Bush may lose by Iraq Vote!

from JoeUser Forums

Voter turnout in Iraq, which created euphoria in the Bush administration, could turn out to be a nightmare for this country. Although it is too early to have the final results from the election, it appears that the Shiite clerics hold a commanding lead.

The net result of the Iraqi election could be the creation of a government similar to the type of government in Iran. We have been unable to deal with the Iranian government for decades and if what results in Iraq is similar to the government in Iran, George W. Bush may have succeeded in turning an evil dictatorship into another Islamic regime that poses an additional threat to the United States and the West. If that is the result of this election, it is certainly no way to enhance the security of the United States or other nations plagued by the violent Islamic insurrection that is taking place.
politics
26,357 views 103 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yeah, yeah. Right. I was going to rebut this, then recognized it would be a waste of time to argue about hypothetical BS.

Later,
Daiwa
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Bush tells us that we must judge by results. I agree 100%. Events over the next year or so will enable ALL to evaluate how well George W. did with his Iraq War!
CursorFX - Customize your Windows cursor
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
it will be interesting to see what happens here, we'll probably just send some special forces to take out whoever we don't like anyway.

-Suspeckted

PS - I believe you meant "lose" not "loose"
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top

So is Daiwa saying that there isn't sentiment in the Iraqi voting public that could lead to an Islamic theocracy?

Especially in these troubled times in Iraq, there would seem to be some incentive to eastablis Iran West.

Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
...

Nice way to hedge your bets. After saying that this sort of thing was impossible in Iraq, now you are going to bitch because you don't like who the people there choose. Retreat, regroup, find a cloud for every silver lining, whine about them...

Sucks for you, I guess, but Democracy is pretty much defined by the people choosing who they like. If you don't like that, you are urged to move to Iraq and take part in the process. Obviously your heavy-handed propagandizing didn't work here in the last election, so maybe a change of venue is just the thing!

Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
By: COL Gene
Posted: Friday, February 04, 2005 on Bush Truth
Message Board: Politics

Voter turnout in Iraq, which created euphoria in the Bush administration, could turn out to be a nightmare for this country. Although it is too early to have the final results from the election, it appears that the Shiite clerics hold a commanding lead.

The net result of the Iraqi election could be the creation of a government similar to the type of government in Iran. We have been unable to deal with the Iranian government for decades and if what results in Iraq is similar to the government in Iran, George W. Bush may have succeeded in turning an evil dictatorship into another Islamic regime that poses an additional threat to the United States and the West. If that is the result of this election, it is certainly no way to enhance the security of the United States or other nations plagued by the violent Islamic insurrection that is taking place.


Woulda, shoulda, "coulda". Instead to doom and gloom saying why don't we just wait and see. There isn't a damn thing we can do about it now, is there?
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
" Woulda, shoulda, "coulda". Instead to doom and gloom saying why don't we just wait and see. There isn't a damn thing we can do about it now, is there?"

The sick part is if we DID somehow prevent a cleric from legitimately winning, Mr. Gene would be right back here bitching about how we subverted Democracy in Iraq. This isn't a "point" per se, it is another jab at Bush. The content is meaningless, only the damage dealt.

Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
Myrrander

You are correct Bush has won. It will be America that will lose if Iraq turns into another Iran. How would that improve our security?
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
So... what are you saying? That Iraq can only be a Democracy if they pick someone palatable to us? What do you suggest?

I think the short answer is that you suggest nothing, since Iraq isn't the point... bashing Bush is the point...

Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
What I am saying in that 1,400 lives; 10,000 combat injuries and 15,000 non combat injuries and $300 Billion dollars is not worth creating another Iran!
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
"What I am saying in that 1,400 lives; 10,000 combat injuries and 15,000 non combat injuries and $300 Billion dollars is not worth creating another Iran!"

So the freedom to choose your own government isn't worth that sacrifice? WTF? You can't twist this any further than you have or it will fall off...

Should we have said "We'll only liberate you from Hussein if you give us the right to veto your election decisions"? That would have been a propaganda boon for you, huh?

So, I guess we should have left Hussein there, since the people might have chosen something else unpalatable. Hell, maybe the Revolutionary War was a waste, since we could make a bad election decision, too.

I guess the rule should be leave all the evils of the world where they are, lest we make a bigger mess. The Chinese applaud you, Col., that is their S.O.P.

Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
If Iran West replaces Saddam, we have not improved our security and have used our human and financial resources to create another security problem. Saddam should have been removed by the moslems in that area not by American Troops! If you spent your money to replace a car that did not work for another car that did not work, would you be happy with your purchase? That will be what we did if the new government in Iraq is anther Iran!
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
"If you spent your money to replace a car that did not work for another car that did not work, would you be happy with your purchase? That will be what we did if the new government in Iraq is anther Iran!"

No, we gave the people in Iraq the right to buy their own car. What they make of it is the very definition of freedom. If someone told you they'd help you get a car, and then forced you go buy a car you didn't want, would that be freedom?

