WHAT IF AMERICA WAS INVADED?
Larry S. Rolirad | 03.10.2005 19:15 | Analysis | Anti-militarism | World
What if the United States was invaded and occupied by a foreign military force? What if another country didn't like our leader and they used their superior army, navy, and air force to invade our country to remove him? What if another country invaded us because we have 1,000,000 times the stockpiles of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons than all the other countries in the world combined? How do you think Americans would react if we were occupied by a foreign military?
WHAT IF AMERICA WAS INVADED?
by Larry S. Rolirad
What if the United States was invaded and occupied by a foreign military force? What if another country didn't like our leader and they used their superior army, navy, and air force to invade our country to remove him? What if another country invaded us because we have 1,000,000 times the stockpiles of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons of all the other countries in the world combined? How do you think Americans would react if we were occupied by a foreign military?
And what if the United States was invaded by a foreign force in 1839 when our country was at the same stage of evolution as Iraq is today? What if the US was attacked because the invading country did not like the fact that President Andrew Jackson had been responsible for the genocide of tens of thousands of American Indians. What if the US was invaded because another country didn't like the way human rights violations were commonplace against Native Americans, blacks, and women? In just one ruthless move, President Jackson sent 4,000 Cherokee men, women, children, elderly, infants, and fetuses to their deaths.
President Jackson ordered Cherokees arrested and dragged from their homes and driven by bayonet point into stockades. They were then loaded like cattle into six hundred and forty-five wagons and sent west, just like Adolf Hitler ordered the Jews loaded onto cattle cars to be exterminated. Most of the Native Americans who were forced on trains died from extreme exposure to freezing temperatures. Ninety tribes, in addition to the Cherokee, were removed from their rightful homes to the Indian Territory, now Kansas and Oklahoma. Under President Jackson's reign smallpox-infected blankets were deliberately given to unsuspecting Native Americans which killed them by the tens of thousands. The similarities between the abuses of human beings by Andrew Jackson, Adolph Hitler, and Saddam Hussein are striking.
Eight years earlier, in 1831, the Supreme Court of the United States, with the decision rendered by Justice John Marshall, declared the forced removal of the entire Cherokee Nation from their ancestral homes to be illegal, unconstitutional, and against US treaties made with the Cherokee Nation. President Andrew Jackson, having the executive responsibility for enforcement of the laws, had this to say: "John Marshall has made his decision; let him enforce it now if he can." Jackson disregarded treaties and laws and deliberately participated in the genocide of American Indians from ninety different tribes. President Jackson's total disregard for the rights of the 90 tribes, the law, and treaties puts him on the same level as Saddam Hussein, who also had a total disregard for the law, UN Resolutions, the Kurds, and other indigenous people in his country. Saddam Hussein callously and ruthlessly ordered more than a five hundred thousand Kurds to their deaths during the presidencies of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.
What would you do if our country was invaded in the early 19th century because another country didn't condone our practice of slavery? What if that country wanted to remove our president from office because he was pro-slavery? Just what is the difference between President Jackson's willful murdering of tens of thousands of American Indians, or other US presidents in his time who were pro-slavery, and what Saddam Hussein did to his people? At least Saddam didn't support or participate in slavery on the same level as American leaders did.
I am not supporting Saddam Hussein, but when you compare the evolution of Iraq to that of our own country you must see the similarities. Should Saddam Hussein be tried? Certainly. Convicted? Certainly. Punished severely? Certainly. But so should President Jackson, and other US presidents who supported the slave trade of Africans and genocide of the Indian Tribes of North America.
What would you do if you lived in the early 19th century and you became aware of the atrocities committed by President Jackson? Would you support him or would you support an invading army from another nation who wanted to stand up for the oppressed in our country? This is the same dilemma that the present day Iraqis are facing. Should they fight for their own sovereignty or succumb to a foreign force's mandates?
Our country is now guilty of invading two foreign countries in the past three years. Does anyone expect the citizens of those countries to just lie down and not strike back? A great deal of Americans would strike back at any foreign military presence in the United States. They would call it patriotism. And they would be right, at least partially so.
