what would americans do ( scenario )

Originally posted by bodrul
so what would americans do?

I guess that I would start beheading the people sent to help feed me and rebuild my country and car bomb my fellow country men and their familes

Then I could count on people to tell the world what a hero I am.

Right?




[edit on 13-11-2004 by Amuk]

Being an American I feel like I can say that most of my friends are
so dependent on the modern conveniences that they would not make
it for long. Most of them also have no idea how to survive in the outdoors
so that doesn't help either. I think it is a good Idea for Anyone American or
otherwise to be prepared it doesn't take that long to get some basic information together. At least do yourself a favor and print out one of these
survival lists that are floating around on the internet, If you don't know how to use it or don't have some of the tools that doesn't really matter it will give you a starting point .

Oh yeah and on the people fighting back thingy I completely understand
we would fight back here so why shouldn't they.


geo

[edit on 11/13/2004 by geocom]

esad, instead of being a smart arse, why dont you answer the questions in the manner they were presented. The war of independence was over 200 years ago, involved far less people and the technology was, shall we say, crap compared to today. Everybody had a musket, civilians and infantry alike. You got .50 cal MGs and AT4's?

This is hypothetical. Why is it so hard to drop the BS and have a decent conversation?

Originally posted by bodrul
1. your country has been invaded by a greater force
2. you have lost your homes
3. family and friends killed
4. the only weapons you have are no match for them
5. you have been pushed into poverty


so what would americans do?

(slap myself) Wake up! Wake up!

[edit]
Maybe I should answr this more seriously.

I would do whatever I need to do: being the fittest to survive.

[edit on 13-11-2004 by plutonian]

This is hypothetical. Why is it so hard to drop the BS and have a decent conversation?

Sorry? A decent conversation? Oh, uh, yeah, sure -- if we had a decent topic.

Unfortunately, it would seem that everyone attempts to evoke thoughts of possibilities that simply CANNOT and WOULD NOT exist - period - ever.

It's like saying:

Hey! If Jordan had the flu in the game of the finals back in the late 90's, and -- instead of him playing through it like a trooper - a large man of war floated out from the audience and glided onto his forehead - stung him - and made him bleed from the eyes so badly that the referee slipped and kicked the ball up into the air and made it stick in the middle of the electronic signboard which then crashed down and killed all of the players on both teams.

(Sorry, couldn't resist).

But that's the type of "WHAT IF?!?! WHAT *IF*?!?" clownery I see on ATS way too much.

Intelligent - DECENT even -- discussion would focus on the actual POSSIBILIY of it happening - AT ALL, not what would ensue after such an improbable event.

In other words, let's focus on:

(1) WHO -- is going to do the invading
(2) HOW -- they will do the invading
(3) WHY -- they would do the invading

Rather than,

HEY! You just got invaded! Uh, what cha gonna do?

Originally posted by MountainStar

This is just my observation....
It seems that there are a few Americans here that are quite sure that they would fight any occupation. I wonder how many of the same people can understand another nations people doing the same thing....perhaps Iraqi's

[edit on 12-11-2004 by Volkgeister]

"If".........the United States was ruled by a ruthless dictator, like Saddam I would welcome an occupation to help us. However, we are not..... We have freedom so any occupation invading the United States would be a threat to our freedom.

OK What if the occupation was just as ruthless? Would you welcome it, and continue to welcome it? Would you gladly endure the shame of foreign occupation? Some would rather the "freedom" of national honour.

Originally posted by bodrul
1. your country has been invaded by a greater force
2. you have lost your homes
3. family and friends killed
4. the only weapons you have are no match for them
5. you have been pushed into poverty


so what would americans do?

I assume you're referring to the situation in Palestinian territories? Well, being that Americans are incapable of knowing what its like to be in their shoes, and thus unable to provide a cogent answer to your hypothetical, let's look at other cultures and societies that have been in similar situations.

Let's look at the Japanese. Weren't they in a similar situation after WWII? About the same amount of time has passed since V-J-Day and the 1948 Israel independence. Japan is now an economic superpower.

