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 7)

Lee1776

on Feb 06, 2005

If John Kerry would have won our election in Nov, and then the elections were held in Iraq on Jan 30.....and the exact same results came up......

I think that is a loaded question. Good but loaded. It should have also asked “If the elections would have been held”. John Kerry repeatedly stated that election should have been held off. But take into account that Kerry had a six months plan on removal of troops. I think the country would have slipped so far into anarchy that no elections would have happened.

Remember Bush number one had a slow plan to build civic order in Samolia. But when Clinton changed the mission into a man hunt, then pulled out because of a Bloody nose, no chance of bringing stability to that country could have developed. With Kerry in office, IMO no elections would have ever happened at all.

That’s My Two Cents

sandy2

on Feb 06, 2005

Reply #87 By: Juxtaposition - 2/6/2005 3:33:59 PM
You want new enemies? Try the, in your estimate, 20,000 Iraqi insurgents. Try the opinions of the Turks (heavily against the war). Try that the entire world has turned its opinion on us (we, along with England, were the only adamant supporters of the war).

I wouldn't count the entire world as our enemies. After all, we've always done things that pissed them off and vice versa, and we didn't go to war over it. The Turks too.

So, there's 20,000 Iraqi insurgents, who were probably not originally friends of the US anyway (remember, 9/11 happened before the invasion of Iraq, so it's not as if we didn't have enemies before then).

Bonus Rating: Trolling Insightful

Reply #88 By: Daiwa - 2/6/2005 4:00:18 PM
new (nü, nyü), adj., adv., n. -adj. 1 never having been before; now first made, thought out, known or heard of, felt or discovered:...

en|e|my (en'e me), n. pl. -mies, adj. -n. 1 a person or group that hates and tries to harm another; opponent; adversary:...

Cheers,
Daiwa

Well... using this definition, we have 20,000 new enemies since the invasion of Iraq. You will notice that 9/11 was not pulled off by the Iraqis. It was pulled off by Saudis (bin laden). We have been interfering in Saudi Arabia, and supporting a horrible leader for many years. We now have 20,000 more people like those who pulled of 9/11. What a great way to fight terrorism, by creating more terrorists.

Daiwa

on Feb 06, 2005

Sandy, you are wrong. You know who they are and not one of those 20,000 (if that high a number is close) were our friends before. They are not new enemies. And we now have some 8 million new friends, maybe more. My head's getting sore from banging it on this freakin' brick wall, so I'm gonna go watch the Super Bowl.

Cheers,
Daiwa

dabe

on Feb 06, 2005

8 million new friends?? Are you counting those that voted in Iraq? Because if you are, then I think you're sorely misinformed. Two thirds voted for the Shiite clerics, thereby affirming the creation of an Islamic constitution. Two thirds of 8 million, or upwards of 5.5 million chose the cleric Sistani, thereby rejecting a government fashioned by the US-chosen Allawi. I wouldn't be so quick to call them our friends. This is a case where I sure hope I'm wrong. Time will tell.................

Daiwa

on Feb 06, 2005

You're saying, dabe, that those 8 million people are too stupid to know what nation made it possible for them to choose their own government. You are the one who is sorely misinformed here, assuming that Shiite clerics will create (and force down the throats of all others) what you call an Islamic Constitution, which you apparently equate, incorrectly, with being anti-American by definition. Hello... it's an Islamic country. Were you expecting them to elect Jews or Christians? And they're going to create an Iraqi Constitution. And your argument misses the whole point. The left never wanted us there in the first place, and now they're bitching that we didn't install a sufficiently pro-American puppet regime. Talk about wanting it both ways.

Game Time.

Cheers,
Daiwa

bakerstreet

on Feb 06, 2005

"Two thirds voted for the Shiite clerics, thereby affirming the creation of an Islamic constitution."

More ignorance. Only a handful of the hundreds of candidates were "clerics". The vast majority of those running on the Shiite supported party weren't clerics. Shows how oddly bigoted these folks are. If someone is a Shiite, and they voted for their own party, then they MUST want a totalitarian religious government.

That's like me saying African Americans can't be trusted because they will probably vote in a Nation of Islam candidate. Idiocy. You people need to get past your empty biases and your irrational hate for the Bush administration. In 20 years you'll be like the old hippies still bitching about Nixon when no one cares.

It's shocking how racially and religiosly demeaning you guys are willing to be when you want to make a point...

stevendedalus

on Feb 08, 2005

To remove this very small threat, we have given 1,400 lives, 25,000 injuries and over $300 billion and more to come. That was not a good use of our resources, especially the dead and injured!

And that's an understatement! Good for you!

stevendedalus

on Feb 08, 2005

What a great way to fight terrorism, by creating more terrorists.

More of Bush's fuzzy math! Bravo!

Daiwa

on Feb 09, 2005

We don't create terrorists, period. That canard is getting old and is just as bogus as it always was. Sitting on our hands does not reduce the threat or increase our safety. When the publicly declared objective is the destruction of the United States of America, that is their objective. Chit-chatting with them & offering them "compromises" is not only a waste of time, but allows them to accumulate more capability over a longer time.

Cheers,
Daiwa

100

colgene

on Feb 09, 2005

We have not help our security by attacking Iraq who was never a major threat to the United States. We have made Iraq part of the war on terrorism and provided another place for our enemies to operate.

101

-----

on Feb 09, 2005

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.

---thank you, finally some one said that.

When did we become the tool to enforce U.N. resolutions?

---Our job, as the US in the UN, is being a police force to help enforce UN sanctions. [I remember reading that somewhere, i'll look for it as soon as i can.]

102

sqrrldrw

on Feb 09, 2005

I wouldn't worry too much about Iraq becoming too much like another Iran. The U.S. has a long history of political intervention in South America and I'm guessing they'll implement the Salvador Option (where we killed anywhere from 40,000 to 70,000 people during the 1980s using U.S. trained death squads) to keep the balance tipped in our best interests.

It's sick and sad to say, but I think this administration would go to those lengths to maintain a friendly government in Iraq.

articles on the Salvador option:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6831898/site/newsweek/

http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/WorldNF.asp?ArticleID=147375

Op-Eds on Salvador Option:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/4209595.stm

http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050112/NEWS/501120333/1021

http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050111/NEWS/501110302/1038

and everyone's favorite:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/ADCA48CC-9307-466B-BA18-82724CAA7484.htm

103

Daiwa

on Feb 09, 2005

sqrrldrw -

Think whatever you want. There is no evil "secret" agenda or unscrupulous "hidden" plan that hasn't been ascribed to the Bush administration, whether supported by facts or not (mainly not). You guys are starting sound like Art Bell.

Cheers,
Daiwa

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!