NationStates Jolt Archive

I was wondering, what would you do if your nation was under occupation? The U.N. says that it's ok, most major governments say "Go for it!", and most countries that have ever been occupied have insurgencies(such as Iraq, Somalia, France, Germany, Poland, etc). What would you do if you were in the same situation?

(poll coming soon)

Try to kill occupying soldiers, if possible try to kill civilians from the occupying country.

I'd get my .45, all my extra ammunition, and go on a soldier-killing spree.

Do exactly what the insurgents in Iraq are doing, minus the suicide bombing. I'd want to stay alive long enough to kill more of the invaders.

This is the way I see it:

- I'm not a government official, and my name is nowhere on any international treaty, thus I am not bound by them.
- Enemy combatants and non-combatants alike are fair game, on my home turf, I would expect the same if the roles were reversed.
- Chemical weapons are easily accessable to me, and cause a great deal of damage, both physicly and psychologically.
- They brought it on themselves being there, so it's not my fault what I do to them.

It truly makes you think doesn't it? People wonder "why are these people fighting us? We're here to HELP them!".

It's not as simple as that. You can be on Amnesty International's hit list or be a textbook democracy, no matter what, the people will strike out against those who impose their will on others.

Fight them all the way, I'm not even patriotic, I just like it the way it is, If I agreed with the invaders tho, then it might be the other way around, but then I believe that no country should ever invade another country.

And I'm mostly pacifistic.

I'd get my .45, all my extra ammunition, and go on a soldier-killing spree.
Terrorist

Kill the invaders, and only the invaders. I wouldn't run around terrorizing the populace into submission, or anything. And I'd only shoot in self-defense.

exactly what the original IRA did

(not the various splinter groups)

Kill the invaders, and only the invaders. I wouldn't run around terrorizing the populace into submission, or anything. And I'd only shoot in self-defense.


I'd do the same, but I'd bag every enemy soldier I'd see. The way I see it is that they hae no right to be here, so they should expect to be capped.

Unless the invasion was to topple a radical dictatorship that has ruined my country, I would fight to the death. Now, I wouldn't kill my own people, but if the civilians were sheltering enemy soldiers or fighting for them, they would be fair game.

I guess i would flee out of there.

The reason i wouldnt fight for my country? Them invading soldiers are usually poor, working class youth who has been forced into military service and sent against my homeland... even though i wanted to defend it, i just wouldnt be able to fight them... Perhaps i would help the resistance... Nah, as it is now, my homeland is really not worth dying for.. :p

I would do my best to drive them insane too. :)

I would defend my country
only enemy troops unless the civilians put me in direct danger (calling for help etc)

I feel my country is as good as it gets (the US!!!)

It really depends. If I believed my country's regime was undemocratic and unjust (and had just been toppled), I might refrain from fighting the occupying force - but I'd want them to rapidly hand control to my own country's citizens etc.

If it was unjust, I would probably fight them... still, leaving where I do, I doubt it's a major issue for me to have to consider...

Kill the invaders, and only the invaders. I wouldn't run around terrorizing the populace into submission, or anything. And I'd only shoot in self-defense.

Only in self defence? Man, you have to take initiative! The Polish Resitance didn't get anything done "Fighting only in self defence". They lead the battle to the streets, and although the lost, they made the greatest resistance of the war. The Frenchies didn't do much(although the Yugoslav resistance was O.K. And the Russian.)

I would defend my country
only enemy troops unless the civilians put me in direct danger (calling for help etc)

I feel my country is as good as it gets (the US!!!)


You've not been overseas?

I think I can speek on behalf of most people when I say I would fight for my country......if I truly loved and believed in what my country stood for I would fight for it, to the death if need be.

It's good to see no one is supporting the invaders...

Yet.

I think I can speek on behalf of most people when I say I would fight for my country......if I truly loved and believed in what my country stood for I would fight for it, to the death if need be.

I don't care what my country stands for, I could despise my government and I would still fight the invaders!
I see it as the order of things. They invade my home, I have to fight them out, as simple as that.

You don't wanna be like the French, do ya?


There are few things in the world greater than being like the French.

There are few things in the world greater than being like the French.

Being from Massachusetts :)

But that's off topic.

You've not been overseas?

I have. In fact, I live overseas.

There are few things in the world greater than being like the French.
The French can fight perfectly well, but they can't lead worth shit. Since any truly effective resistance or military action requires good leadership, they suck at it.

It depends on who the invaders are I guess, If it was crazy National Socialists I would fight them, If it was a crazy Stalinist country I dont know if I would fight them or not..

Funny in many European countries in WWII, about 90% of the people didn't actively fight the invaders (of course, passive resistance was higher), in fact about 5% actively supported them.
It is very brave of us to say "I'd fight them!" on a forum... :S

It really depends. If I believed my country's regime was undemocratic and unjust (and had just been toppled), I might refrain from fighting the occupying force - but I'd want them to rapidly hand control to my own country's citizens etc.

If it was unjust, I would probably fight them... still, leaving where I do, I doubt it's a major issue for me to have to consider...

You beat me to it. :)

Depends on who the "invaders" are. If they have helped my country get rid of a terrible leader and are helping to put a decnt government in power I would help them directly. If they simply became looter and melded my nation into their I would fight them and die.

Depends on who's doing the occupying. If it's a relatively benign nation, or one that is just too powerfull to fight without hurting my people, I'd use politics and the press to try to drive them out. If it's a truly oppresive nation, or one that can be easily intimidated by a strong insurgency, then I'd fight.

If Canada was invaded, it would be the perfect time for Quebec to break off - however it would suck if we were being taken from the Atlantic side.

Do exactly what the insurgents in Iraq are doing, minus the suicide bombing. I'd want to stay alive long enough to kill more of the invaders.

they are not insurgents, but terrorists. Now that we stopped they're rule they have to resort to other methods to continue their old policy of killing and all that.

Insurgents my ass, terrorists they are. They are just pissed of that their idol Saddam is gone from power and they can no longer oppress the Kurds and the other groups.

I would do what they're doing in Iraq right now.

Depends upon the government that was overthrown and the government the invaders are trying to put up. Say the overthrown government was a dictatorship, then I'd help the invaders. Say the government was a freely elected pluralist democracy and the invaders were Nazis, I'd fight the invaders. It's a case by case basis, you know?

they are not insurgents, but terrorists. Now that we stopped they're rule they have to resort to other methods to continue their old policy of killing and all that.

Insurgents my ass, terrorists they are. They are just pissed of that their idol Saddam is gone from power and they can no longer oppress the Kurds and the other groups.

Actually I think they are pissed off that America is messing around in Iraq and are pissed at America's foreign policy, They see terrorism as the only way to try and force America out of Iraq and the middle east.

Actually I think they are pissed off that America is messing around in Iraq and are pissed at America's foreign policy, They see terrorism as the only way to try and force America out of Iraq and the middle east.

who are 'they'?

not the majority Shi'ites, not the Kurds.

