August 1, 2002

5:15 PM

Is this an Iraqi bluff?Whatever the case, this seems like a clever way for Baghdad to undercut all the saber rattling in Washington.
posted by TBoneMcCool (56 comments total)

Iraq not actually having weapons of mass destruction would rather take the wind out of the war-hawks sails. Which would in turn, deal Dubya a potentially crushing blow, come election time.

Saddam gets his revenge on the Bush clan, by not providing an easy target. Oh the irony...
posted by inpHilltr8r at 5:42 PM on August 1, 2002

Maybe Saddam saw what happened in Afghanistan, and didn't want the same to happen to his country? And Bush could still claim a win even without an invasion... he could say all his talk -- which you have to admit, has been so out-in-the-open that it makes no sense -- forced Saddam into submission, without a single drop of American blood spilled.
posted by crunchland at 5:47 PM on August 1, 2002

All I see is 'Talks'. The Taliban wanted to talk, too. And talks can go on and on and on... This just isnt gonna be enough, unless they open the doors PDQ.
posted by Perigee at 5:59 PM on August 1, 2002

Iraq will stall the talks, concede on some minor points, and appear to cave in, but will ultimately impose conditions on the inspections that the U.S. will be unwilling to accept. It's a sound, but predictable, P.R. move by Saddam - it will play well at home and on 'the Arab street.' But no matter what he allows, it's impossible to disprove (to the satisfaction of the U.S.) that there are WMDs in Iraq. And in any case, it has been stipulated that Iraq is a terrorist state... so, this has transcended the old question of WMDs.

If there were a clear endgame, I'd be all in favor of taking out Saddam... but there isn't. Meanwhile, the sanctions are decimating Iraq's poor. Funny how the threat of military force gets us (liberal Westerners) up in arms, but we tend to ignore the deadly reality of years of economic force.
posted by stonerose at 6:06 PM on August 1, 2002

Perigee has a point. Talks = stalling.
posted by donkeyschlong at 6:06 PM on August 1, 2002

and attacking = saving the world?
posted by popkick at 6:46 PM on August 1, 2002

perigree: The Taliban wanted to talk, too.

Yes, but they also wanted a duel to the death. Gotta give those crazy fundies some credit here.

Interesting how Iraq is asking for Dr. Blix specifically. The earlier Iraqi complaints were focused on UN weapons inspectors really being American spies.

Trust is a two-way street. As much as I would like to put all the blame of the breakdown of negotionations on Saddam, it may not be 100% fair to believe that.
posted by skallas at 6:51 PM on August 1, 2002

I still don't understand why we're doing this. Invade Iraq, overthrow Suddam. Why? I see nothing to gain.

All the terrorist attacks recently have (arguably) come from Saudi Arabia and Egypt. All the people, all the money. But they get a handshake rather than the largest military force in the universe preparing to flatten their country.

Is Suddam stalling, bluffing or whatever? Of course. What the hell else could he do? The US is out to screw him. Bush needs to keep the war going and the real terrorists are too good at hiding.

The country is flattened, starving and demoralized. Are we trying to breed more hatred for the US? Is this how Bush prolongs the war (and poll standings)? Is this "Wag The Dog" where we go to war for real?
posted by y6y6y6 at 7:17 PM on August 1, 2002

Well, what better way to make the US seem like the rogue state in all of this than by Iraq directly responding to the UN's recent requests for inspection. Certainly make the US seem like the heavy to the rest of the world, despite past Iraqi actions.

Saddam's probably thinking that the US isn't going to be able to pull of a war without the support of at least *some* allies. By his cooperation, it makes any potential US ally that might be fencesitting a little less likely to side with the US when push comes to shove.
posted by warhol at 7:52 PM on August 1, 2002

y6y6y6: I still don't understand why we're doing this. Invade Iraq, overthrow Saddam. Why? I see nothing to gain... The country is flattened, starving and demoralized.

