Not A Story for The New York Times

[Adam's Apple]

By RALPH PETERS, New York Post

January 25, 2005 -- IN just two days, Iraq took two giant steps forward. The forces of freedom in Baghdad announced the earlier bust of the al Qaeda killer behind the wave of suicide bombings. And Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the No. 1 terrorist in Iraq, told the world what he thinks.

Under pressure, men and women reveal their true character. On the run and frantic, Zarqawi offered a perfect contrast to President Bush's inauguration speech supporting global freedom: Zarqawi announced that democracy is "an evil principle."

There you have the deepest fear of oppressors everywhere. Whether dictators or assassins, they dread the free choice of free people. Terrorists know they can't win elections. Nor will many people vote to impose religious law on themselves.

The only hope the terrorists have is the tyranny of the bomb, the gun and the lash.

Even Moqtada al-Sadr, baby-faced bully of the Shi'a slums, realized that few of Iraq's Shi'as would vote for his con- game wrapped in religion. As a result, he's withdrawn his sup port for elections. The Iraqi response? Nobody cared.

Even before the elections, democracy did what the guns could not: It downed another demagogue.

Meanwhile, Zarqawi, the deadliest thug in the country, has grown desperate. In the wake of terror's defeat in Fallujah, his key lieutenant got fitted for handcuffs — a triumph revealed only yesterday to avoid compromising the grab's intelligence value.

Zarqawi knew his goon was gone. His wet-the-pants response? Lecturing the enthusiastic voters of Iraq that democracy is evil, then calling the revered Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani "Satan" for supporting the elections.

This is not sound politics. A Sunni Muslim, Zarqawi can only mobilize the Shi'a voters he fears by attacking their spiritual leader.

But then Zarqawi has made one blunder after another in the face of wide spread support for Sunday's election. Indeed, while he and the other terrorists have played checkers, the Shi'a majority has been playing chess.

For example, key Shi'a religious leaders wisely agreed that Iraq's first free elections should not replicate Iran's mis take of putting mullahs atop the government. That keeps the mullahs off the blame-line, should governmental efforts falter, while still allowing reli gious leaders a voice behind the scenes (an authority that men of God enjoy from Indiana to India). It calms Western fears of a "second Iran" emerging in Iraq and so reduces the chance of a confrontation between the Coalition and the mullahs.

This isn't deviousness. It's statesmanship. We may live to be disappointed in them, but Iraq's Shi'as are confounding all the Western elitists who insist that the yokels aren't ready for democracy.

Just let people vote. Then the left's prophets of doom who dismiss the deep human desire for freedom can read the results and squirm as they explain their faulty predictions.

What's really happening in Iraq? Contrary to media depictions, suicide bombings and other attacks are going down, not up. The terrorists are running short on resources. The bad boys are getting popped — not least because Iraqis, sick of the violence, turn them in.

And the leading terrorist in Iraq just told the common people what he thinks of them: He should decide their future, not their ballots.

Think that's going to play well with the masses? Does anyone except The New York Times believe that a Jordanian- born, Sunni Muslim terrorist is going to convince Iraq's majority Shi'a Arabs or the Kurds to throw up their hands, stay home on Election Day and hand him power?

Rarely has the contrast been so clear between the forces of freedom and those of oppression. Last Thursday, America's president offered the world a courageous vision for the future. Over the weekend, the top terrorist in Iraq insisted that the world should return to a cruel and savage past. There you have the basic conflict of the 21st century.

Iraq's election won't produce perfect results. But the issue is no longer whether the people will vote, but how many millions of voters will risk their lives to go to the polls.

Those who still warn that Iraq's elections are misguided are on the side of the terrorists. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi thinks so. And he's right.

 

[menewa]

This is an op-ed piece. This could easily appear in the NY Times under the name of Williams Safire or one of their other politically conservative columnists.

 

[OCA]

This is an op-ed piece. This could easily appear in the NY Times under the name of Williams Safire or one of their other politically conservative columnists.

So Menewa you don't agree with what he's saying?

 

[Polystyrate]

I'm very skeptical anytime we hear about how close we are to capturing or shutting down these enemies. I mean wasnt it last year we said we had defeated all major resistance in Iraq only to watch the fighting soar, or that we had bin ladens luetenants and he was in our grasp? Where are we gonna be if the Iraqi people want saddam back? or Zarqowi? Or are only US approved nominees allowed to run? I beleive if the Iraqi people truly wanted our ways of life they would already have them.

