Simple poll: If America were occupied

[Jed Dilligan]

Do you think we would forget our internal differences and form a united resistance, like the French in World War II?

Or do you think we would break into factions fighting each other and the occupiers, like the Iraqis now?

[yardwork]

1. The French didn't exactly have a united resistance

The French government and a lot of leading professionals collaborated with the Nazis.

[Jed Dilligan]

2. What I meant was that

Communists, Socialists, Christian Democrats, Gaullists, Anarchists, et al. were united in the Resistance. They set aside their differences until after the war. This is in stark contrast to the factions in Iraq, who are as busy with each other as with us. That's more like what happened in much of Eastern Europe during World War II.

I'm assuming collaboration, which happens in any occupation.

[yardwork]

14. Oh, I see. I misunderstood.

Well, France at the time was a far more homogeneous country than Iraq is now. France's borders had been determined after many centuries of fighting and by mid-20th century they were stable. Iraq's borders are far more recent - they were drawn by England and France and the U.S. and other outside meddlers. Iraq's borders include people who don't identify with one another in any cultural, religious, or political sense. Iraq's borders also omit lots of people who do identify with various groups in Iraq - notably millions of Arabs in Saudi Arabia, as well as Arabs in Syria and other countries.

That's the real reason that Saddam Hussein was gotten rid of - he was a threat to Saudi Arabia. Saddam attempted to be a leader of the Arabs. He claimed historical right to this role, based on Iraq's possession of Baghdad and other cities central to Arab history and culture.

Of course there is a civil war there now. People are reorganizing themselves. The political lines were deliberately drawn by to destabilize this region and prop up the Saudi royal family.

Meanwhile, the Iranians (Persians) sit back and watch the Arabs fight it out, hoping to swoop in at the end.

[Tesha]

3. I would need to know who the "occupiers" were

Before I could give an answer to this poll, I would first
need to know who the "occupiers" were.

If we were occupied by, say, the dreaded Socialist
Cannuckistanians, I'd be a collaborator right along
with them, helping them institute their dreaded
policies of national health care and Labatts for
all, and I'd like to believe that a lot of New
Englanders would be right by my side, knockin'
back a brew as we hatched our evil plots to make
the beaver the national animal, ehh?

Pro'ly the same if we were occupied by most of the
Socialist Democracies of Western Europe, although
the beverage and the mascot might vary, nest pa?

If we were occupied by Republicans Theocrats, though,
I'd be striving very hard to eject them and send them
back wherever they came from.

Tesha

[LiberalEsto]

5. We ARE occupied

by Repuglicans & Theocrats.

[Tesha]

15. I sorta kinda knew that when I wrote it. ;-)

> We ARE occupied by Repuglicans & Theocrats.

I sorta kinda knew that when I wrote it. ;)

That's why I would so welcome a counter-occupation
by Socialist Canuckistan or any of a number of West-
ern Yurpean democracies.

Tesha

[Jed Dilligan]

11. Somehow I doubt we would be occupied

by anyone particularly nice.

The only plausible candidates are Russia and China, after a couple three more decades of US deterioration. Just IMHO

[Nite Owl]

16. You gave my answer!

I'll be fighting to be first in line with the white flag of surrender. New England and New York would be soooo easy to assimilate into a Canadian province and we sure would contribute to them.

[fasttense]

4. I like Wolverines. n/t

[Hobarticus]

6. Get me Swayze on the phone....I smell sequel...n/t

[YOY]

19. Don't forget Charlie Sheen and Lea Thompson

Throw in Howard the Duck too with Lea. I could use a laugh...

[CJCRANE]

7. In WWII

the Nazis occupied most of Europe, so the French were surrounded. Iraq, however, is surrounded by sovereign nations each with their own vested interests. So an occupation of America might be similar, with Canadian and Mexican interference (maybe to ensure that the occupation didn't succeed and move on to them next).

[Skinner]

8. This poll is not going to be an accurate reflection of opinon.

If people don't read the small print, they aren't going to interpret this the way you are presenting it. And I suspect most people aren't reading the fine print.

