According to members of Bin Laden’s organization (remember him?) who have been captured, 9/11 took about three years of planning and putting logistics in place before the actual execution.

Now that we’ve shot ourselves in the foot with the invasion and occupation of Iraq, which has a majority of our combat troops, reserve forces and financial ability committed to that operation, is Bin Laden just watching us expend resources? Or, as he has publicly promised, is another attack on the US in the planning stages?

What do board members think our (the administration) reaction will be if another attack does take place in the near future? Other than the inevitable Red Alert and probable elimination of all remaining civil rights, what will happen in our country? I bring this subject forth because there has been absolutely no reference to the possibility by our ‘war on terrorism’ government with regard to the psychological preparation of the citizenry or, other than Chapter 11 declarations now being ready to file, our economy.

1) The economy. Most businesses have not recovered from the psychological or financial effects of 9/11, what would another attack do to our ability to maintain commerce? Turn out the lights or?

2) Retaliation. Nuke Afghanistan/Pakistan Border, invade another country or two (with what), give Iraq to the UN and/or what?

3) Civil rights. I’m sure Ashcroft would pant and howl at the opportunity to go to a wartime footing (your papers pleeze) with the FBI having unlimited powers of ‘suspicion’, but what would happen to our ability to travel, communicate and otherwise lead a ’normal’ life considering there would probably be no restrictions on implementation of Patriot Act II or additional administration constitutional amendments?

 

I do not see another "civil war" being fought in this country being completely out of the question.

In fact, if these folks are half as smart as they think they are, they should have thought of this and incorporated it into their "plan".

And . . I think another 9/11 scale attack, would ultimately be a sizeable ammount of fuel being poured onto that fire.

 

Nice try. Travel and commerce would be hurt, but in the aftermath of 9/11, I truly believe that Americans are going to stand together better than any terrorist could have imagined. There is no fighter more fierce than a man protecting his way of life, this I truly believe.

As far as shooting ourselves in the foot over Iraq, what would you have done? Let hussein continue to torture and maim innocent people because they said a negative word about him? He is as evil as a man can be. What would have happened had we not removed him from power? He would have eventually invaded another country as he did in the early nineties. Do we just continue to mind our own business? That 'mind our business' attitude is what allowed another evil dictator to kill 6 million jews a few decades ago. It IS our business if a man tries to affect our way of life. So waht if America is the world's police force? I say terrorists should die- period- and we should spare no expense to make sure it is done properly.

 

Stu
I believe your vision has become tunnel. Saddam is or was a truly evil guy. (the word) BUT, he absolutely pales in comparison to some of our acceptable neighbors:

Joe Stalin Untold millions
Idi Amin Untold millions
Hitler Millions, we only got in it for Britain, no previous comment on his antics prior to that.
Hirohito We only got in it after he tried to take out the Pacific fleet.
Saddam in the early '90's (GB the greater) millions of Kurds. That was while he actually was still a bit of a threat, and had the ability to strike out .
Noriega Panama hundreds of thousands
Kim Il Jung Korea millions
Mao Tse Tung China Millions
Chiang Kai Shek Taiwan

These guys were, some still are monsters on a massive scale, and didn't affect our happy little camp at all.

No, taking him out because of being mean to his people doesn't hold water in a historical perspective. Being the world's conscience is the job of someone in a much higher pay grade than GWB. (think god).

 

quote: So waht if America is the world's police force? I say terrorists should die- period- and we should spare no expense to make sure it is done properly.
I respect your right to your opinion, but would you please tell me where your "spare no expense" money is coming from? Is it prudent to pile more debt upon debt to supply the world with a police force most don't want? Is the purpose of our military to defend us or is it more? It is quite possible that while the policeman is out trying to fix the world to his standards, his own house could collapse.
Dono
Dono

 

Sounds to me like you believe we wouldn't have been attacked on 9/11 if we hadn't been doing what we do around the world. i don't believe that for one second. It would have happened- sooner or later. We are viewed as satan, the evil empire, pick your euphemism. Believing that these psychos have any concept of live and let live is simply sticking your head in the sand. This house isn't going to collapse, and i think we've proven that. is the sytem perfect? No. but it beats the hell out of anything else in the world, and i think we have proven that, too.

 

Where did you get this piece of information? It doesn't match the info I have gotten.

The US Military is a large, large machine. Someday maybe we will see a major deployment that will utilize a great majority of it's resources, but this wasn't quite it.

 

I see. And why do we currently have one-third of our reserve and national guard units on active duty with more being called up? And why are we sending Marines back to Iraq to allow R&R for Army units? Where is the rest of this large, large machine that isn't already deployed?

 

...Germany and korea.

