Time for iraqi's to vote

[dude1394]

There is so much good stuff in Ralph Peters column that all I can say is bravo..

---------
January 14, 2005 -- IS Iraq ready to hold perfect, orderly, all-inclusive elections? Of course not. But by the unfair standards critics are raising, the United States might not qualify for nation-wide balloting, either.

Iraq's elections are going to be deadly, disorderly and deeply flawed. And they will still be the most open and authentic elections ever held in the Arab world. Anyone who needs proof of the importance of these polls need only look at the ferocity and duplicity of those intent on delaying or preventing them.

From Islamic terrorists to The New York Times, the enemies of free elections in Iraq have a common goal: They desperately want the American experiment in bringing democracy to the Middle East to fail — the first for reasons of power, the latter to regain its lost prestige.

The terrorists' alarm is understandable. Ditto for the Sunni Arab insurgents. They could never win an election in Iraq, and they know it. The terrorists believe in religious tyranny, while the insurgents believe in secular tyranny. Neither care in the least about the aspirations of the common people.

For its part, the Times believes in the tyranny of the intelligentsia. Blinded by its hatred for the Bush administration, it attempts to portray every development in Iraq as a disaster. Even marginally successful Iraqi elections would prove it wrong yet again.

Shouldn't we raise an eyebrow when we find America's self-proclaimed "newspaper of record" shoulder-to-shoulder with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and the leftovers of Saddam Hussein's regime? Does the NYT really want the terrorists to win? Is their editorial vanity so great?
.....
The critics whine that the poor Sunni Arabs aren't ready. The truth is that the Sunni Arabs, who benefited under Saddam at the expense of the majority Shi'a and the Kurds, will never admit that they're ready for elections. Elections mean they lose.

If the elections were postponed for a decade, the Sunni Arabs would still argue that they needed more time. Well, if they refuse to vote, it's a lick on 'em. And if they're too cowardly to vote, they don't deserve the benefits of democracy.

Let those who brave the bullets and bombs shape Iraq's future.
....
The days of the dictatorship of the Sunni Arab minority are over in Iraq. They don't like it. And that's just tough. The Sunni Arabs need a dose of reality, not coddling. The U.S. occupation was far too indulgent toward them from the beginning. They need tough love, not crocodile tears.
.....
Less than a year ago, the same critics wailed that democracy couldn't work in Afghanistan, that Afghans would be too afraid to vote or would vote for bigots and warlords. Instead, millions turned out to elect a moderate technocrat backed by the West.

Iraq is more complex than Afghanistan. The election may disappoint us, in its conduct, its results, or both. But you have to start somewhere. You can't play the intellectual's game of endless procrastination, sunk in dreams of impossible perfection. There is no substitute for the courage to act.

We may find ourselves facing a post-election government less receptive to our ideas, more fractious or even hostile to our presence. That's democracy. Let the people speak.

But don't listen to the terrorists, the insurgents or The New York Times, all of whom are committed to denying a voice to the majority of Iraqis.

Ralph Peters is a retired Army officer and a regular Post contributor.

[#1MavsFan]

all of whom are committed to denying a voice to the majority of Iraqis.

Just by reading that statement, it's quite evident this article lacks integrity and is all just a big lie just like the statement.

[dude1394]

Ah yes, the open minded left strikes again.

[FishForLunch]

How many on this Board secretly or openly wish for the Iraqi election to be a failure, so that Bush will have mud on his face?

I bet most of the libs will.

[#1MavsFan]

I don't hope the iraqi election will be a failure but with the current circumstances it will be. Who's going to want to go out and vote in a election conducted by another country thats invaded their country against there will and risk losing their life due to a WAR going on? Can't wait for the idiotic republican spin when this election takes place.

[dude1394]

People who want to be free will vote and stand up for their freedom, as our forefathers did. Good thing you were not one of them, who would rick getting hung just to be free?

[reeds]

"How many on this Board secretly or openly wish for the Iraqi election to be a failure, so that Bush will have mud on his face?

I bet most of the libs will. "

Hahahaha..good one!! There is so much mud on his face already, there really isnt any more room...

[Chiwas]

I don't want the elections fail, but this is a very bad moment to make them. The results hardly will work to make Iraq independent and free. It's just not the right time; besides, you don't make elections if another country is developing and keeping an invasion on yours, worse if it is not succeeding and is not helping to unite the people into a national objective. This election is more an illusion and frankly a political obstinacy, just like this war itself based on the official reasons compared to the final *known* output so far, than a reasoned and sound plan to move forward toward democracy and justice for the Iraqi people and a deterrent to the real or main enemy of the US and the western nations. (Based on the official line)

[dude1394]

And the question is....which side are you really on?

------
guardian
The Iraqi people will defy the Ba'athists and Islamofascists

Blair is right. Why aren't more democrats backing these elections?

William Shawcross
Monday January 24, 2005
The Guardian
People are being extremely brave in flouting the demands of the killers. Both Kurds and Shias are resisting the horrific provocations from Sunni terrorists. The election will not end the crisis in Iraq. But Iraqis, like the Algerians and Afghans, clearly wish to defy those who seek to murder, mutilate and incarcerate them.

Tony Blair said in Baghdad in December: "On the one side you have people who desperately want to make the democratic process work, and want the same type of democratic freedoms other parts of the world enjoy, and on the other side people who are killing and intimidating and trying to destroy a better future for Iraq. Our response should be to stand alongside the democrats."

Blair is absolutely right. It is shocking that so few democratic governments support the Iraqi people. Where are French and German and Spanish protests against the terror being inflicted on voters in Iraq? And it is shocking that around the world there is not wider admiration of, assistance to and moral support (and more) for the Iraqi people. The choice is clear: movement towards democracy in Iraq or a new nihilism akin to fascism - Islamist fascism.

[FishForLunch]

That is because they are blined by their hate for Bush, like when the republicans hated Clintons guts.