COL Gene COL Gene

Bush may lose by Iraq Vote!

▼

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
26,358 views 103 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
I spent 30 years in the military and lost one of my best friends in Vietnam. I hate every death especially when that death does not make our nation safer. We have lost 1,400 of our best and injured 25,000 more for what? To remove Saddam. BAD CHOICE. If we are to remove every evil dictator in this world, all of our children are in danger. I think if George W. is so convinced that the war in Iraq was needed, he should have his daughters join the military and risk their lives in Iraq!
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think if George W. is so convinced that the war in Iraq was needed, he should have his daughters join the military and risk their lives in Iraq!


And depart from a family tradition??????
Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think if George W. is so convinced that the war in Iraq was needed, he should have his daughters join the military and risk their lives in Iraq!


Well, 1) people can't force others to join the military, and if you think such a thing should be law, then that says more about you than it does about Bush, and 2) if the children of politicians had to fight wars, there would never be another war again, and every atrocity imaginable (i.e. genocide) would go unpunished.
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
When it was George's time to serve and there was a draft, he went intio the National Guard, which at that time was the best way to avoid combat and look as if you served. It seems too easy to have others sacrafice and avoid it for yourself and your family. I have much greater respect for Bush 41 who served his country, unlike his son who has put our brave military in harms way for no good reason. If Iraq turns aginst the United States, what does that say for those who have died or were injured in this war?
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #22 By: dabe - 2/4/2005 7:37:51 PM
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 that is what you would get for thinking that. It has been said time and again that WMDs were only a PARTIAL reason for going in.
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
Style/humor points to dabe.

I know I said this would be a waste of time, but this thread has turned out to be a bit richer than I expected. The interesting part is that COL Gene's premise is completely false - that being that the Shia majority in Iraq is sympathetic to Iran. His whole hypothetical bitch is predicated on the fiction that a Shia majority would rather join forces with their mortal enemy Iran against those who liberated them from Saddam. What exactly have the Iranians done for Iraq lately? Or in the last 15 years? Other than make war on Iraqis (and with no intent to "liberate" them). Come on, folks, get real. The Iraqis have no love for Iran and a freely elected government in Iraq is highly unlikely to choose an alliance with them. But others who have commented are correct - what the people of Iraq choose to do with their freedom is their business. As long as they pose no threat to international (or our) security, we'll leave 'em be.

Now, what this whole hypothetical BS thread is about is COL Gene's hard-on for bashing Bush - when pressed he always falls back on his hatred for Bush having (allegedly) dodged his duty by joining the guard, yada -yada-yada, as his justification for bitching about everything, as if it were the original sin, as if moaning loud enough long enough will somehow undo the election. Aside from the backhanded compliments to his father, he has zero, nada, zip good to say about 43. There's no reasoning with this guy. It's so monotonous that it's nothing but background noise anymore and I'm surprised, actually, that the thread got this long. Sorry to be harsh, but COL Gene is moreso.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
Just to add one more thing on to Daiwa's statement.

The US has already built a safety net to prevent a Shiite take over of the New Iraqi Constitution. Both the Kurds and the Sunni delegates has the power to Veto parts of the constitution. i.e. any none secular parts (something the Kurds have already said they would).

Also the leader of that Shiite group that COL Gene referring to in the original post, has made the building of a Secular State part of his party platform. Something he failed to point out.

Some people need to take off their gloom colored glasses from time to time.

That's My Two Cents
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top
Just to add one more thing on to Daiwa's statement.

The US has already built a safety net to prevent a Shiite take over of the New Iraqi Constitution. Both the Kurds and the Sunni delegates has the power to Veto parts of the constitution. i.e. any none secular parts (something the Kurds have already said they would).

Also the leader of that Shiite group that COL Gene referring to in the original post, has made the building of a Secular State part of his party platform. Something he failed to point out.

Some people need to take off their gloom colored glasses from time to time.

That's My Two Cents
Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top
The young people in Iran want democracy (65% of the population is under 25 years of age).

That is why the clerics have cracked down on the young Iranians when it is felt that they are getting to be too western.

It is also the reason why the Iranian clerics disqualified thousands of reformers that were on the ballot back in 2004. And why more than 500 liberal-leaning candidates withdrawn from legislative elections in 2004 to protest the disqualification of thousands of reformist contenders by Iran’s hard-line clerics.

Why there was brutal repression of 10,000 students demonstrating at Tehran University in 2000. Why the working class is increasingly having protests, strikes and demonstrations.

Iran is more fragile than you think, and the clerics think that pursuing a nuclear bomb will strengthen their hold in Iran and the region.

If anything, a democratic Iraq will embolden the young in Iran, especially if the Iraqi democratic government is led by a Shiite and formed a Secular State.
Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top

This in no way is an attempt to blast Bush.

Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top

Apparently, blog exchange has become purely mean spirited, rather than trying to give the benefit of the doubt before ripping apart an argument. 

Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top
The net result of the Iraqi election could be the creation of a government similar to the type of government in Iran.
This is a legitimate concern, why in the world should the rest of you take issue with a very real possibility that everyone, including the Bush administration, feared?
Shiite and formed a Secular State.
The two don't go together, but the Kurds will see that it does.
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.
Now, that's unadulterated mean spirit!
Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top
" That is why the clerics have cracked down on the young Iranians when it is felt that they are getting to be too western. "

Which is kind of ironic when you consider that it was Iranian students that led to the religous leaders taking power in the first place...

" The two don't go together, but the Kurds will see that it does."

I don't think it's impossible to see a state in which the secular and religious power is separate. I don't think it is conceivable for any hardline religious faction to take power in Iraq, given the diversity and overall history of secular power there. Even if the Shiites are in the majority, the insurgency now proves how a very small minority can wreak havoc. If an "Ayatolllah" took power, I think it would be far bloodier than it is now, and many of the peaceable people tolerating the US would become far less tolerant.

Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top

Dabe - perhaps you should try improving your reading comprehension. I've written a gazillion blogs on why we went into Iraq and the target isn't moving. Left wing zealots keep re-defining it.

You guys were the ones who tried to claim it was about the oil, remember? It only became about picking up WMD stockpiles after none were found. Only then did you guys pretend that WMD stockpiles mattered.  As if any of you would have been satisfied with if we'd found some stockpiles of mustard gas. You still would have been against it. You would have said it was about the oil.

And even if Iraqi's had elected some imaginary wonderful government, you would have just said we'd tricked them into electing puppets who will help us steal their oil.

So get over yourselves. You guys lost. You keep losing. and you keep losing because you're nasty, shrill and negative all the time.

The principle reason we went into Iraq has always been well defined by those who don't have an axe to grind: Saddam Hussein was an open enemy of the United States who funded terrorists, had access to vast capital because of his oil resources, and was waiting out sanctions to continue with his WMD programs (which the Kaye report made clear was his plan).  The fear of WMD stockpiles was used by Bush (unfortunately) to try to get UN Security Council support which I think was a mistake as it opened him up to people like you who focus on that nonsense. 

Since we removed Saddam, something had to be put in its place. Now you're complaining about the democracy that's being put in place? Truly sad.

By your argument, it was wrong to liberate Europe in World War II because the government WE installed in Germany has been a regular pain in the ass since then.  Or put another way, I suspect the newly elected Iraqi government will be more helpful to the US than Germany has been recently.

Reply #40 from JoeUser Forums Top

Dabe - perhaps you should try improving your reading comprehension. I've written a gazillion blogs on why we went into Iraq and the target isn't moving. Left wing zealots keep re-defining it.

You guys were the ones who tried to claim it was about the oil, remember? It only became about picking up WMD stockpiles after none were found. Only then did you guys pretend that WMD stockpiles mattered.  As if any of you would have been satisfied with if we'd found some stockpiles of mustard gas. You still would have been against it. You would have said it was about the oil.

And even if Iraqi's had elected some imaginary wonderful government, you would have just said we'd tricked them into electing puppets who will help us steal their oil.

So get over yourselves. You guys lost. You keep losing. and you keep losing because you're nasty, shrill and negative all the time.

The principle reason we went into Iraq has always been well defined by those who don't have an axe to grind: Saddam Hussein was an open enemy of the United States who funded terrorists, had access to vast capital because of his oil resources, and was waiting out sanctions to continue with his WMD programs (which the Kaye report made clear was his plan).  The fear of WMD stockpiles was used by Bush (unfortunately) to try to get UN Security Council support which I think was a mistake as it opened him up to people like you who focus on that nonsense. 

Since we removed Saddam, something had to be put in its place. Now you're complaining about the democracy that's being put in place? Truly sad.

By your argument, it was wrong to liberate Europe in World War II because the government WE installed in Germany has been a regular pain in the ass since then.  Or put another way, I suspect the newly elected Iraqi government will be more helpful to the US than Germany has been recently.

Reply #41 from JoeUser Forums Top
don't think it's impossible to see a state in which the secular and religious power is separate.
We're having problems ourselves in remaining true to separation. So far it appears that Sistani is winning by a large margin; though he certainly seems more moderate than any Iranian Ayatollah.  
Reply #42 from JoeUser Forums Top
" So far it appears that Sistani is winning by a large margin; though he certainly seems more moderate than any Iranian Ayatollah. "

Like I say, it needn't be moderation. He would just have to see the political expediency. He can become a huge factor in a nation's political system, or he can screw the whole process and end up with a splintered, bloody nation that would doubtlessly reside at the end of the world's bayonettes.

