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

Damn, Howard. You had me going for quite a while! -whew-

Ya, me too! I was getting ready for another fund raiser

..........b

very funny. my 19 year old son is in the marines and probably deploys in april. i'll be sure to pull this thread up for a little levity if he should come home with a bullet hole in his body. no body died when clinton lied.

kevin

BAH!

We're done in Iraq - it's time to go - we won.

I gauge this upon the fact that we now have what was a completely oppressed people protesting for us to leave.

PROTESTING! It's great - they are free - let us let them determine their own fate from here. Give them some support but only as advisors and only what they responsibly ask for otherwise. Of course, Mr. Bush will not leave these free people without their oil in tow.

Lemme step off this soap box...

Oh no, don't start political crap! Figure 2/3 of the club are democrats (based in California, right?) and the rest of us are red neck, gun toting, NRA beer guzzling right wing wackos. Who cares. Enjoy the 914 and to hell with politics. No politician ever helped me pull an engine.

wholeheartedly 10 times over

......b

More boobs Ya ya More boobs

Nicer one this time Ya Ya no strech marks this time I like Boobs

I didn't start it.

William, you sure don't sound like you're from Mass!
Musta' just moved there.

with you.

Paul

Wasn't it a similar topic that got Miles banned from the bird?

Now he's thinking about leaving here. Say it ain't so, Miles.

Mike

Signing up for the marines is not signing up to be a summer camp counselor. I have the utmost respect for our men and women in the armed services. I also expect them to engage in conflicts when asked. That's what they signed up to do. It was voluntary. Let me say again, that I hold your son and others in the armed services in very high regard.

No one died when Clinton lied? Well, while he was getting a blowjob in his office, known terrorists were allowed to run around planning 9/11. Nobody died? Bull f#$kin $h!+ nobody died.

You think Bush is doing a poor job? There have been roughly 500 US service men and women killed in this conflict. You name me one other major or minor conflict in the history of the WORLD where an opposition of this size was conquered with so little loss. You won't find ANY. I do not mean to trivialize the loss of life of these fine men and women. I honor and respect them deeply.

-Ben M.

ps - I hate when people blame the president for the economy. What BS. It's called the business cycle. We go through it every 10-13 years. And when it happens durring the administration of a president I don't like I don't blame him either. Yes, my education is in economics.

Ben,
with you too!

HAHAHAHAHA!!!! That's rich--2/3 of CA-based 914'ers are Democrats?? Well, maybe in "new math", 20% can be 2/3...

--DD

We should be careful of blaming the economy on 9/11 and the so-called "War on terrorism" as well though. Admittedly they have changed the situation a bit, but we have just come through the bursting of one of the largest bubbles ever.

I have always been concerned about airport security in the US, and that wasn't caused by Clinton. Bush IS the cause of the RIDICULOUS level of false-security we have now though. I don't think it's preventing anything.

Yeah, OK, I'll fess up. I live in this here people's republic but most everything about this place sucks (especially the weather). And your right, I'm a transplant. I grew up down yonder on the bayou in New Orleans, attended LSU as an undergrad and the god damn University of Alabama for Law School (this was back in the day when being a lawyer was an honorable profession, a man's word was his bond and other obsolete notions were taught and believed by my generation. Yeah, I'm the red neck described above and damn proud to say I love this country, etc. But why fight over politics? I really don't care what other board members political views are and think we should keep those topics off the board unless we are just trying to piss people off. Man look at the losers I have to accept as my representatives. Thinking every day about moving back down south - at least I could drive the 914 and Boxster any damn time I wanted to. My two cents worth.

As to why Bush did a poor job?

I am on the fence about Afganistan - the Taliban was a terrible regime, and it seems reasonably certain that it is supporting terrorism; also the war there was very well executed - apart from not capturing the primary target.

As for Iraq, there is no even vague proof that there was any support for terrorist against the US originating from there. At the same time we do have a deranged crazy threat from North Korea, which we refused to have a dialog with. So I think that was misplaced.

Saddam IS a bad guy, and I am glad he has been taken care of, but it should have been carried out with UN backing. We have basically crippled the international order by not respecting the UN.