Most of 'they' are foreign born terrorists.

they are not insurgents, but terrorists. Now that we stopped they're rule they have to resort to other methods to continue their old policy of killing and all that.

Insurgents my ass, terrorists they are. They are just pissed of that their idol Saddam is gone from power and they can no longer oppress the Kurds and the other groups.

Actually I'd say that you're ignorant.

I'll make it easy to understand by using Iraqi and US Soldier.

US Soldier: "It was a pleasure to liberate you guys, now we're going to go kill some more people."

Iraqi: "Well I appreciate the fact that they got rid of Saddam but could you please get the hell out of our country now?"

US Soldier: "Nah, we have to help rebuild the country now."

Iraqi: "I think we can handle it from here, thank you very much."

US Soldier: "Okay, either you back off and let us take control of Iraq or we'll bust a cap in your ass, got it?"

So, the Iraqi got a whole bunch of his friends to try and piss the US off enough to make them want to leave but now they're being entitled as 'Terrorists'. I'm not saying that their methods are alright but I don't think that you should be so quick to make judgements about what they're fighting for.

Actually I think they are pissed off that America is messing around in Iraq and are pissed at America's foreign policy, They see terrorism as the only way to try and force America out of Iraq and the middle east.

They don't see it as "terrorism" to begin with... only western powers call it that.

England called the colonials something similar when they hid behind trees and snipered the redbacks instead of standing in lines and taking their lead like real men.

Russian troops dressed in white would ski upon retreating armies, take one shot, ski off, and totally mess with the heads of the half alive enemy.

That was considered terrorism too.

To these people fighting the US, they are at war with an enemy and they're attempting to win, and might I add doing a damn fine job at remaining deadly on many levels. My hat is off to any underdog managing to make a go at impossible odds....

It would depend on the situation and who I was occupied by. If it is a tyrannical regime invasion then I would fight back.
If I was being Liberated by the invaders in order for a better regime to take place of the one I was living in then I would support the invaders.

I replied "go about life as normal", but this is a result of the uniqueness, in its own way, of the country where I live.
Going on with life as normal in Brazil would mean being Brazilian in what you do. No need to fight about it, the climate, the culture, the way of life will simply and inevitably convert any invading force into Brazilians. Trying to be anything else here is a short cut to madness.

We have large numbers of immigrants from all over the world. But unlike most other countries in this situation (USA comes to mind) these immigrants, after a few years start to think of themselves as Brazilians first and of some other ethnic origin afterwards.

Five years ago I was an Englishman in Brazil. The English are as good at retaining their culture and characteristics as any other nationality, but I now think of myself as a Gaúcho, then as a Brazilian and lastly as an ex patriot Englishman. I no longer care if the programme starts on time. Football has started to be of interest. In the Spring, Summer and Autumn, I want to be at the beach. Etc.

No. No invaders could change things here very much. Fighting them would only cause unnecessary bloodshed.

Anyone ever played the game Freedom Fighters?

I replied "go about life as normal", but this is a result of the uniqueness, in its own way, of the country where I live.
Going on with life as normal in Brazil would mean being Brazilian in what you do. No need to fight about it, the climate, the culture, the way of life will simply and inevitably convert any invading force into Brazilians. Trying to be anything else here is a short cut to madness.

We have large numbers of immigrants from all over the world. But unlike most other countries in this situation (USA comes to mind) these immigrants, after a few years start to think of themselves as Brazilians first and of some other ethnic origin afterwards.

Five years ago I was an Englishman in Brazil. The English are as good at retaining their culture and characteristics as any other nationality, but I now think of myself as a Gaúcho, then as a Brazilian and lastly as an ex patriot Englishman. I no longer care if the programme starts on time. Football has started to be of interest. In the Spring, Summer and Autumn, I want to be at the beach. Etc.

No. No invaders could change things here very much. Fighting them would only cause unnecessary bloodshed.


So if the invaders were burning your cities, enslaving your people, and stealing your resources you wouldn't do anything?

People don't invade so that they can become a nationality. They invade to defeat that nation so that they can be more powerful.

You aren't much of a patriot...

Patriotism is just a buzz word nations use to recruit army stock with.

Anyone ever played the game Freedom Fighters?

I played the demo.

I'm not going to hang around. The nations that hate the US the most are even more authoritarian than the US.

So if the invaders were burning your cities, enslaving your people, and stealing your resources you wouldn't do anything?

People don't invade so that they can become a nationality. They invade to defeat that nation so that they can be more powerful.

You aren't much of a patriot...

Firstly, the term patriot I find offensive. It means putting some false ideal of a nation that you are a part of above your own morals. No I am not a patriot.

Secondly, invading forces do not come into countries to destroy the resources there. The USA, at the moment is an invading force in Iraq. Is it trying to destroy things there. No.
I grew up in a country that has historically faced as many invading forces as anywhere except maybe Spain. At times the inhabitants fought, and were wiped out, at other times the inhabitants simply carried on as normal, the invaders were assimilated into the culture of the country. The last group to realy fight the invaders were the Iceni under Boudicca. Try and find any remains at all from this period in East Anglia where they came from. Nothing. They were decimated, wiped out. Other British tribes simply carried on as normal. They survived and went on to rule the country as they wanted to.

Burning cities? It just does not, and has not hapened except to put down rebelion. Why would I want to provoke it?
Enslavement of the people. In what way would we be enslaved. Slave drivers with whips forcing us to do what? If we were a hellenistic city state that was being invaded by the Spartans, then this would inded be a cause for resistance. But, in case you had not noticed, Sparta has faded away. We will bew slave driven as accountants, as retail store workers, as assembly line workers? The last is just about feasible, but highly inefficient. The others simply make no sense.

People invade because they want the resources, well they can try to get at them here. It is not very easy, and would do a great favour to the country by vastly modernizing its infrastructure. Countries are not invaded to show off the military power of the invader. They are invaded for economic reasons. Get that through your head. This being the case the invader does not want to destroy cities, enslave people etc. They want to be able to extract wealth. To do this they have to "colonise" the country. In our case this results in them going native. It always has here, and there is no reason to believe it will not do so in the future.

Now put your jingoistic militaristic I'm so macho attitude away and actually think about the consequences of the possible actions proposed.

Actually I'd say that you're ignorant.

I'll make it easy to understand by using Iraqi and US Soldier.

US Soldier: "It was a pleasure to liberate you guys, now we're going to go kill some more people."

Iraqi: "Well I appreciate the fact that they got rid of Saddam but could you please get the hell out of our country now?"

US Soldier: "Nah, we have to help rebuild the country now."

Iraqi: "I think we can handle it from here, thank you very much."

US Soldier: "Okay, either you back off and let us take control of Iraq or we'll bust a cap in your ass, got it?"

