Don't change the topic

Submitted by Eric Weitzman (United States), Jun 3, 2003 at 15:28

Granted that the previous armistice/terms were broken. But then if one questions the validity or desirability of the previous US-led war, the previous debates need revisiting. Should the US have defended Saudi Arabia from potential spillover of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in the first place? Should the indeterminate boundaries set up by the British in the disputed region during their mandate be respected or properly delineated?

Put another way, should a sanction be carried out if the originating deed is still open to question? When does closure occur and a new accepted base for argument commence?

Anyway, the Administration seldom made the argument that Dr. Pipes does, instead playing the WMD angle. Don't change the topic.

---

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".