Map of America: What if WE Had Been Invaded instead of Iraq?
DriftingByTheStorm
Posts: 8,684
Check out this map:
America After The Invasion
Does it do anything to help you imagine what "great fun" the Iraqis must be having under American "liberation"?
America After The Invasion
Does it do anything to help you imagine what "great fun" the Iraqis must be having under American "liberation"?
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
or is it...we are americans getting attacked by iraqis?
statisticaly speaking, if you tranposed the iraqi occupation on to america, this is what america would look like.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Most of the refugees in Iraq are forced out of their homes by, again, sectarian violence. I can remember reading an article the other day about Iraqi women who have to sell their bodies in Syria because the sectarian violence in their neighborhoods prevents them from finding jobs in their hometown.
Thanks for the amusing propaganda. I can only imagine that the person who posted it either has an anti-western agenda or just simply is naive about the situation in Iraq.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
Well. Your argument seems scorching hot on the face of it, but just under the surface it is half-cooked.
Here is what you, sir, fail to mention.
Iraq, like America, was a soverign country, with its own 'class' structure, civil order, and system of law.
Like America, it had its own subcultures and groups of different belief that "got along" based on the order imposed upon them. They also had a constitution.
Perhaps you didn't realize that when we occupied their country we decided that their constitution sucked. Yes, thats right. We just through it out along with their leader and all civil order. Oh, then we wrote them a new one, failed to let anyone read it the entire time we were drafting it, handed out an outdated copy the day of elections, but only to 1\3rd of the voting public, rewrote it that same day, and asked them to vote on it.
So ...
lets not beat around the bush all day. Lets get down to it.
Here in America we have a class structure. We have different groups that get along, generally speaking, because we have laws and we have an order imposed. Oh, we also have a constitution.
Now, you have to think about the following in an unamerican fashion, because what hapened to iraq (ok, WE happened to Iraq) was "un-iraqi". Follow? Okay here goes.
Say the Iraqis come over here and they invade our country.
They overthrow Bush and his gang, give him a mock trial and summarily execute him. No harm there as far as i see, but lets move on.
I guess we should start with the people.
At this point, nothing else withstanding, they are probably going ape shit.
I mean all the punks, the anarchists, shit-bag-motherfuckers, the KKK, the Neo-Nazis, the minorities, any of the oppressed ... all these people see opportunity.
"You mean we have no federal government?" cry the masses? "Oh shit"!
"Fuck yea! Lets go riot. We'll loot all the stores, and burn shit and steal what we don't burn" say the punks and the anarchists and the shit bag motherfuckers. It will be fun. Hell yeah!
"Lets go find us some niggers to lynch", the Klan bemuse in excited haste.
"Lets follow the Klan around and kill us some negros too. But fuck it. Why stop there? Lets get us some slimy jews too." say the Neo-Nazis with sinister grins.
"Well fuck me. I ain't goin out like this. We best go steel some guns from the pawn shop and load up before those KKK bitches come a'knockin" is the catchphrase of most blacks in the country.
OK. FREEZEFRAME.
You see a trend developing?
Yeah. Chaos!
The country is in fucking chaos!
You have all these different groups chomping at the bit, and i think we can ALL agree that America is a far bit more diverse than Iraq and their paultry sunnis, kurds, and shiites. Hell we have people from every damn nationality on earth in our country! What the fuck is going to happen when all these people have to coexist togeather in the same country with NO LAW and more guns than any other place in the universe?
Easy. LOTS AND LOTS OF MURDER!
I mean holy fuck. Holywood watch out.
This place is going to be lit up.
Shit on fire everywhere, guns a blaze!
BUT IT GETS BETTER
Oh yes. MUCH "BETTER"
Mmm hmm. You see, the Iraqis have a plan.
Oh yeah. Fuck you guys, this is Iraqi-ica now, they gonna rewrite the constitution. You heard me, rewrite the goddamn constitution.
The Bill Of Rights? Fuck that who needs it.
Womens right to vote?
Nope
Black can vote?
Not anymore.
18 year olds?
Not a chance.
Free speech?
No.
Free religion?
Yeah right.
Free to protest, petition, or peacably assemble? I'm thinking not, bob.
Drink alcohol?
Thats a sin.
Vote for a senator?
Nah. We're gonna change the way things run around here, bub.
Got another favorite part of the constitution?
