caught in the Iraqi-occupation dilemma?

Submitted by Charles Martel (United States), Nov 8, 2007 at 10:45

I thought that Daniel supported the occupation / democratization of Iraq?

Here he is showing clearly yet another reason this is a fool's errand.

How does he square the circle on this?

As he clearly states -- while we're there, that damn dam collapsing will be blamed on us!

No matter, we'll take the blame, we'll compensate the vermin drowning victims, we'll rebuild the dam on our nickel, garnering no benefits in the process.

Iraq either can't be civilized at all, or not at a cost commensurate with its importance. We are only delaying the inevitable collapse into a radical Moslem state after a Sunni-Shiite civil war, whenever we leave.

I admit I was wrong to even acquiesce in going in in 2003, and would never have even acquiesced if I'd known we were going to "democratize" them.

Islam is the problem, and democracy is not a solution -- it is not compatible with Islam, and giving Moslems the vote will not make them civil libertarians or respect others.

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".