Monday, January 24


With the election in Iraq set to proceed this Sunday, with optimistic reports surfacing of an overwhelmingly strong voter turnout, and inspite of threats from fanatics like the sadistic al-Zarqawi, why couldn't our pseudo allies -- e.g., Canada, France, Spain and Germany -- have at least put troops on the ground long enough to complement current coalition forces and the Iraqi army and police forces to protect Iraq citizens from insurgents' efforts to keep them from voting or to engage in reprisals against those who do? What is their pretext for not doing so? How do they rationalize their indifference?

They argue wrongly that the U.S. had no business invading Iraq, that WMDs were used as the sole reason by the Bush Administration for going to war, that the U.N. and the international community should have been given more time to bend Saddam Hussein to its will (years more), and so forth and so on, ad nauseam. But now there's a vote about to take place in Iraq -- a democratic vote, a legitimate expression of the right to self-rule, an exercise in ensuring that the fundamental rights of any people to shed the straight jacket of oppression and to conquer tyranny (rights grounded in natural law) are preserved -- and these "allies" are nowhere to be found. How can so many Western Democracies turn a deaf ear to the needs of the people of Iraq at this critical moment in history? If these people, living through the horrors of war, suffering a ruthless insurgency, and still bearing the scars and sorrows of a genocide wrought by a madman, can show courage and resolve, than why aren't Canada, France, Spain and Germany (and others sitting idly by on the sidelines) willing to help now?

Were I a citizen of any of these governments, I'd be ashamed. You either believe in liberty or you don't. You can't hide behind political rhetoric and obfuscation come Sunday. As they say here in Texas, that dog don't hunt.

I refer you back to this earlier post.