So, the Iraqi got a whole bunch of his friends to try and piss the US off enough to make them want to leave but now they're being entitled as 'Terrorists'. I'm not saying that their methods are alright but I don't think that you should be so quick to make judgements about what they're fighting for.
The legitimately elected Iraqi government hasn't asked us to leave. Your argument is bullshit.

Actually I'd say that you're ignorant.

I'll make it easy to understand by using Iraqi and US Soldier.

US Soldier: "It was a pleasure to liberate you guys, now we're going to go kill some more people."

Iraqi: "Well I appreciate the fact that they got rid of Saddam but could you please get the hell out of our country now?"

US Soldier: "Nah, we have to help rebuild the country now."

Iraqi: "I think we can handle it from here, thank you very much."

US Soldier: "Okay, either you back off and let us take control of Iraq or we'll bust a cap in your ass, got it?"

So, the Iraqi got a whole bunch of his friends to try and piss the US off enough to make them want to leave but now they're being entitled as 'Terrorists'. I'm not saying that their methods are alright but I don't think that you should be so quick to make judgements about what they're fighting for.
The legitimately elected Iraqi government hasn't asked us to leave. Your argument is bullshit.

Actually I'd say that you're ignorant.

I'll make it easy to understand by using Iraqi and US Soldier.

US Soldier: "It was a pleasure to liberate you guys, now we're going to go kill some more people."

Iraqi: "Well I appreciate the fact that they got rid of Saddam but could you please get the hell out of our country now?"

US Soldier: "Nah, we have to help rebuild the country now."

Iraqi: "I think we can handle it from here, thank you very much."

US Soldier: "Okay, either you back off and let us take control of Iraq or we'll bust a cap in your ass, got it?"

So, the Iraqi got a whole bunch of his friends to try and piss the US off enough to make them want to leave but now they're being entitled as 'Terrorists'. I'm not saying that their methods are alright but I don't think that you should be so quick to make judgements about what they're fighting for.
The legitimately elected Iraqi government hasn't asked us to leave. Your argument is bullshit.

Firstly, the term patriot I find offensive. It means putting some false ideal of a nation that you are a part of above your own morals. No I am not a patriot.

Secondly, invading forces do not come into countries to destroy the resources there. The USA, at the moment is an invading force in Iraq. Is it trying to destroy things there. No.
I grew up in a country that has historically faced as many invading forces as anywhere except maybe Spain. At times the inhabitants fought, and were wiped out, at other times the inhabitants simply carried on as normal, the invaders were assimilated into the culture of the country. The last group to realy fight the invaders were the Iceni under Boudicca. Try and find any remains at all from this period in East Anglia where they came from. Nothing. They were decimated, wiped out. Other British tribes simply carried on as normal. They survived and went on to rule the country as they wanted to.

Burning cities? It just does not, and has not hapened except to put down rebelion. Why would I want to provoke it?
Enslavement of the people. In what way would we be enslaved. Slave drivers with whips forcing us to do what? If we were a hellenistic city state that was being invaded by the Spartans, then this would inded be a cause for resistance. But, in case you had not noticed, Sparta has faded away. We will bew slave driven as accountants, as retail store workers, as assembly line workers? The last is just about feasible, but highly inefficient. The others simply make no sense.

People invade because they want the resources, well they can try to get at them here. It is not very easy, and would do a great favour to the country by vastly modernizing its infrastructure. Countries are not invaded to show off the military power of the invader. They are invaded for economic reasons. Get that through your head. This being the case the invader does not want to destroy cities, enslave people etc. They want to be able to extract wealth. To do this they have to "colonise" the country. In our case this results in them going native. It always has here, and there is no reason to believe it will not do so in the future.

Now put your jingoistic militaristic I'm so macho attitude away and actually think about the consequences of the possible actions proposed.


Let's think of nations that have burned cities, enslaved people, etc.

Rome
Carthage
Nazi Germany
Great Britain
The United States
The U.S.S.R.
India
Pakistan
Saudi Arabia
South Africa
Egypt
Italy
Austria
Spain
Japan
China
North Korea
South Korea
Korea
Russia
Afghanistan
Bangladesh
Iraq
Iran
Syria
Israel
Canada(while under the Brits)
Macedon
Greece
Ukraine
Poland
Germany
France
Portugal
Somalia
Ethiopia
Eritrea

and a helluva lot more.

In response to your statements...

Of course The U.S. isn't wreaking hell on Iraq. But are all nations in the world the United States? No. Hell no.

Secondly, Burning cities, enslavement, etc are economic things. Why Brun the cities? So that you can build new ones on top. Why enslave? To get cheap labor. Most countries don't "go native" to colonize a country. The portugese, for example, came to Brazil and said "Hey, we're gonna colonize this place!". They then told the natives to "Convert and become one of us or die." Of course, the Natives weren't very keen on giving up their culture, so the Portugese came and killed alot of 'em. The ones they didn't kill died of Smallpox. Then they brought over slaves from Africa and built a new nation. How is that "going native"?

You thinking that everyone is going to respect your nation and "go native" forever is a false one. I bet that's what the Polish thought before they were invaded on all sides by their back-stabbing allies. What the Indians thought before the British crushed their nations. What the Aztecs thought before the Spanish killed them all and destroyed their civilization.

So you take your everyone-loves-us attitude and think about what you're saying.

We've got the "legitimately elected" Iraqi government in our pocket.

The legitimately elected Iraqi government hasn't asked us to leave. Your argument is bullshit.

It will. Trust me.

Oh, and you triple posted.

See quote in sig. There is my answer.

The legitimately elected Iraqi government hasn't asked us to leave. Your argument is bullshit.

I'm saying that the Iraqi insurgents were once regular citizens who want the US to leave whereas people think they are pro-Saddam terrorists.

I was wondering, what would you do if your nation was under occupation? The U.N. says that it's ok, most major governments say "Go for it!", and most countries that have ever been occupied have insurgencies(such as Iraq, Somalia, France, Germany, Poland, etc). What would you do if you were in the same situation?
Divorced from particulars, it's almost impossible to say. Why were they there? What were their goals at being there? Did they have high levels of support among the local populace? What were their tactics? Did they make an effort to avoid civlian casualties?

If they were there simply to take over and killed anyone who got in their way, I would take up arms against them. If the issue were in doubt, I would probably take a wait and see attitude.

Patriotism is just a buzz word nations use to recruit army stock with.
No, patriotism has different roots depending upon what nation you live in, what its ideals are, how it treats its people, etc. In the US, patriotism is largely oriented toward the Constitution and the people, including one's own family.

Let's think of nations that have burned cities, enslaved people, etc.
In the last 100 years.

Nazi Germany
Great Britain
The United States
The U.S.S.R.
China
Japan.

All of these in one specifically declared war. Not invasions of a country.
Lookee who is on the list. Look at the way these same countries act now. Changed more than a little has it not?


Of course The U.S. isn't wreaking hell on Iraq. But are all nations in the world the United States? No. Hell no.
But you had them in your list. My point is made. War is no longer a matter of destroying cities.