 

[Annie]

I'm very skeptical anytime we hear about how close we are to capturing or shutting down these enemies. I mean wasnt it last year we said we had defeated all major resistance in Iraq only to watch the fighting soar, or that we had bin ladens luetenants and he was in our grasp? Where are we gonna be if the Iraqi people want saddam back? or Zarqowi? Or are only US approved nominees allowed to run? I beleive if the Iraqi people truly wanted our ways of life they would already have them.

And they would have been able to accomplish this how?

 

[Polystyrate]

How did the american colonies repel the most powerful monarchy in the world at the time? Well to be honest, we used gorrilla and terroristic tactics, but when its our side they are freedom fighters. Democracy is a by product of an already stable civilization not the cure for a chaotic one, imagine how you would feel if the ussr had put an occuping army in the US with checkpoints on every major roadway to set up a communist government in the us?

 

[Merlin1047]

How did the american colonies repel the most powerful monarchy in the world at the time? Well to be honest, we used gorrilla and terroristic tactics,

:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:

LOL!!! I guess if the gorilla tactics had not worked, we could have resorted to chimpanzee warfare!

Sorry, I try not to pick on spelling or grammar, but this was just too good to pass up.

Now I'm having trouble remembering if it's the gorilla or the guerilla to whom you give the banana

 

[Polystyrate]

lol, hooked on phonics worked for me!

 

[theim]

How did the american colonies repel the most powerful monarchy in the world at the time? Well to be honest, we used gorrilla and terroristic tactics, but when its our side they are freedom fighters. Democracy is a by product of an already stable civilization not the cure for a chaotic one, imagine how you would feel if the ussr had put an occuping army in the US with checkpoints on every major roadway to set up a communist government in the us?

If Ronald Reagan had declared himself President For Life, detained and totured political dissidents, allowed his sons to rape whomever they wanted, and tested weapons on my city; I would be making a frickn' pilgrimage to Red Square in gratitude.

Are you saying that the American colonists goal of a representative government is morally equal with Zarqawis goal of an Islamic dictatorship? Forget that question...that was clearly what you implied. The real question is I suppose is did you mean to say that or are you really that stupid?

 

[gaffer]

How did the american colonies repel the most powerful monarchy in the world at the time? Well to be honest, we used gorrilla and terroristic tactics, but when its our side they are freedom fighters. Democracy is a by product of an already stable civilization not the cure for a chaotic one, imagine how you would feel if the ussr had put an occuping army in the US with checkpoints on every major roadway to set up a communist government in the us?

The Colonist fought the revolution with soldiers that went toe to toe with the British and lost most of the major battles. Terrorism was not used. The colonist did not slaughter their own people. The final defeat of the Britsh came with the advent of the French into the war. France was a major power just like Britain. The French fleet off the coast and the combined forces of French and Colonial troops is what beat the British.

Comparing our troops in Iraq to soviet troops is an afront to our troops as far as I am concerned. The terrorist, insurgents and other thugs in iraq are not freedom fighters. They are fighting to drag iraq back into the middle ages like the rest of the countries around there. They don't want freedom in iraq therefore they can not be freedom fighters. And to compare them to the patriots of the revolution is wrong and silly grasping for justification of your support of those thugs.

 

[Polystyrate]

I never said anything about the morality of either situation. I am just trying to understand why you are all so sure this is the right thing to do when the Iraqi people (or at least a sizable chunk of their population) seem to be fighting us tooth and nail. If we really saved them from such a despicable evil, then wouldnt they have all welcomed us and our ideals with open arms?

P.S. - I dont think someone who identifies themselves as a "christo - facist" would have lived very long in a communist red square, and rightly so.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I never said anything about the morality of either situation. I am just trying to understand why you are all so sure this is the right thing to do when the Iraqi people (or at least a sizable chunk of their population) seem to be fighting us tooth and nail. If we really saved them from such a despicable evil, then wouldnt they have all welcomed us and our ideals with open arms?

P.S. - I dont think someone who identifies themselves as a "christo - facist" would have lived very long in a communist red square, and rightly so.

The majority of freedom desiring Iraqis are oppressed by a minority who have more to gain from tyranny. the tyrants and their henchman goons are fighting democratization. IS this really so hard to understand?

 

[Polystyrate]

Iraq is a war hardened society, they have been in almost constant war for over a decade and the majority of its citizens are armed. I dont beleive they would allow such a minority to cause such harm especially with the US army at their backs, that is if they didnt atleast support his veiws in some way.

