against several times a day. So after we get bad intell from the satellites, you now want to rely on them to contain Iraq's WMD program?
Okay, so lets say they aren’t as reliable as I claim. So, put UN inspectors in Iraq ever-so often to make sure. Keep a no fly zone, and maybe keep a few bases in Iraq for security if you are that worried. All would be better solutions then to launch a full out war against a country that was no threat to us.

We are talking about the fact that we could have monitored Iraq just as well, if we had not invaded. I guess you should read it three or even four times.

You could've fooled me. Your entire first paragraph is the copy and paste from Kerry.com about the "lack of troops." The second is about how Bush "lied" about the WMD, also from Kerry.com. The third told us that satellites can monitor everything. And your final paragraph was the one where you proved that I am illogical and en-ethical. Sometimes I wonder why I post here. This is one of those times.

First of all, Clinton before 2000 only believed Saddam had weapons because he didn’t have the 2000 UN reports from Iraq.

Could this be because the UN inspectors were kicked out of Iraq by Mr. Hussein smack in the middle of Clinton's administration? You know what Mr. Clinton did about that, don't you?

N-O-T-H-I-N-G.

So how can you say it's not his fault for not having UN inspector reports??? Why Clinton hasn't come under more fire for this gaffe is beyond me. It is ironic that people like you want to put Bush under fire for not obtaining enough evidence when the last liberal in office had such a huge part in paving the road to this lack of intell.

Put UN inspectors in Iraq ever-so often to make sure. Keep a no fly zone, and maybe keep a few bases in Iraq for security if you are that worried.

Ever so often? This is too vague, especially in light that we now know that he had capacity to make WMD in a short time. And I don't think Mr. Hussein would have allowed US bases in Iraq. He shot at the pilots patrolling the no-fly zone EVERYDAY. He kicked the UN inspectors out for being "spies." Anyhoo, just a feeling that would not have worked without a war.

Originally posted by Karankawa
You could've fooled me. Your entire first paragraph is the copy and paste from Kerry.com about the "lack of troops." The second is about how Bush "lied" about the WMD, also from Kerry.com. The third told us that satellites can monitor everything. And your final paragraph was the one where you proved that I am illogical and en-ethical. Sometimes I wonder why I post here. This is one of those times.
First of all, it is not copied and pasted from Kerry.com. You have no reasons as to why I’m incorrect, so you just like to say that I’m this “blind sheep that copies from Kerry.com” sorry, I know your little tricks. Not going to work.

General Tony MickPeack who was one of the top generals in the first Gulf War says we need quote “three times the amount of troops we have now” As well as many other military generals. Plus, even John McCain says we need thousands more troops to win the peace in Iraq. Everyone knows that we need more troops in Iraq; otherwise there wouldn’t be this much chaos.

The second part, you fail to understand. Bush is the President. When you become President you are also the Commander in Chief. You are held fully responsible for everything. Since he manipulated the intelligence, everyone believed Saddam was a threat to the United States of America. And now we know Saddam does not have any weapons, so he is held responsible for that. He is the Commander in Chief and makes the final decision. Period.

Originally posted by Karankawa
Could this be because the UN inspectors were kicked out of Iraq by Mr. Hussein smack in the middle of Clinton's administration? You know what Mr. Clinton did about that, don't you?

N-O-T-H-I-N-G.
Your point? This is run by the United Nations not the United States. We are not the world police, you know.

Originally posted by Karankawa
So how can you say it's not his fault for not having UN inspector reports??? Why Clinton hasn't come under more fire for this gaffe is beyond me. It is ironic that people like you want to put Bush under fire for not obtaining enough evidence when the last liberal in office had such a huge part in paving the road to this lack of intell.
George Bush had the 2000 UN reports. Clinton did not have the 2000 reports when he was President. Do you know when his term ended Karankawa? Because the claims he made during his presidency were based on information that he had at the time. The new information, which came out after his Presidency, showed Saddam had no weapons. So you cannot blame him for believing Saddam had weapons, when he didn’t have the last UN report in front of him.