And as long as Saddam's in power, it will remain that way. America cannot let Iraq get on its feet again because if it does, Saddam will be invading his neighbors, lobbing Scuds at Israel, committing genocide on the Kurds, and everything he was up to before. Meanwhile, instead of building his economy and taking care of Iraqi babies, Saddam is using his wealth to reward the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

If there is ever going to be a stable, peaceful, prosperous Iraq that is a safe neighbor to other nations in the region, Saddam and his government must be replaced. The US has clearly been hoping that Saddam would fall from internal Iraqi political pressures. I'm sure Dubya would love nothing more than for Saddam to be toppled by a palace coup. But that hasn't happened.
posted by Slithy_Tove at 8:59 PM on August 1, 2002

I find it more than a little odd that the U.S. essentially considers Saddam the Antichrist (next to Osama, of course), yet everybody seems to conveniently forget that we propped him up throughout much of the 1980s:

During the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War, which broke out shortly after the Iran hostage crisis, the Reagan administration concluded that the biggest threat to U.S. interests in the Persian Gulf was the Ayatollah Khomeini’s Iran. For several years, the United States provided arms, funds, and support for Saddam’s Iraq as a counterbalance.
posted by TBoneMcCool at 9:14 PM on August 1, 2002

You read one spin, now read another!

"Is this an Iraqi bluff?"

No, no, no. This is part of the plan. Saddam, in his fear of losing what little is left of his power and his lfe, invites inspectors to look for weapons he may or may not be building. America announced eariler only pre-approved allies are allowed to have these weapons and must impose its mandate on the rest of planet.

The US weapons inspectors will ask for the authority to look anywhere and everywhere throughout Iraq, including and surpassing Saddam's niece's underwear drawer. Iraq will say they think looking through Saddam's niece's underwear drawer is a bit much, at which point the weapons inspectors return and say "Saddam is not cooperating! He must be hiding something! This means war!"

Slithy_Tove: "Saddam will be invading his neighbors, lobbing Scuds at Israel, committing genocide on the Kurds, and everything he was up to before."

Bwa-hah! Saddam won't be doing any of this again if the US doesn't: 1) Support his regime militarily, including giving him chemical weapons 2) Tell him through the American ambassador that the US has no interest in Arab land disputes.
posted by raaka at 9:35 PM on August 1, 2002

"we propped him up throughout much of the 1980s"...I'm against another war, but this arguement is meaningless. We saved the Soviet Unions' ass in WW2 with billions of dollars of goods and we knew what the USSR was all about when we did it. In the 80s Iran was the great satan, Iraq the lesser satan. Happens all the time.
posted by Mack Twain at 10:07 PM on August 1, 2002

Sounds like standard issue bait-n-switch from Saddam. I don't agree with Bush n' Company's saber-rattling at all, but trust Hussein even less. Inspectors will go in, he'll say "oh, you want to look at that building? Well, no. We can't have that!" and the dance he danced with Bush I and Clinton will resume.

Things would be much simpler if we could send Jack Ryan or Charlie Sheen to just rub him out.

Certainly make the US seem like the heavy to the rest of the world

This is already the case, nothing we will ever do will change this perception, and frankly most of us don't care anymore (if we ever did).
posted by owillis at 10:37 PM on August 1, 2002

Just because something may improve someone's chances of re-election doesn't mean it's the wrong thing to do.
posted by ParisParamus at 11:25 PM on August 1, 2002

We saved the Soviet Unions' ass in WW2 with billions of dollars of goods...

Just what exactly did you "save" the Soviets from? Stalingrad?

Just because something may improve someone's chances of re-election doesn't mean it's the wrong thing to do.

That hardly is why the european allies are being sceptic of the US military plans. As long as there is no imminent threat from Saddam it's going to be really hard to justify an attack. After all the US signed the UN charter, too. And if the world's supposedly most powerful nation doesn't obey the laws, then why the hell should anyone else?