Secondly, Burning cities, enslavement, etc are economic things. Why Burn the cities? So that you can build new ones on top.
Huh? Why bother?


Why enslave? To get cheap labor. Most countries don't "go native" to colonize a country. The portugese, for example, came to Brazil and said "Hey, we're gonna colonize this place!". They then told the natives to "Convert and become one of us or die." Of course, the Natives weren't very keen on giving up their culture, so the Portugese came and killed alot of 'em. The ones they didn't kill died of Smallpox. Then they brought over slaves from Africa and built a new nation. How is that "going native"?
Go study some history. The Portuguese never even sent armed forces to Brazil. In fact they did not even colonise the place from its discovery (officialy 1500) until the end of the 18th century. Yes, the Jesuits came and set up the missions. Look them up and learn something. (Jesuit missions in South America (http://www.google.com.br/search?q=Jesuit+missions+in+South+America&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official) choose freely)
Yes, the natives here, that are no longer alive died of something. Some of them from imported diseases, some of them from old age, some of them from violence, etc. Unlike other places we still have a large native population (http://countrystudies.us/brazil/4.htm)
As to going native. The Portuguese court moved here at the start of the 19th century (running away from Napoleon). They then simply refused to go back, they declared independence and changed their lifestyle to one that fits the country. Yes they kept their language, but not much else. They went native.

Foced slave labour does not work. It never has ever, anywhere. Not even for the Egyptians and the Romans. Househld slaves functioned, but slavery as a labour source for industry etc has always cost more in supervision than it has ever been worth in production.

You thinking that everyone is going to respect your nation and "go native" forever is a false one. I bet that's what the Polish thought before they were invaded on all sides by their back-stabbing allies. What the Indians thought before the British crushed their nations. What the Aztecs thought before the Spanish killed them all and destroyed their civilization.

I doubt the Polish thought that. There is no history of it happening in Poland. Please be clear about the Indians. Do you mean North American or those from India? If the North Americans then I doubt that they expected integration into their culture. Their culture was family based, not one that admits outsiders. If you are referring to the Raj in India, try looking at the culture that was there before the British arrived. The Raj was just the same thing for the vast majority of Indians, it only really affected the maharajahs and other people at the highest levels of the system. For the lower castes it made no difference, except that infrastucture was built that actually improved their lives.
The Aztecs were a warlike nation. They had wiped out a whole plethora of other native nations before they met Pizzaro and friends. No they did not expect integration. But try looking at the Guarani, or the Tupi tribes. You will see a different story. The Aztecs lived in inhospitable regions where a few extra mouths to feed could have doomed the whole community. The Brazilian indians did and do not have this problem. They simply go on with their way of being. This is the way things are done here. Without experiencing it, it makes little sense, but with experience I can tell you that it works.

So you take your everyone-loves-us attitude and think about what you're saying.

I have thought about it. I never said that everybody loves us, I simply said that the culture etc. eventualy gets to everyone. It even got to the fleeing Nazis that settled here. Unlike the case in other South American countries.

If they offer genuine benefits, I wouldn't fight the invaders. I'd sure as hell be irritating, unhelpful and all, and I'd shelter wounded resistance men and give them food or whatever, but for the most part I'd sustain the best elements of my culture and take whatever the enemy offered.

But if they are a regressive, fanatical and repressive group dedicated to the destruction of my culture, then it's time for old 'power lines onto the tank' routine and a mysterious masked man slipping away from the scene...

Well I’m a Canadian citizen and to be honest I can really see any good reason why someone would want to invade Canada let alone be able to. (This is not arrogance on my part. I have no qualms in admitting that many nations could kick our ass and invade us. The real question would be could you keep us when winter hit? Not to mention that the only other place where your supply lines would be longer would be Russia.)

Next I sincerely doubt that Quebec would ever abandon us in our time of need. The Quebec separatist movement is not about being anti-Canadian it’s about being pro-Quebec. While Quebeckers may not have wanted to fight in either world war when they did get involved they fought like mad. Quebeckers are more participatory in Canadian affairs than any other province, I would expect that Quebec would be one of the last places to fall, for a number of reasons, if Canada was ever hit.

As for the question of French leadership, I have only one name for you: Charles de Gaulle. The man was fricken brilliant and caved to no external pressure.

But on to the subject at hand.

In today’s day and age traditional resistance is insufficient. We talk about shooting the enemy soldier or supplying the rebels this will not repulse an enemy. Look at Iraq, whoever is fighting, they are fighting tooth and nail but do any of you have any doubt that the US could occupy them indefinitely? The only thing that could possibly turn the US away from that occupation is the US. Their own citizens would have to pressure their government.

The question is now, am I being invaded by a democracy or by an authoritarian regime? The authoritarian regime would be harder to resist. Resisting them would be a matter of simple resistance. (I say simple but in effect taking another person’s life would be incredibly hard for me. It’s also disturbing that so many of you can say that you’d fight. Are you really so callous about who is on the other end of that barrel?)

The only country who has the history or power to invade a country of my size would be one of the western countries. So the resistance becomes much more complex.
Kill officers- Modern warfare is no longer so much about strategy as it is about logistics. Engagements en masse with armed soldier will have air strikes or ardy fire brought down on you. Quick killings of techies and officers limit a country’s ability to make war.
Video record the abuse of the enemy – Your enemy might be a saint at heart but war is not pretty. Media outlets eat up news coverage like this as if it were candy. You need to do interviews with the families of victims and give them to the media of the invading country. Having media that is friendly to you broadcast it is no good because it will be discounted as propaganda. Having captured soldiers confess to torture is also a good one. DO NOT TORTURE THE SOLDIERS ON VIDEO IT IMBOLDENS THE INVADERS, IT DOES NOT DETER THEM. Anyone who agrees with your cause will feel you are justified and anyone who disagrees will become more entrenched in their views.
Lessen the economic advantages – Western countries keep the populace onside by contending that war is good for business and most of the time they’re right. You can’t let them be. Destroy airports, sea ports, roads and pipelines. This war has to start racking up more and more cost on behalf of the invader.
Get a benefactor – With very few exceptions most populations do not have the supplies to resist an invasion, this role was left to the military. While every American citizen might have a gun chances are you do not. Once you have shown, publicly, that you have the ability to give the invaders pause you need to start actively soliciting outside help. This could be anything from UN humanitarian aid to covert arms supplies.
Put a face on the war – We live in the push button era. Most western citizens do not know what it is like to have to deal with the direct effects of war. You need to be able to infiltrate their country and do some damage. Remember if you are taken prisoner inside their country you’ll probably be entitled to freedom of speech, take advantage of it. While operating in their country spread dissention on student campuses, left wing organizations and if possible tolerant churches. Convincing only half of the political spectrum will not overturn a government policy. Assassinating pro war AND ONLY PRO WAR politicians definitely puts a personal face on the conflict. Offering up video to the media saying why they were attacked, i.e. their vote to support the war, is essential.
Build strong contacts with the civilians in your own country - Don’t make the mistake of putting the entirety of your organization in the hands of some civilians but honestly you need the populace onside. Rampant dissention in your own people will embolden the pro war media. Limit their sound bytes as much as possible.
Routinely organize peaceful protests – This cannot be overstated. Look non violent, rational and like you don’t understand why anyone would do this to your country. Demonstrations should be heavily publicized. Web cast to foreign media if possible if the troops turn on you it needs to be shown.