FUCK IT! FUCK YOU! SUCK IT UP BIG BOY! CHANGE IS COMING!
Okay.
What do the Iraqis decide is "best for America"?
Oh well, here is just a sample of what may be on the table:
1. Nationalize the oil fields. Sorry Bush. Sorry Texas. Sorry to most any of the current aristocracy, you're fucked. No oil $ for you. In fact, we are going to take that fucking oil and ship it back to Iraq. Yeah. we really need oil over there. Har Har.
2. Seizure of bank assets. Yep, sorry rich fucks, we're taking your money, it belongs to the state now. Uh huh. We need to help pay for this war, which we started against you. Ha ha.
3. Nationalization of schools. Oh shit. This is not much of a stretch, but yeah, one school system run by the Iraqis and we are going to teach you a whole lot about Iraq and the way things work over there. A whole lot.
4. Seizure of real property. Uh huh. All you golf course lovers, suck it. All you oceanfront property owners, thats Baghdad Bob's house now. etc etc.
FREEZEFRAME.
The list could go on and on. The point is, they invaded US and change OUR laws. They decided what flies. You see a few more people getting pissed off and going crazy apeshit nuts ballistic? Yeah i thought so.
FREEZEFRAME.
Oh shit. I TOTALLY FORGOT.
Did i mention you ...
have no water most of the time
have no electricity most of the time
lots of your infrastructure is bombed to hell
and some of your family members are dead or missing
See some more people getting REALLY PISSED OFF AND READY TO FIGHT?
Desperate, angry, destitute, mentaly anguished people who would probably do all kinds of crazy shit for all kinds of reasons!
ARE YOU TAKING NOTES?
Stop me when i get off fucking base, cause i feel i am like way out on the verge of edge city here!
Some how i get the feeling that the 4% is WOEFULLY LOW compared to what it would really be, should that shit be pulled off here.
Your [ir]rationalization was even worse than the cited direct comparison and failed to take in to account the fact that we imposed our cultural values upon them and rewrote their own laws while failing to provide them with basic humanitarian aid like water and electricity -- all the while telling them it was in their best interest.
[Oh and did i ever tell you that the UN resolution that allowed us to take unilateral control over iraq stipulated that we NOT change any law unless absolutely necessary to the stability of their country, and that we ensure immediately that all action possible be taken to restore basic conditions of humanitarian need -- like water and electricity?
Yeah fuck that. It was just a stupid UN resolution. Everyone else violates them. We'll just follow suit. Screw your constitution Iraq. We have a much better one ... i mean, for us ... haha ... and screw your power and water ... you deal with it. Oh, can you show us the quickest way to your oil fields? Thanks!]
No.
Thank YOU buddy.
Thank YOU!
:(
If I opened it now would you not understand?
oh right...the saddam hussein regime consitution. If your idea of a consitution is whatever a single person decides to do to his own people, then I can begin to see why you have such a loose grip on the situation over there. Again...stop pretending you know something about Iraq other than what you are fed via leftist propaganda channels. Take a few history courses and supplement them with logic.
Again..this is more of your pretending that Saddam's law should actually be passed off as a "constitution". And this stuff about "no one" being able to read the new is one just not even worth responding to. I know that equal participation was not exactly achieved to its fullest extent, but if that's the point you're trying to make, then why resort to exaggerations? You mean to say that Bush and Cheney locked themselves into a room and wrote the constution? lmao.
Yes, different groups...except they're not kept in check by unrestrained brutality. Do you see the difference? Do you have common sense?
What I see is you taking a very simple and baseless point of view and boosting it up with dramatic filler. All you need to say is there are certain groups within our society who are held back by laws.
However, what you don't understand is that they aren't being held back by a brutal dictatorship. That is, they make up such a minority percentage of the population that it isn't impossible to maintain order without cutting peoples' hands off.
What you further fail to understand is that the anarchy that exists in Iraq results not from the complete removal of government by the US, but by total corruption of the government put in place to replace a brutal dictatorship. This corruption is being furthered by an overwhelming level of cooperation by the populace. That is, there simply isn't enough peope in Iraq who are willing to side with peace in place of their personal political agendas. The same can't be said about US citizens.
Yes, I see that you don't understand why widespread violence doesn't exist in the states. You see, it's not because people are being "held back" by the state. It's because there are enough people in the US who believe that it's important to compromise for the sake of society as a whole. The same can't be said about the folks in you know where.