US citizens would not tolerate being occupied by a foreign country. I believe it is the height of arrogance for US citizens to expect other invaded countries to be totally submissive to their invaders. We should not expect militants in Iraq or Afghanistan to just give up. To think otherwise is foolhardy. The Bush regime knew this fact. But they never said a word about the actual effort and loss of American lives that we would have to invest there. They never told the citizens of the United States that there would be large numbers of troop casualties. They were being dishonest. They lied by omission. And their lies are not about the meaning of the word "is" is, or if someone had a private, consensual sexual affair. Their lies led to an unnecessary war, and the deaths of 1925 US soldiers (so far) and the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq. If lying about a private sexual matter between consenting adults is an impeachable offense, then lying that led to illegitimate wars and the deaths of 1925 of our service men and women is not only an impeachable offense, it is also traitorous. But where is the republican outrage against their president?
If our country was invaded, the foreign force would be met with force from millions of Americans. We would use every opportunity to strike back at them. If you are honest with yourself you would have to admit that you would probably be one of our country's defenders. And you would use deadly force to protect your country. So how can anyone believe that certain segments of the Iraqi population would not fight back against us, the invading military? There wouldn't be much difference between the hundreds of militia groups in the US and the 'insurgents' in Iraq. Our revolutionary colonialists who fought against England were also considered insurgents by King George. It is unfortunate that republicans are incapable of seeing the parallels between our country's revolutionary fighters and those in Iraq who are doing what they can to defend their country from foreign occupiers. Are there opportunistic terrorist infiltrators in Iraq? Of course there are. But not all 'insurgents' in Iraq are from outside Iraq's borders. A great number of them are the indigenous Sunnies, Shiites and Kurds who are opposed to the occupation of their country and the forced manipulation of their government. What is unfortunate is that before the US invasion and occupation of Iraq daily terrorist attacks were nonexistent. President Bush created the problem by ordering the attack against Iraq, a country which posed no threat to the United States and a country which had nothing to do with the 9/11/01 terrorist attacks.
The Bush regime certainly knew of the propensity for massive resistance from the Iraqi people. If they didn't know, then they were completely incompetent and should have been removed from office. But President Bush, and everyone in his regime, chose to keep the risk of massive resistance a secret. They knew that if they were honest with the American people that we would have denounced and condemned President Bush's plans for war. Bush lied to us. Cheney lied to us. Powell lied to us. Rice lied to us. Rumsfeld lied to us. They choose instead to continue to milk the fear and the wave of mutant patriotism from the 9-11-01 terrorist attacks to manipulate people. Because they used blatant lies to justify going to war makes President GW Bush's Regime the most dishonest administration in our country's history.
There is not a lot of difference between what Saddam Hussein did to the Kurds and other indigenous peoples in Iraq, and what US presidents, such as Andrew Jackson did under his reign. Just as in Iraq, Native Americans and blacks were first demonized and described as less than human as justification for their persecution and murders in the United States. The comparisons between Iraq's past human rights violations are stunningly similar to the human rights violations practiced in the United States. How can the United States take the moral high ground on the international stage when they have never atoned for their sins against their fellow man in their own history?
Copyright 2005, Larry S. Rolirad, All Rights Reserved
This article may be republished and distributed as long as the author is clearly credited.
by Larry S. Rolirad
What if the United States was invaded and occupied by a foreign military force? What if another country didn't like our leader and they used their superior army, navy, and air force to invade our country to remove him? What if another country invaded us because we have 1,000,000 times the stockpiles of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons of all the other countries in the world combined? How do you think Americans would react if we were occupied by a foreign military?
And what if the United States was invaded by a foreign force in 1839 when our country was at the same stage of evolution as Iraq is today? What if the US was attacked because the invading country did not like the fact that President Andrew Jackson had been responsible for the genocide of tens of thousands of American Indians. What if the US was invaded because another country didn't like the way human rights violations were commonplace against Native Americans, blacks, and women? In just one ruthless move, President Jackson sent 4,000 Cherokee men, women, children, elderly, infants, and fetuses to their deaths.