You can't fire a shotgun at someone only because he smells like shit...
posted by popkick at 12:24 AM on August 2, 2002

Can you blame a guy for not wanting an antagonistic foe rooting through his weapons cache? Chemical weapons or no, I wouldn't want the US to have an inventory of my arms, esp knowing that they want me out bad. What better way for the US to plan their next assault, but by 'inspecting' the relative strength or weakness of a possible opponent's military strength. And y'all are surprised that Saddam doesn't want US inspectors snooping around?

As for why we should attack, and now, I don't see any better reason than that posed by Freidman in yesterday's Times: cheap oil. Now that Iraq once again has some production capacity, it's probably the best time to stage an assault. That is, before Hussein becomes more friendly with OPEC, or worse, one of our allies. We wouldn't want someone else getting Saddam's oil if we can't have it ourselves, would we?
posted by dogmatic at 4:30 AM on August 2, 2002

Mmmm... oil.
posted by internook at 4:36 AM on August 2, 2002

So back off and wait for Saddam to sell WMDs to Osama? No thanks.
posted by techgnollogic at 4:38 AM on August 2, 2002

Just as clarification, the point I meant to make was not that the Iraqis were being disingenuous - which they almost certainly are - but that the question of their sincerity is almost completely moot.

The USA is in juggernaut mode, and won't be stopped by offers of mere talks. Saddam MAY have bought himself some time if he had thrown open his gates instantly and without restrictions - tough to invade with UN inspectors crawling all over the country, and, even worse, if they're coming up dry on threats. But he didn't; and the countdown goes on.
posted by Perigee at 5:05 AM on August 2, 2002

Yeah, back off and wait for Saddam to sell [hypothetical] WMDs to a [hypothetically alive] Osama.

And above all, stop hunting for oil behind bogeymen.
posted by dogmatic at 5:07 AM on August 2, 2002

as there is no imminent threat from Saddam it's going to be really hard to justify an attack.

Or could it be because Europe couldn't do anything about him if it wanted. And the only way a European politician can make his nation not look impotent is to deny the obvious. And "stand up" to the United States? Just an alternative theory.
posted by ParisParamus at 5:12 AM on August 2, 2002

Donahue on Wednesday discussed America going to war with Iraq. Very interesting discussion.

If you were in Iraq, wouldn't you be concerned that the US would use the weapons inspections as a chance to spy and mark targets for later bombing?
posted by quirked at 6:17 AM on August 2, 2002

1) On the one hand, attacking a nation who hasn't (yet) attacked us makes me feel really really really uneasy.

2) On the other hand, I think Saddam is probably ruthless -- we're not talking a stately Soviet premier here -- and the possibility of him doing something scares the crap out of me. Why not take him out?

This doesn't have an easy answer, and I just wanted to point that out.
posted by Tin Man at 6:39 AM on August 2, 2002

'Certainly make the US seem like the heavy to the rest of the world'

This is already the case, nothing we will ever do will change this perception, and frankly most of us don't care anymore (if we ever did).

owillis speaks for 270 million Americans. The rest of the world rolls eyes skyward. However, he unknowingly gives a solution to the problem in his statement.

How about: If you actually calm down, quit the crotch-grabbing & the cowboy talk, realise that being impatient isn't really an option and actually try and care a little about what people think instead of getting all stroppy and stamping your feet all the time then people's perception will change.

Sure, there are those who will never change their opinions but they are the extremes. You should be caring about how friends, allies & future allies relate to the US.

I've been amazed at how Bush & co. have managed to engineer the current situation where hardly anyone outside the US trusts them or supports what they are doing from a position of unconditional support last September. A lot of this should be attributed to the 'love us or get screwed' attitude.

I'm heartened by the fact that, despite owillis's 'most of us' crap, a lot of Americans do not have this attitude. Just a shame that the administration & their cheerleaders do.
posted by i_cola at 7:24 AM on August 2, 2002

If you were in Iraq, wouldn't you be concerned that the US would use the weapons inspections as a chance to spy and mark targets for later bombing?

