How would americans resist an invasion of the US itself ?

Great Debates
1

After reading the “methods” suggested by Dogface in this closed thread about leveling “rebel” cities in Iraq. I wonder how Americans would resist a military “liberation” of the mainland USA by a superior force of undetermined origin ?

People like Dogface naturally would drag their corpses in the street of course… other patriots and militia would start “terrorist” attacks against occupying forces. Especially considering the terrain in some parts of the USA and wide availability of guns and ammo.

Do you guys remember that old movie... .  [Red Dawn](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087985/) if I am not mistaken. Obviously the idea of resisting overwhelming invasion forces is a good thing... except when your the invader it seems. Any similarity with Iraq is no coincidence. Another movie that brings these contradictions up is the [Beast of War](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094716/). When the Russian Tank commander talks about resisting the Nazis as a kid... using only molotov cocktails. The younger russian later tells him how maybe they (the Russians) are the new "Nazis". That the Mujahadeen were the new heroic defenders.

Anyone think I'm wrong ? That Americans would roll over and let it be ? Is the comparison TOTALLY unwarranted somehow ?  There is no right or wrong only my side and their side ? Discuss.
2

I think at the start of this discussion it might be a good idea to define what exactly is a terrorist attack. The *Red Dawn * example in my opinion isn’t a good example since I believe that attacks against military targets as valid/warrented in a time of war. In other words I wouldn’t call them terrorist attacks. Likewise I don’t think most of the insurgent attacks in Iraq have been terrorist attacks since they were soldiers who were attacked. The civilian attacks from the day before yesterday might straddle the line – I’m not sure what role those particular civilian were playing – was it semi-military? – were they there to specifically support the military? I don’t know. I don’t think it would be a condemnation of Americans by showing that we would fight a guerilla style war of insurgency if we were ever invaded (a scenario that at this point in time couldn’t come to pass). I think this thread is heading for the pit.

3

Well, it totally depends on who’s doing the invading and why. You have to tell us if you mean a sovereign nation, with a government that can be negotiated with and can be pleaded with in the court of world opinion and the UN, or a large band of terrorists (who will doubtless squabble among themselves so much they’d be pretty ineffective). Also, Invading Ethnic Group would by definition have tons of people of its ancestry in the US–they would probably make good spies, and the Anericans would start infiltrating as soon as they could.

People like me would be active with the samizdat communications, organizing and helping the fighters behind the scenes. Any atrocities would be reported around the world instantly, and we would of course call on our NATO allies for help, etc. etc.

4

You are suggesting moral equivalency between a purely hypothetical, extremely vague situation and a very specific, very real one.

If the United States had been ruled for a quarter of a century by a thug every bit as brutish as Saddam Hussein, and if many of the rebels obviously just wanted to restore the old regime, there would be some similarity. If many of the rebels were religious fascists who wanted to destroy anything resembling a modern democracy, or if large numbers of the rebels were obvious sympathizers with the likes of the Ku Klux Klan or the Nazi party, there would be more similarity. If there was substantial support for the invaders, if a majority of citizens of the United States were glad that the old regime was gone, there would be still more similarity.

If the invaders were laying waste to the country, plundering every last scrap of wealth, raping the women, destroying the infrastructure, rounding up and slaughtering unarmed civilians * en masse * and so forth, then there would be far less similarity. The American-led coalition forces in Iraq are easily among the most benevolent invaders to have passed through that region in the last two to three thousand years. If the rebels confined their attacks to military and/or obviously political targets, if they had even the slightest shred of moral legitimacy, there would be less similarity.

Make no mistake, Rashak. The people we are fighting in Iraq are on the same moral, spiritual and intellectual level as the Nazis. That is not an exaggeration or a rhetorical remark, it’s an accurate assessment of the situation. The invasion of Iraq may or may not have been wise for purely practical reasons, but there is no doubt about the morality of it. The Baathist regime in Iraq deserved to be overthrown, and the only real question here is whether or not it was in our own best interest to do so.

The rebels in Iraq are more on the level of the Ku Klux Klan following the American Civil War rather than the French Underground of World War II. (A lot of people thought the KKK were heroes, too. Some still do.)

5

It also depends on how much of the populace supports the invasion. if any. If 75% are in favor there would be less resistance than if 75% were opposed. Because of the wide availability of guns & ammo (?) we could all dust off our RPGs hidden in our basements & start fighting. That reminds me, I haven’t cleaned my AK-47 in a long time. Better to be prepared.

6

If the United States had been taken over by, say, a Pat Robertson dictatorship, and another country, let’s say Canada, had gotten fed up with the brutal thuggery of the Robertson regime, and then Canada invaded and captured Robertson and promised to restore democracy and US sovreignty, and restored civil rights, then I certainly would do everything in my power to help the Canadians and fight against the mix of Klansmen, Militia members, Mafiosi, 700 Club members, and international terrorists who were resisting the Canadians.

