Bush may lose by Iraq Vote!

on Feb 04, 2005

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

32

Lee1776

on Feb 05, 2005

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

33

Lee1776

on Feb 05, 2005

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

34

Evorg

on Feb 05, 2005

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.

35

stevendedalus

on Feb 05, 2005

This in no way is an attempt to blast Bush.

36

stevendedalus

on Feb 05, 2005

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

37

stevendedalus

on Feb 05, 2005

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!

38

bakerstreet

on Feb 05, 2005

" 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.

39

Draginol

on Feb 05, 2005

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.

40

Draginol

on Feb 05, 2005

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.

41

stevendedalus

on Feb 05, 2005

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.

42

bakerstreet

on Feb 05, 2005

" 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.

43

stevendedalus

on Feb 05, 2005

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.

44

scatter629

on Feb 05, 2005

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

45

bakerstreet

on Feb 05, 2005

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...