This thread was about what the expected response would be. Maybe you missed that. As such, given the recent past history, I could easily see where it would be more chest pounding followed by invasions - possibly Iran or Syria (?) or any other place that is convenient (like Iraq was).
I must have missed when Iran and/or Syria was under UN sanction…and also when they were forced to sign a cease fire agreement with the US stating what they would and would not do. Seems to me there was a HUGE difference between Iraq and Iran/Syria…unless you are saying we found evidence directly linking them to some theoretical bombing. In which case I’ll tackle your assertion of invasion from that standpoint.
Simply put, your assertion that the US would (let alone COULD) invade either Iran or Syria, even if we have the goods on either country and have all the evidence that they done it down cold, is just ridiculous. The situation between how things were pre-Iraqi invasion and today is completely different. The US military is pretty much completely committed at this point. Invading either Iran or Syria would entail staging out of Iraq…something that just isn’t viable (compared with staging out of Kuait/Saudi for the Iraqi invasion…both peaceful and relatively secure areas). Even if we had the extra forces just laying around waiting to be used (as we did pre-Iraq), have you looked at a map lately? Check out the terrain in and around Iran on any possible invasion route. Then think about the difference in population between Iraq and Iran…and the difference in attitude between the people in Iraq and Iran…and Syria. Then think about the difference in military capability between Iraq (post GWI) and the current Iranian and Syrian capabilities.
Now, if you want to claim we’d bomb the shit out of Iran/Syria if we had the goods on them, then I’m with you…we would. Toss a few cruise missiles their way? Yep. Perhaps send in a few crates full of arms for potential ‘rebels’? Could happen. But invasion? You are off the deep end there unless you are talking a decade or so from now.
-XT
Please don’t post in this thread anymore if you don’t have anything constructive to add. This thread has nothing to do with my feelings about 9/11 or Iraq. I haven’t speculated on anything. I did so purposefully to avoid hearing people say I poisoned the debate by asking a loaded question. If you don’t like the responses others have given, then please feel free to point out the areas in which you disagree. It doesn’t add anything to come here and whine like a baby about how “stupid” you think people’s ideas are without providing an explanation.
We could always take this to the Pit and liven it up a bit, if we are going to call people stupid for their opinions. But, what real evidence did we have to invade Iraq? None. To date no WMD were found nor any capability to create them (Blix, CIA, etc). No yellow cake uranium, enriched uranium, etc. found (Blix, CIA, etc). No bilological weapons laboratories (Blix, CIA, etc). No ties to Al Queda (until after we stirred up the hornets nest and made it easier for them to operate in Iraq). Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.
As for America bashing, shrug. You give loyalty to your country at all times, you give your loyalty to the government when it deserves it.
brickbaconsaid: “Then why did you post if you think it’s a stupid thread?”
Lemur866 said: “Why did I think it was a stupid idea?”
:wally
But your opinion that the US would or could stage another invasion is based more on your emotions than reality. As far as evidence goes…afaik no one is making the assertion that there was evidence of anything in Iraq, so 90% of your points above are strawmen. Doesn’t mean that the US didn’t have plenty of excuses (curiously lacking for an Iranian or Syrian adventure as I tried to point out) it would use…the WMD was just a smoke screen to attempt to legitimize the invasion to the American people.
The point I was trying to make (if you were directing your post at me…to me its unclear who you are making this too as it seems kind of a strawman as no one is argueing the points you are speaking too) was that Iraq was kind of a special circumstance. Logistically it was easy for the US to build up forces to stage an invasion. The terrain was perfect for our style of armored warfare. We could more easily supply the invasion force from realitively secure bases in Kuait and Saudi. The Iraqi armed forces were weakend still from the first gulf war. Population wise the Iraqi’s have a lot less people than, say, Iran…and at least in theory they would be a lot less fanatic about defending Iraq than Iraninans or Syrians would be about defending their nation. There were plenty of existing circumstances that at least gave the US a fig leaf of legitimacy in invading Iraq (i.e. Saddams behavior, violations of the cease fire agreements from the first GW, other UN violations) that don’t exist for Iran or Syria. And of course the biggest thing is…we no longer have the free military or logistic assets to stage another invasion, as they are currently occupied in Iraq.
If you would like to defend your position that the US would or could knee jerk a random invasion of another gulf state then have at it. If you feel you need to take it to the pit…again, knock yourself out Steve.
