Bush may lose by Iraq Vote!

Published on February 4, 2005 By COL Gene In 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.

Comments (Page 2)

ParaTed2k

on Feb 04, 2005

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.

Myrrander

on Feb 04, 2005

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?

bakerstreet

on Feb 04, 2005

" 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...

dabe

on Feb 04, 2005

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.

Draginol

on Feb 04, 2005

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.

COL Gene

on Feb 04, 2005

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!

dabe

on Feb 04, 2005

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.

dabe

on Feb 04, 2005

The bar keeps getting lower and lower and lower.....................

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

All for nothing.

NJforever

on Feb 04, 2005

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)

messybuu

on Feb 04, 2005

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.

COL Gene

on Feb 04, 2005

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!

dabe

on Feb 04, 2005

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??????

messybuu

on Feb 04, 2005

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.

COL Gene

on Feb 04, 2005

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?

drmiler

on Feb 04, 2005

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.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!