An Iraqi diplomat was on the radio this morning making this very point. That's exactly what they're scared of. Part of the letter to Annan deals with the fact the UN team must be proven to be from the UN and not US spies, which is why they've asked for Hans Blix and insisted the inspections must be technical not political, whatever that means.

King Abdullah of Jordan's been all over the radio this morning as well, making the point that if Saddam goes and Iraq dissolves into a civil war between the Kurds, Sunnis and Shi-ites, the whole area will explode as each group is supported by different Arab countries. No wonder he's worried. He also said Tony Blair agreed with him. Wonder what TB thinks of that (he's on holiday, when asked about it Cherie more or less told the press to fuck off - the foreign office issued a very dismissive statement saying that the letter is just another of Saddam's little games).

Apparently the US is already chartering war ships for sending to the Middle East, with an attack planned for the new year. This is what one political correspondent said anyway.

I've been listening to the radio from 6am - 2pm. Can you tell?
posted by Summer at 7:53 AM on August 2, 2002

"Saddam will be invading his neighbors, lobbing Scuds at Israel, committing genocide on the Kurds"

So? We need to go to war over this why? Are you going to assert that we have an obligation to overthrow all despotic leaders who offend our sensibilities? Or are we in pick and choose mode?

It seems to me we're going to invade Iraq just because we can. If we decided to invade Pakistan (where most of the real terrorists are) or China (which continues sweeping human rights abuses) we'd never pull it off. But Suddam is already beaten and everyone hates him anyway, so sure, let's kick his ass again.

Maybe I need to restate the question - Why do *we* need to do this? We don't get oil there. If his neighbors are so scared let them invade.

"If there is ever going to be a stable, peaceful, prosperous Iraq that is a safe neighbor to other nations in the region, Saddam and his government must be replaced."

Fine. We could say the same for many nations in Africa, Argentina, Russia, and arguably Israel. Why is it so important to you that Iraq of all places is peaceful and prosperous?

Look, I think Saddam is pond scum. I just don't think we need to get into a land war with every asshole in the world.
posted by y6y6y6 at 9:22 AM on August 2, 2002

He's not "every" or "any" asshole, but the biggest; the one with the highest deranged-mind-to-cabilities ratio.
posted by ParisParamus at 9:41 AM on August 2, 2002

"we propped him up throughout much of the 1980s"...I'm against another war, but this arguement is meaningless. We saved the Soviet Unions' ass in WW2 with billions of dollars of goods and we knew what the USSR was all about when we did it. In the 80s Iran was the great satan, Iraq the lesser satan. Happens all the time.

Indeed it may happen all the time, but it makes it pretty hard to argue that Saddam is the world's most tyrannical leader when just over a decade ago, we were embracing him in our struggle against Iran. The U.S. government would rather that we all forget "inconvenient" facts like that. Bottom line: It's hard to take the moral high ground against Iraq based on our past relationship with Saddam.

And for the record: The Soviets and their brutal winters were doing just fine against the Nazis without us.
posted by TBoneMcCool at 9:50 AM on August 2, 2002

Things would be much simpler if we could send Jack Ryan or Charlie Sheen to just rub him out.

...and I was so hoping for this. Lloyd Bridges has Dubya down pat.
posted by inpHilltr8r at 10:08 AM on August 2, 2002

"He's not "every" or "any" asshole, but the biggest"

Yes, I tend to agree. Also at this point rather harmless.

What you seem to be saying is that we declare war and invade this currently non-aggressive nation because of the *potential* for future, unspecified bad things. Is that right? So after we get Afghanistan straightened out we just go to the next "Evil Axis" nation and set things right there? And after Iraq we invade North Korea right? Because they might nuke us? Who's after that? I forget. Who has the official Evil Axis checklist?