Again, this is more filler drama to make up for your lack of explanatory powers.
You act as though the oil fields in Iraq were privatized to begin with. I guess if you consider ownership of the entire oil supply by a single person to be privatization, then I can't argue with that. Nationalization of the oil would actually be a step in the right direction in this case.
Again...state ownership is no worse, if not slightly better, than the situation that existed beforehand. Remember, your link was about what would happen in the US.... What I'm trying to help you realize that the US and Iraq are two completely different countries, and that's why your link is irrelevant and amounts to baseless propaganda.
Schools in the US are, in fact, nationalized. The federal government sets standards by which local schools must adhere. The question is: How much of school did you actually attend?
Lmao....yeah, Iraq is now a communist state. Facts are confusing, aren't they? I can see why you avoid them.
Again, this results from the sectarian violence which stems any efforts to rebuild, not from the US deliberately destroying infrastructure any chance that it gets.
What you might not realize is that the literature you've been reading has been put out there to influence the highly impressionable and most likely largely uneducated individual who does not understand the meaning of the word nuance. That is, there are many nuances that exist in US society that you have yet to readily grasp the concept of. Good luck to you in your journey towards enlightenment.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
Not taking sides here... just trying to explain...
I think the basis of this map is to create a graphic that illustrates a representative comparison that Americans can relate to. It think it is meant only to show a comparison in population numbers (between Iraq and the U.S. in percentages of the population), best represented by state populations... not to mean that everyone in a certain colored state would all be dead.
Now, to relate it to your arguement and apply direct comparisons... let's say that a foriegn military came over here and overthrew our current government and replaced it with one they think is in THEIR best interests. They don't like the current organization... so, they decide to let the black people be in charge this time because the occupying nation feels the blacks have been oppressed by the white people here. The Latino Americans just want to carve out a region where they can operate and run it in their best interests... suited towards thier culture and customs. They take dibs on the entire Southwest... from California, through Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas... and parts of Utah, Iowa, Nebraska and Kansas. The Blacks and Latinos go along with this program because it favors them as the ones who will be making the laws and decisions now. I don't think white America would sit around and accept this... do you?
I'm not saying that there would be an all out race war... but, I'm pretty sure there would be some American on American killing going on... whether it's the Black people taking over the military and police and looking for some payback or something... and/or the white people not wanting to relinquish their powers.
I'm not trying to make a direct comparison... more like a relative comparison... something Americans can relate to.
Hail, Hail!!!
Most of your rebuttals seem to stem from this "You don't understand that Saddam was bad, and we are good" logic. You can dress it up how you want, but that is what your responses indicate.
Oh, but our laws aren't based on evil dicatorship.
Oh but we really have a constitution, theirs is just some dictators will.
No where did i justify the Iraqi regime or insinuate anything about the intrinsic values of the pre-existing power structure over there which we supplanted.
My argument was simply to show you that, all things being what they were, and just as we supplanted their system with ours, what would happen if they supplanted our system with theirs.
Your version had it that we were just fine and dandy because we didn't have Shiities and Kurds and what have you.
That is CLEARLY a baseless assumption, which i implore you to concede.
Likewise i would concede that the preexisting Iraqi condition was by no means a great one. But you know what, who were we to decide?
As far as society in the USA not being "held back" by law so much as by the common decency of the masses, i quite frankly find that laughable.
Do you really think the majority of Iraqis are fearmongering towel head extremists? No. They are mostly good people who have their differences. Are their certain segments of their society who do not feel they should show restraint against those 'opposing' views? Certainly.
Was Iraqi society "held back" by a brutal regime, or did most people just happen to be good and decent citizens whom unfortunately were repressed in man ways by a brutal dictator and may have felt inhibitied in some ways but probably just restrained from violence because they were good and decent people (as most people in this world actually are)? I tend to think that just like here in America, order was mostly a product of the masses being agreeable to live peaceably togeather with the extremist minorities being held in check by a government -- a goverment -- any government -- not just a brutal dictatorship which saddam unarguably was.
Do you not see that?
You can argue that there is less of a peaceable balance than there is here, and that there are more restrained there by governmental imposition than here, but my belief is that more or less it is the same.
And again, i find your position baseless when it comes to the assertion that order is held here in america by the simple obliging peaceful nature of the masses. Bullshit. Same as for your assertion that order in Iraq has failed because the masses fail to side with peace, and Americans are inherintly better. B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T.