The war in Iraq was very well executed and we did have very little loss of life considering what was achieved. Having said that - they were not exactly an organized force, and they did not have very good tactical or strategic command. None of the serious strategies that we thought they were going to employ were actually used; there are no weapons of mass destruction.

I have a lot of respect for our troops. They don't have a choice about what battles they have to fight, and I don't believe what they did was easy (especially since they were an undersized force to begin with, for the Iraq operation - which became quite clear quite early on).

The question is - Why Iraq? I believe the answer is (in the words of my friend) - because "he messed with my daddy." That is no justification for a unilateral war. The war on terrorism seems to be just an excuse for this one. And you have to ask these questions because the justification from the Administration for this war has changed every couple to 3 weeks, constantly being reworded and tweaked to that weeks CNN report. The American people are being played as fools. And now, to boot, we have enormous deficits to show for it.

Whatever you believe, make sure you ask the questions, and make sure you get out and vote.

Sorry I started this. It was intended as humor, however sick. My apologies to anyone I have offended, but call us Californians f$#@n democrats one more time and you're crossing a line.

And can we show better looking boobs?

And now - (just to prove that I am not an america-hater) why I love this country....

I love the fact that it is huge, has a huge economy, has a GREAT standard of living, has a lot of the most beautiful natural features in the world, has some of the best skiing, vinyards, beaches, bars, nightlife, music, art, and more that I don't even know about. You can do what you want, when you want, and for the most part there are an army of people that want to sell you the stuff to do it. For the most part people are pretty honest and pretty friendly.
I live within a day-trip distance of 5 road-race tracks - maybe soon to be 6, and can get to about the same number of world-class film festivals. Gas is cheap. We have a lot fo the best technology, and some great companies. All in all - life is pretty great - and most of what we have to worry about is small stuff that only effects us in small ways - if at all, unless we choose to be more involved. Rock on America.

This means no proof that you what to believe?

There is proof, but you care not to believe it. Admit it.

Paul

I'll also add that I'm not nearly as riled up as I sound. No offense intended.

-Ben M.

That should be a campaign slogan "more boobs in '04!"

Anyway, no offence here - except for being called a democrat. Which I am not.

Regardless - I must chime in again because I love to stir the pot.

Quoted from General Wesley Clarke's website:

"From 1997 to May 2000, General Clark served as Supreme Allied Commander, Europe. During this assignment, General Clark engaged in high-level diplomacy to lead a multinational force in the 1999 Kosovo Conflict. Through his direction, NATO and the United States were able to halt ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and return 1.5 million ethnic Albanians to their homes. This was accomplished without the loss of a single American life."

Not a single American life lost in a truly multinational and supported operation.



As much as I admire and respect the men and women in our armed forces as a whole and individually - I would not ask them to do something that I would not or could not do myself. They have taken as their duty to protect us and it is our duty to protect them from poor decisions fating them to fight for a cause that is unclear. At the moment now, and the moment before we started this fight - I would not have asked these men and women to fight this fight as I would not have done it myself.

I think I have to stop now.

<---I love this one.

My sincere apologies to the board members from the great state of California. Didn't mean to offend anyone and maybe we just think everyone is a liberal democrat because of the state has that reputation. Hell, you guys did elect the Governator and maybe Arnold can turn things around there. What I hate about government - the politicians always think they know how to spend my money better than I do. Anyhow, once upon a time all us Southerner's were Yellow Dog Democrats - that means we would vote for a yellow dog before we would vote for a republican. Well, those days are gone.

As long as the tone stays up, I'll leave this open, otherwise I'm gonna lock the thread.

Politics and religion are tough with thousands of folks from all over the world.
Remember the cars, that's why we're here.
Keep the tone civil please.

thanks.

How about "More head and fewer Dead"

BTW, I am not riled up either. I think the ideas and viewpoint exchange on here is really great and I have learned a lot from it. I mean no offense.



I actually wasn't aware of anything but allegations - what are are
you referring to?

BTW, I don't think that England is exactly the bee's knees either - Tony Blair is a spineless gimp and the country has some real issues to deal with.