If we told them that they couldn't become what they want, then we wouldn't be offering them much in the way of freedom, would we? It is funny how anti-Bush folks can be so "what's in it for me", until a conservative says it, and then they are so magnanimous.

Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
I for one do not want to risk the lives of our young people unless we are in danger. If the new governmnet in Iraq is like the government in Iran, that freedom you talk about will not last and we will have another problem to deal with. Time will tell. I can remenber when we were told that if South Vietnam fell to the north all southeast Asia would go to hell. That did not happen just as Iraq was no danger to the United States under Saddam.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
Gene, go ahead, keep praying for failures and deaths of American troops in Iraq. It doesn't suit you, but apparently makes you feel better.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
Look, I'm as liberal as they come. But I have to take issue with you here.

If democracy fails in Iraq, it is Iraqi citizens that suffer, not America. You see, we'll still be living in the society that provides the most freedom of any in history. And despite my problems with the US government, I can't help but admit that. I'm a socialist, and true socialism is ultimate rule by the people -- a true democracy. Idealist? Sure. Do I have my doubts about Iraq? Of course.

But if Iraq slides into theocratic despotism, the real losers will be the Iraqi people, not George Bush, not Nancy Pelosi, not me or you. Can't we just wish the best for the iraqi people?
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
" I for one do not want to risk the lives of our young people unless we are in danger. "

So, you say to hell with 20 million people being starved by sanctions, facing execution, amputation for taking a political stand against the government. Hussein threatened Isreal, threatened Saudi Arabia and other oil suppliers. He was probably only a few years from wriggling out of sanctions, with a bevy of cronies in Europe and Asia just itching to rearm him.

There were people in the US in the 1930s and 40s preaching the same thing as you, screaming that we had no reason to be messing around in Europe. We could have easily imposed sanctions on Germany, fought our war with Japan, and said to hell with those who were occupied. That's what John Kerry wanted to do with Kuwait in 1991...

The problem is, what isn't a threat to your interests today can become a threat to your interests soon after, and be much harder to deal with.

Not that any of this matters. Regardless of your personal take on it, you're gonna watch the news, and harshly spin anything you can against Bush. You've proved me wrong. I would have sworn no one was so insanely biased to keep this kind of thing up after the election...

Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
COLGene is not hoping for failure. On the contrary, he's just pointing out the obvious. What a waste of resources and lives if Iraq goes the way of Iran. What a coup for the Islamists. And, the irony in all this would be that we went and invaded secular Iraq, dictatorship that it was, only to be replaced with yet another Islamist government that would harbor terrorists. That would be such a failure for the Dubya regime. And a worse failure for the Iraqi people. But, they will have chosen it. And it would prove that you cannot impose democracy at the end of a gun.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top

Col Gene, you shoudl re-read what you've written and perhaps you'll figure out why you guys keep losing elections.

Talk about looking for a dark lining in a silver cloud. If the Iraqi people vote in people who don't want us there. That's fine.

We conservatives differ from you liberals in one key way: We have faith in people. We believe that democracy is a GOOD thing and if you let people have self-determination that they will choose to do good things.  The elected officials might be hostile to the US. That's fine. Our goal there was to remove Saddam. And if we can set up a stable democracy that's even better.

Of course, you left wingers think we're over there for oil or some other such nonsense so I guess you're having a hard time coming to grips that a stable, Democratic Iraq is something we want. Even if that means the country doesn't want US troops in there which is fine with us.

Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
MSNBC just reported with 2/3 of the vote counted in Iraq, the shiite party with ties to Iran will most likely win with a vast majority and the party supported by the United States will get less than 18% of the vote. We have spilled our blood to have the people of Iraq select a government linked to Iran. What a GREAT achievement!
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
Our goal there was to remove Saddam.


Ohhhhhh.............. So now our only goal was to remove Saddam? I thought it was to find the WMD's.

And if we can set up a stable democracy that's even better.


Ohhhhhhhh........... I thought dubya intended to impose democracy when the WMD's never materialized.

Ohhhhhhhh...................... freakin' hell, keeping up with all the moving target reasons for the invasion is kind of tough. So now, all it is is that we got Saddam? Nothing else? That's nuts, and if ever there was a reason to charge the dubya dummies with war crimes, this is it. A preemptive invasion to remove an already disarmed Saddam, and nothing else. Not even democracy anymore.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
The bar keeps getting lower and lower and lower.....................

And the body count keeps getting higher and higher and higher..................

All for nothing.
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
FACT: I've never supported this war

FACT: If an Iran-like government is elected, I will be dissappointed

FACT: We're giving them a Democracy so they have rights, including the right to vote for who they want. If they want a government hostile to the US, they have a right to vote for it

FACT: I resent Draginol's use of generalizations (I had to throw that in there)
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
What I find funny is how some people think it's worse that the Iraqis choose a government that they prefer that's hostile to the US than it is to be terrorized by Hussein.