Look, let's keep our eyes on the real problem. I thought this was suppose to be a war on terrorism. And it seems to me invading Iraq will only create more terrorists. If we want to shut down the source we should deal with the motivation.

The terrorists involved in the Cole attack, the embassy bombings, and 9/11 do not get funding from, manpower from, or give a rat's ass about, Iraq.
posted by y6y6y6 at 10:16 AM on August 2, 2002

How about: If you actually calm down, quit the crotch-grabbing & the cowboy talk, realise that being impatient isn't really an option and actually try and care a little about what people think instead of getting all stroppy and stamping your feet all the time then people's perception will change.

It won't. There was some window-dressing agreement during the Clinton years, but the bellyaching had already begun (see Yugoslavia, for example).

I've been amazed at how Bush & co. have managed to engineer the current situation where hardly anyone outside the US trusts them or supports what they are doing from a position of unconditional support last September. A lot of this should be attributed to the 'love us or get screwed' attitude.

Would that I could blame this on Shrub + Co. The rest of the world does not like America being the superpower. Almost every international flarepoint results in the following reaction:

a. "Why is America being the big bully and interfering?"
b. "America is so big and powerful, yet they refuse to help"

This is what's known as a can't win situation. Clinton (in one of the few areas where I disagree with him) got around this by building "international coalitions" that tend to have us do the grunt work but keep up appearances of "working together", Bush (as usual) is sloppier and less subtle which rubs the world the wrong way.

I don't doubt for an instant Saudi Arabia is more of a terrorist-creating state than Iraq, but I'm not holding my breath for any administration to deal with them.

If we want to shut down the source we should deal with the motivation.

The motivation is envy, and a sense that the empires of the west are the dominant forces in the world. They have to deal.

Are you going to assert that we have an obligation to overthrow all despotic leaders who offend our sensibilities?

If we truly believe in freedom, I would say yes.
posted by owillis at 11:33 AM on August 2, 2002

This CNN Asia report gives a good overview of where the real problems lie.

owillis: Like I say, you need more patience.
This is what's known as a can't win situation. Maybe you should try harder or is it that fast-food culture breeds a person wanting fast-politics solutions?

And if you want to talk about 'bellyaching', the constant refrain of 'they only hate us cuz we're the superpower' is wearing thinner than Britney's g-string. Peoples & countries will always disagree to an extent but hiding behind one reason is blinkered in the extreme.

I think you (and others & not just in the US) get off on the whole tub-thumping media show instead of working towards some common ground.
posted by i_cola at 1:32 PM on August 2, 2002

All the terrorist attacks recently have (arguably) come from Saudi Arabia and Egypt. All the people, all the money.

And speaking of the money, according to Janes, "Saudi officials are on record as saying that no bank accounts related to terrorist finance schemes have been frozen, and investigators believe there is little sign that the flow of funds to terrorist groups from charities in Saudi Arabia has ceased."
posted by homunculus at 4:06 PM on August 2, 2002

I desperately hope that Bush listens to the rest of the world's leaders who do not want to go to war no matter what they think of Saddam. It will just inflame hatred towards the West and could mean an excuse for more terrorist attacks. When Clinton was in power, he was incredibly popular. When he visited the U.K. he had an extremely warm welcome and seemed very open and approachable. Bush seems to be setting and carrying out his own personal agenda without any thought or care for anyone else. I can't see him getting the same response if he visited the U.K. - the stretts will probably be lined with protesters.
posted by titch at 4:45 PM on August 2, 2002

I desperately hope that Bush listens to the rest of the world's leaders who do not want to go to war no matter what they think of Saddam. It will just inflame hatred towards the West and could mean an excuse for more terrorist attacks. When Clinton was in power, he was incredibly popular. When he visited the U.K. he had an extremely warm welcome and seemed very open and approachable. Bush seems to be setting and carrying out his own personal agenda without any thought or care for anyone else. I can't see him getting the same response if he visited the U.K. - the streets will probably be lined with protesters.
posted by titch at 4:45 PM on August 2, 2002

titch: I agree. I agree.
posted by TBoneMcCool at 4:48 PM on August 2, 2002

It will just inflame hatred towards the West and could mean an excuse for more terrorist attacks.