What about Germany? Economic superpower.

OK, OK, so the Palestinians don't have any natural resources. But then how do you explain Hong Kong, a barren piece of rock with zero natural resources, under foreign occupation, chock-full of refugees from the Mao tyranny. The people there weren't lounging in UNRWA camps or making suicide runs at the governor's mansion. They were trading, building, speculating, manufacturing, working � with the result that Hong Kong is now a glittering modern city filled with well-dressed, well-educated, well-fed people, proud of what they have accomplished together, and with a higher standard of living than Britain (the former "occupier") herself. If, following the Oslo accords � or for that matter, in the 20 years of Jordanian occupation � the Palestinians had taken that route, had set aside their fantasies of revenge and massacre, and concentrated on building up something worth having, they might not be in this situation.

Why were there no suicide bombers in Japan? Germany? Hong Kong? How many cultures are in similar predicaments and yet don't resort to slaughtering civilians? Why don't the Christians in Syrian-occupied Lebanon "martyr" themselves? That's a real-live, true-blue occupation right there. The Syrians aren't going anywhere, and nobody cares.

So if you're asking us if we would murder civilians if we were in a similar situation, the answer is emphatically "NO".

Yes, my self-loathing friends, America is better than that.

Originally posted by Ibn Iblis

Originally posted by bodrul
1. your country has been invaded by a greater force
2. you have lost your homes
3. family and friends killed
4. the only weapons you have are no match for them
5. you have been pushed into poverty


so what would americans do?

I assume you're referring to the situation in Palestinian territories? Well, being that Americans are incapable of knowing what its like to be in their shoes, and thus unable to provide a cogent answer to your hypothetical, let's look at other cultures and societies that have been in similar situations.

Let's look at the Japanese. Weren't they in a similar situation after WWII? About the same amount of time has passed since V-J-Day and the 1948 Israel independence. Japan is now an economic superpower.

What about Germany? Economic superpower.

OK, OK, so the Palestinians don't have any natural resources. But then how do you explain Hong Kong, a barren piece of rock with zero natural resources, under foreign occupation, chock-full of refugees from the Mao tyranny. The people there weren't lounging in UNRWA camps or making suicide runs at the governor's mansion. They were trading, building, speculating, manufacturing, working � with the result that Hong Kong is now a glittering modern city filled with well-dressed, well-educated, well-fed people, proud of what they have accomplished together, and with a higher standard of living than Britain (the former "occupier") herself. If, following the Oslo accords � or for that matter, in the 20 years of Jordanian occupation � the Palestinians had taken that route, had set aside their fantasies of revenge and massacre, and concentrated on building up something worth having, they might not be in this situation.

Why were there no suicide bombers in Japan? Germany? Hong Kong? How many cultures are in similar predicaments and yet don't resort to slaughtering civilians? Why don't the Christians in Syrian-occupied Lebanon "martyr" themselves? That's a real-live, true-blue occupation right there. The Syrians aren't going anywhere, and nobody cares.

So if you're asking us if we would murder civilians if we were in a similar situation, the answer is emphatically "NO".

Yes, my self-loathing friends, America is better than that.

Germans and Japanese did resist invasion. And Hong Kong wasn't invaded, Britain signed a treaty with China don't you just love unhistorical comments

Of course they resisted invasion. But they didn't blow themselves up. And they progressed.

The Palestinians were never invaded either. The Jews were already there; they declared their independence.

There was never a Palestinian "state" to be invaded.

Hundreds of thousands of Germans and Japanese died fighting Allied invasion, only after an armistice was signed, and Berlin raized to the ground, and two atom bombs dropped, did resistance stop.

Palestinians never signed an "armistice", neither did the Iraqi's

Originally posted by Ibn Iblis
Of course they resisted invasion. But they didn't blow themselves up. And they progressed.

The Palestinians were never invaded either. The Jews were already there; they declared their independence.

There was never a Palestinian "state" to be invaded.

You'll find the Japanese did, how about the kamikaze?

And the Battle of Berlin was practically one giant suicide mission.

Both are examples of trans-war conflicts.

I'm talking post-war. Comon, man. There's no way to justify what's going on there. They can't give up their lust for revenge because Israel is a Jewish state. Period.

Why aren't there bombs going off in Khartoum? You think the Palestinians have it bad?

Why aren't the Tibetans blowing themselves up in Beijing?

Martyrdome is a doctrine specific to Islam. That's why this goes on. According to the Qur'an, martyrdome in jihad is the only guaranteed way to get into paradise. And if you're a male living in some West Bank toilet, paradise seems especially alluring.

I'd also like to add that the suffering of the Palestinians is largely due to their own corrupt leadership. How much money did Arafat have locked away in Swiss accounts (lost forever BTW)? Upwards of $3 Billion. His wife and kids live in luxury in France. She gets $22 Million a year. Their people live in toilets.

Who's the oppressors?

Islam certainly does encourage martyrdom, I agree. But I think it also has something to do with military expediency. Take Iraq for example, are you saying that every coalition death is caused by a suicide bomber? Of course not. The insurgents choose the method which is most effective in carrying out there aims, to kill as many of the coalition forces as possible, whether that be roadside bombs, mortar attacks, rpg's, ambushments, suicide attacks etc.

Originally posted by Volkgeister
Islam certainly does encourage martyrdom, I agree. But I think it also has something to do with military expediency. Take Iraq for example, are you saying that every coalition death is caused by a suicide bomber? Of course not. The insurgents choose the method which is most effective in carrying out there aims, to kill as many of the coalition forces as possible, whether that be roadside bombs, mortar attacks, rpg's, ambushments, suicide attacks etc.

They also kill anyone who, in their view, works with the coalition. They're killing the very people they're supposedly trying to free.

Is this the same as destroying a village in order to save it? Kill the collaborators in order to save them?

Palestinian terrorists sometimes attack military targets; far more often than not they target civilians. If they target the military exclusively, they can use whatever tactic they feel is necessary, as far as I'm concerned. If the Iraqi insurgency only fought the coalition, I'd never call them terrorists.

But they're killing anyone who gets in their way. Men, women, and children.

Check this out.

The deliberate targetting of civilians is abhorrent. But can Americans claim the moral highground?

iraqbodycount.net...

You think we TARGET civilians?

Be serious.

While the tactics of some of the Iraqi resistance is questionable, the motives are not. And if you listen to the American propaganda service, you will hear that the worst elements of the "insurgents" are foreigners.

Actually I've heard very little of "foreigners".

Although there was a jounalist who was captured by Iraqis. He was set free and said the Iraqis told him he was lucky the "foreigners" didn't capture him, else he'd be dead.

But the majority of the insurgents are Iraqis, former Ba'athists and Sunnis who have been in power for 80 years and aren't happy about the prospect of being under the thumb of the Shi'a majority.

And again I ask: Do you think Americans TARGET civilians?

OK What if the occupation was just as ruthless? Would you welcome it, and continue to welcome it? Would you gladly endure the shame of foreign occupation? Some would rather the "freedom" of national honour.

No I wouldn't welcome it..... nor would I endure the shame of a foreign occupation. I believe most Americans would rise up against a ruthless dictator and any occupation that was a threat to our freedom. "IF" that was the scenario.

Originally posted by Ibn Iblis

I assume you're referring to the situation in Palestinian territories? Well, being that Americans are incapable of knowing what its like to be in their shoes, and thus unable to provide a cogent answer to your hypothetical, let's look at other cultures and societies that have been in similar situations.

how about we stay on topic
if you want to look into cultures and societies make a new topic
i soly made this to see what people would do in the situation of other people's shoes
not to compare cultures

Originally posted by Ibn Iblis
You think we TARGET civilians?

Be serious.

the death toll for Iraqi civillians speaks for its self