A what if for us all.

If we attack Iraq and remove Saddam and end up being attacked on our own soil with a chemical attack or God forbid a nuclear attack, what should our respose to the world be?

even better....how will you know that the attack was or was not planned with regard to events in Iraq?

Fair enough.

What should we do if there is another "9/11"?

The problem that first comes to my mind is that if we take action in Iraq, AlQuaida could very easily take advantage of that and launch another 9/11 style attack, of course, most Americans would say, see, there is a connection, and we would pummell Iraq even more. If I were AlQuaida, that's what I would do. You get in a cheap shot and someone else takes the blame.

That possibility is exactly the reason I think the Bush administration should have treaded lightly in this Iraq war possibility. We are in a corner now and must take the chance that you of causing terrorists nutjobs to attack us again.

To answer your question I guess if it happens we have to respond in kind somewhere in the world. (Maybe Paris? just kidding)

I would prefer to believe that the current Governement has taken the proper steps to make sure something as huge as 9/11 doesn't happen again.

However, if it did.

I don't know. I would think the response would be insane, the damage in response would be huge.

bandit, there is no doubt in my mind that our response would kill millions and topple numerous governments.

My question, though, is what SHOULD it be.

I have said a few times that I don't like the way Bush has handled this conflict in "public". Say what you want, but he has put himself in a light that makes him seem like he is dying to go to war, he is too eager, it makes you wonder what his intentions are..... Because of that, it puts him in a very bad situation... IF we strike first, the terror attacks that are sure to follow will be blamed on our action, If we do nothing, we look weak becasue of the stance Bush has publicly taken.

That's just my opinion.

Guys, the responses so far are predicting Armageddon. That's not even what happened after 9/11. It took several weeks before we fired a shot in anger, and even then it was delivered in the form of a well-thought out and limited and effective campaign in Afghanistan.

As with any and every other terrorist attack we've suffered and cell that we've exposed, we've taken a systematic approach to investigating who was responsible.

What's funny is that there's going to be the same old debate. Those opposed to Bush and the war will say, "See, I told you so!" about the risks of going to war with Iraq. Those in favor of war will point out that there was indeed a terror connection with Iraq, and also direct evidence that Iraq had active WMD's and was willing to use them against us.

It truly is a scary, dangerous world.

Originally posted by codeorama

I have said a few times that I don't like the way Bush has handled this conflict in "public". Say what you want, but he has put himself in a light that makes him seem like he is dying to go to war, he is too eager, it makes you wonder what his intentions are..... Because of that, it puts him in a very bad situation... IF we strike first, the terror attacks that are sure to follow will be blamed on our action, If we do nothing, we look weak becasue of the stance Bush has publicly taken.

That's just my opinion.

OTOH, with 12 years of weakness and lack of resolve to encourage Iraq to fail to comply, if Bush took any other line on this we wouldn't have made the progress regarding UN movement, inspections and coalition building that we've made thus far. Bush is digging our Iraq-related foreign policy out of a 12-year hole.

that wasn't my point.......we know these folks are planning further attacks.....we know they have considered "asymetric" weapons in the past.......if there is another attack post Iraq regime change....how do you know that the attack wasn't in the pipe all along? that's the problem I have with many of these escalation arguments: they don't recognize the nature of the weapons, they don't recognize how the threat is organized and operates, they seem to assume that there is a linear relationship between our actions in Iraq and the probability of a catastrophic event reoccuring here at home. further...if such an attack does happen.......and (as the left assumes) there are no WMDs in Iraq or that Iraq doesn't have connections to the terrorist network....where are the weapons coming from?

Originally posted by redman

OTOH, with 12 years of weakness and lack of resolve to encourage Iraq to fail to comply, if Bush took any other line on this we wouldn't have made the progress regarding UN movement, inspections and coalition building that we've made thus far. Bush is digging our Iraq-related foreign policy out of a 12-year hole.

That's a good point, I give you that.