President Jackson ordered Cherokees arrested and dragged from their homes and driven by bayonet point into stockades. They were then loaded like cattle into six hundred and forty-five wagons and sent west, just like Adolf Hitler ordered the Jews loaded onto cattle cars to be exterminated. Most of the Native Americans who were forced on trains died from extreme exposure to freezing temperatures. Ninety tribes, in addition to the Cherokee, were removed from their rightful homes to the Indian Territory, now Kansas and Oklahoma. Under President Jackson's reign smallpox-infected blankets were deliberately given to unsuspecting Native Americans which killed them by the tens of thousands. The similarities between the abuses of human beings by Andrew Jackson, Adolph Hitler, and Saddam Hussein are striking.
Eight years earlier, in 1831, the Supreme Court of the United States, with the decision rendered by Justice John Marshall, declared the forced removal of the entire Cherokee Nation from their ancestral homes to be illegal, unconstitutional, and against US treaties made with the Cherokee Nation. President Andrew Jackson, having the executive responsibility for enforcement of the laws, had this to say: "John Marshall has made his decision; let him enforce it now if he can." Jackson disregarded treaties and laws and deliberately participated in the genocide of American Indians from ninety different tribes. President Jackson's total disregard for the rights of the 90 tribes, the law, and treaties puts him on the same level as Saddam Hussein, who also had a total disregard for the law, UN Resolutions, the Kurds, and other indigenous people in his country. Saddam Hussein callously and ruthlessly ordered more than a five hundred thousand Kurds to their deaths during the presidencies of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.
What would you do if our country was invaded in the early 19th century because another country didn't condone our practice of slavery? What if that country wanted to remove our president from office because he was pro-slavery? Just what is the difference between President Jackson's willful murdering of tens of thousands of American Indians, or other US presidents in his time who were pro-slavery, and what Saddam Hussein did to his people? At least Saddam didn't support or participate in slavery on the same level as American leaders did.
I am not supporting Saddam Hussein, but when you compare the evolution of Iraq to that of our own country you must see the similarities. Should Saddam Hussein be tried? Certainly. Convicted? Certainly. Punished severely? Certainly. But so should President Jackson, and other US presidents who supported the slave trade of Africans and genocide of the Indian Tribes of North America.
What would you do if you lived in the early 19th century and you became aware of the atrocities committed by President Jackson? Would you support him or would you support an invading army from another nation who wanted to stand up for the oppressed in our country? This is the same dilemma that the present day Iraqis are facing. Should they fight for their own sovereignty or succumb to a foreign force's mandates?
Our country is now guilty of invading two foreign countries in the past three years. Does anyone expect the citizens of those countries to just lie down and not strike back? A great deal of Americans would strike back at any foreign military presence in the United States. They would call it patriotism. And they would be right, at least partially so.
US citizens would not tolerate being occupied by a foreign country. I believe it is the height of arrogance for US citizens to expect other invaded countries to be totally submissive to their invaders. We should not expect militants in Iraq or Afghanistan to just give up. To think otherwise is foolhardy. The Bush regime knew this fact. But they never said a word about the actual effort and loss of American lives that we would have to invest there. They never told the citizens of the United States that there would be large numbers of troop casualties. They were being dishonest. They lied by omission. And their lies are not about the meaning of the word "is" is, or if someone had a private, consensual sexual affair. Their lies led to an unnecessary war, and the deaths of 1925 US soldiers (so far) and the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq. If lying about a private sexual matter between consenting adults is an impeachable offense, then lying that led to illegitimate wars and the deaths of 1925 of our service men and women is not only an impeachable offense, it is also traitorous. But where is the republican outrage against their president?