 

[Annie]

Iraq is a war hardened society, they have been in almost constant war for over a decade and the majority of its citizens are armed. I dont beleive they would allow such a minority to cause such harm especially with the US army at their backs, that is if they didnt atleast support his veiws in some way.

they've been at war or under sanctions over 2 decades. The citizens, not by choice as evidenced in Gulf War I when so many surrendered.

 

[Polystyrate]

The Colonist fought the revolution with soldiers that went toe to toe with the British and lost most of the major battles. Terrorism was not used. The colonist did not slaughter their own people....

The american soldiers did not go toe to toe, we hid in wooded areas, fought in chaotic masses in a time of linear line formations, aimed directly for officers, violent interruption of peaceful, legal commerce (the Boston Tea Party) and the illegal congregation and training of armed militants (the Minute Men). The War itself was partially funded by the illegal seizures of the private property of law abiding colonists who remained loyal to King George. Though the movement was allegedly toward a more democratic way of life, some states replaced their elected governors with dictators to manage the military effort against the British. All tactics that at the time were considered terroristic.
Im not saying that saddam or zarqowi are in the right , but we all know this war is fought for money and a controlling interest in iraqi oil. If we were really about human rights and democracy then why are we allies with Saudi Arabia, China, Egypt, or Uzbekastan. All countries who we give major support too and commit much more human rights violations than saddam did. And if your wondering how how a culture could support an islamic dictator over the U.S. remeber we are the (only) ones who unleashed a nuclear weapon (the ultimate WMD) on an entirely civilian target.

 

[menewa]

So Menewa you don't agree with what he's saying?

I have trouble believing all is going as well as this columnist surmises.

The situtation is Iraq is beyond difficulty. The average Iraqi citizen, I think, does want a stable, representative government. However, they do not want that government to be handed to them by the Americans.

Many probably now hate the Iraqi resistance because they have been killing more and more Iraqi civilians. But at the same time, they resent the Americans as well.

They are caught in a macabre conundrum.

Elections can't hurt, unless you're in line to vote and a car fitted for a suicide bombing crashes into you.

 

[theim]

I never said anything about the morality of either situation. I am just trying to understand why you are all so sure this is the right thing to do when the Iraqi people (or at least a sizable chunk of their population) seem to be fighting us tooth and nail. If we really saved them from such a despicable evil, then wouldnt they have all welcomed us and our ideals with open arms?

P.S. - I dont think someone who identifies themselves as a "christo - facist" would have lived very long in a communist red square, and rightly so.

1st off -- the title, if you would look at my sig, is in jest.

2nd -- It is not a sizable chunk of the population. It a portion of the sunnis who are sad to see their glory days of domination end.

 

[Adam's Apple]

I am just trying to understand why you are all so sure this is the right thing to do when the Iraqi people (or at least a sizable chunk of their population) seem to be fighting us tooth and nail.

Where did you get the information that a "sizeable chunk of their population" was fighting us "tooth and nail"? The only place in Iraq where fighting is going on is in the Sunni triangle. Without the influx of foreign terrorists, the fighting would have ended long ago, so don't tell me a "sizeable chunk" of Iraqis are battling us "tooth and nail" and expect me to believe it. Didn't I just hear this week that somewhere between 60-80% of Iraqis are expected to go to the polls and vote? Doesn't sound like they are fighting "tooth and nail" to me.

And where did you get your viewpoint about American history? From some communist handbook?

 

[sitarro]

All countries who we give major support too and commit much more human rights violations than saddam did.

Are there other countries that shove their citizens into plastic shredders feet first? Which are they ?

And if your wondering how how a culture could support an islamic dictator over the U.S. remeber we are the (only) ones who unleashed a nuclear weapon (the ultimate WMD) on an entirely civilian target.

Are you referring to Hiroshima? I think if you read anything about Hiroshima you will find that it was the home for many of the factories building war making machinery , sounds like a strategic move to me . Things were different then , a lot different , it is silly to judge actions taken 40 years ago without more knowledge about the reasons for the decisions .

 

[Polystyrate]

http://www.faluninfo.net/
http://www.globalissues.org/HumanRights/HumanRightsForAll.asp
Theres lots and lots more, just google human rights or check out amnesty international. How can we convince people that we are hear to help when we constantly side with people who are doing the things we say we are against?

Are you actually trying to justify dropping nuclear weapons on populated civilian targets as a means of "strategy"? Under that same logic suicide bombing poll lines is just a "strategy" for the insurgents to stop voting. Dont justify mass murder just because it was your team that did it.