Originally posted by JackC

That possibility is exactly the reason I think the Bush administration should have treaded lightly in this Iraq war possibility. We are in a corner now and must take the chance that you of causing terrorists nutjobs to attack us again.

JackC, don't you think that those terrorist nutjobs would attack us under ANY circumstances given an opportunity? An attack on Iraq won't CAUSE terrorists to try to attack us here. They will do that anyway.

You might debate as to whether it would make an attack more likely to succeed ... but not whether it would actually cause it.

No I think that it is likely an attack would take place because of our invasion of Iraq. I grant you these are nutjobs and their reasoning would be wrong.

That being said, we don't have any choice on this anymore. We are in a position where we must attack as sad as it sounds.

A determined and victorious campaign in Iraq will disprove the notion the Bin Laden has been promoting for years - that the US is a paper tiger that wilts at the first sign of real conflict.

The real question ought to be this - what do we do when Saddam unleashes chemical and biological weapons in Baghdad when we enter. I think it will happen, and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians will die, along with hundreds or possibly thousands of soldiers. If Saddam knows we are coming after him, he has no deterrent to prevent him from committing such genocide, and sadly, the propaganda machine in the middle east will blame us for their deaths, not Saddam.

We can't effectively prevent terrorism here at home and maintain an open democracy. The two are incompatible. So there will be future attacks. The idea is to put intense pressure on terrorist groups and individuals, disrupt them, make their lives miserable. No different than tackling a disease really. And I'll throw Jack a bone here, also look at improving relations in areas that are hotbeds for terrorism, trying to (gulp) build some bridges, reduce anti-US sentiment. I think that is part of what the Iraq conflict is about. Sure in the short term anti-US hatred will rise, maybe even peak. But a strong democratic Iraq (and the example we set post-war) will greatly reduce anti-US momentum in the Middle East (I'm talking 25-50 years down the road here as we'll show that responsible governments have much to gain by becoming more like America, not attacking us).

As far as terrorist attacks go, I think Bush gets absolutely no credit for the fact that theres not been a single major attack since 9/11. His opponents apparently think Bin Laden and friends are just so darn clever, they haven't hurt us because they have a diabolical plan to 'lie low'. I don't believe that. We've hurt them and hurt them badly, and a few are captured or otherwise disposed of daily. Over time I think this strategy will work. My biggest fear (and I think the unspoken biggest fear and motivator for the President) is a large scale attack on our Government. If Congress and the White House were taken out, it would create the biggest crisis in our history, and although I don't think America ceases to exist at that point, its a possibility that is pretty scary.

the poverty of analysis wrt the Arab world is truly astounding. I have seen nothing on this board or elsewhere in the public literature that deeply analyzes what the true political and social currents are in the Middle East. We see the clerical extremism and just assume through some kneejerk extrapolation that the man in the street will react violently....we don't don't know how expectations and beliefs change by:

- tribal compostion

- geographic location

- age group (i.e., demographics)

- religious group

- history

- wealth

- education

- political alliances

- form of government

- security posture/military strength

- trading partners

Things are as they are so we should deal with what is, not with what might be. The fact is we live in a world with others that wish to destroy our way of life and kill us in large numbers.

A few of the options we have available to us are:

[*]Wait this thing out, do nothing and be destroyed.

[*]Wait this thing out, do nothing and survive.

[*]Take action to defend ourselves, fail and be destroyed.

[*]Take action to defend ourselves, succeed and survive.

[/list=A]

Wait it out and our enemies will seize the advantage and kill us. IMHO taking action both diplomatically and militarily is our only path to survival. Trying to tip toe around the bad guys hoping they leave us alone is not the solution.

Originally posted by tex

[*]Wait this thing out, do nothing and be destroyed.

[*]Wait this thing out, do nothing and survive.

[*]Take action to defend ourselves, fail and be destroyed.

[*]Take action to defend ourselves, succeed and survive.

[/list=A]

I'll prefer E:

Take action to defend ourselves, succeed and THRIVE!

Originally posted by Brave

I'll prefer E:

Take action to defend ourselves, succeed and THRIVE!

U DA Man:cheers: