Insurgency in America - What would you do?

Great Debates
1

Let’s set the stage:

The world watches with bemused interest during the 2000 US election. And reacts with cynicism, contempt and anger; first when the popular vote is overturned by the electoral college, and then again when a divided Supreme Court passes judgement upon the legitimacy of the elections and confers the presidency upon one of the candidates.

Accusations fly at the United Nations. World leaders point to the United States as hypocrites. Democratic governments deride the US for not conforming to democratic principles. Dictators use the US as an example for continuing their oppressive and repressive regimes.

After the installed US government adamantly refuses to bow to world pressure, (and in fact enacts laws that start to chip away at formerly accepted constitutional rights), China threatens economic sanctions, including blockades of shipping. Other countries join China in their condemnation, most notably North Korea. Many European countries refuse to join in the sanctions, but also refuse to take action against the sanctions. US policies throughout history are examined, and a case is developed that the US presents a threat to world peace. The rise of the religious right, and the deliberate increasing inclusion of religion into governmental policies convinces the nations of the world that the US is becoming a nation of religious fanatics. A history of racism and oppression within the US is easy enough to document, and even current day events lead outside nations to conclude that some are “more equal than others” in this government. World opinion starts to shift to taking military action.

After the inevitable military skirmishes over shipping lanes, China produces an ultimatum through the UN: Return the country to a democratic government, decommission nuclear weapons, and accept United Nations guidance and representation. As might be expected, the US refuses.

After lengthy and continued discussion at the UN, a coalition of forces (chiefly China and North Korea, but also represented by Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Libya and Lichtenstein) invade the US with a show of military force, and proceed to occupy the country. Their avowed intent was to restore democracy to this country, to remove US interests from other countries, and to keep US from developing nuclear armaments. It was promised that there was no intent of using this as an excuse to take American resources.

Death and destruction rain down on major American cities, and the casualties mount. Neither American military personnel nor civilians are safe from the invasion forces, and are killed (seemingly indiscriminately). Underground resistance cells are formed, and people are jailed and tortured to reveal anything they know, even if they are innocent. Resistance fighters find their way across the border from Canada.

A government is installed, chiefly staffed by those who claim a following and by those who collaborate with the occupiers. Not surprisingly, a criminal background is not a deterrent to governing.

The occupation devolves into chaos. Infrastructure is largely damaged with no schedule for repair. Bombs (including suicide bombers) take the lives of the occupiers, although many more from the US have died. The occupiers have no idea how long they will be here.

Okay, obviously none of this happened. Nor is it even likely given the size and military strength of the country. Let’s just assume that this country was less able to defend itself, and this scenario did come to pass. After all, it could happen to some other country…

What would your reaction be to this? Would you see this as an opportunity to grab power by allying yourself with the occupiers? Would you be up on a rooftop with a rifle? Would you keep your head down, and concentrate on how you were going to put food on the table?

2

This seems more like a polling question then a debate, but;

For me, it would depend on family. I wouldnt want to do anything that may put my family at risk. If that means I keep my head down, I keep my head down. If it doesnt matter what I do, my family is at risk, then im on the roof with a rifle.

3

I doubt if I’d actively fight - I’m almost 50 - but I certainly would support the insurgents in any way I could against a foreign occupier of the U.S.

4

It wasn’t intended as an IMHO, but I will accept the moderator’s decision.

This was more to determine whether anyone who would support rebellion against an occupier in this country would or could support or declaim the same activity in another country.

5

Since having dual citizenship would probably seriously screw me over in this scenario (too “simpathizer” for americans and too american for the invaders), I’m not really sure if keeping my head down would be such a good idea, so I guess the rooftop is or me.

6

I think the United States could defeat the entire world in a defensive war first off.

However, if it came to it and there was some kind of Red Dawn scenario, I’d be capping the occupiers most definitely. As Lincoln said, an invading army wouldn’t be able to take a drink from the Ohio river.

However, Sanctions against the US would drop the US into a more manageable global position anyhow. I don’t see invasion as likely.

However, I don’t begrudge the insurgency in Iraq, we are occupiers pure and simple.

Erek

7

Can I add to the scenario? What would the American insurgents do to those Americans who joined hands with the occupiers and sucked up to them?

8

Look, there’s a big difference between an authoritarian dictatorship like China invading and occupying a liberal democracy like the US, and the situation in Iraq.

Notably, the contention that China would be trying to “restore democracy”. If they aren’t restoring democracy in China they certainly aren’t going to do so in a conquered enemy nation.

The OP is stupid. If China was able to occupy the US the US wouldn’t be important any more. If we can’t even defend ourselves against a third world military like China how are we a threat to world peace? We’d have to imagine total economic collapse of the US.

I know, I know, you just want all the Bush Apologists ™ to imagine how they’d feel if their country was invaded. How do you warmongers like them apples?

Except it wouldn’t be that way. If we just imagine that the US really was a third world dictatorship and China really was a first world liberal democracy then you’ve changed the world so much that there are no parallels between that world and this. Why even bother calling your fantasy victim nation “The US” and the fantasy agressor “China”? Why not call the fantasy victim “The US” and the fantasy agressor “Iraq” or vice-versa if that’s what you’re really getting at?

And we have real world examples of what happens when liberal democracies are invaded by dictatorships, see WWII and resistance in Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, and France.

But to answer your question directly:

Liberal democracy is more important than nationalism. In the case of the US and other first world countries, nationalism and liberal democracy are in harmony. In the case of Iraq and other third world dictatorships, nationalism and liberal democracy are opposed. I will fight against anyone who attempts to destroy our liberal democracy, whether foreign or domestic, and I will fight alongside anyone who attempts to preserve or restore our liberal democracy, whether foreign or domestic.

Your OP leaves those questions deliberately vague, and therefore deliberately sidesteps whether the US is worth fighting for or against.

9

How about those members of the “indurgency” that have come there from other countries? Are they equally okay with you? Or how about the Iraqi insurgency that intentionally targets and blows up their fellow women and children Iraqis?

10

It would really depend.

Are the occupiers trying to eliminate the Constitutional rights I currently enjoy? Are they forcing me to worship a partcular way? Are they looting our museums and banks?

Is their way of dealing with the captured insurgents say, cutting off their heads on national television?

Then yes, I would be planting bombs and sniping like a mofo.

But if they are inforcing Constitutional rights, allowing the rule of law to govern, making their occupational forces responsible for what happens to the public under their care, fixing roads and reopening schools, and have stated and proven that they are driving towards a reformed US Gov’t under the model before the lunatics who took over and made us able to be invaded in the first place, then I may be persuaded to drop a dime on folks placing bombs in schools and hospitals to prove a point.

Would never, ever happen though. Ever. For China to cut off trade with us would be like dropping a nuke on Beijing to prove a point. The point might get made, but it would be suicide for the government to do so.

11

And besides, China can’t cut off trade with the US without cutting their own throats. When you owe the bank $1,000 dollars and can’t pay, you’ve got a problem. When you owe the bank $10,000,000 dollars and can’t pay, the bank has a problem.

China is dependent on exports to the US. Those factories have to keep running, or all the workers there are going to be out in the streets. Put millions of unemployed workers on the streets and pretty soon communist party officials are going to be swinging from lampposts.

12

Don’t oversimplify things please. American foreign policy has contributed to the plight of muslims across the entire middle east. They are fighting a war against what they see as Imperial Aggression. They are fighting a war against WHAT I see as imperial aggression.

Erek

13

Speaking of oversimplification

14

Uhm, the popular vote was not “overturned” but the electoral college. The popular vote has no operative meaning in a US presidential election. I won’t bother correcting the other numerous errors…

As for the question raised bythe OP: I’d strap a bomb to myself and blow up the nearest marketplace or school-- whichever contained the highest concentration of children. Is that the answer you’re looking for?

15

So, in fighting a war against a Chinese invasion of the US, would you drive a carbomb into a crowd of American children? All in order to save the US against Chinese imperialism? Would you randomly murder US civilians to remind them that the Chinese security forces can’t protect them? Would you murder blacks to remind them that they are second class citizens and they shouldn’t get any ideas about equality now that the Chinese are in charge? Would you murder European journalists because they were the running dogs of Chinese imperialism? Would you murder aid workers from neutral countries on the grounds that anything that made life easier for the American people made them more likely to accept Chinese imperialism?

16

You lost me at “skirmishes over shipping lanes” that did not turn out badly for the Chinese. The US is a naval power. The chance that the Chinese and NK could take on the US Navy and live to regret it is less than slim.

But to play out the scenario -

Exactly how is China going to invade the US without months of preparation that would be as obvious as a cannonball in a bushel basket? You think the Red Army is going to come over the polar ice cap? But let’s pretend this could happen.

Pyongyang would cease to exist. And if the invading forces did not turn tail PDQ, Beijing would be a radioactive graveyard long before they could possibly secure the missile silos in Nebraska and North Dakota. North Korea can’t reach us at all, and there aren’t enough missiles in the Red Chinese arsenal to stop us from wiping their ancient and venerable country off the face of the fucking map.

The US has The Bomb, and we do not fuck around when we are pissed off enough. The Taliban gave refuge to someone who killed a couple thousand of our people, and we wiped them out and took over their country in six weeks.

I know it’s fun to pretend there is some kind of moral equivalence between George Bush and Saddam, but that’s just word games. A UN that sits on its thumbs while Iran and Iraq and Libya oppress their people is not a UN who will be taken at all seriously when it authorizes an invasion of the US if they have a close election. Nor should it be.

You want to play around with stuff like this, that’s fine, but stick to messageboards. In the real world, things run a little different.

Regards,
Shodan

17

“Gonna buy me a gun, A gun? A gun”

I would buy a gun and build bombs and hack there networks. I can get a copy of the Anarchist Handbook from a friend. I would do everything in my power to protect the US. I would definitely be part of the underground.
I have never fired a gun in my life, but I would try to learn quickly. If I can’t get the gun, the Bows in my basement would get fixed up.
I can build a radio jammer. I can sabotage the power grid and still power my own house.
I am sure I would die trying.

Jim

18

This really is a rather silly OP however. This country is way to military oriented and powerful to allow invasion.

19

Well, in the hypothetical posited in the OP, I would, like John, start blowing up weddings and beheading aid workers. That’s a no-brainer, innit?

I might feel differently, however, if the US had in actual fact ceased to be democratic for decades, if its dictator had made it into a police state, oppressed minorities, and put us onto a collision course with the world’s superpower by ignoring repeated UN resolutions, and if the invading Chinese had a documented history of restoring democracy and then leaving, well then I suppose I’d have to put my committment to liberal democracy over my primative tribalism.

20

[QUOTE=Plynck

After lengthy and continued discussion at the UN, a coalition of forces (chiefly China and North Korea, but also represented by Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Libya and Lichtenstein) invade the US with a show of military force, and proceed to occupy the country.
QUOTE]

If they got Liechtenstein, we are SCREWED!
it made me think of this though…