That’s exactly what I thought when I saw the thread title…
“So, you see, if we all just took off all of our clothes, there wouldn’t be any more wars!”
Of course, this scenario IS plausible…if you switch the word “Iraq” for “USA” and “Saddam Hussein” for “Dubya” in the OP.
Do you really want to live in a democratic country in which the military is unresponsive to the control of the government? Sounds like a recipe for military dictatorship to me.
Now, what if all the admissions officers at universities would simply refuse to engage in affirmative action, and those in the government responsible for disbursing money to only those schools in compliance simply refused to stop disbursing it because they opposed affirmative action on the grounds that it is freaking morally wrong?----- Now there’s some “activism” I could maybe get behind.
Or what if local fire departments ignored silly-assed activist judges and insisted on going back to tests that insured the most capable firefighters were hired, rather than those designed so that almost anyone who can read or write can pass, thus allowing the hiring of a certain number of blacks–which could never have been justified under a merit-based system?
All I am saying, is give merit a chance. All I am saying, is kick Saddam in the pants. All I am saying, is the peace marchers are daft.
Nixon, in the last days of his presidency, strongly considered surrounding the White House with armed forces in order to keep himself in power, despite his impending impeachment. I’m not sure if this fits the classic definition of a coup, but it’s still rather disturbing that a president would actually consider doing this…
Here’s an excerpt from the article that describes this situation:
Here’s a realistic scenario of what would happen:
If the U.S. suddenly spontaneously disarmed itself, China would attack Taiwan. North Korea would begin a rapid buildup of nuclear weapons preparatory to invading South Korea. Kuwait would be overthrown by Iraq. A new arms race in the middle east would occur as governments realized that the stability imposed by the implicit threat of U.S action was gone. Small, poorly defended but wealthy middle eastern countries like Bahrain and Qatar would be swallowed up overnight.
In the meantime, such a visible failure of American will would raise Hussein and al-Qaida’s stature tremendously. Recruitment for al-Qaida would skyrocket. Without the fear of U.S. reprisal, hostile countries would greatly step up their association with terrorist groups. In essence, groups like al-Qaida would become the special forces of rogue states. They would be incredibly well funded, supplied with weapons of terror, and sent into the west to destroy as much as they could.
We live under a Pax Americana. World stability is very much dependent on the implicit threat of American force if states step out of line. When that threat is absent, as it regrettably has been in Africa, the result is instability, civil war, and genocide.
In short, if American troops laid down their arms, it would be an immense tragedy for the world.
You’re talkin’ to the wrong guy.
US troops won’t quit except in a few isolated cases.
But, in just about every war there is some desertion. In WWI there was a lot.
Let’s try a different take on this scenario.
It’s 1962, and Jim Crow still reigns in the South. A school district in Mississippi has been order to accept black students, but refuses. President Kennedy orders troops to enforce integration. But just as they’re about to head out, all the white soldiers lay down their arms and refuse to go.
Moral: think long and hard before you endorse the idea of soldiers picking and choosing which orders they want to follow. It’s by no means certain that soldiers who ignore orders and follow their own wishes will act the way YOU want them to.
What would happen if the soldiers simply decided not to fight?
This will happen on Iraqs side. They will not fight for saddam. They know Saddam is history and he can’t win. I saw a taping of Saddam and his generals, they looked horrified of him the kind of look you have when you dealing with someone who wants to kill you. Once Americans cross the border into Iraq it will be over. They will turn on him. Saddam uses fear because he is not a good leader. I think most people will be surprised how quick they turn on him.
Many Iraqi soldiers will surrender very quickly-some have tried already
Saddam does have troops that are loyal to him,especially the Rebublican guard, who will be a bit harder to defeat though.
I happen to know that Costa Rica is protected from an invasion by Nicargua by the best & most powerful military force in the world- the USA. They aren’t idiots, they know the USA would come in and save them. Besides, their “paramilitary” forces could put up a fight- their Police (last I knew) weren’t all “flatfoots with rusty .38’s.” :rolleyes:
As Sam put it “pax Americana”. Why do you think the Pakistanis & Indians haven’t gone to war again-with Nukes? Or North Korea invading the South? Or China grabbing Taiwan? Ya think they are afraid of (gasp, choke) UN sanctions? Or- worse yet- the dreaded “Peacekeeping forces”? :rolleyes: Do you really think a thousand Irish & Canadianswith sidearms & armbands are scaring any of these nations? :dubious:
I have nothing terribly useful to add, I just wanted to comment that when I read the OP, I imagined a bunch of college kids passing around the bong and engaging in “deep discussions.”
“Dude, what if, like, tomorrow, you woke up, and, like, everything fell up?”
Okay, carry on.
Jeff