If America were invaded, would we use Snipers, IEDs and even WMDs against the invaders?

Question

I hear a lot of gripe about enemy tactics in Iraq, but I believe we would do very much the same, if not worse, if we were in the same situation.

Answer 1

No We wouldn't be able to FIND the WMD's.

Answer 2

Against the invaders, but NOT against our own citizens as is happening in Iraq. On the other hand, if citizens switched sides for any variety of reasons; personal power, fear or just thought that they would be safer on the other side, then they would become open targets.

In WWII many Japanese were interned in camps! It was probably a questionable tactic but we knew where they were and didn't have to worry about them rising up internally.

In a country as large as ours there are just too many places to hide and protect the non-combatants (women, children and elderly). I would also like to think that every able bodied person would pick up a gun and defend our nation. A HUGE force of ANGRY AMERICANS would WIPE out a ground force of ANY size.

If the government and leadership was destroyed, that is another question. Read a book called "Lucifer's Hammer"; it is fiction but educational. A huge meteor hits the US and the government as we know it today is wiped out through out the world. The US reverts to various tribes as a way for a group to survive and inflicts their beliefs on other near by tribes starting many internal wars for POWER and governess.

Do you see where I am going here?

The government in Iraq was destroyed and the opressed saw it as a way to gain control and POWER. We now smack dab in the middle of an Iraqi CIVIL WAR. They all look the same, run and hide and have NO MORALS; the end justifies the means.

One side sets an IED and lures the other to be in the area when it explodes, US troops react and the outcome is obvious.

Simple example. When I was in high school the thing to do for laughs was to get behind a guy that was behind a girl. You would hit his hand, it would slap the girl in the *** and she would turn around and slap HIM while the other guy laughed his *** off.

If you look at the numbers you will quickly find that Iraqi's have KILLED MANY more Iraqi's than American troops have! IED's in pet shops and markets killing countless NON-COMBATANTS! In these attacks, how many COMBATANTS have been killed?

In Nam, they would throw a bomb into a club that US Servicemen frequented to kill and maim COMBATANTS; few civilian's,. but small in comparison. They also threw babies out of bus windows yelling, "SAVE MY BABY". I GI would react and catch the baby before it hit the dirt. In many cases it was a DOLL wrapped up with a contact bomb and NOT a real baby.

In the Middle East we have this martyr deal and living with 100 virgins; what is up with that and what does it say about the mentality we are fighting? HUM blow yourself up for the cause and spend eternity abusing pre-teenage girls?

If the US were actually invaded by another country and the invaders PROMISED EVERYONE a GOOD LIFE; house, living wage, free medical, elimination of the UPPER CLASS (take all their money and divide it equally), then ALL the lower class is going to jump on the bandwagon and turn against the US as it is.

Some people are in a BAD position; some through NO fault of their own and others due to addiction, mental health issues and just plain LAZY. I don't think that the citizens of the US would have a problem defeating an internal force if the supply of alcohol and drugs just VANISHED. Besides, a wacked out or drunk insurgent is easy to spot.

The people in Iraq are preying on the oppressed and promising things that they can never deliver! The oppressed grasp at ANY straw and are EASILY manipulated, so THAT IS THE REAL PROBLEM.

When you ask an OPEN question you will get LONG and somewhat complete answers.

Answer 3

You are right. In Iraq, the enemy uses the most horrific tactics to kill, and we would to. Iraqi soldiers that fight against us are called insurgents. It means they are the countries original soldeirs, fighting back against the people that invaded. THe insurgents cannot continue fighting if the public tell the enmey where they are. THat means that the insurgents have to make it worth having a war going on to help them. We are losing because we use humane tactics. The only way to fight an insurgency is to make it so hard for the public (like kill EVERY civilian who helps the insurgents) that they will stop supporting the insurgents (and tell us stuff like where the next surprise tactic will be, or who is leaking our info, etc.). The problem is that we are not willing to kill innocents. IF we cannot do that, we will always be at a stalemate with the enemy.

Answer 4

There's a difference:

Americans would attack MILITARY targets, not CIVILIAN targets. The terrorists we're fighting are hitting CIVILIANS.

Even their usual IEDs are blowing up a lot of civilians. I've never heard anyone complain about the use of IED's or snipers against military targets other than it's difficult to counter.

The main complaints are their terror tactics against civilians.

Orion

Answer 5

im not so sure wmd's would be used, but could you imagine people sitting idly by as another force tried taking over? Every redneck with a rifle would be out there shooting anything that moved im sure. Although it is possible the government would take out large areas with weapons if they saw fit, to keep the invaders from strategic locations.

Answer 6

The technical term is "asymmetrical warfare". And I think we would... and to some extent DID in the Revolutionary War when it was considered "ungentlemanly" to not line up in neat rows and fire at each other. Dang if those Yankees, most lacking uniforms because there were really none to be had, didn't hide behind stone walls and trees, fire their muskets and run sometimes. And they took up the tactic of shooting the brass FIRST when possible. How uncivilized!!!

Answer 7

We would use snipers and IED's, WMD's were never used they were suspected. i do believe however that we would NOT i repeat NOT distort a religion, (such as the coran) to lead our children to believe Blowing themselves up at any age would get them into their version of heaven.

One of the first known uses of Gorilla tactics was the revolutionary war so i definetly dont put it past us to use them again, but the iraqi's have taken it to another level or self sacrifice (similar to the kamikazi's of japan) but most disturbingly of their future generation, using their childrens innocense as a weapon. quite disturbing.

Answer 8

I know the Republicans would. The liberals would just throw themselves at the feet of the invading power, begging not to be hurt.

Liberals Disgust Me!

Answer 9

Snipers are a pretty legitimate strategy compared to the rest though i doubt we will be invaded soon.

Answer 10

If hillary nancy and ted are in the white house, we might as well give up now. we will not have weapons to defend us, we will all go to jail for trying to protect america.
now on the other side, i would have to say it would be bloody, so let's keep the dems out of office.

Answer 11

You would use the pick-axe handle off the back of the truck if You had to in order to defend Yourself, Your Family, Your life- style, Your property......and Your Country.