What I never understood about that one was how the best scene wasn't shown until the final credits were rolling.
According to the Big Soccer manual, chapter 4, section 6b, paragraph 4, When making a joke, it is essential and mandatory that one uses a smiley face, as to not cause any confusion to another poster."
All wars of occupation seem to bring the occupier to a tactic of patrols from fortified bases sooner or later. Where the partisans are supported by the threat of an army-in-being they will eventually expel the invader. Where they are not they will eventually be suppressed... Transportation infrastructure is a two edged sword-- the distances involved in a place like the US require a huge number of bases or else substantial exposure passing between them, while the very roads, railroads, bridges etc. offer opportunities for demolition. The occupier is defeated by the difficulty of supply, and attendant attrition, not by open opposition; the war is essentially one of resources and morale. In addition we have a substantial tradition of self-reliance in such circumstances which may not be as fallow as it seems. I don't think much of the various militias, but we have many folks with military and national guard experience, and things like search-and-rescue teams and volunteer fire departments would provide a real nucleus for organization.... We are still the grandchildren of King's Mountain in very real ways. Many would die pointlessly, but Swamp Foxes and Sam Houstons would reappear... Iraq is becoming uncomfortably interesting because our own diplomatic silliness is starting to cast the Iran in the role of army-in-being; it is not yet clear which model we have created here... Incidentally the French shouldn't rank anywhere near the bottom-- the resistance in WW2 was very effective...
Good points. The point I was clumsily trying to make was that our population is concentrated in areas not well-suited to guerilla resistance. Two-thirds of Americans live in suburban areas, which I think would be easier to control than either rugged rural areas or densely-populated urban areas.
I see what you are saying, the midwest with the open plains would be easier to control then say the metro areas. But the moutains in the West and in Appalachia would be much harder to control. I also don't think you took into consideration the amount of hunters we have in this country, and how many live in suburbia. These hunters would make for some very nice snipers and quite a few know how to live off the land. I would also say the availablity of weapons here is a factor as well.
Yes, but even that final third of the population should far out number any invading force we'd face. A China for example would have to send millions of soldiers to stand a chance of suppressing an insurgent U.S. population in the event of an occupation. For all the reasons mentioned so far and many more, I don't think it would ever be possible to take and hold the U.S. for any real amount of time. Even if you nuke our power centers and completely wipe out our military, you are going to be in deep sheeit trying to maintain control.
Sure; but the populated areas usually come under control fairly easily-- its the travel between 'em that gets dangerous... And now that I think of it-- two car garages with lawn mowers mean gasoline, and liquor bottles in the den, pillowcases to tear up for fuses... shrubbery to sneak around in... If the Freedonian soldiers travel in trucks it'll be "burn baby burn"... Partisans traditionally lose interest in the lives of ordinary citizens after a few months, and the biggest drawback to fighting in the suburbs is the number of ordinary folks you'll get killed...
Factors in our favor as already mentioned plus some: -Extremely high number of trained and armed police officers -Very high number of ex-military, national guard, coast guard, etc. -Very, very large quantities of civilian weapons and ammunition -Strong infrastructure of medical and other emergency personel to draw from -Huge swaths of land, good mountain terrain on both coasts -If military isn't completely destroyed it would be at worst broken and scattered across the country, allowing remnants to create insurgent forces in every corner of the nation -Our nuclear retaliation for invasion would most likely severly reduce the invading nation's ability to maintain a prolonged attack/occupation -All the reasons above would likely inhibit another nation(s) from thinking we were easy pickings in the event the original attacker is defeated/repelled It won't ever happen.
Anyone who has ever seen Red Dawn knows that the resistance will be led by Patrick Swayze. Charlie Sheen has to die, eventually, but we'll erect monuments to Swayze and his hearty band of "Wolverines" once we push the invaders out...
Any real general knows that Elm Street is the key to the city. Control Elm Street, and you've taken Springfield.
Oh you're easy enough... Release a movie, and next thing you know New Englanders actually think they won the World Series. Ha! It was a movie, feebs! (please tell me it was just a movie...)
There there, it was just a movie... Feel better now? Sitting up are we? The Yankees were swept in the Series by St Louis...
Sorry ALCS - worst choke in ALL of sports history Still makes me smile.......and oh yeah.......ANDY DORMAN
We found that invading the Malvinas and controlling the 3000 Kelpers was pretty tough. The few of them who had a car simply refused to drive on the right side of the road, like normal human beings.
Blue State America would be very easy to invade and control, since all the leftists are disarmed. Invading Red State America would be quite a daunting task for any unsuspecting foreign army. You think Iraq is a quagmire, imagine what you'd see with the good 'ol boys from the south holed up and taking potshots at the enemy.
Hardest to invade and control? No doubt, BigSoccer "Politics & Current Events" thread. The totalitarian elite are firmly in control.