But yea, I rambled but that in general is what I’d work towards. I personally am an idea person and would do my best to network the cells of the resistance. At the same time I cannot espouse others do something I am not willing to. So at the risk of my morals I’d have to be willing to participate in all parts of the process.

I voted to fight, but I meant "other".

It all depends on the situation. If it's something like the US's occupation of Iraq, I'd just go about life as normal. If it's something more sinister, I'd be fighting back, unless there isn't a chance of making a change, in which case I'd flee the country and get to somewhere where I could possibly make a difference.

See quote in sig. There is my answer.
I've been meaning to ask, why is your sig void in Wisconsin again?

grab yer pitchforks we're goin' in :upyours: ... no wait, they have semmed to have built a wall, let me knock it down :headbang:

bumpz0rz

I'd probably try to live life as normal no matter what kind of occupation it is. Only if I lose my love ones or think i'll lose them due to the occupation would I resort to fighting.

I would fight them the best way I can.
I would cut down as many of those bastard as I could.

I'd like to say that i would fight back, but if my fighting would likely produce violent recriminations against my family, friends and fellow countrymen then I would have to say that i probably wouldn't fight back. I would probably limit myself to trying to give passive aid to the resistance if possible.

In the last 100 years.

Nazi Germany
Great Britain
The United States
The U.S.S.R.
China
Japan.

All of these in one specifically declared war. Not invasions of a country.
Lookee who is on the list. Look at the way these same countries act now. Changed more than a little has it not?

You forgot India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Israel, Syria, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Ukraine, Ethiopia, and Eritrea.

And when you declare war on a nation, you invade. Either you are invaded or you invade. There are very few wars where no one is invaded.


But you had them in your list. My point is made. War is no longer a matter of destroying cities.

Not as much, but it still is a factor. A large factor. Do you know how much military leaders wish they could take out major enemy cities? Alot. Case: The Indians would just love to nuke Lahore, Karachi, and Islamabad into the ground. Then Pakistan would collapse and India would win their war.


Huh? Why bother?

So that you can erase all traces of the former leaders, thus weakening any resitance.


Go study some history. The Portuguese never even sent armed forces to Brazil. In fact they did not even colonise the place from its discovery (officialy 1500) until the end of the 18th century. Yes, the Jesuits came and set up the missions. Look them up and learn something. (Jesuit missions in South America (http://www.google.com.br/search?q=Jesuit+missions+in+South+America&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official) choose freely)
Yes, the natives here, that are no longer alive died of something. Some of them from imported diseases, some of them from old age, some of them from violence, etc. Unlike other places we still have a large native population (http://countrystudies.us/brazil/4.htm)
As to going native. The Portuguese court moved here at the start of the 19th century (running away from Napoleon). They then simply refused to go back, they declared independence and changed their lifestyle to one that fits the country. Yes they kept their language, but not much else. They went native.

No offence, but they were the Portugese. It's a wonder they even got Brazil at all. The Portugese had to go native because they were fleeing someone else. I hardly think the French would have gone native had they invaded Brazil. Or if the Spanish had.

Foced slave labour does not work. It never has ever, anywhere. Not even for the Egyptians and the Romans. Househld slaves functioned, but slavery as a labour source for industry etc has always cost more in supervision than it has ever been worth in production.

False. The Roman Empire ran on slaves. It was also (arguably) more Capitalist than the United States is today, so if Slaves didn't work right then they would have been gotten rid of very early in the Republic.

I doubt the Polish thought that. There is no history of it happening in Poland. Please be clear about the Indians. Do you mean North American or those from India? If the North Americans then I doubt that they expected integration into their culture. Their culture was family based, not one that admits outsiders. If you are referring to the Raj in India, try looking at the culture that was there before the British arrived. The Raj was just the same thing for the vast majority of Indians, it only really affected the maharajahs and other people at the highest levels of the system. For the lower castes it made no difference, except that infrastucture was built that actually improved their lives.
The Aztecs were a warlike nation. They had wiped out a whole plethora of other native nations before they met Pizzaro and friends. No they did not expect integration. But try looking at the Guarani, or the Tupi tribes. You will see a different story. The Aztecs lived in inhospitable regions where a few extra mouths to feed could have doomed the whole community. The Brazilian indians did and do not have this problem. They simply go on with their way of being. This is the way things are done here. Without experiencing it, it makes little sense, but with experience I can tell you that it works.

I am refering to Indian Indians. Calling Native Americans Indians is an insult to the Indians of India and to the Native Americans.
And even though the lower castes of India got better off, did the British "go native"? No! They sat in their estates in Delhi and let their Indian Servants run the country for them. When the Indians realized that the Brits were abusing them, they got pissed and ran them out of town. The Brazilians didn't rise up because, frankly, the Portugese couldn't abuse Brazil. They could barely handle their own country, not to mention Angola and Mozambique as well.

I have thought about it. I never said that everybody loves us, I simply said that the culture etc. eventualy gets to everyone. It even got to the fleeing Nazis that settled here. Unlike the case in other South American countries.

That's because the Brazilians got it easy. Everyone who was weak fled to Brazil, thus leading them to want to forget their weakness and join another community. The Nazi's who fled to Argentinia came to a moderatly succesful nation, so they couldn't integrate.

Bottom line: "going native" is usually only done by those who have no other choice. Of course, some people want to forgoe their culture and join another, but most do it because they have to.

I was wondering, what would you do if your nation was under occupation? The U.N. says that it's ok, most major governments say "Go for it!", and most countries that have ever been occupied have insurgencies(such as Iraq, Somalia, France, Germany, Poland, etc). What would you do if you were in the same situation?

(poll coming soon)
It depends on the situation. If I lived in, say, Iran, and was invaded by someone willing to give me democracy, I would help the invaders. But if I lived in the US, and say Mexico goes Commie and randomly decides to invade, I will fight.

I'd head straight for India-1 Strain Variola & kill the SOBs!!! :mp5: oh yeah, & nukes/radiological, hmmm...let me think.....massive coordinated attacks on economy/infastructure (9/11 anyone?).

I'm not going to pretend to be too brave, or charismatic, or smart; but I do know how to kill a hell of allota people in a short ammount of time :)

I am laughing at all of you internet toughies! :)

Seriously though, untrained "freedom fighters" these days don't really stand too much of a chance of surviving too long, and being able to make a difference. With all of the special forces out there, they would hunt all of you down, and make your last few moments very unpleasant. As soon as your "freedom fighters" made your first move (ie killing some soldiers), a serious world of hurt would be coming your way. Many of the special forces are trained just for hunting the hunters (ex Green Berets in Vietnam), and would kill most of your group before you even know what hit them. Even if you would manage to kill the invaders, don't you think there might be reprisals on your fellow countrymen (NAZI style executions and such)?

