Biggest Challenege for Next Pres

[lehighguy]

Public opinion isn't shaped by reality, and popular fallacies often guide our public life. I'm asking how one handles the situation outlined, as a president.

[lehighguy]

Your asking questions about reality, I'm asking questions about public perception.

As for what is stopping them now, I believe it is because they have nothing to gain.

[lehighguy]

Most people seem to be arguing that the "fighting them over there so we don't fight them over here" argument is false. The question I'm asking isn't whether it is false or not. Reality is irrelevant to public opinion.

If the above happens, and joe six pack buys into the argument, what is the next play. That's the question I'm asking.

[samsonite2100]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps our inflammatory presence is a goal of Bin Laden's. He could never topple America, but he could use us to shape the ME as he sees fit.

As far as #2, I believe small scale terrorism is completely unpreventable. How do you stop someone from building a bomb in their basement and blowing themselves up in a public place. You can't. If we haven't had terrorist strikes since 9/11, it's because no broad based effort has been mounted by terrorists.

[/ QUOTE ]

The US attacking Iraq was the greatest PR coup imaginable for Bin Laden. It laid to rest any doubt in the minds of moderate muslims everywhere that the America is anything other than the ultimate infidel presence, bent on subjugating Islam.

Also, I agree that there will be another terrorist attack at some point, but to say that we can't do anything isn't exactly true. From what I've read, international intelligence has resulted in two fairly major plots being stopped (sorry, forget the cite), not to mention the foiled London-to-America plane attack last year.

I can only assume that having resources and intelligence freed up by leaving Iraq would increase our ability to ferret out these plots.

[latefordinner]

The Repubs tend to more aggro about these sorts of things (Clinton impeachment etc) so I could certainly see a movement towards impeachment for not "protecting the homeland" here. Probably not though. The Democrats have shown the ability to be just as warmongering as the Repubs so I doubt we'd see a sane response. We'd probably just start bombing Syria or Iran.

[lehighguy]

Targeted domestic counter terrorism can stop a large number of attacks. But I'm convinced, not matter how hard we try, we can never 100% prevent these things from happening. People need to learn to accept this reasonable risk instead of reacting in such crazy mad ways.

[Huh?]

[ QUOTE ]
Most people seem to be arguing that the "fighting them over there so we don't fight them over here" argument is false. The question I'm asking isn't whether it is false or not. Reality is irrelevant to public opinion.

If the above happens, and joe six pack buys into the argument, what is the next play. That's the question I'm asking.

[/ QUOTE ]

it is a really dumb question

[lehighguy]

Why? It is a pretty plausible situation.

[revots33]

I'm not sure if this is any different than asking "what would Bush do if 10 car bombs go off in the US tomorrow?"

Actually maybe that's a better question... if car bombs started going off in the US, would Bush handle it differently than H. Clinton/Obama and if so how?

I think the issue of pulling out of Iraq is basically irrelevant to the main question, which is what would the US do if the attacks you describe happpen?

[Huh?]

[ QUOTE ]
Why? It is a pretty plausible situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

whoever the pres is, if bombs start going off in the us--no one will link it to leaving iraq unless it is iraqi's doing the blowing up...they'll rally around the president...we'll all get patriotic blah blah blah...we'll re-invade and bomb afganistan...blow some more [censored] up...and then not finish the job per usual. republicans will blame it all on bill clinton, the gays, athiests, and illegal immigration while the democrats will blame Bush.