wouldnt americans do the same as vietcong/insuregence?

Question

u no the vietcong nd the iraqi insurgency right now, resisting american redcoats just like the freedom fighters during the american revolution, the question is, if america was attacked by like, the mexican army the same way we attacked iraqis, wouldnt american militiamen do the same stuff as the iraqis and the vietnamese did during there respected wars (vietnam war and operation iraqi "freedom")??

usa does not belong in iraq any more than the british belonged in america. iraq war and vietnam were both american IMPERIALISM. so, again i ask, dont u think iraqi insurgents are FREEDOM FIGHTERS??????

Answer 1

The question might make sense if you restricted it to Vietnam but the "insurgency" in Iraq is largely maintained by non-Iraqi's so makes little or no sense. Some Iraqi groups and people are against the American presence but the car bombing and much of the terrorist style attacks are being carried out by and under the direction of non-Iraqi's. The Iraqi groups are more involved with establishing their power base then in fighting the Americans-they want the Americans gone more to get on with the civil war that will come and to wipe out the Sunnite or Shi'te or Kurdish groups that are offending them or are the historical enemy then not liking the Americans. I think the majority of Iraqis say one thing in public to save their and their families lives but privately do not want the Americans gone until the various factions are disarmed or have come to an understanding and a civil war will not follow. In Vietnam your analogy would make better sense but since the Viet Cong were for all practical purposes wiped out in the TET Offensive and most of the fighting after that was by North Vietnamese Army troops it also falls a little short. I would fight an opposing enemy-I do not think I would set off car bombs in markets just to kill people because they were not my religion or "tribe"; the insurgents are killing far more Iraqis then Americans and not Iraqi troops, government worker os leaders they are just killing people because it terrifies the population and that is what they are-terrorist and not freedom fighters.

Answer 2

your premise is missing one component: if we (US) did not have preeminant military force.
It's common to ascribe morality to the geopolitical struggle. It is also a slippery slope falllacy. The problem is that most pundits and politicians use morally charged language when they communicate with the public/ mob.
I'm an American, I cannot reconcile morality with policies past or present (for us or other states), these policies do, however make sense if the foundation is interest.

The model I use when looking at international relations is high school. As the "cool" kids were able to behave a certain way based on their status and the "geeks" were more limited, so to can we see constraints on state behavior. In short, states behave based on their status in the global community. Thus, the US has significantly more freedom to operate and justify its acts due to its military and cultural hegemony, the absence of which severely limits a country like Bolivia.
Right and wrong are really not part of the equation, it is interest today and it will be so tomorrow.
If the US lost its position of preeminance, then yes, it would absolutely resort to assymetric warfare. But to be surprised that a state with preeminant power would leverage that power to exploit the global system is a little silly. That's what (all hegemonic) states do, calling it imperialism or not is simply debating a label that has little effect on the behavior itself.
The US leverages its power and the next supreme force will do the same, this is nothing new.

Answer 3

No, they are terrorist, not freedom fighters.

They target civilians directly.

We are not there to make a colony of Iraq, so its not "imperialism."

It would depend on what the invasion was for. Half this country would welcome an invasion because they believe this country is wrong, as it appears you do.

I would fight if we were taken over by a dicatator. If we were being invaded because we became a dicatatorship and they were here to restore Democracy, then I would support the invasion, so it is not a cut and dry question like you seem to think it is.

The idea of the American Revolution was to instate a government by the people, not a government to enslave the people under Islamic law since that is what this civil war is about that these terrorist are trying to start. They are not freedom fighters because they are not fighting for freedom, they are fighting to start a religious war between two factions of Islam. If you consider starting a religious based civil war a form of freedom, then I guess in your would they would be freedom fighters. To the rest of us, they are terrorist trying to enforce a religion on others, not a new form of government as we did in our Revolution.

As for the Vietcong, ask the millions of people they executed after we left if they were "freedom fighters." Ask those masacred in Hue City if they were liberators during the Tet Offensive.

So no, none of them were freedom fighters.

PS... to start your post, its "You know...," not "u no."

Answer 4

Make up your mind, first you ask would we do the same, then you close with so, again i ask, don't u think iraqi insurgents are FREEDOM FIGHTERS??????

As to the first part, yes I would, as a militiaman and from what I learned from Vietnam, I guarantee I can build devices out of stuff you wouldn't believe. Everything from tin cans to crap!!

As to the 2ND part. NO they are NOT, They just miss the good old days when they could kill innocent men, women, and children all in the name of a dictator and that's the only fighting they know.

Answer 5

No. You are completely off base. I hope that Americans wouldn't be fighting to take South Vietnam by force the way the VC and North Vietnamese were. Hopefully they wouldn't be murdering villagers that support the other side.

Hopefully if another country were trying to help us rebuild after taking out the violent dictator oppressing our country, we wouldn't use that as a pathetic excuse to murder civilians of a different ethnic group, police officers, random people in the street, etc.

Unless you think that Americans would actually do those things, then you can pretty much answer your own question and stop wasting other people's time

Answer 6

Not really, in America we fought Colonialism straigh on. We formed a militia and it fought like an army nowhere in American revolutionary war from the United Statesian war of independence to the independence of Peru finally defeating the European Colonial powers did terrorism ever happened.

Answer 7

Would we blow up car bombs and our own bodies in crows of shoppers and children in an effort to discredit and demoralize the occupation and to scare those who don't direclty or opently oppose them also?

Do you realy think these kinds of tactics were used by the founding fathers?

Once you cross the line from guerrilla to terrorist you relinquish all claim to being a "freedom fighter." You need an education if you think otherwise.

Answer 8

no for the simple fact that Iraq is free, and the local guerilals are jsut fighting each other to gain more power and control. locals suffer. that makes the guerillas what they are. freedom fighters avoid killing their locals.

Answer 9

I'm totally UNDERwhelmed by what you probably view as irrefutable logic and reason. Oh, sorry..."irrefutable" means 'can not be denied.' Let's see...yeah, you should be able to handle most of the other words.

Answer 10

umm...no you jack...we wouldn't use our kids as human bombs..go read a history book...we declared independance from the redcoats we weren't invaded.