If your country was invaded would you use guerilla tactics to defend it?

You mean like the American colonists did during the Revolution?

Abso-friggin-lutely.

WOLVERINES!!!!!!!!!

I'll do what it takes to DEFEND Amercia.

You know, I was thinking about this exact same thing while watching some of the coverage today. A lot of things we're calling the Iraqis despicable for doing we would probably be called heroes for doing on our own soil.

i'd use french-canadians as human shields. CTDelude, where are you?

Technically I doubt you would see Americans hiding behind civilians (especially woman and children) as shields. I doubt you would see Americans surrendering period let alone surrendering than attack. Maybe turn like we are trying to retreat and attack but never surrender and attack.

I'm sorry but they are relying on terrorist attacks. Also remember that these are the military men attacking us like this. Not civilians. If we were attacked and as civilians we fought back we still wouldn't pull such poor tactics.

People need to remember, and hopefully Jacob can vouch for this, is that in war there needs to be honour and a sense of respect, a sense of restraint to not sumbit to the lowest common denominator.. Because if there isn't, war becomes something entirely different and even more ugly than you can imagine.

Just make sure I have a gun.

Funny, but I always imagined war being that ugly, especially when your home is being invaded.

If the United States were invaded, I'd fight until dead, and I don't give a damn what tactics I'd use. Anything to kill the other guy in my country.

I see where this is going, and I agree. I'm a little bit tired of the "holier than thou" in times of war attitude myself.

I don't think this is about the "war is just" argument at all, so I would hesitate to bring that into this, if I were you. I can't blame anyone, whether it's myself, or another country's citizens, to fight to defend their country.

I wouldn't go so far as to say the Republican Guard is defending its people though. Just their government.

(edited for clarity)

Or those pesky Indians before them?

And yes. Yeah...I would. Might die in a matter of seconds, but yes, I would die for my country if it came to that point.

I think those tactics are legit.

At the same time, I remember people freaking out seeing American troops pointing weapons at surrendering Iraqis. Well, that's why. I expected something along these lines, although I figured it would be a guy walking up and setting off a bomb.

The Americans are going to be pretty jumpy now when it comes to taking people alive.

No, they are relying on guerrilla tactics. Terrorism is defined as violence to achieve a political objective. They're both two different things.

i think the honor or respect lies not on how you fight, but how you win.

Clever guerilla tactics and outsmarting the enemy are one thing, but faking surrender and then attacking, while it may win you a skirmish, ultimately degrades your army's ability to fight or surrender.

Posing as civilians and then attacking also risks more civilians being targeted or killed accidentally, neither of which I imagine would cause Hussein to lose much sleep.

well, somewhere, Sun Tzu mentions that you are to respect your enemy and NOT UNDERMINE him.

i think undermining and unrespecting our enemies would be if we flew up in a couple of Cesna AirWagons at 200" and tossed grenades out the windows. We know the enemy could fuck us up, so we chose to minimize the OUR casualties by launching bombs and missles from all the way in the Red Sea or drop them from 50,000+.

Keep in mind that all of these rules, and codes about warfare, America is one of the few countries that actually follow them.

About guerilla tactics, I've gotta agree with Sword. You would simply not see Americans hiding behind women, or children to fight.

You would see us hiding in a hole in the ground, covered by leaves, waiting for them to walk by, un-aware, then pop up and shoot them all at the same time.

That is called an ambush.

That is a guerilla tactic.

Hiding behind a woman, and shooting at your enemy, is called a coward, with no respect for human life at all.

That is a terrorist.

In war, people die. If you kill more of them, than they kill of you, you usually win.

That's the way it's done.

But there has to be "line" of behavior that should not be crossed. Not for "rules of war", but for "rules of humanity".

That is a whole series of debates in itself though, as you realize that what we consider moral, and right, is not the same as what other cultures deem moral and right.

I wouldn't hide behind any women or children, but if I could sneak into an enemy compound on American soil with a bomb strapped to my back to take it out you bet I'd do it.

I think we all would.

Coward = YES
Terrorist = NO

By that definition, all war is a terrorist action. In this case, the Iraqis are fighting to keep Saddam in power, and we are fighting to oust him.

I really wish we could go back to the "terrorism == targeting civillians" definition. Sometimes, I miss the eighties...

Then I see the music videos again, and the greater good prevails.

which is still a guerilla tactic... I mean, what would we do? Would we evacuate the damn buildings or place more women and children in there?

Who determines that LEGALITY, Devin?

You? I can find as many lawyers who could argue for it, as would argue against it.

That's an opinion, not a fact.

Also:

"I think people are taking human shield too literally. They are not using people as shields like in Total Recall. They are placing them in buildings that are likely to be bombed."

Without exception, this must be the silliest thing I have read in a few days, by either side.

As opposed to placing them in front of soldiers, where they might be shot?



Take care,
Chuck

If my country was invaded, then yes, I would absolutely use any tactic to defend it.

If my house was bombed I'd be even more pissed, not under shock and awed.

By the way, for the last time, attacking combatants is not terrorism. That's the whole point of war: Killing the unfortunate bastards on the other trench, before they kill you.

That's why I'm anti-war.

Thanks Dev. Here's a more complete definition from dictionary.com

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

or

the systematic use of violence as a means to intimidate or coerce societies or governments

Right, the Iraqi armies have warehouses of women and children that they feed and clothe and keep on the front lines, because human shields work so much better than, say, body armor, or ducking.

Please allow me the use of a rolleyes here as well.

Gio, gotta take you up on that one.

<a href="http://www.miriamwebster.com" target="_blank">www.miriamwebster.com</a> defines "terrorist" as such:

One entry found for terrorism.

Main Entry: ter·ror·ism
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1795
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

It is this "systematic use of terror", that is in question. Hiding behind women, and making a pratice of doing so, would certianly meet the bill of a "systematic use of terror", within a society.

Therefore.

A terrorist.

War makes for some strange semantic arguments.

Without the backup of any real military forces it probably would resemble a Red Dawn, guerilla warfare scenario, but I think all that changes once you have a two "genuine" armies facing each other.

I heard a pretty good interview on Fresh Air last night with a guy who'd just written a book about war crimes, specifically those that occurred in the Serbian war. He had some interesting and scary observations on the kind of battle that 'evolves' from situations where troops ambush under the pretense of surrender, and it was not pretty. To sum up, expect our troops to start shooting first and asking questions later more often if that sort of thing happens again.

The whole idea of having rules in a violent conflict -especially in the case where one of the combatants is as severely outnumbered and out-gunned as Iraq- is pretty ironic for me as someone who is purely anti-war. But there's (of course) a twisted logic to the rules of surrender being observed very strictly on the battle field in the interest of saving lives. That, combined with troops dressing up as civillians and attacking from crowds, is just going to cause more people to die needlessly.

On the flip-side, it's hard to imagine making decisions that stick to ANY formal decorum when you're being shot at. Desperate situations that call for on-the-fly decisions that may ensure your survival or bring about your death would surely incite some behavior that may well be construed as treacherous by your enemy, but to the little guy scurrying for cover, who's to judge him in his moment of life-or-death panic? I can't even imagine what the fuck I'd do aside from shit myself.

I hope at least that I would be able to make decisions that wouldn't needlessly endanger innocent people around me in an effort to avoid capture or death. What more can you do?

btw i cannot spell.

Jacob,
I wasn't saying Iraq was doing it one way or the other.

Just saying that saying placing innocents in a "building that might get bombed" is the same thing as placing innocents in front of combatants that might get shot. Devin claimed there was a distinction between those two.

To paraphrase his signature: "What difference does it make to the dead, whether the mad destruction is wrought by being placed in a building as a human shield or being stood in front of enemy combatants?"

Chuck

Edit:
And Chuck is my actual name, as distasteful as that might be. Thanks for telling me what I think. You are quite accurate.

If America were invaded, I think most folks (myself included) would fight in any way possible to defend it. Hiding in bushes to ambush the invaders, laying mines... all that fun stuff.

However, there are things I don't think I would do. Placing civilians in likely military targets and shooting prisoners who had already been subdued spring to mind. The whole surrender bait-and-switch seems a tad less offensive, but I'd still shy away from it since it would tend to make a reasonable enemy jumpier and put my countrymen who choose to surrender at greater risk.

A certain "holier then thou" attitude in wartime is natural. I'm going to be upset if folks fighting on my side are killed. In the cold light of reason, though, one has to admit that the point of war is to keep the enemy from shooting at you in any way possible. However some things are unacceptable even in wartime, and, if the reports are true, we're seeing some in Iraq.

No, guerilla tactics refer to small, tactial units using hit-and-run, unconventional warfare. Think Navy SEALs, Viet Cong, etc. This is opposed to the "line up nice and straight and shoot one another like gentlemen" warefare that large military forces seem to be so fond of.

A large, sufficiently armed military is capable of destroying just about anything it encounters, save a larger, better armed military. The point of guerilla tactics is to not be encountered, but to still inflict dammage.

