It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Critique my "If America can do it, why can't we?" hypothetical

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 12:47 PM
(putting myself in the shoes of a non-US citizen with no patriotic attachments for this thread).. The one thing I just can't get over with this War on Terror is how the US is justifiably allowed to invade other countries that did not even directly attack them. Another chapter in the World Police saga that obviously has more ulterior motives than peaceful ones. I mean I respect the fact that they're trying to clamp down on terrorism there after allllllllll 1 foreign terroristic actions they've endured in the last 50 years (anthrax letters were obviously an inside attack). So my question/hypothetical is this..

What if a country like Russia had a 9/11 like incident and it was discovered that the perpetrators were all anti-Russian American extremists. Couple that with the fact that they (the US) probably have more WMD's then every other country in the world combined. And again couple that with the ridiculous borrowing/spending, a President who can preemptively pardon himself from war crimes, and a military who insists on imposing its will wherever it sees fit. What would stop the Russians from being just as justified for invasion then the US was to invade the middle east?

Now, I realize there are plenty of simple and complex reasons to explain how one is more justified then the other, but on the surface how are they different? Russia feels vulnerable, they see there could be some problems with other extremist Americans potentially causing more damage to their country and would like to prevent it from happening again by keeping closer tabs on the US people. The only difference I see between the two situations is they wouldn't have the BS argument of installing democracy in the US much like the US did with Iraq.

Also, I don't pretend to know anything about diplomatic policies, rules between countries with allegiances/treaties, and other political mumbo-jumbo that can be interpreted 15 different ways so there is always ambiguity.. so maybe I'm missing a glaring point in this hypothetical situation, and if that's the case I'd like to be filled in. But, if I'm close enough to the generally perceived notion of why we invaded, then ultimately my question is what makes the US, a mere baby brother in years established compared to the countries that make up the cradle of civilization, so special that they can invade other places with barely any domestic opposition and hardly any concrete evidence to substantiate it's occupation?

Please, someone, explain to me how my beloved USA became so ego-maniacal and warmongering so easily.

posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 09:17 PM
You need to go back to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and take a look at the UN Resolutions that went into effect once the Iraqi army was sent packing back home.

Saddam broke those resolutions repeatedly. Clinton ordered countless air strikes against the Iraqis during his administration because of those violations.

After 9/11, GW Bush felt that with Saddam having played games with the world community for a decade and with the intelligence gleaned from the global intelligence community indicating that Saddam was still manufacturing WMDs that it was too much of a risk to just to keep letting off him the hook.

I know that if you just started following these affairs and have been hearing only the shrill criticisms of the political left and other enemies of the US that you wouldn't know about all of these things, but this is basically how it all unfolded.

If you care to do the research and interpret the data without bias, you will see that for the most part, Congress agreed with the available intelligence that Saddam was a threat to his region and the world and voted to grant the president the authority to invade Iraq.

It was in a sense a preemptive invasion, but it was not an invasion without sufficient provocation.

The leftists have a very convenient memory loss, but the facts are documented and they are out there for those who are interested.

[edit on 2008/1/22 by GradyPhilpott]

posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 10:50 PM
Grady is, of course, correct. For those with short memories, let's read this quote again:

"If you use pressure, we will deploy pressure and force. We know that you can harm us although we do not threaten you. But we too can harm you. Everyone can cause harm according to their ability and their size. We cannot come all the way to you in the United States, but individual Arabs may reach you."
--Saddam Hussein to Ambassador April Glaspie, August 1990

Saddam then invaded Kuwait and we and who remembers how many other nations united to drive him out. His threats of terrorism against us were real and the evidence at the time (throughout the '90s) that he was up to something nefarious was pretty well undisputed.

Hindsight is 20/20. But, given the evidence at the time (and in the wake of 9-11), the pre-emptive strike against the Saddam regime was justified, imo.

And, btw, I think your Russia hypothetical is mistaken. If we had done it in the same way as your example, we would have attacked Saudi Arabia, not Iraq. You have to seperate the people from their regime.

posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 08:26 AM
Other nations can, but they dont have the means because most armed forces are really little more then well trained police forces and coast guards.

How can you invade another nation when your "army" dosent even have enough funding to purchase fuel for training exercises?

posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 11:54 AM
The difference is, the U.S would actually try to round the extremists up themselves, if that were to ever happen. Most of these other countries have no desire to do so.. They hate America as much as the extremists do.

[edit on 23-1-2008 by SpeakerofTruth]

posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 04:10 PM

Originally posted by Tuning Spork
If we had done it in the same way as your example, we would have attacked Saudi Arabia, not Iraq.

It's all about diplomacy.
Clinton had many chances to kill Bin Laden. One particular time OBL was riding with a shiek from UAE, Clinton had him in the crosshairs but decided not to bomb the vehicle because the shiek was in the process of purchasing many F-16's.
Bill didn't want to kill the sale.

Don't be so arrogant in assuming they should think the same as Americans because it's not about borders and not about where the attacker were from. it's about a certain type of brotherhood mentality that we won't understand.

To better understand why Iraq was attacked, think about this analogy:
If one of your upstairs toilets began to leak and eventually did thousands of dollars worth of damage to your downstairs living area, would you not check and fix the remaining toilets upstairs to make sure this doesn't happen again.

Yeah, I know we're unfortunately talking about toilet seats at expensive Pentagon prices, but you should at least be very thankful your kids won't have to worry about Uday and Qusay.

Regarding the original question, I guess it's still safe to call the US a melting pot.

posted on Feb, 13 2008 @ 01:42 AM
In your scenario Russia would not invade America because there would be no need. Now ignoring the fact that the scale of such an operation would be nearly impossible to plot on our soil without us having already intervened.

A joint investigation will be conducted and those found responsible will be detained for prosecution. also considering that those responsible will have just murdered thousands of innocent civilians, there should not be a problem extraditing them to an international court for justice.

The Taliban knowingly harbored terrorists, and refused to cooperate in bringing them to justice, in fact gave them support. This just will not happen with the US in the given scenario.

If Russia wants to Invade Alaska for its oil and minerals, well then it is welcome to try in a declaration of war. Let us just hope they have what it takes to stick it through in direct military confrontation, cuz we aint backing down from our own land. Niether have the Iraqis. they will eventually, and have already begun to accept the truth and intgrate into the Free World.

Now of course Sadaam was a threat, he had repeatedly utilized chemiczal weapons to perform terrorism and death to thousands of innocent people under his leadership. WHO THE # does that? People cant just let that # fly! So he had to be removed. Now the iraqi are simply just taking their time to adjust to the new personal liberties they were deprived of before.
At least an entire generation has only known Sadaam's terrifying rule and warfare with multiple enemies. A little more television access and programming, and Iraq will be quietly assimilated into the empire over time.

I dont believe Russia is going to want to have all their cities without power and clean water. Our air power is far too sophisticated for them to get very far past Alaska or Hawaii. And Canada is just not going to sit by. Plus we have air-bases to utilize all over the Russia land boundry with Europe. We have the power and numbers to attack them from Both sides before they are even able to reach the continental mainland. An occasional errant missle may make it through. Not nearly enough to significantly even put a damper on any industrial capacity.

But just the mention of such a scenario is ridiculous, both parties are a little more evolved than that.

[edit on 2/13/2008 by DYepes]

new topics

top topics


log in