The best course of action would be to flee to a neighboring country, or a non occupied zone. There you can get military training, and perhaps be a part of liberating your country.

BTW Seems like the insurgency in Iraq isn't really working out too well.

I am laughing at all of you internet toughies! :)

Seriously though, untrained "freedom fighters" these days don't really stand too much of a chance of surviving too long, and being able to make a difference. With all of the special forces out there, they would hunt all of you down, and make your last few moments very unpleasant. As soon as your "freedom fighters" made your first move (ie killing some soldiers), a serious world of hurt would be coming your way. Many of the special forces are trained just for hunting the hunters (ex Green Berets in Vietnam), and would kill most of your group before you even know what hit them. Even if you would manage to kill the invaders, don't you think there might be reprisals on your fellow countrymen (NAZI style executions and such)?

The best course of action would be to flee to a neighboring country, or a non occupied zone. There you can get military training, and perhaps be a part of liberating your country.

BTW Seems like the insurgency in Iraq isn't really working out too well.

Hey, all I said was "fight the invaders". I never said "Stay here and get no training." I could be fighting them from Canada or something, or getting trained in an allied nation.

First I would ask why it is under occupation.

Is it Cambodia after Pol Pot? Germany after Hitler, Iraq after Saddam, or Norway after Palme?

b0rmpzizes

I could not live if my country was invaded. But I can't kill, so I'll provide food or weapons or information or things like that...

Depends upon who invaded, why they invaded and so on..

I would work my ass off to get a good education, become a good candidate for immigration in another country and go there. I would then probably try to raise awareness of my people's plight.

I'm not much of a fighter and I'm not good to anyone dead.

Hypothetical scenario, right? No secret survey done by the CIA to determine the best next potential target for 'Liberation'? :p Well, okay...

Meh. I'd like to say I'd strap a bomb to my belt and blow the bahoola out of those invaders, but honestly there are better things to do with one's life. And with my eyesight I wouldn't be any good in a firefight anyway.
So I guess I'd support them with arms and information, but not actually fight anyone.

If the invaders made life here change for the better for all people within the country then I would not fight them unless they harmed our citizens to get to that point. But this case is highly unlikly.

In most cases I would defend my county by fighting, providing supplies, shealther, extra. It would not be completely automatic though. If we started it and it was wrong I would protect people but I would not aggresivly attack.

You forgot India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Israel, Syria, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Ukraine, Ethiopia, and Eritrea.

I would be interested to know where these countries invaded. India/Pakistan is a long running border dispute over Kashmir. No invasion has taken place as far as either country is concerened, both have simp´ly stationed trops and police men in regions that they claim are theirs. Bangladesh invaded who?
There was a war between Iran and Iraq. Which lands were invade, what cities destroyed? Israel I am avoiding on the grounds that anything anyone says any way about this just generates flamming. I have my opinion, you have yours. Syria was "invited" to peace keep in the Lebanon. It overstayed its welcome, but it was not exactly a war. Ukraine? There was a bloodless revolution, what war? Ethiopia and Eritrea I know nothing about. Pleas inform me which country invade which and destroyed what cities and took how many slaves.

And when you declare war on a nation, you invade. Either you are invaded or you invade. There are very few wars where no one is invaded.
True, but irrelevant as we are discussing the destruction of cities and the taking of slaves, not the invasion that was the pretext of the thread in the first place.

Not as much, but it still is a factor. A large factor. Do you know how much military leaders wish they could take out major enemy cities? Alot. Case: The Indians would just love to nuke Lahore, Karachi, and Islamabad into the ground. Then Pakistan would collapse and India would win their war.
What military leadera wish they could do, and how war is fought nowadays are different things then. I also question your sources for the idea that the Indians would love to "nuke" major Pakistani cities. Please support this with a little more than just a statement of your opinion.

So that you can erase all traces of the former leaders, thus weakening any resitance. As happened at Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Or less dramatically at Deresden or Coventry. No, destroying cities just destroys infrastructure that you have to rebuild later. Not an intelligent way of going about invading a country

No offence, but they were the Portugese. It's a wonder they even got Brazil at all. The Portugese had to go native because they were fleeing someone else. I hardly think the French would have gone native had they invaded Brazil. Or if the Spanish had.
No offence taken. The Portuguese are seen here as the idiots of the world anyway. We did have French, Dutch, Spanish, German, Italian, Japanese, and even A few English involved in colonizing here. All, without exception, have gone native. Sorry, but that is just the way it is here.

False. The Roman Empire ran on slaves. It was also (arguably) more Capitalist than the United States is today, so if Slaves didn't work right then they would have been gotten rid of very early in the Republic.
Sorry. The roman empire ran on its army, not on slavery. It was the army that built the infrastructure, that created the trade routes, that opened markets. Slaves were household objects of the idle rich. Nothing more, nothing less. Check your history on this.

I am refering to Indian Indians. Calling Native Americans Indians is an insult to the Indians of India and to the Native Americans.
And even though the lower castes of India got better off, did the British "go native"? No! They sat in their estates in Delhi and let their Indian Servants run the country for them. When the Indians realized that the Brits were abusing them, they got pissed and ran them out of town. The Brazilians didn't rise up because, frankly, the Portugese couldn't abuse Brazil. They could barely handle their own country, not to mention Angola and Mozambique as well.
I agree on the insult point, but I had to be clear. The term is commonly used to refer to both groups. Not my choice nor yours, I see, but it used this way anyway.

We are agreeing here. I did not say that the Brits went native in India, I simply said that they invaded, conquered but they did not destroy the culture as you seem to be arguing that any invader would do. This was an example of the culture surviving. There was no "running the Brits" out of town, there was simply an end of an era and a change of rulership. No revolutionary forces fought the invaders, a peaceful movement for self determination arose and succeeded as it was the right time for that movement. You know this, you lived there.

That's because the Brazilians got it easy. Everyone who was weak fled to Brazil, thus leading them to want to forget their weakness and join another community. The Nazi's who fled to Argentinia came to a moderatly succesful nation, so they couldn't integrate.
Check your history again and look to see which was the more successful nation in South America. You may be surprised. I would like you to explain what you mean by "everyone who was weak fled to Brazil", I presume you can detail who these people were, and why they were weak, wheras those that fled to Argentina were not weak.

Bottom line: "going native" is usually only done by those who have no other choice. Of course, some people want to forgo their culture and join another, but most do it because they have to.

