Can They Strike Back?

TIME ^ | January 26, 2003 | Romesh Ratnesar

[Mossad1967]

U.S. war planners believe the battle will go quickly. But Saddam or al-Qaeda may respond in ways that could prove catastrophic—over there and here at home...

[My Favorite Headache]

TIME has been releasing some real garbage so called "journalism" in the last 24 hrs.

[SamAdams76]

We've already had a catastrophic attack in this country - on Sept. 11, 2001. If we proceed with the war on terrorism, there may be more. If we do nothing, there surely will be.

[Dog]

Explain how so??

[Bahbah]

"But that means the risk of retaliation against Americans is not confined to the battlefield"

As if I would not willingly share the danger. After 9/11, George Bush threw out the first ball of the World Series. The cowardly Clinton would never have done that. The phonies say we are not being asked to sacrifice, but why should we create phony sacrifices. I, for one, refuse to live in fear and cowardice while the best military force in the history of the world prepares to give their all. We will not falter and we will not fail, wherever the time to stand up comes.

[Bahbah]

Garbage is an accurate description.

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

And if we just left Hitler alone the world would be so much better now too. Yes, when we attacked, Hitler was pissed and probably decided to be mad at us.

[martin_fierro]

TIME has been releasing some real garbage so called "journalism" in the last 24 YEARS.

Written BY dumb broads, FOR dumb broads.

[punster]

"The cowardly Clinton would never have done that."

William Judas Clinton has a yellow streak a mile wide down his back. Maybe not a full mile wide, but it is wide enough that you would think of the yellow brick road.

[Bahbah]

Yup.

[omega4412]

I think Time has a point, and the US ought to be preparing for such an attack -- sealing the borders, interning enemy aliens, getting the exact coordinates of the Kaaba...

[Cicero]

America is at risk, whether we fight back against the terrorists or not.

Attacking Iraq will doubtless increase the risks in the short run. But sitting back and waiting for the next thing to happen would be far worse. They will come against us anyway, and the more time and leisure we give them, the more encouragement we give them that their terrorism works, the worse the results will be in the long run.

Europe is taking the other tack--crossing their fingers, sitting back, and doing nothing. As a result, they will probably get hit too. Not only that, but they will probably be under Sharia law by the end of the century, unless they change their ways pretty soon.

[RightOnTheLeftCoast]

LOL!

But yes... it's the classic balancing of action vs. inaction. And almost universally--in diplomacy, military strategy or even in the business world--inaction is the costliest option.

And after WTC attack #1, the Cole, the various embassy and barracks bombings, assorted airliner and civilian attacks, possibly OKC, and now 9/11... it's waaaay past time for us to be fretting about how we might make Al Qaeda or Saddam mad if we act to take them out.

Somehow Kaddafi got the message, thanks to the timely and muscular response delivered by Ronald Reagan. Saddam has refused to. It's time for him to go!

[boris]

"I think Time has a point, and the US ought to be preparing for such an attack -- sealing the borders, interning enemy aliens, getting the exact coordinates of the Kaaba..."

Almost. Not interning; revoke the visas of all enemy aliens and deport them. Then begin doing background investigations on "naturalized citizens" from terrorist states to flush out the sleepers and moles.

This should have been done on 9/12/01.

"Internment" is a dirty word and nobody would allow it, because of the Japanese internment in WWII. But visas are revokable RIGHT NOW by presidential decree, and National Guard troops can round them up and ship them home if they will not leave on their own.

A visa is an invitation to visit our country; it can be revoked. It confers no rights other than to be here.

--Boris

[niteowl77]

I think Time has a point, and the US ought to be preparing for such an attack -- sealing the borders, interning enemy aliens, getting the exact coordinates of the Kaaba...

While I am viscerally a member of the "Kaaboom (the) Kaaba Koaaltion," it's obvious that #3 should be a spoiler play. The other two? Certainly!

[Monti Cello]

I don't think it's something we can dismiss out of hand. A dirty nuke or the right chem/bio delivery could take out that many no problem. Hell, if the WTC had come down before evacuation, we'd be counting in the 10s of thousands already.

The big unanswered question is have they shot their wad, or do they have capacity to do more...

The die will be cast, we may take some shots in the short term. I live in a major urban area and I support the war, risks accepted. As for victory, I'm more interested in what OUR response will be if we get hit again.

[The Great Satan]

Administration officials cite the thousands of tons of chem-bio agents the Iraqis have never accounted for, including huge quantities of anthrax, botulinum toxin, aflatoxin and ricin. "If you think about the devastation that would be wrought by biological weapons," says Myers, "in some scenarios, it could be as devastating or more devastating than a nuclear weapon."

Of course he can strike back. Of course he has lock-tight back-end security. Why do you think, eighteen months after Saddam flattened the two tallest towers in New York and smashed a hijacked airliner into the Pentagon, we still haven't hit him back? What do you think this is all about? How naive can you get?

[speekinout]

It would be exceedingly hard for a ragtag group to kill 10,000 to 100,000 Americans.

No, it wouldn't. A diplomatic pouch of one of the substances that we know Saddam has could take out everyone in the NY subway system, with enough to spare for the DC subway.
Not to mention that we know some of them have been looking at our water supply systems.

[tet68]

It would be exceedingly hard for a ragtag group to kill 10,000 to 100,000 Americans.

Hard yes, exceedingly Yes also, impossible no.

Sadly, you may live to see it, then again you may not.