Originally posted by Karankawa
Ever so often? This is too vague, especially in light that we now know that he had capacity to make WMD in a short time. And I don't think Mr. Hussein would have allowed US bases in Iraq. He shot at the pilots patrolling the no-fly zone EVERYDAY. He kicked the UN inspectors out for being "spies." Anyhoo, just a feeling that would not have worked without a war.
We were able to launch war, so I’m sure we could get a few bases. But even if we couldn’t, we should force him to go through inspections on a regular basis. Launching war, on assumption, especially when there are bigger threats in the world is not a good idea.

The second part, you fail to understand. Bush is the President. When you become President you are also the Commander in Chief. You are held fully responsible for everything. Since he manipulated the intelligence, everyone believed Saddam was a threat to the United States of America. And now we know Saddam does not have any weapons, so he is held responsible for that. He is the Commander in Chief and makes the final decision. Period.

This crap is STRAIGHT out of Kerry's speeches. The fact that you try to deny that you are copying Kerry.com and Kerry's speeches makes me laugh so hard. You have not said one original sentence in every paragraph that you have written. Oh, except for the one where you labelled me as "unethical." That was original.

Listen, don't you think if I wanted to read this crap, I would just skip on over there rather than listen to you regurgitate it all here on allforums?

George Bush had the 2000 UN reports. Clinton did not have the 2000 reports when he was President.

Lol, I don't think Bush had any 2000 UN reports. Are you aware that the UN was booted out of Iraq from 1998 and 2002?

Hey, maybe you're right. IF there had been a 2000 or a 2001 UN report, maybe that would have changed everything. But once again, the fact that there are not reports from 1998-2002 is the fault of our last liberal president. Not Bush's.

Unless you think Bush should have been Clinton's boss in 1998...

Originally posted by Karankawa
This crap is STRAIGHT out of Kerry's speeches. The fact that you try to deny that you are copying Kerry.com and Kerry's speeches makes me laugh so hard. You have not said one original sentence in every paragraph that you have written. Oh, except for the one where you labelled me as "unethical." That was original.
Yes, it’s the same opinions we both share…is that an issue for you? I support John Kerry, so why wouldn’t I have similar view points and talking points? But I’m glad you cared so much as to refute what I said in it…

Originally posted by Karankawa
Lol, I don't think Bush had any 2000 UN reports. Are you aware that the UN was booted out of Iraq from 1998 and 2002?
Sorry, when the UN was in Iraq during the Bush Administration before we launched war, no weapons were found. Clinton didn’t have those reports from 2002, when he was in office. And that’s what I was trying to get at.

Oh and we didn’t have enough troops. I’m glad we agree on that.

Stop bashing OverDose's responses...S/he has a freedom of speech you know...something that you Bushie lovers supposedly know ALLLLLLLLLL about.

nawww I can take it. I'm use to it, thanks though.

No problem there.

Yeah I can tell...

By the way, My friends and I like your quote thingy. Kept us laughing for a few...the 3 g's heh...;)

I'm non-partisen Hovak and I thought your letter was great! :)

I am now officially confused and will have to re-read the thread...

From 92-98 Saddam wasn't complying with demands in the inspections. When the reports were coming out in the Bush Administration, he was complying and had no weapons. Which is the difference.

But, who cares? This is between Kerry and Bush. I don’t care about Clinton…so who cares? Good for him…if you are right or if I am right, who cares? Clinton isn’t going to be President nor does it matter what he thinks or thought right now.

Ah. Clinton was a little bit on the plain side...Hey have you noticed that recently every time we are under a Republican President we are close to or are in a war? Heh pretty weird.

Ok now I'm going back to my corner to cry...

It is important because Clinton said in 1998:

"Now, instead of playing by the very rules he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War, Saddam has spent the better part of the past decade trying to cheat on this solemn commitment. Consider just some of the facts:

Iraq repeatedly made false declarations about the weapons that it had left in its possession after the Gulf War. When UNSCOM would then uncover evidence that gave lie to those declarations, Iraq would simply amend the reports.