The only way it would "inframe hatred toward the West" would be if the other countries of the West joined us in any hypothetical Iraq attack, no? Which is, it seems to me, entirely the point of their protestations. Saddam must be made to understand that this wasn't their idea, that they didn't participate, and that in fact they advised against it. It's a CYA move to prevent European countries from becoming the next terrorist target. The actual pros and cons of an action against Iraq are almost (but not quite) irrelevant to whether European states will object to it.
posted by kindall at 5:09 PM on August 2, 2002

He's not "every" or "any" asshole, but the biggest; the one with the highest deranged-mind-to-cabilities ratio.

That's a pretty handy description of Ariel Sharon.
posted by Optamystic at 7:16 PM on August 2, 2002

When Clinton was in power, he was incredibly popular. When he visited the U.K. he had an extremely warm welcome and seemed very open and approachable.

Last time I checked the people of the UK didn't vote for the American president, I could be wrong...
posted by owillis at 9:03 PM on August 2, 2002

Hell, let 'em try it. They can't fuck it up any worse than it already is.
posted by Optamystic at 9:27 PM on August 2, 2002

Last time I checked the people of the USA didn't vote for the American president, I could be wrong...
;-)
posted by i_cola at 1:26 AM on August 3, 2002

the one with the highest deranged-mind-to-cabilities [sic] ratio.

For once, Paris is right (if I parse his typo; is literacy not a requirement for lawyers these days?) though perhaps unwittingly. Saddam is undoubtedly a rather effective megalomaniac; his 'abilities' or 'capabilities' to affect countries other than his own are only slightly greater than zero. (The number of countries that count Iraq a threat right now is one, and that's only if you don't think the 'Saddam option' is, for the US, the equivalent of kicking a tied-up bulldog.) That makes for a rather astronomical ratio: say, 50,000:1? As opposed to Dubya, who's at a much scarier 1:1 ratio, in that he has the ability to carry out anything the little voices in (and outside) his head tell him.

Last time I checked the people of the UK didn't vote for the American president

i_cola made the obvious response, but the point is simple, and owillis is rather simple for missing it: if British objections are 'traditional knee-jerk anti-Americanism', as so many American wingnuts seem to think, how come that traditional knee-jerkery wasn't too much in evidence during the Clinton era?

The motivation is envy

Yeah, yeah: we so jealous. After all, being hated for insularity and arrogance is so in demand.
posted by riviera at 4:23 AM on August 3, 2002

The motivation is envy, and a sense that the empires of the west are the dominant forces in the world. They have to deal.

Bullshit. The motivation is revenge . . . Revenge for a million dead Muslims. How do you think the next generation of Muslims will react to the way the US indiscriminantly killed the last?

The US might be able to shut down the terrorists of this generation through haphazard bombing and setting up puppet governments (you're welcome to think the nation can, but I don't), but this is a short-term fix that only creates more terrorism in the long run. For an analysis on the cyclical nature of a "War against Terror," look under Palestine, Israel and.
posted by dogmatic at 5:08 AM on August 3, 2002

if British objections are 'traditional knee-jerk anti-Americanism', as so many American wingnuts seem to think, how come that traditional knee-jerkery wasn't too much in evidence during the Clinton era?

Because Europe tends to be more liberal than the US. There, I said it!

riviera, although my above comment may be true, that doesn't necessarily make it the correct direction for the US to travel. Hell, there are multitudes of examples that show why a semi-socialist behavior in smaller countries is very effective, as opposed to the 280 million that the US needs to deal with.

