Quick Question: Re, the War on Terror

I don't want this thread to become a bashing of Bush or the US. I have a simple question, which I'd like your opinions on.

Question: If Soviet Russia (prior to its collapse) or China, had been hit by a Terrorist strike, (similiar to Sept 11), and wished to start a "War on Terror" do you think the US would have allowed such a move to occur?

If it had been any other Superpower that had stated their War on Terrorist organisations, Rogue states, and anti-social Dictators, do you believe the US, NATO, or the UN would have allowed the invasion of two nations?

Personally I think the US would have done everything in its power to prevent Russia or another Nation from operating in the manner they have.

Comments?
(This is not a thread about whether it was a right decision or not. I want to know whether the US would have prevented such an action by another nation)
Cheers for staying in Topic (Hopes for a miracle) :rolleyes:

aidan_walsh

The UN attepmted to pass resolutions that effectively denied the US starting the war in Iraq, rememeber? Unfortunatly, its structured in such a way that the US could veto them and go on ahead anyway...

The UN attepmted to pass resolutions that effectively denied the US starting the war in Iraq, rememeber?

I know. It was shown that the UN without the US has no real power.

But the question remains, would the US have prevented another nation from acting in the manner they have, if Sept 11 had have happened to anotehr country? i.e. Russia, China etc

Frank Grimes

Deleted User wrote:

Question: If Soviet Russia (prior to its collapse) or China, had been hit by a Terrorist strike, (similiar to Sept 11), and wished to start a "War on Terror" do you think the US would have allowed such a move to occur?

No, but they probably would have funded or backed the counter offensive by the countries being invaded. e.g. their indirect support of the Mujahideen in Afghanistan when the Soviets invaded.
During the Cold war there is no way they would have stood back and allowed 2 communists states to act unilaterally. IMO anyway.

During the Cold war there is no way they would have stood back and allowed 2 communists states to act unilaterally. IMO anyway

And now? If it happened after the Cold War ended?

Flukey

Klaz, contrary to the common misconception, a war on terror has not started. This war is creating more terrorism. It is a war for terror, and judging by the rise of insurgency, it is very successful. If they want to tackle terrorism they have to address the causes, not the perpatrators. When they start to do that, then we will have a war on terror.

Frank Grimes

Deleted User wrote:

And now? If it happened after the Cold War ended?

It would all depend on whether it was in their intrests or not I would imagine. Or if it was some state they considered "friendly" being attacked.

billy the squid

Are russia not having their own little war on terror in Chechnya.

Frank Grimes

billy the squid wrote:

Are russia not having their own little war on terror in Chechnya.

That's a war of independence rather than an invasion of another country.

pickarooney

Not according to Putin.

Frank Grimes

pickarooney wrote:

Not according to Putin.

True, but it wouldn't be comparable to what the US did in Iraq.

chill

Deleted User wrote:

Question: If Soviet Russia (prior to its collapse) or China, had been hit by a Terrorist strike, (similiar to Sept 11), and wished to start a "War on Terror" do you think the US would have allowed such a move to occur?

Firstly the cold war is over. Secondly, Yes.

If it had been any other Superpower that had stated their War on Terrorist organisations, Rogue states, and anti-social Dictators, do you believe the US, NATO, or the UN would have allowed the invasion of two nations?

Yes

Personally I think the US would have done everything in its power to prevent Russia or another Nation from operating in the manner they have.

I don't agree.

pickarooney

Grozny is no picnic spot, in fairness.

Chill, can you expand a bit on your one liners. Saying you disagree without any reasoning is a bit weak.

Klaz, contrary to the common misconception, a war on terror has not started. This war is creating more terrorism. It is a war for terror, and judging by the rise of insurgency, it is very successful. If they want to tackle terrorism they have to address the causes, not the perpatrators. When they start to do that, then we will have a war on terror.

Flukey. A War on Terror has started. Its a Label. Its a new term for the dictionaries. Its bandied about like "freedom Fries". Its the new Fad. It exists. We might not agree with it or appreciate its aims, but it does exist, at least in many US minds.

Flukey

It may be called "The war on Terror" Klaz, but it certainly is not a war on terror. An examination by anyone of what is happening will see that and many predicted as such before it actually began. Those that think so in the US, are taking the governments word for it and not examining the facts, but then they are not actually given them a lot of the time. I'll say it again, if they want to launch a war on terror, I'll support it, but that means addressing the causes not the perpatrators. In the meantime, whatever you want to call it, it is still a war for terror.

Flukey I want this thread to remain on topic. If it continues. Your perception of what the War on Terror is, isn't part of the question.

The question was "If it had been any other Superpower that had stated their War on Terrorist organisations, Rogue states, and anti-social Dictators, do you believe the US, NATO, or the UN would have allowed the invasion of two nations?
"

Flukey

Point taken. Well on that one, we know the US has scant regard for what the UN says, when it doesn't agree with their point of view. The US would have been very quick to condemn attacks on other nations, except when that attack was made by one of their allies. The US would always follow its own agenda and turn a blind eye where they saw fit and scream foul on other occasions. These are the type of double standards that their foreign policies are prone too. They asked the UN to back their war, but as we saw, pressed ahead with it nevertheless. So to answer the question, it would depend on who that superpower was and what impact on US interests the invasion would have.

Blub2k4

It would depend on whether or not the US perceived it to be in its interest.