Bush cost me my job, my kids and my houses
>
> Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak
> my mind. I lost my job this past year. When
> Clinton was president I was secure and
> prosperous, but in the last year, we had to
> close our operations. We simply could not
> compete with foreign labor. This foreign labor
> worked for low pay under very bad conditions.
>
> They worked very long shifts, and many even died
> on the job.
>
> This competition could hardly be called "fair."
> I was forced out of the place where I had worked
> for 34 years.
>
> Not a single government program was there to
> help me.
>
> How can Bush call himself "compassionate?" Far
> worse, I lost two of my sons in Bush's evil war
> in Iraq. They gave their lives for their
> country, and for what? So that Bush's oil
> buddies can get rich. My pain of losing my sons
> is indescribable.
>
> While it is trivial next to the loss of my sons,
> I regret to say that I also lost my home. I
> simply have nothing left. How can Bush call
> himself a Christian when he neglects people like
> me? I am a senior citizen with various medical
> problems. I'm not in a position where I can
> begin a new career. I was reduced to the point
> where I had to live in a hole in a ground, all
> because of President Bush.
>
> And when the authorities found me there, did
> they have any compassion for my misfortune and
> ailments? No, I was arrested. Mr. Bush, I dare
> you to look me in the face and tell me you are a
> compassionate man! I dare you to look me in the
> face and tell me you are a Christian. If I had
> any money left, I would donate it to the
> Democrat Party.
>
> If Al Gore had been elected in 2000 I would
> still have a job, a home, and most importantly,
> my dear sons!
>
> Regards,
> Saddam Hussein

I put this in issues so you could tell me why you think this letter is telling the truth because of the liberal views you all share.

Dear Saddam Hussein,

Really sorry about your loss, but it had to be done. I've got a career too, y'know. It's a dog-eat-dog world out there, and I'm sorry to say it, but some of us just have to get left in the dust in order for the rest of us to suceed.

Don't worry, though, I'm doing what I can. Now that I've got you in custody, I can just get the media to forget all about the fact that we should be interrogating you right now and executing you later. What kind of friends to you do they think my family and I are, anyways? We've helped you before, and we'll do it again!

Once the media's completely forgotten about you, we'll give you a new identity, as well as some cosmetic surgery, we'll be giving you a new home and family right here in the good old US of A. I mean, you won't have your own country to rule over, or $3 billion the CIA gave you, or even U.S.-donated weapons (by the way, what'd you do with those, anyways? We really can't seem to find them, and we'd appreciate it if you'd tell us. What, you don't have any? Ah well, we can plant some in Iraq anyways), but at least it's something.

Regards,

George W. Bush

Yes, yes, I know. Responding feeds the fire. Well, this fire is slightly entertaining..... slightly.

edit: did you know that the U.N. estimates that nearly half a million Iraqis have been killed by the U.S. bombing raids since the 1990's?

That letter too easily compares Iraq and America. What business did we have knocking him out of power all of a sudden? Where are the strong links between WMD and al-Qaeda or even the Taliban? Aren't those they people we should be after? I'm not very smart on this issue, but why WAS it necessary to kill his sons? Or maybe it wasn't, but with all our bomb dropping, it was a whoopsie daisy. Yes, we destroyed his home; look what we did to the country...

I must not have gotten the weapons you sent me. I got most of mine from France and Russia.

Regards,
Saddam Hussein

No, no, you got it all backwards. We trained Osama Bin Laden to ATTACK the Russians and gave you weapons to attack the Iranians. The French really don't have anything to do with this; it was all us. You never got weapons from anyone else. I'm quite proud of it, actually, so don't try and give the credit to people who don't deserve it.

Maybe all that dictatorship has made your memory a bit off. Don't worry, we've got treatment for that.

Regards,

George W. Bush

Gerb, you are using Bush in a semi-positive light.

I never thought I'd see the day.

I didn't think it was possible, for Bush to be a positive thing.

gerbilfromhell, pushing the limits of the possible, one post at a time.

*fans self frantically* Well, maybe...occasionally...

Dear Mr. Hussein,

I'm sure you've learned by now that in order to topple an oppressive, power-hungry dictator, one needs an even more oppressive, power-hungry dictator. I'll bet it sucks being called evil and what-not by a man who's killed more Iraqies than you could ever hope to. DOn't worry there, dude. With Bush having so many of other people's children dying in the country the US "liberated," I'm sure that our oppressive government will get crushed much in the same way that Nazi Germany fell.

-Righteous

PS- Sorry about not having any nukes. I'm sure that if you wanted to blow up the world, you'd have the United States government do it since they seem to be good at blowing things up.

People like Guaraldi feul my anarchistic fire. WOOOSH!

Is it just me wondering this or am I missing the point where this war was about religion? I've heard it said that it was about oil, or about finding WMDs, I've even heard it said that it was in defence of the US and the rest of the world. All or none of these may be true, but I don't think that Bush being a Christian and going to war with Iraq are at all related, nor do I think that it reflects on his religion that he chose to do so. That this satire places such emphasis on his religion really negates it's arguments.

