If there's another major terrorist attack, what do we do?

Christ, Ben, if we can't prepare for a threat of an unknown nature at an unknown time against an unknown target by persons unknown, then what can we prepare for?

And they said the color-coded alert system was useless.

 

It depends on the type of attack. If we back down on Iraq and they later support an attack on us in any way, then the U.N. will be nullified in the eyes of the U.S. public and Iraq is f----d in a possibly nuclear way. If we are attacked from another direction (ie AL QUAIDA) then certain segments of our population will blame the president for looking at Iraq in addition to AL Quaida and not concentrating solely on AL Qqaida. Of course they criticize him anyway....

 

Golly, I can't imagine why anyone would criticize him for not making Al-Qaeda a priority. I mean, it's over a year since THEY'VE done anything to us.

Besides, they were all Iraqis on the planes on 9/11, haven't you heard?

 

Iraqis of North Korean ancestry, I believe.


If it happens again, we'll do the same thing we did last time. Find a country full of brown people we can blame it on, and bomb the bejeezus out of it.

 

In related news, the LA Galaxy still hold MLS Cup hostage.

 

My exact words were "Iraq IN ADDITION TO Al Quaida". If your want to have blinders on to the additional threats facing our nation with regards to terrorism that is your choice. Just keep in mind the original video from AL QUAIDA leader Bin Ladin that came out shortly after the 9-11 attack. In it he said that (rough quote) "The Americans will have no peace until the Palestinians have peace and the Americans will have no peace until the children of Iraq have peace". He is also pissed at the fact they we have troops in Saudi Arabia as you probably know but this is a secondary issue resulting from the Iraqi containment. Any LONG TERM solution to this issue has to
1. Solve the above 3 issues
2. Not give Bin Ladin a platform to say that his violent tactics have swayed our policies (he is a warlord at heart after all)
In other words, any person stating that Iraq is an unrelated issue is completely ignoring Bin Ladin's admitted justifications for his JIHAD. We have tried the sit-around-and-do-nothing approach with Iraq for 12 years under 3 presidents and both parties controlling congress at given times. Recent U.N. resolution 1441 is not the issue. The twelve year old U.N. resolutions are the issue. Either Iraq has to comply with the Gulf War mandates COMPLETELY or Saddam has to be removed. If not, then aggression and terrorism are rewarded and emboldened. If Iraq complies or Saddam is toppled, we can remove our troops from Saudi Arabia thus removing Bin Ladin Jihad justifications #2 and #3. That leaves Palestine which is actually infinitely more difficult. People can call it an oil war all they want but the fact is that if you look close enough, the U.S.A. is addressing Bin Ladin's complaints in a way that doesn't reward terrorism and promotes LONG TERM stability. Seeing that you decided to fire back a smart ass answer without taking the above facts into account Dan I would like to fire back my strong show of support for the further use of sanctions as proposed by left wing factions in Europe and the U.S.A. media. They've worked for the last 12 years so why stop now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Mm-hmm. Although Colin Powell at the time dismissed that rationale, saying Bin Laden hadn't given a dime to the Palestinians, and hadn't given a dime to the people of Iraq.

Now that he's in partnership with Saddam, that might have changed, though. (HEAVY IRONY)

Iraq IN ADDITION to AQ makes as much sense as Western Samoa IN ADDITION to AQ.

 

Holy Dong missiles, Batman! We've found Universal's counterpart on the Right.

 

Your evidence that Al-Qaeda is not a priority is what again? Oh, that's right, you have none other than to hang your hat on phony audio tapes from a purported Bin Laden.

 

I don't get this. And it isn't just you - if it was, I'd just put you on the list of people who really, really ought to be worried that they can now make people sane enough to execute.

I hear this a lot. "Bin Laden's actually dead." I mean, the tenacity to which this belief is held, in spite of what can confidently be called significant evidence to the contrary, is almost mystical.

It certainly isn't that you have evidence that he's dead. Occam's Razor would suggest that, if Bin Laden is actually alive, Al-Qaeda and the Bush Administration would have to be cooperating to maintain that myth.

I even read some guy say something to the effect of "This tape is fake, Bin Laden is dead, but nevertheless, this tape PROVES that he's working with Saddam!"

I think I can guess the reason people on the right - it's always people on the right - need to think that Bin Laden is dead. I believe it's because they've invested so much belief and faith in their image of George W. Bush, that any evidence to the contrary must be by definition false.

"Ah, Dan, you centrist you, how do we know you don't have the same spiritual need to think that Bush IS a failure, and therefore, Bin Laden is actually dead and you're afraid to admit it?"

Well, because either Powell was fooled or he's in on it, the CIA was fooled or they're in on it, the world press was either fooled or they're in on it, AND AQ itself was either fooled or they're in on it. Occam's Razor - hell, his Dental Floss and Mustache Comb too - say this is more than just sitting around waiting for Barbarossa to come out of the Black Forest to lead the German nation to victory over the forces of the Papacy.

Oh, and allied forces have been in control of the site for, um, well over a year now, and they ain't found Shi'ite. It isn't like looking for Devonian fossils, and it ain't like the guy disappeared into mist like the Wicked Witch of the Middle East.

And I haven't even touched on the fact that the right is thrilled about being lied to about this. "Powell and the CIA are lying through their ball gags, and God love them for it! I couldn't be happier that I'll never know whether the man behind the biggest crime on American soil since the Washita Massacre is still out there or not. Are we making progress against Al-Qaeda? I have no right to know! 23-skiddoo!"

