Question

Submitted by William Schnitz (United States), Jan 29, 2006 at 10:18

Regarding your 4 implications for Western government, two of your bullet points seem antithetical to any strategy that would involve attacking Iraq. I seem to recall you being a pretty assertive proponent of Iraq Invasion and toppling Sadaam's stable, undemocratic country. Or, at the least, I do not recall you ever questioning it, until the outcome looked uncertain.

Please clarify, were you in favor of spending billions of dollars and thousands of lives toppling Sadaam and how does this reconcile with "slow down" and "appreciate stability?"

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

Daniel Pipes replies:

I believe in pulling down an enemy like Saddam Hussein. I am less inclined to believe in fixing the society he had done so much to help ruin.