Going native is something that happens when you feel relaxed and comfortable with the culture around you. When life is good. It is not something that can be done deliberately. It can be tried, but it never works. (See the Ward Churchill native american debates for evidence here). You go native when the country and its ways get under your skin, whether you will or no.
I am aware that you have moved around a lot in your life. It appears that no culture has quite fitted your personality yet. When it does, you too will run a huge risk of going native. Like it or not.

Run. My country isn't worth fighting for.

Not that I wouldn't fight, but my country does not see me as an equal as the rest.

I would fight fanatically to the death for friends and family, but for country, I would run first.

It all depends. If I didn't like the previous government, and the invaders were promising to support a government I would support, and if the invaders were promising to leave soon, I would do nothing.

However if the invaders were threatening to remain forever, or I liked the previous government, or I didn't like the government the invaders were going to leave, I would take an AK, and go after every soldier I saw. However, I wouldn't do beheadings, or attack any civilians.

Ambush invaders, develop profeciency with bombs, set up agreements with out-of-country suppliers to provide weapons in exchange for stolen money and continuing business, kill touts, work on P.R. to get other countries on our side, develop an extremely strong community base of intelligence and support, send agents to attack the invaders' homeland, kill touts, set up a heavily divided cell system to keep most of the fighters safe, hope like hell you have some good up and coming killers, perform assassinations in the invaders' homeland, kill touts. That should do it. Oh yeah, and hope they aren't willing to stick it out through hell.

I would be interested to know where these countries invaded. India/Pakistan is a long running border dispute over Kashmir. No invasion has taken place as far as either country is concerened, both have simp´ly stationed trops and police men in regions that they claim are theirs. Bangladesh invaded who?
There was a war between Iran and Iraq. Which lands were invade, what cities destroyed? Israel I am avoiding on the grounds that anything anyone says any way about this just generates flamming. I have my opinion, you have yours. Syria was "invited" to peace keep in the Lebanon. It overstayed its welcome, but it was not exactly a war. Ukraine? There was a bloodless revolution, what war? Ethiopia and Eritrea I know nothing about. Pleas inform me which country invade which and destroyed what cities and took how many slaves.

You don't know much about Indo-Pakistani wars, do ye? In the first War, all the fighting was in Kashmir. Armies moved all around Kashmir, attacking towns, etc. In the second war, it was just airstrikes on enemy cities. In the third war, the Indians invaded southern Pakistan, the Pakistanis invaded Northern India, and the Pakistanis invaded REbellious East Pakistan(now known as Bangladesh) and burnt a few cities.

If you didn't know, Ukraine was an independent country before WWII. Then the Germans invade, and how do you think the Ukrainians would respond?

Ethiopia and Eritrea for Dummies: Eritrea was part of Ethiopia, but got pissed and rebelled. Bloody civil war breaks out, mass murders, city burnings, etc(you know, the average modern-day civil war).


True, but irrelevant as we are discussing the destruction of cities and the taking of slaves, not the invasion that was the pretext of the thread in the first place.




What military leadera wish they could do, and how war is fought nowadays are different things then. I also question your sources for the idea that the Indians would love to "nuke" major Pakistani cities. Please support this with a little more than just a statement of your opinion.

Do you know anything of the searing hatred Pakistanis and Indians have for each other(not all, but most)? Peope in both countries chant[i] for the downfall and destruction of the other. If they weren't worried about nukes, why would both countries be in a nuclear arms race and the moment(albeit a small one)?

As happened at Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Or less dramatically at Deresden or Coventry. No, destroying cities just destroys infrastructure that you have to rebuild later. Not an intelligent way of going about invading a country

But don't you think it would undermine a conquering invasion force if there were sections of the city with huge statues of the old government? Now, partial destruction of a city is better, but sometimes you have to go all the way.


No offence taken. The Portuguese are seen here as the idiots of the world anyway. We did have French, Dutch, Spanish, German, Italian, Japanese, and even A few English involved in colonizing here. All, without exception, have gone native. Sorry, but that is just the way it is here.

Exactly, but where those mainstream people? No! They were people who left their old country because they thought it sucked, and decided "Hell, even this place is better than the old country!"


Sorry. The roman empire ran on its army, not on slavery. It was the army that built the infrastructure, that created the trade routes, that opened markets. Slaves were household objects of the idle rich. Nothing more, nothing less. Check your history on this.

The army built the roads, but who managed the vast farms? Who ran the utilities? The armies just built roads and bridges so that they could get to the barbarian hordes faster.


I agree on the insult point, but I had to be clear. The term is commonly used to refer to both groups. Not my choice nor yours, I see, but it used this way anyway.

We are agreeing here. I did not say that the Brits went native in India, I simply said that they invaded, conquered but they did not destroy the culture as you seem to be arguing that any invader would do. This was an example of the culture surviving. There was no "running the Brits" out of town, there was simply an end of an era and a change of rulership. No revolutionary forces fought the invaders, a peaceful movement for self determination arose and succeeded as it was the right time for that movement. You know this, you lived there.

They didn't [i]destroy the culture, but if you compare the difference between Pre-British India and Post-British India you will see some major differences. Yes, there are some good ones(I.E. the roads weren't crap anymore, more cash) but there were bad ones too(the Brits made the hindus and Muslims hate each other, the changed important aspects of Indian life). And there was a running of the Brits outta town. Not with pitchforks and knives, but with uber-large protests and (in some areas) limited violence. I didn't live in India, BTW. I lived in Pakistan. Big difference.


Check your history again and look to see which was the more successful nation in South America. You may be surprised. I would like you to explain what you mean by "everyone who was weak fled to Brazil", I presume you can detail who these people were, and why they were weak, wheras those that fled to Argentina were not weak.

People who went to Brasil:
People who had lost alot in the old world and wanted to start anew.
People whose nations were under occupation and they wanted to go away.
People who were wanted in certain areas.
Peoples whose nations had been utterly crushed and they would find better opportunities in the New World.

I never said they only went to Brazil. They went everywhere in the New World. Alot of the people who went to Argentina were also weak, but Argentina had alot more rich europeans move there(ALOT more than in Brazil).

Oh, and most succesful South/Latin American country is a debatable topic. It could be Argentina, with it's large amounts of money and it's totally friggen awesome cities.It could be Panama, with it's canal and all the banks here. It could be Venezuela with it's oil.



Going native is something that happens when you feel relaxed and comfortable with the culture around you. When life is good. It is not something that can be done deliberately. It can be tried, but it never works. (See the Ward Churchill native american debates for evidence here). You go native when the country and its ways get under your skin, whether you will or no.
I am aware that you have moved around a lot in your life. It appears that no culture has quite fitted your personality yet. When it does, you too will run a huge risk of going native. Like it or not.

Going Native is also what you do when your old life sucked and you think this one is better. I never said they didn't want to go native, but a large factor in them wanting to go native was probably because they wanted to start life anew in the New World.

I have seen plenty of cultures that fit my personality, but I have decided not to "join" one until I am older and have more experience. However, I will never renounce my United States Citizenship. So I may take the culture, but not the country.