No, politics makes for strange semantic arguments. War makes for statements like "bad guy, shoot now."

Dev,

I didn't say anything about legal or illegal violence.

Something like the "Shock and Awe" bombing campaign, designed to coerce the Iraqis into surrendering?

Hell-fucking-yeah!

Hell, we can't stop Kronos from using guerilla tactics. His neighbors are pissed!

I believe that that is one of their goals; the Saddam loyalists view those who surrender as traitors who should be killed anyway. I also believe that the Iraqi dictatorship wants as many civillians to die as possible, in order to paint America as a great monster running over inncoent people, just as Bush wants to paint us as the relucatant hero coming to the rescue of an oppressed people.

As for "Shock and Awe", it certainly meets the definition of terrorism. It's intent is to coerce the non-combatant Iraqis to surrender. The "war" option is where we simply level everything. That wouldn't be terrorism. Just war.

Take care,
Chuck

It's only a weekend hobby.

I think the terror in "systematic use of terror" is synonymous with my terrorism definition. I'm sure the definition of terrorism is NOT the "systematic use of causing extreme fright and causing them to shit a brick". Sure enough, using <a href="http://www.miriamwebster.com" target="_blank">www.miriamwebster.com</a>, here's the definition.

Main Entry: ter·ror
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French terreur, from Latin terror, from terrEre to frighten; akin to Greek trein to be afraid, flee, tremein to tremble -- more at TREMBLE
Date: 14th century
1 : a state of intense fear
2 a : one that inspires fear : SCOURGE b : a frightening aspect &lt;the terrors of invasion&gt; c : a cause of anxiety : WORRY d : an appalling person or thing; especially : BRAT
3 : REIGN OF TERROR
4 : violence (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands &lt;insurrection and revolutionary terror&gt;

I never knew this before looking it up, but it seems that "terror" and "terrorism" are interchangable. Also, terror begins to sound strange once you repeat it outloud a few times.

No, it is intended to coerce the Iraqi military to surrender.

The point of "Shock and Awe" is to bomb the utter hell out of essential military targets, while minimizing civilian losses. This illustrates that we are so good, we can take out what we want, when we want, and that fighting against us is futile.

As I and others have written elsewhere, terror is a cornerstone of any competent martial strategy. From Sun Tzu to George Bush, from the man in the ring to the man on the battle ship, from hand-to-hand combat to ICBMs, if your enemy is afraid of you, your victory will come that much easier.

In today's lexicon, the bad guy is a "terrorist," and the good guy is a "soldier" or "patriot." These definitions distort the original meaning of the word, and are probably applied liberally by both sides. To us, the Iraqi loyalists are terrorists, and our guys are patriotic soldiers. To Saddam, the loyalists are patriots, and our guys are villains and terrorists. To the people of Iraq, a mix of the two is probably common.

It is common today for politicians to try and set the terms of debate; if you can do so, you've already won. Pro-war types want to label Iraqi loyalists as "terrorists" because doings makes any action taken against them that much more justified. Saddam wants to label the US war as an illegal invasion, because if he can do so, he becomes a hero defending his people.

Would that be better, though? This is one of the problems with the semantic games people play these days. We're engaged in a "war on terror," but we're using "shock and awe..." Isn't that terrorism? Why, it sure seems that it is! We'd better be good little Americans and just turn the country to glass like we used to. Can't be engaged in terrorist activities, after all.

I hate these kinds of games. I would much rather Bush say "Saddam is evil, and must be taken out of power" that try to paint him with the terrorist's brush. The reality of the situation wouldn't change, but we would be that much more honorable for it, and our moral stance that much clearer.

Dammit, I hate reasonable conservatives.

The problem is that people don't use words the way they were intended. Al la Alice in Wonderland, words mean precisely what I want them to mean, nothing more, and nothing less.

See discussions on "Digital Rights Management" and "Anti-Copying Technology," "Environmental Conservation" and "Putting Loggers out of Jobs," the "War on Terror" and the "War on People We Don't Like;" all are references to the same things, but from distinct points of view.

People have a need to feel good about their actions, and if we can assign a noble-sounding name to our cause, it is that much easier to get support for it.

I support Bush and the war in Iraq, but I honestly wish we could stop with the lexical games.

If you like, I could chew on an alka-seltzer tablet; I'll still write the same, but I'll look rabid. For five bucks, I'll even give you a wild-eyed look.

Edited because I remembered what alka-seltzer is.