| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq-Jordan |
| Ralph Peters: Let Iraqis Vote |
| 2005-01-14 |
| 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? American critics of the elections lately have shifted to complaints that the Sunni Arabs may not be adequately represented in the voting. In other words, if less than 20 percent of potential voters choose not to participate it negates the election's validity. By that measure, the United States hasn't held a valid election in living memory. 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 truth is that some Sunni Arabs will show up to vote, at great risk. But even if not one participated, it would still leave us with over 80 percent of Iraqis anxious to go to the polls. |
| Posted by:tipper |
| #4 American critics of the elections lately have shifted to complaints that the Sunni Arabs may not be adequately represented in the voting. In other words, if less than 20 percent of potential voters choose not to participate it negates the election’s validity. Haaahahahahahaaahahaaa...... |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2005-01-14 4:14:28 PM |
| #3 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? This just about says it all with regards to the NYTs. Their credibility is absolutely zip, nada, zero. MSM again. The NYTs and Dan Blather are self-appointed intellectual smart asses with an agenda that says they know what is best for the rest of us. They have not seen the truth in years. |
| Posted by: John Q. Citizen 2005-01-14 10:39:59 AM |
| #2 I believe that is almost the Engineer's Creed - you know, the people who get shit done, instead of talk it to death. Somewhere on USS Clueless, is the item I'm referring to - Stephen and Ralph would definitely get along fine, heh. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-01-14 10:04:42 AM |
| #1 clap, clap, clap...standing ovation!! From Islamic terrorists to The New York Times, the enemies of free elections in Iraq oooh...ouch NYT! 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. Damn, the man can write. |
| Posted by: 2b 2005-01-14 9:56:00 AM |