On the other hand, if tomorrow some country, let’s say Canada, invaded the US, started rounding up Jews and sending the to concentration camps, installed a brutal dictatorship, started looting and pillaging and shipping US wealth back to Canada, then I would do everything in my power to resist the Canadians, including paramilitary attacks on Canadian soldiers and civilian Canadian occupation authorities, and I would assist the mix of militia members, national guard, and US military that were left fighting.

In other words, the mere fact that my country was invaded says nothing about whether fighting against the invaders would be moral or immoral. An invasion that restored freedom and promised restored sovreignty would be a good thing. An invasion that crushed freedom and ended national sovreignty would be a bad thing.

And even if resisting the invasion were a good thing, violence that did not advance the goal of expelling the invaders would be a bad thing. I believe that we have a natural right to use violence to protect ourselves. But only in proportion to the threat we face. I wouldn’t murder Canadian babies just in order to sap the will of the Canadian people to continue the invasion.

So on to Iraq. What is the goal of the Iraqi resistance fighters? To force the US and allied forces to withdraw from Iraq. But why? What will that accomplish? IIf US forces pull out there will certainly be no UN peacekeepers. Even if we accept the notion, as I do, that under certain circumstances violence is justified, it can only be justified if it is in pursuit of a good goal, if then. We can all agree that violence in pursuit of an evil end is evil, right? Violence in pursuit of a good goal might or might not be justified depending on the circumstances and one’s personal beliefs, but violence in pursuit of an evil goal is never justified.

So what would be the result of a US withdrawl from Iraq? Obviously, the country would become a dictatorship again, except possibly in the Kurdish areas. Either a secular Baathist thugocracy, or a Shiite theocracy, or a Sunni Taliban-style Al Qaida puppet state would eventually seize control of the country after an indeterminate period of civil war.

This is obviously a bad result. It is not obvious that Iraq will have a semblance of democracy if the occupation continues. But it is certainly obvious that there is no chance of anything except dictatorship if the occupation ends.

Therefore, the scenario posed by the OP is misguided and unhelpful.

7

…UNHELPFUL? The scenario is unhelpful to whom?

8

Well, of course this is all purely hypothetical. I can’t think of a scenerio where anyone could actually successfully invade and hold the US mainland. But pretending that they could, I can certainly see many of the US resisting. Its been said that US citizens are the most violent people in the world, and thats probably pretty true.

I don’t see how this necessarily compares to Iraq though, unless you put some of the pre-conditions mentioned by other posters (such as a harsh dictatorship, a significant percentage of the US population in favor of an invasion and regime change through violent means, etc). In addition you’d have to define exactly what a ‘terrorist attack’ under these circumstances constitutes. MY definition would be an attack against a non-military target…such as an attack against civilians. If US rebels went after military targets, killed soldiers, blew up stores of supplies, etc, then these would not really be ‘terrorist attacks’. When Iraqi ‘freedom fighters’ do such things in Iraq, they are acts of war, not terrorist. Unfortunately I think that many of the ‘Iraqi Freedom Fighters’ are a bit timid about mixing it up with the soldiers and have reverted to taking on softer targets. If US citizens started blowing up civilian targets then they too would be committing terrorist acts.

I’m not sure what you were getting at with this thread RM…what is it you are looking for here? I’m fairly sure you are trying to point at the Iraqi resistance and say “see, they are no different that you are if YOU were invaded” but there are some key differences (pointed out by other posters) that cause the comparison to fall appart IMO.

-XT

9

You just got on my list (not that I actually have one, or that anyone should or would care if Idid) of people I should definately listen to. [cheerleader mode] That was a great post[/cheerleader mode] Iwish I could have said it as well as you did.

OP: My first reaction was a bunch of jingoistic BS about how we would resist with every fiber of our being.

Then I was was tempted to respond that Red Dawn was a load of crap, sponsored by the CIA. You inspired me to investigate the issue. I appreciate your OP. It made me reconsider my beliefs.

I still think it would have been more honest to post what you are insinuating. That America is wrong for attacking Iraq. Despite the fact that I served in the US ARMY in Desert Storm, I happen to agree with you. I just wish you would not try to hide your true intent, behind a seemingly sincere question. I can’t really believe your question in the OP was sincere.

10

I expected that sort of reaction to the OP followed by the obligatory “Americans are barbarians too” response which is why I posted:

I was wrong so far though – I agree with idea that it is near impossible to imagine a scenario of invasion/occupation here in the US that could be comparable to the present situation in Iraq. LonesomePolecat, Lemur866, xtisme, and askeptic really gave good answers to what was essentially a loaded question.

11

I was agreeing before with this point of view, that the revels were on the whole supporting the old regime of Saddam. However, after his capture, what I see is what I feared: now more factions (both local and foreign) are moving in to control power in Iraq since they have no fear Saddam will be back, and that includes Al-Qeda.

