response to.....'there is little purpose arguing over such matters."

Submitted by dave viets (United States), Nov 15, 2006 at 13:52

..."There is little purpose arguing over such matters. But to understand the overthrow of a hated tyrant as "unprovoked aggression" shows a very peculiar understanding of politics."

Re the above comment by Daniel Pipes : 1. No, there is A LOT of purpose arguing over such matters, because thousands of innocent people are dying...on both sides. And for what? It can be argued that Iraq is worse off now than before the 'war'... less oil production, terrorists are rampant there now, where before there was little or none... the people are not 'better off' than they were before.

2 Mr. Pipes states..."to understand the overthrow of a hated tyrant as 'unprovoked aggression' shows a very peculiar understanding of politics." I say it actually shows a keen sense of politics, because reader Bader S. knows that the whole war was all about politics and not really overthrowing a tyrant. If the U.S. was serious about 'overthrowing tyrants', then we would have to throw out ALL the tyrants, of which there are many, starting with N.Korea, several African countries, Iran, etc.

Where have we been in the past, when 'tyrants' slaughtered their citizens? Where were we when the Khmer Rouge committed genocide against several million of the citizens of Cambodia? Don't tell me that the U.S. has some 'higher moral' value in getting rid of tyrants....we only git rid of the tyrants that have benefit to our agenda...be it economic, political (to secure our 'interests' in the region), or otherwise.

3. Interesting how D.Pipes allows himself to get off topic: His whole website is about Muslim aggression and the threat of Jihad, but Iraq is/was a separate question. Getting rid of a 'hated tyrant' has nothing to do with Jihad, nor does it , or did it, have anything to do with the 911 attack. Our purpose all along should have been to focus on Bin Laden and the terrorist network, not going after the 'hated tyrant'.

Again: that is a separate issue/question. Our attack on Iraq was trying to blur the two. Don't ever claim to be an authority by playing that game of blurring one argument / issue with another. dave viets ps. Proof positive that the attack on Iraq was political: 1. first we said that we were in there because of 'weapons of mass destruction'. None were ever found...even by the team APPOINTED BY PRES. BUSH. 2. then it changed to: 'we have to git rid of the tyrant'. But who do the people of Iraq see as the tyrant now? 3. now we say we have to make Iraq "free"...we have to bring them 'freedom'. Oh really? By whose standards? Ours? Sounds like what we really want is the 'freedom' to make them an economic ally in our capitalistic way of life. Who is profiting from this war? It certainly isn't the people of Iraq. It does look like some major corporations in the U.S. are profiting big time from this 'war of liberation'...in fact, it looks like the longer we are there, the more money they will make! Isn't that convenient?! 4. and now we are also saying we are there because there are terrorists there.

Gee, naughty us for giving them a reason to be there now. So we go from 'weapons of mass destruction' to 'tyrant' to 'make them free' to 'terrorists'. Which is it? Where was the clear purpose? Talk about 'flip flopper'...sounds like our current administration is the king of flip floppers...and 'falsehood' whoppers. I agree with Daniel Pipes on at least one thing: We need to focus on the terrorist network, not distractions like Iraq.

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".