When I say 'nation', I mean our identity as people of common values, not our status as a legitimate country. For the purpose of this question, you may imagine that our country is not nearly as unified as it is now.
By 'terrorist tactics' I mean the strategies commonly used by terrorists. I'm not asking whether or not you would become a terrorist in the face of an invasion. Answering either way does not make you more or less patriotic, it just reflects your personal preferences.
This question does not imply anything about my personal position on the War on Terror in Iraq, Afghanistan, or anywhere else in the world. It is simply asking whether or not you think the guerrilla tactics and suicide bombings used by terrorists are the most effective strategy to use against an organized military. Regardless whether you think such tactics are cowardly or cheap, are they the most practical way to go? If not, then what would work better?
2007-10-19 16:22:43 · 11 answers · asked by Silver Spoon 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
I'd prefer to use guerrilla tactics like in the movie Red Dawn to protect my friends at all costs. It worked when the Vietcong did it in Vietnam and is working now in Iraqi and Afghanistan. It's basically pages right out of the Art of War. It if works, use it.
2007-10-19 16:26:21 · answer #1 · answered by adm_twister_jcom 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
There are too many "IF"s.
We do have a government. We do have a military. What we don't have is a populace united... about anything. Thus, without a government and a military, we, as a nation would just roll over. There would be a few individuals who might try to mount an offense, but for the most part they are just people with weapons and would be shot down by an organized military probably before they got off a shot.
Without a military I would not be trained as I have been. Nor would a host of other military and ex-military.
I'm afraid this country would be just like Iraq under Hussein.
But, if you're talking about Iraq, you're in error in your premise. The Iraqi people are not using terrorist tactics against us. Nor are we using those tactics against the Iraqi people.
There are is a small minority who what power regardless of what the people want. They don't care about the country or its people. In fact they target the people. They simply want to instill terror among the people so when we leave, if there's any of them still standing, they'll crawl out of the woodwork and say, "We drove the infidels from our soil. You don't think so? We are here. They are not." The next thing you hear will be, "Remember what we were able to do to you when they were here to protect you? Well they're not here to protect you any more..."
Our only hope would be if some other country came to our aid. I think I would be inclined to help them as best I could.
But don't worry, we aren't likely to be attacked like that. We're destroying ourselves. Any contry with designs on the US just has to wait a few years.
2007-10-19 23:56:17 · answer #2 · answered by gugliamo00 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No,not if any action placed civilians in danger. However any invading forces in this hypothetical country would be fair game. Depending on the type of terrain and weather characteristics it would be very easy for a small group to make life very difficult for the enemy. Cutting off or contaminating their water supplies, and blocking or harassing their transport to and from their bases by any means available. Booby traps where civilians would not be harmed but enemy troops would be severely injured( if an enemy soldier is killed it only involves a clerk to process the appropriate forms but if he is injured a large number of personnel and supplies would be involved for months) is another alternative
2007-10-20 00:13:57 · answer #3 · answered by Garry M 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They always have been. Not against civilians and not killing ones self. No war would be won without guerrilla tactics, period. Look what the 9/11 bunch did using those tactics.
2007-10-19 23:48:34 · answer #4 · answered by snow ball 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The strategies normally used by terrorists are unprovoked attacks against civilian targets for the purpose of inducing fear and causing political turmoil.
They would be entirely ineffective against an attacking army -- and would only make the attacking army angrier.
So, no -- I would not do something that is a waste of effort and counterproductive -- let alone the fact that there is no justification for harming innocent civilians.
Guerilla tactics are not terrorist acts -- neither are suicide bombings when they are directed against purely military targets -- those are tactical choices on how to attack an hostile military force.
2007-10-19 23:39:42 · answer #5 · answered by coragryph 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Our founding fathers were terrorist by Bush's determination.
Terrorism is the only way a non nuclear fighting force can affect today's wars.
But in all reality to end the attack on this country all one has to do is kill the governing body of the attacker. Every time they elect a president, leader, cabinet, congress, just kill them. simple. Military don't want war, politicians do.
2007-10-20 00:27:10 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Technically we did during the revolutionary war. Attacking leaders from cover and not standing toe to toe. As the victors we were allowed to rename such tactics as guerrilla tactics.
2007-10-19 23:36:02 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Would I strap a bomb to my chest and blow up my family and other members of my country? Highly doubtful.
Guerilla warfare is a different story
2007-10-19 23:35:34 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Yes, the same as is being done in Iraq.
2007-10-19 23:30:44 · answer #9 · answered by bgee2001ca 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I don't think I'd strap on a bomb and walk into a crowded marketplace, no.
2007-10-19 23:34:33 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