I marked other because of my situation. As an expatriate, it will depend on the exact circumstances.

If the US (my home) is under occupation, in most cases, I would attempt to return and support the insurgents. However, that's probably going to be difficult at best, so it's more likely that I would be sending financial support, through whatever means, to the insurgents, while engaging in whatever activities I can to free it from occupation.

If Japan (my country of residence) were occupied, my first thought would be to flee as soon as possible. If that proves impossible, hunker down, keep out of the way of either side, and go about my business as best I can.

It would depend entirely on what type of country that's being invaded.

It depends on the occupation.

If the occupation is better then how the country was before it, I would go about my normal life.

If the occupation was worse, it depends on HOW much worse it is and what the intentions of the occupiers are.

If the occupation is a little worse, I would probably try to go about my everyday life.

If the occupation is a lot worse, I would get the hell out of Dodge.

If the occupation is a lot worse and there are plans to expand indefinitely or my countrymen were being routinely tortured, executed, etc., I would definitely fight back.

me , imho i would probaly fight them,this may sound corny but if a country invaded and occupied my country i would fight them even if the occupiers made it somewhat better,because it is my people's rite to determin if they like that gov't not some foriegn country but that is my honest opinion :mp5: :sniper: :mp5:

me , imho i would probaly fight them,this may sound corny but if a country invaded and occupied my country i would fight them even if the occupiers made it somewhat better,because it is my people's rite to determin if they like that gov't not some foriegn country but that is my honest opinion :mp5: :sniper: :mp5:
You would fight to make your country worse?

You would fight to make your country worse?

Worse in whose opinion? I know that I'd want a choice in what my country is like. No matter if some faraway powerful country thought it's for our own good; I'd fight to make my country better in the way I think it would be better.

In fact, it's extremely unlikely that any country would invade another to improve it in the way I think best, because if they shared my ideals and qualities, they would not have invaded in the first place.

Worse in whose opinion? I know that I'd want a choice in what my country is like. No matter if some faraway powerful country thought it's for our own good; I'd fight to make my country better in the way I think it would be better.

In fact, it's extremely unlikely that any country would invade another to improve it in the way I think best, because if they shared my ideals and qualities, they would not have invaded in the first place.

Let's put this into context.

Loki1 said, "i would fight them even if the occupiers made it somewhat better"

I said, "You would fight to make your country worse?"

If you are not trying to make your country better, but fighting those making it better, then you are fighting to resist improvements, which is fighting to worsen a situation.

Now, onto your expanded explaination. It's not uncommon for one civilization to conquer another and then improve it. That's a GREAT way to gain the support of those you conquered and was used by many Greek conquorers, Romans and Chinese (Sun Tzu's Art of War discusses this concept at great length). By such a strategy, sometimes you don't even have to fight your neighbors to have them fall under your banner.

Kill'em all.

Well, not all. Some should be left to be tortured, reduced to nothing more than animals, then released, so that the enemy would have the extra burden of having to take care of a crippled soldier (dead cost nothing to treat, people with no legs, arms and eyes do).

Others.. well, they would be tortured. And have their bodies boobytrapped. They could have the nice choice of killing themselves, or live a little more and then help us to kill more of them.

Then the civilians. Soldiers are hard to kill, they carry guns. Civilians are easy targets.

And I wouldn't care the reasons of the invasion. The only authority that exists in my country, is the authority of my people. If we support a dictator, bad for us. We actually had that situation not so long ago. I've met people that fought the fascist dictator that ruled my country until 30 years ago, and they are unanimous to declare, EVEN THE COMMUNISTS, that they would ally and fight any occupying power. Even if it was either the US or the USSR.

You see, people are patriots. We love our ground. It is something that is inside of us.. you can't change that.

I know this point has been made before, but I'll reiterate.

It's funny how most people voted that they'd fight, or help the resistance in some way, yet our media/governments brand the resistance in Iraq "terrorists?"

Rrrrrright.

I know this point has been made before, but I'll reiterate.

It's funny how most people voted that they'd fight, or help the resistance in some way, yet our media/governments brand the resistance in Iraq "terrorists?"

Rrrrrright.

lol. indeed :p

If the invasion was to counter or prevent a social [libertarian] communist revolution, I would fight against the invasion.

However, I think this is quite unlikely to happen in the UK in the near future. If the UK were invaded I would most likely defend my community as best I could until there was a chance to flee.

I would support neither the nationalistic cause of the invasion nor the government of the UK. The government didn't fight for me, I won't fight for the government. End.

It's funny how most people voted that they'd fight, or help the resistance in some way, yet our media/governments brand the resistance in Iraq "terrorists?"

Either the right wing hasn't arrived yet, or nobody is getting the analogy here. Don't assume anything...

I agree with Preebles, basically.

Either the right wing hasn't arrived yet, or nobody is getting the analogy here. Don't assume anything...


I reckon there are probably a few of them about, but they won't post here, because it's the sort of issue which might force them to actually question some of their own beliefs.

I was sort of expecting to have been attacked by now. :p

I mean, I'm not a nationalist by any means, but I would resist if people I knew were being killed and if I knew that people were going to lose even more sovreignty. (More than we lose under the current system that is.)

I would actively support the resistance if my country was ever occupied, though only if that the occupiers are a hostile power and run a totalitarian regime. I know that during WWII a lot of countries on the Allied side were occupied by the Americans and the British, yet the local people did not resist.

It all depends on who the invaders are and what they want...

I know this point has been made before, but I'll reiterate.

It's funny how most people voted that they'd fight, or help the resistance in some way, yet our media/governments brand the resistance in Iraq "terrorists?"

Rrrrrright.

I have to say, I agree.

Now, there is a large terrorist presense, but there is also a large group of people who want to defend their country. They aren't the ones that set off bombs in marketplaces, the terrorists do. They do attack military targets, but these real insurgents don't try to hurt their own people.

I´d go for passive resistance. Like disobeying their orders, printing and writing a underground newspaper/ propaganda, sabotaging their gear and efforts, stealing from them, writing and printing propaganda directed at the invaders, convincing them to disobey their orders, etc.

I´d resort to violence if I´d have to, but I´d prefer not to.

Providing I don't side with the beliefs of the invaders I'd support those who were fighting against them by helping to manufacture as much resistance propaganda as possible. It is impossible to properly secure or keep an occupation if the will of the general population is against you, look at the Americans in Vietnam and the Romans in Britain. Terrorism would also be a good strategy as it creates a lot of fear and cost for the enemy. The trick isn't to just kill people, they're just an obstancle. The trick is to make it more costly than it's worth.

I'd fight against occupation. I lived in a small village that was occupied by govermental troops, when I was little; my country was "occupied" by govermental troops in 1973; I know how it is, they say they come to release you but they relocate you and "take away your gold" in the meantime, it's as simple as that, no matter what smoke screen they use. I 'd definitely fight against invaders.

Hell, I'd be the resistence leader if I had to.