If the current system of government toppled in Amercia for ANY reason from within, much less from the occupation and forced imposition of foreign government from without, we would have fucking bloody chaos here.
Remember Rodney King? And that was just a black guy getting beat up by cops. Not to trivialize it because it was brutal, but if our government was toppled, you don't think a few more of the allegedly peaceful masses, the ones that you assert are so benevolent and willing to keep on keeping on, would seize upon the chaos and vacuum created to fulfill their own agendas and go apeshit in the streets? You are either playing naive or dishonest if you think so.
You can even say we wouldn't be so likely to descend in to disorder, but then your argument would probably hinge on something about our fine military or the people that serve us, and these people would help keep the peace.
a. Sucks that we dissolved the Iraqi army and they never had a comparable force so it would be an unfair comparison
b. I think it would be a baseless assertion anyhow. Look at Katrina. Yeah, the NOPD lost like 30% of their force to desserters withing the immidate aftermath of Katrina. You think if the government toppled and chaos errupted we would have all these brave men and women standing up in masse to put their necks on the line at their own expense and their families? Sure... SOME ... but I bet a fuckload of them would bail.
And the masses?
The people you think would "rise up" to keep the peace here?
BULLSHIT.
Our sad pathetic asses can't even rise up to keep some basic fucking freedoms and liberties that Bush has ass-raped us of.
You think we will rise to fight armed opposition.
HAHAHAHHAHHHHHAHAHAHHAH.
Either way.
That fight equates the very violence you are arguing wouldn't ensue.
So you lose either way on that argument.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
"You act as though the oil fields in Iraq were privatized to begin with. I guess if you consider ownership of the entire oil supply by a single person to be privatization, then I can't argue with that. Nationalization of the oil would actually be a step in the right direction in this case."
You have missed the boat completely.
This list of changes that hypothetical could occur in america was to illustrate simply that. Some hypothetical changes that could be implemented here that are in direct contrast to the existing situation. You start drawing conjecture about what is prefereable and weasling around the isssue at hand which is America dropped its ass in to Iraq and fucked shit up. We wrecked their country and we decided that what ever agreements they had set up for their oil production, we would now decide how that went down (namely, we would be taking that oil) ... so my assumption had Iraq coming over here and doing the same. I could care less to argue the merits of nationalization, etc. It is irrelevant to this discussion and you have digressed.
Another Quote:
"Again...state ownership is no worse, if not slightly better, than the situation that existed beforehand. Remember, your link was about what would happen in the US.... What I'm trying to help you realize that the US and Iraq are two completely different countries, and that's why your link is irrelevant and amounts to baseless propaganda."
What did i just say, "irrelevant to the current discussion". Check.
Quit trying to argue the finer points of policy as related to if the hypothetical fucking policy that i wrote to illustrate a point about the chaos that would ensue HERE if Iraq came and took over our oil production. You are arguing policy merit. This discussion was supposed to be about violence related to occupation. Namely, you said there wouldnt be nearly as much here because we are some how superior. You don't think there would be a fuck ton of violence here SOLEY on account of the poor fat cat oil fucks of this country being literally up in arms over Iraqi occupiers stealing their oil? Fuck yeah they would! Hell you lose triple time on this argument, because this is actualy one where the Iraqis have been complacent. They have shown relatively little active violence based on their oil being stolen. They blew up a pipeline or two but i don't think too many of their Iraqi deaths have been because of it. Face it. If Iraq tried to occupy us we would be fighting them left and right, just as they are us (remember the 5,000 dead soldiers?) and we would be tooth and nail at eachother over personal, political, relgious, social, and FIANCIAL differences. The oil barrons of america would be hiring anyone they could with whatever gold they had shoved up their asses to fight both the Iraqi occupiers and anyone else they needed to fight (yes american citizens) to get their damn wells and pipelines back.
quote:
"Schools in the US are, in fact, nationalized. The federal government sets standards by which local schools must adhere. The question is: How much of school did you actually attend?"
Well. What do we have here.
Looks like
a. an admission that our Federal Government has overstepped its constitutional limits ... a lot of people (i know this, because i've actualy argued your argument against my dad, and he got FURIOUS when i insisted that the federal government ran the school system. he reminded me of the local school boards, and the state whatevers, and who ha. but never mind that) would argue that ... but thanks for pointing out what i view as a sore point of constitutional liberty in this country
b. a personal attack
ok great.
thanks for being topical with me.
quote:
"Lmao....yeah, Iraq is now a communist state. Facts are confusing, aren't they? I can see why you avoid them."