If our country was invaded, the foreign force would be met with force from millions of Americans. We would use every opportunity to strike back at them. If you are honest with yourself you would have to admit that you would probably be one of our country's defenders. And you would use deadly force to protect your country. So how can anyone believe that certain segments of the Iraqi population would not fight back against us, the invading military? There wouldn't be much difference between the hundreds of militia groups in the US and the 'insurgents' in Iraq. Our revolutionary colonialists who fought against England were also considered insurgents by King George. It is unfortunate that republicans are incapable of seeing the parallels between our country's revolutionary fighters and those in Iraq who are doing what they can to defend their country from foreign occupiers. Are there opportunistic terrorist infiltrators in Iraq? Of course there are. But not all 'insurgents' in Iraq are from outside Iraq's borders. A great number of them are the indigenous Sunnies, Shiites and Kurds who are opposed to the occupation of their country and the forced manipulation of their government. What is unfortunate is that before the US invasion and occupation of Iraq daily terrorist attacks were nonexistent. President Bush created the problem by ordering the attack against Iraq, a country which posed no threat to the United States and a country which had nothing to do with the 9/11/01 terrorist attacks.
The Bush regime certainly knew of the propensity for massive resistance from the Iraqi people. If they didn't know, then they were completely incompetent and should have been removed from office. But President Bush, and everyone in his regime, chose to keep the risk of massive resistance a secret. They knew that if they were honest with the American people that we would have denounced and condemned President Bush's plans for war. Bush lied to us. Cheney lied to us. Powell lied to us. Rice lied to us. Rumsfeld lied to us. They choose instead to continue to milk the fear and the wave of mutant patriotism from the 9-11-01 terrorist attacks to manipulate people. Because they used blatant lies to justify going to war makes President GW Bush's Regime the most dishonest administration in our country's history.
There is not a lot of difference between what Saddam Hussein did to the Kurds and other indigenous peoples in Iraq, and what US presidents, such as Andrew Jackson did under his reign. Just as in Iraq, Native Americans and blacks were first demonized and described as less than human as justification for their persecution and murders in the United States. The comparisons between Iraq's past human rights violations are stunningly similar to the human rights violations practiced in the United States. How can the United States take the moral high ground on the international stage when they have never atoned for their sins against their fellow man in their own history?
Copyright 2005, Larry S. Rolirad, All Rights Reserved
This article may be republished and distributed as long as the author is clearly credited.
Larry S. Rolirad
e-mail:
amzingone@aol.com
Comments
Hide the following 10 comments
Two small points
03.10.2005 19:50
Second point: you can't judge the past by the standards of the present. Forty years ago we hanged people in Brtain for murder. Since then, we've changed our minds. Does that mean the people of forty years ago were wicked? No, they had different standards.
And who knows: in fity years time, people may look back and say: they didn't do that, did they? And it's a brave man who can say which it is that will be condemned and and which not.
sceptic
Go Canada Go
03.10.2005 20:27
maple leaf
?
03.10.2005 22:31
Cat
no moral high-ground
04.10.2005 00:49
The article lacks a conclusion to the logic of its argument. Strangely, many attacks on Blair and Bush stop before the consequences of a well-argued position are made clear.
In this case, the article demolishes the idea that Blair and Bush operated on moral grounds. While this is self evident to some, it is a point worth spelling out for the naive, or ill-informed.
However, the piece fails to conclude that far from 'taking the high moral ground', Bush and Blair waged genocidal warfare with the usual war criminal excuse, ie., BECAUSE THEY KNEW THEY WOULD GET AWAY WITH IT.
These type of articles chip away at the support Bush receives (I'd mention Blair as well, but HE has absolute power in the UK with NO effective support, and thus is not vunerable to this). This is the nature of US politics. However, for the puppet-masters behind Bush, when his support is in danger of falling too low, another convenient event will be arranged to help history along.
Our biggest problem is the lack of any international law- but then, such a thing never really existed in the first place. Instaed, we had a balance of opposing powers, but where is that balance now. Things have reached such an amazing state of affairs, that the swiss are currently sending an ex-ultra-senior member of Russia's nuclear program that they grabbed, to the USA as a present. When even the swiss serve ONLY one master, you know that balance is well and truly screwed.
