Hobo1
Well-Known Member
I want to relate the Libyan situation to the United States to see if different rules apply to different countries. Are some countries more equal than others?
SCENARIO
What would happen if a sufficient number of American citizens were able to organize themselves into a large band of rebels to overthrow the US government? This might happen if the President openly violated the Constitution by, say, declared a unilateral, 6 month ban on free speech - all forms of news and opinion on the TV, newspapers, and Internet would be censored or banned by the government.
The reason for a US revolution is not important. But whatever action taken by the government was sufficiently grievous to cause a very large number of Americans to organize and take up arms in an attempt to take back the government for the people.
I would assume, as in Libya, that the general population would be split in its loyalties. I also would assume the military would follow orders to put down the rebellion with a "minimum of civilian casualties". However, the rebel fighters would most likely fight a guerrilla style warfare; that is, quickly fight and then return to their homes and blend in with other civilians. So, as in Afghanistan, identifying and killing civilian combatants would be difficult. How would the government fight such a rebellion?
Let's assume the government tries to send soldiers into the areas experiencing the most rebel activity to basically perform police action, ie, to keep the peace. This would be difficult because soldiers wear uniforms and rebel fighters do not. Any soldier walking down the street could be victim of a rebel hidden a block away with a hunting rifle.
Anyway after a few months of fighting the rebels have had several significant victories. For example, inflicting significant casualties on a several Battalions (1000 men each) of soldiers policing a metropolitan area. These victories cause the military to retreat into heavily fortified areas. So the metropolitan area is now essentially controlled by the rebel forces, but also is home to a lot of innocent civilians.
I can't think of a method whereby the military could re-take control of the area without resorting to the use of some weapon that could destroy a whole neighborhood where many rebels are suspected of living. But this would also kill many civilians, women and children.
Now we are close to the situation in Libya. Large numbers of civilians being killed. So the UN passes a Resolution that says the President is acting inhumanely and authorizes foreign countries to engage the US military and destroy all aircraft, missile launchers, etc. that could be be used to indiscriminately kill innocent civilians.
Assuming there existed a group of countries (Russia, China, etc) with sufficient military strength to defeat US military defenses, would you support such a UN Resolution?
I am interested to other opinions first. Then I will give my answer. For the sake of discussion, let's not nit-pic the scenario, such as "This could never happen". Can any country really fight a humane revolution?
Opinions anyone?
SCENARIO
What would happen if a sufficient number of American citizens were able to organize themselves into a large band of rebels to overthrow the US government? This might happen if the President openly violated the Constitution by, say, declared a unilateral, 6 month ban on free speech - all forms of news and opinion on the TV, newspapers, and Internet would be censored or banned by the government.
The reason for a US revolution is not important. But whatever action taken by the government was sufficiently grievous to cause a very large number of Americans to organize and take up arms in an attempt to take back the government for the people.
I would assume, as in Libya, that the general population would be split in its loyalties. I also would assume the military would follow orders to put down the rebellion with a "minimum of civilian casualties". However, the rebel fighters would most likely fight a guerrilla style warfare; that is, quickly fight and then return to their homes and blend in with other civilians. So, as in Afghanistan, identifying and killing civilian combatants would be difficult. How would the government fight such a rebellion?
Let's assume the government tries to send soldiers into the areas experiencing the most rebel activity to basically perform police action, ie, to keep the peace. This would be difficult because soldiers wear uniforms and rebel fighters do not. Any soldier walking down the street could be victim of a rebel hidden a block away with a hunting rifle.
Anyway after a few months of fighting the rebels have had several significant victories. For example, inflicting significant casualties on a several Battalions (1000 men each) of soldiers policing a metropolitan area. These victories cause the military to retreat into heavily fortified areas. So the metropolitan area is now essentially controlled by the rebel forces, but also is home to a lot of innocent civilians.
I can't think of a method whereby the military could re-take control of the area without resorting to the use of some weapon that could destroy a whole neighborhood where many rebels are suspected of living. But this would also kill many civilians, women and children.
Now we are close to the situation in Libya. Large numbers of civilians being killed. So the UN passes a Resolution that says the President is acting inhumanely and authorizes foreign countries to engage the US military and destroy all aircraft, missile launchers, etc. that could be be used to indiscriminately kill innocent civilians.
Assuming there existed a group of countries (Russia, China, etc) with sufficient military strength to defeat US military defenses, would you support such a UN Resolution?
I am interested to other opinions first. Then I will give my answer. For the sake of discussion, let's not nit-pic the scenario, such as "This could never happen". Can any country really fight a humane revolution?
Opinions anyone?