For example, Iraq revised its nuclear declarations four times within just 14 months and it has submitted six different biological warfare declarations, each of which has been rejected by UNSCOM.

In 1995, Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law, and the chief organizer of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, defected to Jordan. He revealed that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to build many more.

Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers of weapons in significant quantities and weapon stocks. Previously, it had vehemently denied the very thing it just simply admitted once Saddam Hussein's son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth. Now listen to this, what did it admit?

It admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs.

I'm trying to be patient, I realize you probably were not aware of what was going on back then. The UN inspectors were basically being led on a wild goose chase, and it was very conceivable that the reason Iraq was doing that was so that they could continue to hide their WMD. Since they were not getting rid of them throughout the 90s in the wake of the Gulf War, it is very logical to assume that he could have easily held onto them until it was obvious that the US was about to invade.

But, who cares? This is between Kerry and Bush. I don’t care about Clinton…so who cares? Good for him…if you are right or if I am right, who cares? Clinton isn’t going to be President nor does it matter what he thinks right now.

You, Kerry, and some others insist almost everyday that Bush "lied" about intelligence. Remember, you just said that on page one of this thread? I'm simply trying to show you (and Democrats in general) that you are very likely wrong.

Karankawa I’ve heard that argument a million times. I’m fully aware that the United Nations was lead on by Saddam Hussein throughout the 90’s. When have I ever denied that? No one has ever said Saddam was a good man.

And since he was playing this “goose chase”, the entire world stopped trade with Iraq in the later 90's. Which forced Saddam to start complying with all demands in the United Nations. That is exactly what happened.

Saddam promised to disarm, and so we gave him time to disarm and we started trade again. What happened was, he told the United Nations that he disarmed. Since we didn’t believe him, as with previous encounters, we inspected Iraq yet again. This time, if he didn’t disarm and lead us on a “wild goose chase” he was going to face serious consequences.

And the fact is, David Kay stated this in the UN...

Saddam is complying with all demands and cooperating 100%

Which thus shows that Saddam in the last UN inspection was complying. He ended up having no weapons, and was no threat.

The fact is, yes, he previously was not complying. But in the last inspection he was complying. So why would we attack him, once he was complying?

*currently hiring Cheerleaders for OverDose*

I must be off to bed, catch everyone later! I'll look forward to your replies...;)

I'm getting scared...I am hearing voices and there are weird orange lights in the sky. They aren't stars, either! *runs*
Good night OverDose...Have fun in bed ;)

But if Saddam lied to inspectors and misled them over and over and over again, why makes you think that he would not do the same thing in 2002?

And can you link where David Kay said that Saddam is cooperating 100%? I can't find that anywhere. Here is a quote from Mr. Kay in 2003 that leads me to believe you are full of shit:

"We UNSCOM inspectors simply did not have the resources to win a game of hide and seek. The same is true today. The number of inspectors was always terribly small -- seldom more than 300 in the country at any one time. And we were totally outclassed by Iraqi security, which had managed to infiltrate the United Nations in Vienna and New York, as well as the Bahrain office of UNSCOM. "

http://www.useu.be/Categories/GlobalAffairs/Iraq/Jan1903IraqSmokingGunKay.html

Reveng, I expect Vilepagan to arrive to support your cheers any minute now. I'm sure I have a type-O or something in there somewhere for him to latch on to.

Gee your History teacher is pretty smart...but he must not know how to type, huh?

Originally posted by revenG_DeSire
Gee your History teacher is pretty smart...but he must not know how to type, huh? This site would be a lot better if we had a special place for kids to post in.

There is....this THREAD!;) (by the way Karanakawawa thingy, who is VilePagan?)

Vilepagan is one of our mods who seems to have had the misfortune of being the recipient of a nasty grudge from Karankawa. Calm down, Karan, he's a mod now and he can delete your insults. ;)

ooooooooooooo.

Yes, Karanakawawa thingy! You must be careful, now.

Havok, I just now read the "letter" at the start of this thread.

ABSOLUTELY HILARIOUS. :D:D

Thanks for the laugh!

My pleasure. I hoped some would get a good chuckle out of it.

*sniggers*