LMAO.
Yeah you missed the point again.
You want a apples to apples comparison of what violence would be like here versus violence in iraq currently? That is the issue, yes?
Okay, well you are laughing at a simple assumption i made about a possible change that could occur here under IRAQI occupation. Yeah. They might instil some sort of quazi-communist dicatorship here (it sounds familiar right? you do agree that they had something like that over there right?) and therefore they may seize the real properties of american citizens as part of their "new law for Iraq-ica"? Ok. don't argue that with me. Who cares. The point is you missed the point. I wasn't saying we did that over there. I'm saying WE did THERE what WE do HERE. THEY would do HERE what THEY do over THERE (they being the regime of Saddam, not the poor Iraqis).
quote:
"Again, this results from the sectarian violence which stems any efforts to rebuild, not from the US deliberately destroying infrastructure any chance that it gets."
Refering to the destruction of infrastructure?
Did i ever say that the US was deliberately destroying infrastructure?
NO! We accidentaly destroyed some of it in our war, a lot more of it was decrepid to begin with thanks to our years of sanctions and even more of it is now fucked up because of chaos and looters and people opposed to our occupation who are trying to make our life difficult, but certainly NOT "sectarian violence" that has no relation to infrastructure destruction.
And again, either way you are miles away from the point.
The point is CIVILIAN DEATHS. Remember? You don't think that some of the crazies in our country would go trying to destroy power lines and such all over the place ... infrastructure woefuly underprotected by the generaly unconcerned Iraqi occupational forces (just as we bitch and moan about the iraqis sabotaging their own infrastructure but seemingly not being on the ball enough to defend against it ... hey remember it was our CHOICE to invade ... it is OUR mess to protect) ... anyhow ... given that I assume some idiots here would run amuck and fuck up our infrastructure ... and our government being toppled those responsible would probably just quit their jobs ... half the utilities are subsidized by ... gasp ... government ... and blah blah blah ... do the fucking math ... it would be a goddamn nightmare, and people would be killing eachother over it. Choose to play naive over it some more but it is true.
I could go on and on about all the dishonesty in your response.
You categoricaly rejected just the meat and crux of my entire argument about violence in America springing forth from chaos and the disorder of the vacuum that ensues and the overturning of our constitution etc etc ... with
"Again, this is more filler drama to make up for your lack of explanatory powers."
WTF?
Who the hell could take you seriously.
All that shit was legitimate as hell and on the fucking money and you say "filler drama" and "lack of explanatory powes." YOU sir lack explanatory powers, and you fall back on personal attacks to cover.
The best part,
the most fundamentaly dishonest part of your whole silly rant was this piece:
"What you further fail to understand is that the anarchy that exists in Iraq results not from the complete removal of government by the US, but by total corruption of the government put in place to replace a brutal dictatorship. "
WHAT THE FLYING MONKEY FUCK?
You just blamed the entirety of the violence in Iraq on ... what ... what ... on "corruption of the government put in place to replace a brutal dictatorship."
HOLY SHIT!
You see a fallacy of logic there?
WE invaded their country. WE toppled their government. WE rewrote every law on their books to OUR explicit advantage ...
[and their implicit but well realized disadvantage -- go see how we rewrote the laws for Russia when it collapsed ... and how just a few years later their whole economy collapsed a second time because our rules and privitazation and free market economics FUCKED THEIR SYSTEM UP ... we KNOW that privitazation and introduction of free market economics and the removal of trade barriers and tarrifs FUCKS UP LOCAL ECONOMIES to tremendous scales ... thats what IMF food riots are all about ... we tear down all the rules put in place by a country to insulate its economy from the world and flood it with competition ... local producers cant compete and they get FUCKED ... the whole economy gets FUCKED ... the people get fucked ... people starve, they die, they fight eachother... you know the provisions in the new Iraqi constitution provide explicit advantage to US corporations? that constitution is modelded upon years of work done by the IMF and WTO ... we gave them the most liberal goddamn set of "free trade" laws we could think of ... explicitly to give our corporations an advantage to rush right in there and suck up all their goddamn resources, steal their market, and suck all the wealth out of their country and in to ours. end minirant]
... so we come to their country, fuck up their shit, topple their government, rewrite their laws, and ... gasp ... IMPLEMENT A NEW GOVERNMENT ... and then you fucking blame THEM for corruption?