The Taliban couldn't even pull off that kind of thing, they just kept enough tribal leaders happy. There's no way Sistani could keep the Kurds or Sunni happy. If he behaves himself, Democracy is far, far more attractive for him than a splintered nation, bloody mess.

Reply #43 from JoeUser Forums Top
So get over yourselves. You guys lost. You keep losing. and you keep losing because you're nasty, shrill and negative all the time.
Aw, c'mon, Brad, that's really over the top.
Left wing zealots keep re-defining it.
 Why address the comment to Dabe whose comment does not deserve an answer. I too have defined the war a zillion times but not with zeal.
Reply #44 from JoeUser Forums Top
George W. Bush may have succeeded in turning an evil dictatorship into another Islamic regime that poses an additional threat to the United States


exactly what I said in my previous blog posted 12/14/2004

Link
Reply #45 from JoeUser Forums Top
You guys seem to be ignoring the point that the separate entities in Iraq have been granted political power. Just because they elect a Shiite doesn't mean they'll be able to impose a Shiite state.

But, again, that really isn't the point is it. Those who lose have to lob a bomb or two into the party tent whenever they get a chance. Understandable, if a little sad...

Reply #46 from JoeUser Forums Top
By your argument, it was wrong to liberate Europe in World War II because the government WE installed in Germany has been a regular pain in the ass since then.


The post WWII government installed in Germany has not been "a pain in the ass" but has been a good NATO partner and an economic stabilizer in Europe. The difference in opinion on how Iraq was handled doesn't make it so ,both from the standpoint of America's economy and security.

Since we removed Saddam, something had to be put in its place. Now you're complaining about the democracy that's being put in place? Truly sad


I think the point has been the strategy used in which Saddam was removed. This single act moved the political equation to the point where we are now facing the few options we are facing regarding "putting something in place." After all the costs and all the lives, that is truly sad.
Reply #47 from JoeUser Forums Top
All the speculation will be cleared up when we see what takes place in Iraq. To all that believe we were justified to go to war to remove Saddam, than why and when do we go to war with the 20 other evil dictators in the World? When do we remove the leaders of North Korea, Seria, Iran, and most of the leaders in the Middle East?

What gave us the right to invade other nations that did not attack us? Bush told us we acted because Saddam did not comply with U.N. resolutions. When did we become the tool to enforce U.N. resolutions? The ONLY REASON to put American forces in danger is to protect our freedom or that of our allies( WW II) . That was not any part of attacking Iraq. The true cost in terms of people and tax dollars is great. Think of the cost to help all the injured (25,000 combat and non combat); repair/replacement of most of the equipment in the Army and Marines and that is in addition to the $300 Billion so far ( including the current $80 Billion). The new budget Bush will release cuts or underfunds many needs in America and still will have a projected deficit of $427 Billion per OMB. Just think of what could have been done with that money and how many lives would be different had Bush not insisted on us removing Saddam. It was not our job to remove him. It was the job of the mosloms in Iraq and the other countries in that area. The real shame is that with all our investment (human and financial) we have created more enemies than friends!

Reply #48 from JoeUser Forums Top
Dabe - perhaps you should try improving your reading comprehension. I've written a gazillion blogs on why we went into Iraq and the target isn't moving. Left wing zealots keep re-defining it.


You've written a gazillion blogs?????!!! Like you're the expert on why we went to war?????!!! Believe it or not, the only thing I think you're good at (in the public forum) is running your business. Get over yourself, mon. You're no expert on foreign policy. In fact, I have as little trust in you on the topic as any other jingoistic nut job who blogs here.
Reply #49 from JoeUser Forums Top
All the speculation will be cleared up when we see what takes place in Iraq. To all that believe we were justified to go to war to remove Saddam, than why and when do we go to war with the 20 other evil dictators in the World?


How many of those "evil dictators" did we have a ceasefire agreement with? Did you sleep through all the classes on the purpose of ceasefire agreements and possible consequences that a signatory of one may face?

it seems that most the time, when your opinions are challenged, you respond with your rank, your experience, or your training. I will admit that these are all impressive, a person does not make the rank of colonel easily, but they are not valid responses in a discussion.

In 1991, the U.S. and Iraq entered into a ceasefire agreement. Hussein chose to break the terms of that agreement as often as he felt like it. Last I checked, that is legitimate justification for a return to hostilities.
Reply #50 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #17 By: Myrrander - 2/4/2005 7:07:42 PM
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?


ok yer scaring me now... talking all this right thinking common sense stuff..... stop it!!! yer frelling with my serenity, lol lmao