12

If a country like the US invaded America how would Americans resist?
Well, if you did resist that country would label you an extremist.
And if you didn’t have a uniform, guns, or heavy artillary and relied on home-made bombs to resist they would label you a terrorist.
They would say that America had WMD and they felt they might use them and that America was therefore a threat to them even though other countries disagreed with them. They would say they were liberating us since only 51% of the nation wanted Bush as president and a huge percentage of them didn’t even vote.
They would bomb D.C. and if Bush and his staff hid among civilians they would bomb those neighborhoods to get him. Any civilians that died in these bombings were just casualties of war and would get an apology later.
They wouldn’t leave either until a new government of their choosing was set up and there were no more resistors.
Then after all was said and done they would want us to pay them back for the favor they did us by giving them some of our natural resources that their country needs desperately that we have plenty of. But they would say that was never really the reason they “liberated” us anyway.
Oh yeah, and it turns out they never actually found any of our WMD, but that doesn’t matter anymore.

13

If there was an actual invasion a lot of people would start doing a whole lot of different things. Some “true Patriots” might collaborate with occupation forces, while some “peacenics” might take to ruthless guerilla warfare. I tell you one thing that wouldn’t happen: crowds of people cheering while the statues of Lincoln or Jefferson were pulled down.

14

Of course they wouldn’t! There aren’t any, don’t you know? Sheesh…

15

I would cheer if a statue of Bush were pulled down. O_o

There are WAY too many hypotheticals in this scenario to make any reasonable discussion about. The OP does not specify the state of our government, the state of the government invading, public opinion, how long it has been, previous conflicts, etc etc.

For instance, I can state that if Bush declared a national emergency and named himself President for life, you bet your sweet ass I would resort to guerilla warfare to help Canada invade and depose him.

However, that does not mean I would support Mexico invading to reclaim the south west.

How would we resist? It depends on the situation. I personally wouldn’t go dragging people’s corpses through the street, but I can certainly see other Americans doing that.

Considering the fact that we have a voluntary military, using it to fight a civil war would obviously be harder. The instance of a civil war in America previously resulted in a wave of desertion, and that was a regional war. If Bush, say, ordered the military to deploy and attack American civilians, I think it is just as likely that the military refuse, or turn around and arrest him.

As a result, I think most rebellion in America would be civil, more akin to the 1960s and '70s than the 1860s. Protests, marches, maybe some limited riots, overthrowing of local governments, etc etc.

Of course, America hasn’t lived through decades of repression at the hands of a tyrant, and trying to predict the social changes that would result in is an entirely different topic.

16

This just in: huge crowds gathered at the major squares of all Americand cities, waiting for liberators to demolish monumental statues of Bush. Martian commanders provided the latest superior machinery to assist the population in crashing the symbols of long-hated despotism. However, as of this moment, a single statue has yet to be found. Anywhere, all over the country, no statue, not even a tinsy-weensy one! As we speak, frenzic searches are going in all directions. Meanwhile, some comments by observers outside the US:

Rashak Mani, “Incredible! Boggles even my mind! But the search must go on! No stone should be left unturned! There must be a statue there somewhere!”

Aldebaran, “This demonstrates once and for all the bottomless perfidy of all US’ers! Their pretenses are so transparent to a true Scholar! (distant bell rings) Sorry, have to go back to class… Salaam.”

Meanwhile, back in US, Berkley, CA a person in a crowd was spotted sitting on the sidewalk, sobbing uncontrolably, while saying, “They duped for such a long time. They looked like fascists, spoke like fascists, walked like fascists, we thought we were oppressed, we thought they were the worst scum to infest the face of this Planet ever and they couldn’t build even a single lousy statue for their leader…” The person’s name was not known, so it shall remain a Zagadka.

17

Quick, Rashak, get back here! Your thread is spinning into yet another anti-Bush screed! <yawn>

Frankly, your question is flawed and unanswerable and I really don’t see how a ‘superior force of unknown origin’ could be anybody but Martians. We have good friends to the North and South of us (who, BTW, might just have their own reaction to they let a force traipsing through their country to ours) and oceans east and west that we have a pretty good patrol on. Even if they were Martians, we have them under surveillance too :wink: NORAD patrols our skies, so we’d spot the planes dropping the parachutes.

There’s no way we could not identify the origin of the forces, either. Every language on earth is spoken here.

Come back and rephrase, please.

18

yawn

Your debating tactics are questionable. Come back when you have a point, instead of waxing idiotic. In fact, come back when you are able to comprehend a point.

If you had passed 3rd grade reading levels, you would have been able to connect points A and B in my post, which was about defining the hypothetical situation and assuming Bush declared himself President for life. Not that anyone would want you to sprain anything trying to read, but you may want to give it some consideration next time.

So, in conclusion, you’re making fun of someone for hypothetical actions in a hypothetical situation based on a hypothetical question, because you equated Saddam with Jefferson. O_o

19

Zagadka,

I thought you were joking, because everybody knows there no Bush statues in US, at least on public display. It didn’t occur to me that you were seriously “defining the hypothetical situation”. I admit, I totally missed points A and B. But then, I never went to Berkley.

I apologize.

20

Shocking and appaling! Anybody who ever graduated from kindergarten (in Berkeley, CA) could immediately come up with many more possibilities, such as Venusians, Mercurians, Solarians etc…

I’m joking! JOKING! Don’t SHOOT! Pleeeeaaase…