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 than 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 ordered 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 the stockades. They were then loaded like cattle into six hundred and forty-five wagons and sent west, just like 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. President Jackson even ordered smallpox-infected blankets to be 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 ordered 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 Kurds, other factions of his country, UN Resolutions, and the law. Saddam Hussein callously and ruthlessly ordered the genocide of the Kurds, and others in Iraq. Hussein ordered the Kurds gassed to death by the thousands during President George H.W. Bush's presidency.

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 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. But so should President Jackson, and other US presidents who supported 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 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 1902 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 more than a thousand of our service men and women is not only an impeachable offense, but it is also traitorous. But where is the republican outrage?

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 admit that you would 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.

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 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 attacks to manipulate people. The Bush regime is 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 as long as the author is clearly credited.

I'd welcome an invasion by Canada with open arms...

Oh yes, a Canadian invasion. Such an "@ist" you are...NOT.

We're already being invaded every day by thousands of illegal aliens on our southern border. They aren't a military force, but they cost as much as one.

I would never welcome Bush's invading pirate army and navy if I were an Iraqi, because it is not there to liberate anyone; on the contrary, it is there to steal Iraq's oil and turn the nation into a giant military base, something like Twenty-Nine Palms and other areas of southern California. On the other hand, I was living in the 1830's and some foreign army invaded the US with the promise to free the slaves and the Indians and put an end to the massive slums that were already growing in US cities I would welcome them.

On the contrary, Mr. Scorpion, it was "we" who invaded the territory that you now call "our southern borders" and stole it from Mexico. The most important motivation was to find a place to which slavery and plantations could be exported, which is why the Southerners in Congress supported the brutal and illegal invasion most enthusiastically. We have no basis for complaint if the "natives" are now slowly but surely taking it back.

You know Meyer, it's sad that this actually has to be explained to you, but I'll be brief because I know you need to get back to the drive-thru cash register...

The CURRENT border between Mexico and the US is LEGALLY RECOGNIZED by both nations. There is no diplomatic or legal dispute between the US and Mexico over the legitimacy of the CURRENT border line. That's just a simple fact, Meyer. Therefore, by legal definition, we are being invaded by illegals.

Now... if you feel compelled to reach back 100, 150 years and speak of historical events as though they happened last week then by all means do so. But recognize that you will be legitimately called on it for the lack of context it betrays.

Further, the grievances of locals in Mexico over events that happened a century and more ago doesn't justify breaking laws that are recognized on both sides of the border today. If such logic were valid I would go to England today and start a violent campaign against the British crown for the way my Scottish ancestors were treated 3 centuries ago.

Lets get down to brass tacks, shall we, Meyer? You're real issue isn't Mexican immigrants... your real issue is that you think the US is an evil, imperialistic empire and you have taken it upon yourself to find every avenue imaginable to curse and punish this country, the consequences be damned.

Now... you need to get back to that cash register...

Yeah, Hitler's seizure of Czechoslovakia was internationally recognized as well, even though it was about as justified as the brutal and illegal US invasion of Mexico and seizure of much of the country. Everything is ok with you, I guess, as long as it is "legally recognized."

And yes, I do think that the US is an evil, imperialistic empire.

These law&order types are fine with the 'law' as long as it's selectivly enforced and it's their law and their order.

You said: "Everything is ok with you, I guess, as long as it is "legally recognized."

... That's what I thought. It doesn't matter to you if something is legally recognized or codified. All that matters to you is your agenda. This is precisely the sort of quasi-criminal mentality that drives the far left, within which I include you, to commit crimes under the guise of 'direct action' and other such nonsense.

If the law is of no importance to you then it won't be a problem if I show up at your house and destroy your computer under the banner of 'dissent' and 'direct action', will it, Meyer?

Do you ever think any of this through or do you just shoot your mouth off?

And if the US is such a terrible place to live then feel free to move to Mexico, or Cuba or wherever else your barely functioning socialist mind see's fit. Hell, Meyer, I'll even pay for the move. Lets set a time and date and we'll make a party of it.

Come off it, Scorpion/Fresca. The issue at hand is international legal recognition of brutal conquests, such as Hitler's conquest of what is now the Czech Repbublic or President Polk's conquest of the much larger (in square miles) area of northern Mexico. No one said anything about breaking into private homes, although I must tell you that many private homes were broken into and robbed during the US invasion of Mexico and plenty of women were raped as well.

Tell us, Mr. Scholar, if the US conquest of much of Mexico is ok with you because it happened a long time ago and is recognized legally by the international community, is Hitler's conquest of western Czechoslovakia ok with you as well because it happened 65 years ago and was recognized by other states? If Germany had managed to hold on to the area, would you say that it now has a right to it?