The history of the Human Race shows that when such power is concentrated in the hands of one people, and that people lack any sense of modesty, or decency, or restraint, or self-criticism, all hell breaks loose. The people of the USA (as amazing as it seems to the rest of us) think of themselves as masters of the world, with a god given right to impose their will on the rest of the planet. That the US has little history of conquest so far gives so many people so much false hope.
The USA is like a severly-troubled teenager:
-always right, regardless of better council
-entitled to WHATEVER it desires
-completely happy with its own misbehaviour
-willing to excuse its own mindless use of violence
-loves to intimidate as many as possible
-susceptible to the friendship and advice of those that give shallow flattery, and justify the misbehaviour (HELLO MR BLAIR).
-needs to be seen and heard at all times
-cries buckets at the slightest perceived injustice carried out against itself
-lacks all forms of self-discipline
Most teenagers grow up, and hence grow-out of these idiot traits. Unfortunately, we don't have that time! Blair is the siren voice, and THIS teenager loves his sweet reassurance.
twilight
AMERICA WAS INVADED AND IS OCCUPIED BY EUROPEAN THIEVES
04.10.2005 08:29
DARKERCLOUD
One big point
04.10.2005 11:47
Nagging Doubt
Homepage:
http://theirconscience.blogspot.com
The standards of the past
04.10.2005 15:01
But find for me campaigners against capitol punishment in say Victorian England. Suggest to AngloSaxons that trial by ordeal was not the best systen of justice. Try telling the Romans that gladatorial displays were somewhat uncouth. By the standards of the the day, these were eminently reasonable positions.
sceptic
re: The standards of the past
04.10.2005 18:15
As for campaigners against capitol punishment in Victorian England - I imagine that there were some, though I have no evidence. It would seem unlikely that there were none. But dissidents rarely get to write the history books. Perhaps someone else can comment on that.
You stayed away from the examples of slavery and war - these have had strong, and well documented, opposition in the past, though they were excepted as the norm in their day. There was certainly opposition to WW2 in Britain (and not just by fascists) - George Orwell had several exchanges with opponents in the newspapers of the time. (I think George had the upper hand with regards to WW2 - but he didn't support all British wars.) And Tolstoy was a famous and outspoken pacifist.
"By the standards of the the day, these were eminently reasonable positions."
Not reasonable - but maybe acceptable (by some). The two are different. But the question is, who accepted them? I doubt everyone did, and certainly not the victims. Usually the people in charge accepted them - though no doubt others did too. But that doesn't mean we should judge them on their own standards.
You wouldn't judge a murderer by their own standards, so why judge those members of a society who murder by their own standards? And even more to the point, why judge a whole society by the behaviour of some of its members?
Its not dissimilar to Blair and Bush comparing themselves to Saddam Hussein - they've killed fewer Iraqis therefore they are the Good Guys and Saddam the Bad Guy. Such accounting is morally bankrupt.
Nagging Doubt
Homepage:
http://theirconscience.blogspot.com
killing people
04.10.2005 23:44
sceptic
re: Killing people
05.10.2005 09:52
By God! You're catching on! We'll make a peacenik out of you, yet!
"On the other hand, are you saying we should not have fought Hitler? Or Tojo?"
If you read what I said, you will have seen that I supported Orwell's argument for Britain fighting in WW2. I still think WW2 was wrong - but the result of not fighting would have been far worse than fighting.
"If them, why not Saddam Hussein?"
Saddam wasn't a threat to us. He *was* a threat to his own people - but that wasn't why we went to war. I agree that we should have helped the Iraqis remove him - but they would have had to ask for our help, and bombing them isn't helping them. We encouraged them to rebel after the first Gulf War and then abandoned them, and they were slaughtered en mass by Saddam. Funnily enough, they weren't too happy when we showed up uninvited to help them this time around.
And as for the opponents of the death penalty in Victorian England, you asked me to find. How about Charles Dickens? Or the Quakers? Or the MPs who slowly dismantled the death penalty during the Victorian era? (It's also wroth noting that William the Conqueror abolished it in the 11th century, but his son reinstated it.)
Nagging Doubt
Homepage:
http://theirconscience.blogspot.com