How would the American people react if hypothetically the US....?

Question

In my International Relations Class, we were fooling around with the question "How to achieve peace in Iraq" A suggestion was to suppress opposition.

So, my question is "Do you think the American PEOPLE, would be okay with a hypothetical destruction of an Iraqi city, why or why not?. Use a Hama style destruction, if you know what that is.

In my International Relations Class, we were fooling around with the question "How to achieve peace in Iraq" A suggestion was to suppress opposition.

So, my question is "Do you think the American PEOPLE, would be okay with a hypothetical destruction of an Iraqi city, why or why not?. Use a Hama (Syria) style destruction, if you know what that is.

Just in defense from Flip W (was not wrong in what he said though since it does sound like a liberal question I am asking). But in my high school class it was basically said "bring up every idea, no matter how stupid, and we will eliminate what does not make sense. My teacher was expecting this one to be thrown away in 2 seconds, but he saw that there was opposition, so he asked us the question of how would the people react, since some people had the idea that our military would do something like that in mind. That is where the hypothetical part comes in. But Flip W, i agree with you, out of context, it is suggesting an evil military.

The Majority of the people. Basically what I am asking, if something like this happened, would enough people be angered to demand answers and cause the government to do something about.

Answer 1

Ok, first I have to clarify that I am not a Bush hater, nor a Bush supporter. I base my decisions on a case by case basis.

In this case, if Bush were still the President it would not matter at all what the people think about his decision. He has proven that when it comes to the war in Iraq, Bush does not care what anyone says. People are already against the war in Iraq, and his approval rating is lower than any President in the history of our fine country. It would not matter one bit what we thought to him, no matter how much we disapproved, or approved.

I think that in this case, the people of the United States would almost speak as one against such an attack against a country that we are supposedly trying to protect until they get their government up and running. Look at how the public spoke out against the actions in Vietnam that were not even confirmed. There would be too many innocent civilians killed in an attack on any city in Iraq for our people to condone. Especially given the history of the war in Iraq and the history of our current President.

Also, it would be illegal for such an order to take place since we are only in the country to protect it and not attack it.

The biggest problems we would face, however, would not come from within our own country, but from every other country in the world. Our trade would be cut-off and our economy would become non-existent. You think our country has problems now, just let an attack like you are talking about actually happen. These days will be referred to as the good old days.

Answer 2

A destruction of a city is insane and it won't bring peace to Iraq. The US has caused a civil war and a holy war against the US. Neither of these wars will end until the Iraqis make it so. The US caused a war between two religious groups and has become a war much like the one there was in Northern Ireland.

Maybe the American government people should have taken a foreign relations course.

Answer 3

It has actually little to do with how the American people would react to the destruction of the city, since you will find some on both sides. It has more to do with whether the public will choose to believe the spin on it that the adminstration throws out, or whether they will believe the spin that the other party throws out (no matter who is in charge).

If the adminstration in charge can convince the American public as an overall whole (there will always be some who hold out) that the city was full of evil terrorists and no innocent civilians, and that those terrorists were going to harm us in some way; then it becomes a matter of good vs. evil and we will always support what we see as good. If on the other hand the opposition party can convince the American public it was done to scare the locals into submission (thus one more smashing step down on freedom and democracy) then the American public will lose its mind on the administration (at least for a week--provided no drug-crazed, fully-drunk, has-been model with a baby dies and forgets to leave an heir in the meantime).

After that one to two weeks, no more thought will be given to it.

Answer 4

Wonderful, another Liberal College Classroom discussion on what our "evil Military" will do. :rolleyes:

First off, the US Military would not destroy an Iraqi town just for the heck of it. The mission would be to take out enemy resistance in the city as in the case of Fallujua.

Second, US Soldiers are trained to engage armed combatants, not wantently blow up a town and kill it's inhabitants. If a soldier did, he would be up on murder charges. (some scum have been charged and found guilty and rightly sentenced)

Third, a Hama style destruction is an Illegal Order. No Officer or NCO would comply with such an order.

This is 2007, and we are not in a Total War mentality where similar engagments like the London Blitz, Siege of Leningrad, or rape of Nanking occur. (I figure I'd use those instance instead of an example of Dresden or Hiroshima, since the Germans and Japanese governments actions brought on the Allieds retribution.).

But would the American People be OK with it? No, not in the current context. Have a few hundred suicide and car bombs go off in Malls in the US and the answer might change quickly.



Update: thanks to the OP for his comments. as a former Army guy, I have to wonder about some of the questions that come on this section. I'm glad the class is thowing out all ideas and not a bias view that the military is "slaughtering innocent civilians" mantra.

As for you question... I doubt the American people would call out for the destruction of a Iraqi town. However, if say for instance acts of Terror occur in the US to such a proportion that the public called out for the government to do something, I would have to say that our Intel would probably point the finger at a culpulable government and war would insue. The level of war would depend on the type of terror that occured and the size of the opposing force that we faced.

Answer 5

Depends on how the news was reported in the US, which is vastly different from every other country's news on Iraq by the way. The Iraqi unemployment rate is around 70%, due to the destruction we've wrought on their infrastructure as well our continued military presence, which is destabilizing the country. I'd say it would be difficult to find a way for us to be MORE devastating than we already are.

Answer 6

whilst human beings first began to ask questions with regard to the governments involvement, i assumed they have been nuts. Now some years later and having examine a super kind of creditable arguments i'm not so beneficial. Having seen first hand what's now occurring, i could have self assurance that they ought to be in charge. Admit it in no way and in case you acquire on the factor of proving otherwise, you will nicely seal your very own destiny. pay attention the recent international Order.

Answer 7

MC Hama

Answer 8

It depends on which "American people" you're talking about. We don't all think alike, you know.

Answer 9

No, we'd become just like the crazed Radical Muslims.

Answer 10

I like the Hiroshima approach.