It's the end of the world as we know it.

Then what can we talk about ?? Attn: Brits.

1. Tony Blair is not a spineless twit. He heads our very important colony, so we Americans love him.

2. After visiting your museums, I believe you should return some of the plunder you have 'impounded for safekeeping' to the rightful owners before you criticize another country's imperial goals. Elgin Marbles??

3. Mind the gap!

finally! someone who is not afraid of telling the truth ...

but the real question is:
why does it take someone from half around the globe to show you guys what's really going on in your country?

Andy

I hope that history will not repeat itself in the case of Iraq. The last time the US occupied a country to the extent that they are over there (rebuilding inferstructure/economy) was Japan and the US forces were there for over 7 years.

not to mention that the US's largest base is on japan!

Heh, haven't looked at a county-by-county map of party affiliation in California, have you?

Most of California (land-mass-wise) is Republican. Only small areas centering around LA and SF are Democrat.

Personally, my take on the matter is this:

Democrats want to ban boobies because it's not Politically Correct, and offends and opresses women. (violates the 1st Amendment, because Boobies Want To Be Free!)
Republicans want to ban boobies, because every time you mastrubate, God kills a kitten. (violates the 1st Amendment, because not all Americans want to belong to the same faction of Christianity)

When boobies are outlawed, only outlaws will have boobies.

Democrats want to ban 914's because they pollute and people who don't buy new cars don't keep auto workers employed in their cushy union jobs.
Republicans want to ban 914's because Porsche doesn't donate large sums to their campaigns, nor do they build tanks, bombs, or jets.

When 914's are outlawed, only outlaws will have 914's.

So basically, anyone who supports EITHER party is an unAmerican evil b&stard. Any lawmaker who supports legistlation from either side has LIED UNDER OATH - because when they were sworn into office, they swore to uphold the Constitution. Treasonous bastards need to be lined up and shot.

There.
I said it.
I'll see all you other Bush bashers in Cuba. We should get together and throw a party or something.

I'm not that riled up either, I think and am trying to keep my comments as healthy as possible.

Japan and Germany tried to take over the planet - we occupied them for a much clearer reason. It was them or us, that was a much different and harder fight. Both contries have been shaped in very different ways since WW2.

I don't think I have any more to say that would be productive - I don't think our culture and democracy will fit very easily into theirs. Freedom didn't come to us in a year - it took a few hundred - we shouldn't rush them. They already have the right idea - they are now speaking for themselves. It is unfortunate that they aren't using their new found voice to say "thank you" to us...but that's life.

Bah humbug.

Despite all that other stuff I said - I have read that Saddam letter before, and I think it's damn funny. If there's a silver lining to this whole Iraq mess, it's that Saddam is now measuring the windows for curtains in the cell next to Manuel Noriega's. But that's making lemonade out of some pretty skanky rotten lemons.

I would MUCH rather those resources have gone to setting up Osama bin Laden in a cell next to Ramsi Yousef's. After all. Osama did 9/11. Not Saddam. We've got to focus here and remember that indisputible fact. Every time I complain about this - a Bush supporter responds with; "you're just bashing Bush. You libs don't have any plan or idea of your own." (I'm not a lib, and here's my plan):
150,000 troops in Afghanistan would have made for a far more effective campaign. Afghanistan might have made a more stable transition to it's current government (which is *NOT* a democracy), might have cut back on the record opium exports they've had in the past 2 years, and might have prevented the escape of most of the top Al Qaeda figures we're after. Instead of 150,000 troops in Iraq, sending them to Afghanistan would have gone a long way towards not only putting pressure on Iran, but also Pakistan. Pakistan supports terror (in Kashmir), allows slavery, extrajudicial killings, they have WMD, they're sheltering bin Laden, they attack their neighbors, the ISI are the ones who essentially set up the Taliban in the first place, and they sold nuclear weapons technology to Iran, North Korea, Libya, and Lord knows whom else. Mushtarraf may say he's on our side - but his leadership isn't much more relevant than Arafat's. He does not control the radicals, and the control of these radicals is absolutely crucial to the War on Terror. I'm not saying we need to invade Pakistan, (though apparently, the Pentagon has a plan for that). But it seems like a little more pressure over there might just pop that zit.