GET THE FUCK OUT.
Back to our little comparison: Iraq comes over here topples our government, rewrites our laws, implements a new government ... YOU DONT THINK ITS GOING TO FUCKING BE CORRUPT AS ALL GODDAMN SIN? Who knows what it would look like, it probably wouldn't be democratic, so it may not even involve us. Hell it PROBABLY wouldn't. But it sure as fuck would not be to our advantage, and it CERTAINLY wouldn't help violence levels in America.
I'm going to bed now.
I can't believe i even responded to all this crap.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
If we had not attacked Iraq those arabs would not be killing each other. You might make your self feel better by trying to wash your hands of these deaths but it wont change the fact that we are the cause of those deaths.
You want us to escalate the violence over there so you can see something a bit more grandiose? is that it?
not enough death for you, huh?
:(
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Wow...gotta love how that has nothing to do with the original link. The link was not about a "whose fault it is" discussion. It's merely some twisted supposition based on a purely imaginary scenario with no real analogical integrity.
In other words, the link was just stupid and I've made that point pretty clear already.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
Translation: So what...America is still evil just because....
I don't think anyone would have a hard time seeing that you have some difficulty with arranging your ideas into sensible paragraphs. That's why I'm not goint to bother responding to your posts anymore. If you feel so passionately about world issues, then I highly suggest furthering your education.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
Funny, i've had several private messages in the past week from people telling me they have really enjoyed my posts in AMT, and that they wanted to tell me they were sorry i was taking so much flak for just making reasonable statements.
you may want to try some reading comprehension exercises, and then go back to the response that you claim you aren't going to both with anymore.
as for the comment, "the link was just stupid and I've made that point pretty clear already.", i think it is pretty clear to those with a functioning brain what is stupid, and what isn't in this thread.
The "logic" of your response was pretty poor.
Try rereading my response for a thorough analysis of just how poor it really was.
Sheesh.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Actually, if we were being invaded, there would not be nearly as much order as their is now. There would be riots, looters, and seperatists causing chaos and killing fellow americans.
You're thinking shows just how distant this war is from us, and how that distance makes us very naive.
Yeah that is it......Not enough death. It was a joke for the idiots who like to refer to Cda as America Jr. Now that isn't too high for ya.
mmm.
i love a good joke.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I'll admit to that.
If, say... we were invaded buy a Muslim force who felt we were a decadent, godless society that worships sex and money more than God... and decide to "Save" us form our evil ways. They take out our current government, shred the Constitution and set up a theocratic authority that bases its laws on Holy scriptures... and makes us pray 3 to 4 times a day and shit like that.
You're damn right I'd be out there killing people. I'd join up with one of them Montana militias and be setting I.E.D.s to blow up their jeeps... and I'd be going after treasonous 'Americans' that are helping them install this bullshit system.
I agree we are flawed... but, it's up to US to change if we want to. Not some fucking foriegn force from the other side of the globe that decided we'd be better off if only we were more like they are.
Hail, Hail!!!
Thank you for concisely illustrating the point.
I don't know why it is so hard for some to comprehend.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
first; we have been invaded. the enemy walks among us.
second; 140 million americans own guns. over 14 million carry conceald weapons legally. not even the american government could take over the country should it decide to go against the constitution.
we can; have; and will continue to be attacked. just as almost every country has. the UK has has many more attacks in the same amount of time. (and foiled attempts). the idea that america could be taken by anyone is pure nuttery.
Let's not forget the timeline of what happened in Iraq:
1. Shock and Awe
2. The army was disbanded making A LOT of people unemployed
3. The de-Baathification of Iraq - basically firing any professional who belonged to the Baath party.
Then what happened: the insurgency was 95% Iraqis and 5% foreing fighters. What that means is that, after "mission accomplished" there was still a group of nationlists, mostly Sunni, who opposed the occupation. It makes perfect sense that they opposed the US because they had been in power until then and lost their power.
**If the US was invaded, there would naturally be groups that oppose the occupation as well as groups that are glad that the govt. was deposed. To expect that no one would fight back is unrealist, to be kind
Then, while the insurgency is mostly attacking the invading army, a small group of them are attacking the other groups or Iraqis. It wasn't the insurgency who started the secterian war, it was al-Queida in Iraq, or the aforementioned 5%.