Anyway, once again I'm saying this Guaraldi, you've come on here trying to start a fight. The letter wasn't, your comment at the end was. I don't say that all conservatives are bigots when it comes to liberals, despite the fact that you are showing yourself to be that, so I don't see why you seem to think it's alright to say that all liberals will automatically defend any position, no matter what it is, that contradicts conservative views. The fact that you seem to believe that liberals approve of a murderous dictator is absolutely offensive and I would sincerely appreciate an apology.

I have never seen a single person on this forum, from any political orientation, say that they believed Saddam Hussein should be left in power. That said, it was not for the US and UK governments to do, it should have been done by the UN and it would have been done by the UN if they had wanted to put the same dedication into applying pressure to the vote as they did to the idea of wanting to go to war by themselves.

'We're going to do this with or without you' is not the way to win a vote, 'This man is a murderous dictator who has flaunted the rulings of the international community for too long and has committed acts of genocide against those living in his country' is a lot more persuasive, but they chose the first one.

As I say, I resent your accusation that I, or anyone else on here with similar political beliefs, supports the actions that Saddam Hussein took while in power. You know that's true, so apologise for saying it in the first place if you wish to regain any semblance of reasonable debate on political subjects. Hatred of a another political position is still hatred and that's a very serious breech of the forum rules. Either change your way of writing on these subjects or find another forum that won't be insulted by your views of those who don't agree with you. Your choice.

I don't support anything that Hussein did in office, but I don't think he should have been yanked out by the Man. I may be considered a nutjob, but I think that Bush is being manipulated by Satan. He's done a lot of evil in the name of God and I'm sure that the King of Lies is laughing his ass off at this since he knows that this'll cause many to turn away from God. I hate to turn this into a religious debate, but I seriously think this way.

no one knows what this war is over lets go over what we americans have heard in the past couple of years

1. LINKS LINKS LINKS THERE TERRORISTS!!!! they are linked to the al quida! there going to kill us

well there seemed to be no links...

2; they have bombs look look look there going to attack us!

nope no bombs, and even if there were bombs they have no way to send them over here

3. we must free the people!!!

well im pretty sure that there was one saddam and millions of people but then agin i suppose saddam is really superman in disguise to be able to fight off all those people, a little update thats how they have live for thousands of years and how they will keep living because hay i know if bush passed a law telling me to run around nakkid i woudnt do it and to the weomen there its pretty equil=. the one thing that most people miss are the thousands of people that saddam killed is more like of hundreds of people breaking the laws of there relgion ie: females are covered, but they have the lowest rape in the world and every female is equl while wearing it may she be the richest one in the world or she can barly feed herself. but we need to rescue these people from there equality and religion and turn them into us!

1.) He had bombs. One kind of which was technically banned by the UN resolution, but nothing that could hit us or our allies. And he was destroying those bombs up until we invaded.

2.) It's hard to think of a revolution when anyone suspected of insighting a revolution is shot or worse.

why does this whole bush thing remind me of animal farm?? "two legs bad four legs good"

Haha at first I thought the letter was an anti-Bush one, and then I got to the part with the hole in the ground. That was great!!

As Gerb points out, it's a lot easier said than done in circumstances such as those in Iraq before Hussein was forced out of power. It's fairly clear that he would have _liked_ to have posed a threat to the rest of the world, but he really didn't, but it's also clear that his armies and agents all checked on eachother and any dissent was met with very brutal retribution. Organising any resistance in that kind of atmosphere is nearly impossible.

Just imagine if someone in the US tried to forcibly oust Bush from power, they'd be crushed like a bug in no time when they went public and they wouldn't be able to get much of a movement going before someone either got scared or loyal to the president and informed the police. Imagine that situation where instead of being thrown in jail you will be shot, as will your loved ones, and probably your friends too to be on the safe side. That's what it was like in Iraq, and that's why the people didn't rise up against Hussein.

Freeing the people was a good thing, but the US and the UK shouldn't have done it without agreement that it was necessary from the international community.

i understand that... but bush has over exagerated (sp?) a good deal of what was happening... right now in the us if you carry a world atlis out of a library you considered a threat because you might be a terrorist... and i tried it and got the cops called on me,and then spent a few hours in he police station talking to these guys in suits that refused to give me there names or what the worked for, answers questions about my life and weither or not my father planned on voting for bush (wich was jsut plain creepy)... so my question is... whoes going to free the us? i mean really the patriot act makes no sence off the basis that its not written out.. instead it refers to other laws and how they had become changed... if i were you id take a gander at the law...

I'm not going to step into this debate and pretend to know what I'm talking about ,as in all honesty, I'm by no means as up on current affiars as I should be, but didn't they find evidence of weapons of mass destruction such as gas masks and other such biological weapon type parafanalia? Should that ever be taken into consideration?