(So, Powell's lying about Bin Laden being alive, but he's telling the gospel truth about Saddam? How'd ya fit that one through the doublethink Cuisinart of logic?)

He's in Pakistan. Deal with it.

 

I don't know if he's dead or alive. I *think* he's probably dead, based on the carnage that was Tora Bora and the fact that we haven't seen his face on video yet. Of course, he could be alive I have no definitive proof either way. That being said, even if he is alive it doesn't mean we're not focusing or making progress against Al-Qaeda. Numerous plots and members have been killed or captured, by all accounts. The war against Al-Qaeda is not something that can be accounted for on a scorecard or in the papers. It's done behind the scenes, in the shadows, in far off places with stories that never get reported. I think it's disingenous to claim Al-Qaeda is not a priority for this administration merely because suspects are not paraded before the cameras on a daily basis. Little by little, they are being carved up and eliminated. You know that. And, I'm a little disappointed that you continue to put partisan politics above national security issues by implying nothing is being done.

 

How could I possibly know?

If I were going to make this about partisan politics, I'd say something about Bush giving a tax cut to the rich instead of spending the money to fight Al-Qaeda. Unless rich Republicans are such traitors that they would rather have a tax cut than win the war on terror.

Or, I might say something about the administration spending less on the 9/11 probe than MLS spends on salaries.

Or maybe I'd snark about how conservatives apparently trust the government to fight Al-Qaeda in secret, when they don't trust them to freaking build roads straight.

I'll simply point out that the war is not being fought in secret. You might have pointed to the folks in Yemen getting the wrong side of a missile (well, once it explodes there's probably no right side to be on). And I'd agree with you, yay, go team. But if you think that's all the better we can do, well, I've got a tourist resort in Bali I want to sell you.

More to the point, Bush and Powell keep saying that by fighting Iraq, we're fighting Al-Qaeda. Nothing secret about that. It's a transparent lie, of course, but at least everyone knows about it. So, in fact, I know perfectly well how the administration intends to fight the war on terror. They plan to surrender to Saudi Arabia and distract us with a show-biz war on Iraq.

 

According to the U.S. government, duct tape and plastic works jsut fine. lol

 

Holy S--t!!!! The issues must be COMPLETELY unrelated because no money changed hands !!!!!! I'm also comforted to know that Bin Ladin has been completely forthcoming in providing us with his financial statements. Meanwhile in the real world our government has been
1. Moving against Iraq to illiminate their threat and the issue about our troops in Saudi Arabia.
2. They are taking part in plans to hopefully have a provisional Palestinian state by 2005.
Bush did not proceed with any of these plans in earnest until after Bin Ladin released his video. If I were Colin Powell, I would publicly dismiss the rationale as well while at the same time work behind the scenes to solve these issues. Iraq is the easiest of the issues to deal with because the Arab/Jew issue has been simmering for 1400 years. The palestinian issue has the universal effect of pissing off Arabs. If you say publicly that you are actually trying to address Bin Ladin's gripes then you
1. Embolden Bin Ladin and his followers
2. Run the risk of the Islamists leveraging the Palestinian issue and the Saudi Troop issue into the Iraq discussions.
The U.S.A. is handling first things first by tackling the Iraq issue. Dan, you can't universally dismiss Bin Ladin's comments. We (the U.S.A.)are taking his comments seriously whether you see it or not.

The legacy of Bush's presidency most likely will not be determined by the military portion of U.S.actions involving Iraq. His long term legacy involving this conflict will be determined by how the U.S.A. handles the Iraqi peace. The U.N. is more important after the battle. If we go in and make them an economic colony and rape their oil reserves then President Bush should be justifiably ripped to shreads. The Islamists will say "see, we were right, all they wanted was the oil." If we go into Iraq, establish a multinational peace keeping force, establish democracy, respect their religion and customs, respect existing oil rights, respect that their new government has the right to disagree with the U.S.A. at times and then show that we are now willing to work WITH them over the long term, then I think Bush and the U.S.A. will be highly regarded in Iraq. They have the potential to be a top 10 world economy. Bush's track record in Afghanistan and his oil company connections make me uneasy however. He has to step up to the plate and do the right thing in what could be the most important issue of his presidency.
Something has to be done about Saddam however. He has to comply with the Gulf War treaties or the U.N. should be rightfully viewed as useless. The choices are Iraqi compliance or Saddam's removal. At face value, I have always considered Saddam to be a fool for not complying. As soon as the inspectors leave, he could just restart the programs and pull a "North Korea." Which is of course why the removal option is better over the long term. If I had to guess, Saddam knows that he can't comply because he probably can't release info about his chemical weapons and allow unrestricted scientist interviews because this would also uncover the info about who he has already used these weapons on (Kurds). For this reason, I think we can play the inspection game all day long but Saddam will never cooperate. The 12 years that this has already gone on should also convince you of that. The Iraq and Palestinian problems are the primary causes of Arab anger against the U.S.A.. These issues, when combined with religious tension, provide a huge recruiting tool for our enemy. If you don't see the connection, then I'm sorry. We have to eliminate the problems that are being used against us. And by the way, if Iraq was harmless, why did President Clinton leave troops in Saudi Arabia for 8 years and even fire missiles at them.

 

Re: Re: If there's another major terrorist attack, what do we do?

Tom Ridge already told us what the solution is - bottled water, plastic sheets and duct tape.