Hussein was contained. Economically, and militarily. The facts that he let the inspectors back in, and that he began destroying his stockpile of Al Samoud missiles showed that he was willing to be more cooperative. Like I said before - I'm really glad Hussein is in jail, and that the Iraqi's have a shot at freedom now (remains to be seen whether they'll end up with an Afghanistan-like installed corporate dictatorship), and I'm proud and thankful that our military lost so few troops doing it. Again..... would have been nice if we could have used the Powell Doctrine, and struck with more force, we probably would have loss less troops, and might have avoided the embarrassing anarchy and looting that followed the invasion, and might have prevented some key figures from escaping the country (hint: when you're going into a house to bust a criminal, bring enough cops to cover the back door). Seems as if they only sent enough troops to secure the oil fields. Pragmatic, I'm sure. But it doesn't look good at all.

More Bush AND More boobies. Now how can you say no to that?????

Oh and a 914 in every garage. Vote for me!! Hell at least I am honest

Well, not any more

Great comments. Anyone read Michener's 'Caravans'? Afghanistan became a 'country' because of international edict, not popular vote. It's citizens have little in common and speak different languages. We call it a country; they don't.

God Bless America! It's one of the few places where the ethnic diversity no longer leads to the anarchy seen in Bosnia or Afghanistan. We piss and moan, make racial and political slurs, but have not come to blows since that unpleasantness at the Mason/Dixon line.

I don't believe we should police the rest of the world to keep them from annihilating themselves with ethnic cleansing. With 20/20 hindsight we should have stopped Hitler, but he was only killing his own Jews, so we did not. And if Tojo raped Nanking, what's a few million Chinese one way or the other. We only got involved in those little disagreements when they became a threat to our way of life, and that is probably correct.

But we're there now, so what are the choices?

1. We abandon Iraq and let them fight it out among themselves. The losses would be substantial, but hey, they're only Iraqis. Then we can buy cheap oil from whoever wins.

2. We stay there and help them form a multi ethnic government that values truth, justice and the American way. As soon as they are on their feet and ready to trade oil for Big Mac's we can leave. If you like that, let me show you a rust free 914 and some desert property.

3. We encourage them to become separate countries. Kurds are skins, Sunni's are shirts. Go to your areas and stay there. Give one side all the oil, the other all the water and let them make a deal.

But not this. The quickest way to unite a diverse group is to have them face a powerful threat fom the outside. They're so pissed at us they will try to evict us ASAP and get back to their own fight. And that's understandable. Had a European power attacked the US on 2/1/1862, the civil war would have ended 2/2/1862.

Dumber and dumber. We united Vietnam and the Soviets helped Afghanistan (and their various aquisitions at the end of WWII). Germany is one country again. If Mars first attack lands their little aliens in North Korea, we'll be helping to build their nuclear arsenal. Someone tell Washington how this works; I can't seem to get through.

Think we need a club meeting and coast drive to continue this bash. Meet at Jocko's to make sure need4speed attends. That man does have a way with words!

hmmm....

why did we enter world war I (WWI)? we entered to stop unrestricted submarine warfare, and we ended up going in on that cause and changing to something else....that made a difference!

kinda like IRAQ, we went to find WMD (thats anothre subject), we didnt, so at least we got rid of an evil dictator.

since we cant go back in time and change the outcome of the war/not enter the war, whats the point in bitching bout it? doesnt help anything does it? lez just try to make the best of it.....

and the UN thought there were WMD in Iraq. The weapons inspectors thought there were. it wasnt just the republicans! democrats were sold on the war to by BAD INTELLIGENCE!

True True, this war was not a unilateral decision by Bush - a LOT of Dems on the hill were and still are behind him. In fact - I am definitely FOR removing Saddam. I just think the way we have done this has damaged our relationship with the rest of the world. We're being bullies I think, just because we don't get our way - we take our ball and go home. Then do our own thing; what is good about that?

Yep, read it last summer.

Mike