-XT
The Pit invitation was to Lemur, not you. As for evidence, who needs evidence? Just invent as you go, and change the reason as it suits. We’ve seen it happen. Just recently, there was a half hearted claim that the WMD were now being hidden in Syria, and some words of “concern” about Iran’s nuclear program. Afghanistan was a legit target. They were ruled by the Taliban, who were actively supporting Al Queda. In that case the invasion of them was justified. In Iraq, there was a deliberate attempt to create a connection to Al Queda, and there were claims of WMD of all sorts. None of those claims panned out. However, as you so well described it, Iraq was a easy target - already weak and demoralized, and with the terrain that would favor our battle tactics.
Saddam was an evil bastard and needed to go. However, he was no where near being a threat to the U.S. He simply didn’t have the capability.
Ok, wasn’t sure who your post was directed at there. 
Ok, leave aside the evidence thing for a moment, as well as the excuses we could or would use to stage another invasion. From a practical standpoint: Where would the military force come from for another invasion? Where would the supplies come from? You are talking a major effort to invade (and I presume attempt to occupy) another nation state…while still maintaining our occupation of Iraq so the wheels don’t completely come off there. Unless you are speculating that the US would simply abandon Iraq…in which case, how would we supply our field army (again, look at a map and think about how we get the bullets and beans to the guys invading)? I know you aren’t a military guy but just think about it for a moment…where would the troops come from for a new invasion? Where would the beans and bullets come from since our logistics is already strapped supporting Iraq and Afghanistan? Where would the MONEY come from as we are already strapped paying for Iraq and Afghanistan?
You seem to want to pound on the US for our invasion of Iraq. Thats fine by me, pound away. It was a stupid thing for the US to do. But you are then trying to project our invasion of Iraq with all its special circumstances into a new invasion of some other country (either legitimately or on new trumped up charges). From a practical standpoint the US just doesn’t have the means to enact another invasion/occupation whether Bush wants it or not, whether the American people want it or not. Even if we assume a draft and a total militarization of our economy to put us completely on a war footing, you are talking years before the US could potentially invade another country.
Thats all true and I never said differently. But Saddam and Iraq had many unique factors that made it possible for the US to invade it…factors that just don’t exist for any other nation (with the possible exception of North Korea and thats a bit further afield…and afaik even North Korea isn’t under direct UN sanction, hasn’t signed a cease fire agreement like Saddam did, etc). He was no threat, there were no WMD…but there were still factors that allowed the US and its allies the fig leaf of legitimacy it needed to spark an invasion. And all those factors weren’t made up. To invade either Syria or Iran (or any other gulf state) without real direct proof that they had attacked the US…well, those factors that allowed the invasion of Iraq just aren’t there for the other nations in the region. And even if they were there, if we DID have direct proof that, say, Iran supported and supplied, trained and equiped some theoretical group to directly attack the US, even then we just don’t have the capability to do more than perhaps bomb the shit out of their infrastructure. Invasion at this point is pure fantasy…IMHO.
At any rate, I’ve given my own comments on the OP and what I think the US could and would do from a realistic standpoint. I dont want to further hijack this thread or piss off the OP.
-XT
Since the OP framed the query in a way that would discourage answers from a non-US perspective the ensuing reply is only tangentially relevant to the question proper. Therefore here goes nothing.
Seems to me from an international perspective the world at large would no doubt condenm the atrocities themselves – simply no excuse for random murder – but by the same token, many/most would feel that by your very actions you’ve only added fuel to the fire thus making the hypothetical (counter) strike rather unavoidable. IOW, whatever outpouring of sympathy you were afforded would be nowhere near to the massive spate you recieved after 9/11.
Surely you can figure out why.
Sorry, I didn’t intent to do that. I hope everyone feels free to comment on the question. I would love to hear from non-Americans.
Frankly , with the multicultural policys Canada has had in place since Pearson , I would be really interested to find out what the reaction would be if it was the Bloor/Danforth line in Toronto , or any big Canadian Mass Transit System.
While I doubt anyone would be screaming to invade some country , the splatter from the event could potentially set off a whole host of problems. Starting with the Green types that want more people to use Mass Transit, Buzz SUV sales might actually go through the roof.
Declan
I don’t see, after thinking about it, how we could invade another country now, even if we wanted to. As you pointed out, the military is already stretched thin. The only way would be to bring back the draft, and that would be a political firestorm. Likewise, there would have to be a fairly serious tax increase to finance the effort. Add in the different terrain, and an overextended and fatigued Army, and it would be a disaster.
My guess is that if that if there were evidence of overseas training and support for the bombings there would be most certainly be calls for the blood of furriners. Unless, of course, they were trained inside the borders of staunch allies such as Pakistan in which case I suppose it would be a matter for international cooperation in law enforcement.