I don't feel the need to run them down for you, because I know that you know what they are. However, you really should add that disclaimer to your question, because it's quite misleading otherwise.
posted by BlueTrain at 5:50 AM on August 3, 2002

19 questions huh. we are playing...19 questions?
posted by clavdivs at 8:58 AM on August 3, 2002

how come that traditional knee-jerkery wasn't too much in evidence during the Clinton era?

My contention is that it has been and always will be there. Because Clinton paid lip service to Euro-cares doesn't mean they actually supported us when push came to shove. With Dubya in the White House its just cool to bring those feelings to the surface.

In other words the exact same things that were said about America after we left the party are now being said to us at the party. Nothing has really changed.

The motivation is revenge . . . Revenge for a million dead Muslims

Bin Laden, Hussein and their sympathizers detest the fact that their great empires of the past stagnated and gave way to British, then American empires. The great Cultural Dominance parade left them at the starting gate and they're sore about it.
posted by owillis at 9:06 AM on August 3, 2002

My objections aren't "knee jerk anti America" they are just knee jerk anti war.
posted by titch at 11:15 AM on August 3, 2002

owillis, when did you start paraphrasing Dubya? Do you really believe they're just angry because their women are in burkas and ours aren't?

C'mon. bin Laden and Saddam have both on numerous occasions said their crusade is against western (read: Christian, read: American) intervention in the Middle East. Explain to me again why you think that this intervention is going to change their minds.
posted by dogmatic at 1:48 PM on August 3, 2002

Explain to me again why you think that this intervention is going to change their minds.

I never said it should happen, and even if it did it wouldn't change minds - they never will be. Bin Laden is still upset about The Crusades - you cannot rationalize with that.

Would we stand for the equivalent if blacks (like myself) said "hey, England and America built their countries up on slavery - lets go kill some people living now who had nothing to do with that!" That would be lunacy, and so are those knuckleheads.

When someone says "it will just create more terrorists", the only answer is that you have to kill the new terrorists. Fear of death is the only thing that can exorcise such an ideology.

I don't believe in the Dubya-santized vision of America as the innocent girl at the dance who's never even gone to first base (we're more like the slutty cheerleader who smokes under the bleachers), but its our moral imperative to say "hey, we fucked up before - there's no way we can go back in time and change that, but how about we set things right?".
posted by owillis at 5:11 PM on August 3, 2002

Yeah, so we just kill the new terrorists, and their children, and their children's children. Real smart. What kind of Ann Coulter bullshit are you spouting here, man?

It's not just that they're pissed about the Crusades. They're pissed about past and current American abuses in and of the lands and people that they love. It's that simple. We're up in their business, and they're pissed about it. The more of them that we kill, the more of them that will be motivated to kill us. Do the math, dude. There's a damn sight more motivated Muslims than there are motivated Marines.
posted by Optamystic at 5:39 PM on August 3, 2002

It's that simple.

Don't believe the hype. Even if this was truly their grievance (and I don't believe it is), they've ceded all moral high ground by targetting innocent women and children.

I'm not advocating killing any children. But if a terrorist is killed, his child has a choice - be a productive member of the world community or resort again to terror. But he/she will have to accept the consequences.

There's a damn sight more motivated Muslims than there are motivated Marines

This is why they spend our money on the big bombs.
posted by owillis at 8:06 PM on August 3, 2002

Terror = war for people who can't afford Armys.
posted by Optamystic at 8:34 PM on August 3, 2002

Terror = last resort of the morally bankrupt
posted by owillis at 3:15 AM on August 4, 2002

What's the first resort of the morally bankrupt? Tweaking nipples?

Maybe Martin McGuinness, Education Secretary for Northern Ireland, might have something to say about this.
posted by Summer at 5:10 AM on August 4, 2002

War = Terror = War = Terror

Same shit. War just has a better P.R. agent.
posted by Optamystic at 3:46 PM on August 4, 2002