My Photo

Korean Radio/TV

Blogs about that part of Asia that isn't Korea

« Robert Kim wouldn't be coming home anytime soon | Main | Why the provincial assemblies are important in Iraq »

Sunday, January 30, 2005

Comments

American

I like how the liberals are scrambling to denounce the elections. Apparently somethign that is good for Bush, no matter how amazingly good for the world on its own, cannot be allowed to stand unsmeared.

The Iraqi elections are reminiscent of the 1982 elections in El Salvador. The US gov't, pressed by Ronald Reagan, sponsored elections in the country which the communist insurgents boycotted and denounced as an imperialist fraud, while threatening violence against voters. Then, on election day, the communists shot up voters, set off bombs at polling stations and just generally committed massacres. The New York Times, France, the Scandanavians, the Democrats, the liberals ALL sided with the communists and condemned Reagan for his "misguided" spread of democracy. Sound familiar?!?!?!?!!?

But the peoples' voice was heard, and the communist murderers lost the war and lost all the elections since 1992, when they finally stopped boycotting democracy. History will judge the Left harshly for their stances against liberty and freedom. This is the beginning of the end for the insurgents, just as it was the beginning of the end for the Salvadoran communists!

jtb-in-texas

I loved the ink... the Iraqi voters giving the terrorists the finger!!!

God bless 'em!!!

Brian

American,

Care to provide us with a link to a liberal "denouncing" the election? And I'm not talking about some anonymous slob at the democratic underground website... I'd like to see something from a prominent lefty.

The iraqi election is a good sign... but hardly the game-winning slam dunk to put all of our, and their, problems to an end.

A little perspective would be helpful on all sides here.

angus

brian,

no proof needed. this is the same group that has equated criticism of bush with treason and photo ops on aircraft carriers with....well, whatever the hell it was.

as for the election, good for the iraqis! this is the first step in a long and tortuous process that hopefully ends in a democratic state. the fact that it has started under american military occupation does not in anyway lessen its significance.

American

Brian, I went to MichaelMoore.com on election day and his main feature was an article by an Iraqi feminist living in America talking about why she was boycotting the election (originally written for UK paper "The Independent"). So basically, while Iraqis were turning out en mass in the face of death threats from "The Minutemen," Michael Moore's website was advertising a boycott.
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/index.php?id=1202

Mikhail Gorbachev calls the elections "fake"
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/A2BF1277-4200-4BDB-9A98-162CFAA84225.htm


John Kerry warns against overhypeing the importance of the elections (yes this IS criticism):
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6886726/

World-Famous Brit liberal Robert Fisk calls the elections "a bloody charade":
http://www.sundayindependent.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=2391252

For all else, please see THE GAURDIAN (UK) newspaper, keeper of the flame for the hard Left... their editorial page has been leading the attacks on the elections for the past 2 days.

American

Elections ARE the slam-dunk! That turnout is a firm rejection of the insurgency and its supporters (jealous neighbors, Arab despots, Osama, Michael Moore, etc). How can the insurgency pretend to be popular now? IT CANT!! Therein is the slam dunk, my friend.

As I noted before, the left criticized Reagan for holding elections in El Salvador but the elections changed the whole dynamic of the war. Today, with firm US (read: REPUBLICAN) support, El Sal (and the rest of Central America) is most definately a democracy with no chance of going back to tyranny. MANY Democrat politicians (including Kerry) criticized Reagan's Central America policy and supported the Communists(!), advocated America withdraw and cede that region to Cuban and Russian imperialism, and criticized free elections because the conditions were "dangerous". Guess which side was right in that debate? El Salvador and Iraq have parallel histories, and in all likelihood, parallel futures.

Those Iraqis are hungry for democratic government and that hunger *WILL TRANSFORM THE REGION AND THE WORLD*.

jtb-in-texas

Well, we'll see if the Iraqi people's courage holds; but right about now the peoples of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Iran are thinking about elections...

God willing, we may see a Democraticly-elected Middle-East before Europe falls into a wierd version of either (1) just hating Christians or (2) hating all religious peoples...

non korean

I read an article from a Dem. He had the balls to at least ask the question. \"What if George Bush is right?\" Those with half a brain will at least think of this possibility. The blind that are fed myths for breakfast, lunch, and dinner will still believe what they like. They now define themselves as an entity that unquestionably opposes anything Bush stands for. Look how well Afghanistan is doing but all you can hear from the far left is the Taliban is back and will take over the country again in no time. No mention of free elections, women’s right to education, freedom to practice religion without being hung in the UN soccer stadium etc etc etc.


The comments to this entry are closed.