 

Ok, I ignored this reply for a couple of days because it was clear you made it without doing much reading (here) first. But the totality of your message makes me feel an obligation to give you a heads up:

We would not be starting a cival war because we are attacked by terrorist. We MAY be starting a civil war because of the Government attacking our liberty & our freedoms in the name of fighting terrorisim.

Respectfully; I challenge you to produce even the smallest shread of proof we went to war to "save the jews from persecution".

Hogwash.

Oh, and I am in no position to guess what I would have done in GWB's place. Call me slow and dumb, but unlike some I am not so willing to make broad-brush decisions with very very little factual information.

P.S. Want to see me on the front lines of a civil war? Use my armed forces for a "world police force", and that is where I will be loaded for bear and ready to bleed to put a stop to it.

 

Once again I have to ask, where are you getting this? Sounds like media information to me. Please try to remember the media is not always the most accurate source of information.

We don't have as many people forward as you may think.

We always active a large number of reservists due to the amount of time it takes to mobilize, equip, train, and deploy them.

The rest of this machine is deployed elsewhere on the globe. Contrary to popular belief, Iraq and Pakistan are not the only two theaters of operation in the world. Everyone else is still manning the missions that always exist.

If you are looking for an argument, then let me know and I'll but out. But some of the information you posted is not as factually based as you may believe.

While there is a relatively large force in the southwest asia theater, it is not exactly a force large enough to debilitate the US military.

 

I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say. Now, I guess it is your turn to call ME slow and dumb.

I, too, am from N Florida. Grew up around Marianna, know where that is? Anyway, the folks I grew up with were all hunters and fishermen (I don't hunt, but only because I hate sitting inthe cold...) and I believe in the right to do both. I believe in many of the same things you apparently do, but I believe that we need to have some rules to live by. Otherwise we have anarchy. Do I have a limit to how many liberties I'll allow them to take? I suppose there is a line to be drawn, but everyone has to make concessions.

As far as going to war to save jews from persecution, I didn't say that. In fact, as I read history, it appears to me that the jews were pretty much disliked by every one, including most Americans. I don't think they should be all killed tough. We went to war to stop the advance of Hitler's war machine. And I still believe it was a necessary war. But who else was going to stop him, The French??? That's hilarious!!

 

I am trying to say what I said earlier:

We can and will fight among ourselves like brothers in a family feud. But let ANYONE threaten EITHER, and you will for a fact have both of them to deal with.

We will not start a civil war *because of a terrorist act* directly. But I know of a bunch of folks that have a definite limit to what they are willing to allow Mr. Ashcroft to get away with before they start picking up switches to whack him on the rear end with.

Now THAT part I can agree with 100%

Respectfully. . . if cantankerously ,
Mike.

 

Yes Sir!

According to the DOD, we can activate and deploy 230,000-reserve/National Guard under the empowerment act without the declaration of a national emergency. With 154,000 currently active and another 70-75,000 in the process of being called up, that should put us at our cap. There are an additional 644,000 reserves primarily intended for domestic defense, but they do not fall within the 90-day ready for foreign deployment class. My reserve cap information was dated 2002, so that may have changed or be influenced by new constitutional amendments in one of the Patriot Acts.

Current US overseas troop deployments:

Iraq – 146,000
Europe – 116,000
Japan – 43,000
S. Korea – 35,000
Afghanistan – 9,000
Other, smaller deployments – 10,000

While we could theoretically field another combat force the size of the one in Iraq, actuality is a different story. As I’m sure you’re aware, most of the preceding list of deployments is in permanent or semi-permanent facilities. Transportation of men and equipment would be the issue. DOD had to enter into an off-budget lease arrangement with Boeing for transports just to facilitate logistical support in Iraq. I’m not saying it couldn’t or wouldn’t be done, but I shudder to think what would necessitate it or what the cost would be.

Pure numbers are often deceiving. When you look at the number of remaining active duty military personnel currently stationed in the US and overseas, deployment to a another location would be difficult because civilian sub-contractors now handle a majority of the logistical support functions. I find it doubtful that most would join those units in the event of another Iraq. Think about how long it took us to assemble a force large enough to fight the Gulf War. Few reservists were activated in the Viet Nam action as conscription and casualties were still politically acceptable.

We still haven’t used our best weapons.

 

Ah... it appears to me the numbers you have are the numbers of reserve personnel currently mobilized. Not the number of personnel deployed. Mobilized for potential deployment and actual deployment are two very different things.

While the mobilized forces are staged and ready for deployment, they are not in theater.

Plus, the numbers you quote look reflective of reserves. The active forces (the ones who put on a uniform daily for a living) number WAY above what you quote. The USMC, the smallest of the bunch, numbers approximately 173,000 active, and several times that in reserves.

Believe me, we are not as tapped out as what it may seem. While we are more involved than we had been under previous administrations, there are still many more.

Please don't call me sir. I work too hard for a living.