I think most people are reading and voting like this: French=surrender, Iraqi=fight against occupiers.

On edit: I might actually delete this whole thread. I'm not a big fan of anything that could be easily interpreted/misrepresented as "DUers want America to lose."

[Jed Dilligan]

10. I'll edit to clarify--thanks. nt

[Skinner]

13. I edited my post, BTW.

And to be honest, I think your poll isn't going to be accurate as long as you are including unnecessary references to countries, which invariably bring along lots of unintended baggage.

[mondo obscurius]

9. America IS occupied. n/t

[mainegreen]

12. I'd be fighting to create the independent country of New England.

If NE were it's own country, that would rock.
:D

[CJCRANE]

17. There already was a power-grab

on 9/11/2001.

Cheney made sure to out-source the violence so that no-one would realise it was really a neocon takeover.

[Tesha]

18. It happened on December 12th, 2000. (NT)

[treestar]

20. The right wing would definitely use it as an opportunity

To take over, so we'd have to fight them either during or afterwards.

[Jed Dilligan]

26. True of the establishment, but

I'd give the wingnuts some credit. Some of them have been stockpiling arms and waiting for it to happen, and I suspect they wouldn't change their minds when it did. Would we fight them, along with the occupiers, or join forces with them? That's really what I'm getting at. Wondering if this country's rifts are like Iraq's, or if we'd pull together vs. an external threat. It's a given that the toadies at the top would go Quisling.

[treestar]

27. No doubt about the quislings

I think you talked me into that the wingnuts might ally with us. When it comes right down to it, if the occupier was from outside.

[Gruenemann]

21. I would welcome them as liberators!

Just about any regime in the world today would be better than what we have.

[Jed Dilligan]

31. Except for the two we actually need to worry about

China and Russia.

[Marr]

22. I expect the current establishment would ally with the occupiers,

and we'd be fighting their followers. That seems to be the way it works.

Who would you feel more venom towards? The occupying forces, or the pampered, aristocratic toadies who ditched all the patriotic bullshit the moment it became unprofitable?

For some reason I expect William Kristol would be among the occupiers' most vocal supporters. Thomas Friedman probably wouldn't be far behind, with some arithmetic-based sophistry... something about the bold new economy and the synergy of (fill in the invader) and the american work ethic.

[rucky]

23. The occupation is from within...

so all the options fit.

Wolverines!

[Solo_in_MD]

24. The first option is not historically accurate. The Marquis did attack Vichy French installations

[Jed Dilligan]

25. See my reply to reply #1 above

The idea here is that the maquis did not attack each other, even though they came from different regions and ideological perspectives.

No, the French weren't unified, but their Resistance was.

On edit: Since there's so much confusion, here's a more concrete hypothetical situation. America is occupied by the Chinese, but their grip on the country is weak, and there are a number of groups ready and willing to fight them. These include US Army remnants, DU, FreeRepublic, the Crips (Bloods are collaborating), and a Latino insurgency supported by the Mexican government. Do these factions fight each other, or unite against the Chinese.

[MrSlayer]

28. I'd be fighting the invaders.

And I'd stand with any American, be they far right or far left, and kill as many of the bastards as I could. We could take the political argument back up after the occupiers were driven out. I disagree with Freeper types but I don't want to kill them over their opinion. That's not what America is about.

[piedmont]

29. same here. nt

[Jed Dilligan]

30. I hope most of us feel as you do,

but sometimes I wonder--especially about the folks on the other side of the ideological divide.

[Downtown Hound]

32. I think most Americans would resist

Remember after 9-11 how the country was pretty much united, but Bush inevitably screwed it up? If the country were invaded, I'd think you'd probably see a huge uniting of Americans, maybe on the scale of something we'd never seen before.

The Iraqis fighting each other has been going on for ages. Saddam just kept a lid on it, and it all boiled over when he was gone. It's not the same situation here. Most Americans deep down either love our country or really want to love our country. The difference between us and the freepers is that they love an ideal that doesn't exist but they think it does. We liberals love an ideal as well, but we know it doesn't exist but work to see that it does someday. An outside force that came in and disrupted that is going to have a hell of time on their hands.