Now, the other group needs to defend itself as well. Let's remember however, that this group is allied with the invading force and also forms most of the government: the Shias.
The secterian war keeps escalating. The invading force keeps fighting the insurgency and the terrorrists keep attacking.
Yes, pretty soon, all you have is chaos.
**If the US was invaded and occupied by another country, why wouldn't the same thing happen? I'd say that at first most people would be united against or indifferent to the occupying force. But the moment one group of Americans starts attacking another group of Americans and you start getting tit-for-tat retaliations, you'll have the same situation as in Iraq.
Oh.
Man.
I have to give you credit.
I will concede the following:
I should have never tried to argue the logic of an invasion against America. It was a slippery slope, that i thought illustrated the validity of the concept originaly presented.
It didn't.
All it did was confuse the issue.
The real issue is that lots and lots of Iraqis have died, and that the United States is to blame as the primary entity responsible.
The map was a simple attempt at showing those deaths,
as equated to terms Americans might more easily understand.
I guess, in that respect, the question of a successful invasion against America is irrelevant.
The fact that you would like to deny that the US is the entity primarily responsible for those deaths is the real argument here.
If the orignal lengthy response i issued doesn't prove that the US could be invaded, it does illustrate in various manners that the burden of responsibility does fall squarely on the shoulders of the United States.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
the map is propaganda. does that map look like it represents the percentages objectively? you could take all the red states away and replace them with one red state in a populated area, such as Florida, and it could appear that far less have died.
i would think those pulling the triggers and detonating the bombs are the ones primarily responsible. US has responsibility, too, but not exclusively.
I guess it's all how you look at it.
The map is factualy correct.
You call it propaganda simply because the creator chose to use a large number of low population states to indicate that percentage as an illustrative measure.
You don't think that is a fair illustration?
Sure you could make JUST florida red,
but then only Floridians would see the message.
But you put most of the heartland states in red and suddenly you have America's attention ... in theory.
Or you just have people saying the map is propaganda.
What ever.
I say it is simply an illustration of a point that you find inconvenient and uncomfortable. Thus you choose to discredit it by essentialy arguing, "well, yeah. i mean - it is correct, but ... they could have done it this way instead and made far less of a point to the very audience they were attempting to reach!"
Yeah.
Okay.
:(
When a drunk driver plows head on in to someone who isn't wearing a seatbelt and that person goes flying through their windshield as a result, who is the one primarily responsible?
The one who CREATED the situation -- the drunk driver?
Or the person who commited the contributory action -- the person who didn't buckle up?
The United States CREATED the situation.
Those doing the killing have engaged in a contributory action -- they are seized upon an opportunity ... which WE created.
You can slice it whichever way you want.
I guess i can't make you see the light, only shine it on your face.
:(
If I opened it now would you not understand?
i suppose we were primarily responsable for killing hitler and taking all the land the german people aquired too.
uh...yeah. you pretty much nailed it. thats pretty much what propaganda is. skewed viewpoints
if a foxnews chose to highlight new jersey or something and said "Its only a tiny bit of the US." Then everyone would be up in arms over how its US propaganda.
why the double standard? i dont see a difference.
suicide bombers and death squads are equivalent to seat belt violators now? I would say the person not wearing the seat belt was highly responsible considering he got into a car with a drunk, but whatever. this metaphor doesnt make much sense...
people should accept responsibility for their own actions, including the U.S, shiite, sunni or whoever...
oh man.
reread please.
DRUNK man drives down a road.
Seatbeltless man in ANOTHER car.
DRUNK MAN HITS SEATBELTLESS MAN.
Comprende?
Wow. I don't know what to say.
The truth is that your supposed quote for Fox News would actualy be acurate. UNLESS Fox was attempting to IMPLY that the "tiny bit" was a reference to population, there wouldn't be much to get up in arms about.
The map does not imply ANYTHING. It simply is attempting to represent population by highlighting certain states. Do you disagree that the populations of those states is 4% of US Population? Is it not then fair for the map to merely suggest the notion that if those numbers were transposed here, that if you lived in THOSE states, you would be a casualty?
Come on now.
What is your problem again? I would hope most Americans understand that populations in farm states are not nearly as high as those of costal states.
If they are ignorant of that, then the number FOUR PERCENT should remind them.
The map isn't misleading, your brain is.
If I opened it now would you not understand?