Civil War^2

[fskimospy]

I think the clear winner would be those who control the food supply and most of the guns.

They lost last time. The south had a far greater proportion of its population armed and trained. It was about people and money. The blue states make a lot more money and they house a lot more people.

In the end though, who cares? If the red states want to secede I say let them. They seem to want a very different type of governance than I do so I say let them have it. They might be sad when they figure out what that actually means, but that's how people learn.

 

[Jaskalas]

Texas with $9 billion surplus: The truth about taxes versus revenue

We won't do so bad as you think.

 

[fskimospy]

Texas with $9 billion surplus: The truth about taxes versus revenue

We won't do so bad as you think.

Nice WT opinion piece, haha.

The blue states collectively have a ton more money and population than the red ones. Its just a fact.

It always does strike me as odd how some southerners are itching for a fight considering how badly they were demolished last time.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

They lost last time. The south had a far greater proportion of its population armed and trained. It was about people and money. The blue states make a lot more money and they house a lot more people.

I looked into this breifly. It appears that the North had twice as many troops as the South and the South was starving by the end of the war.

In the end though, who cares? If the red states want to secede I say let them. They seem to want a very different type of governance than I do so I say let them have it. They might be sad when they figure out what that actually means, but that's how people learn.

Perhaps the solution isn't succession...perhaps it's a matter of giving the States more rights so they can decide for themselves.

 

[fskimospy]

I looked into this breifly. It appears that the North had twice as many troops as the South and the South was starving by the end of the war.


Perhaps the solution isn't succession...perhaps it's a matter of giving the States more rights so they can decide for themselves.

The south was starving because a lot of their good farmland was destroyed by the north, but more importantly they weren't able to transport their food to where it was needed. Interesting fact, most famines are the result of inability to dispense food efficiently, not necessarily a lack of food overall.

 

[Incorruptible]

And...what? Red vs Blue? That's such an outdated mindset to begin with....there are as many different factions of ideas on everything as there are religious denominations.

Agree, especially about the different factions of ideas.

Red Vs Blue isn't a good idea, A better idea would be Libertarians/Conservatives vs liberals/progressives and the Libertarians/Conservatives would easily destroy the opposition.

 

[Lemon law]

As no one has asked how the North won the civil war by 1865. As the answer is in one basic word, economic "embargo."

And in terms of access to the US coast and shipping ports able to handle large tonnages of cargo, the red states today are in far worse of a position than the confederacy was in 1861. As the blue States have them surrounded.

The other thing to point out, in 1861 a American farm could be almost totally self supporting, and now, our economy is almost totally interlinked. But when the blue states having a far better lock on the movement of materials nationwide, and control of the US military to boot, the odds would be heavily stacked against the red States.

 

[Jaskalas]

The Left's great morals. South decides to practice self determination, and they threaten with violence. Don't we dare touch a foreign country, but they're all giddy over the prospects of repeating the greatest slaughter of Americans in history.

They seem to forget that they can let us go without violence.

 

[fskimospy]

The Left's great morals. South decides to practice self determination, and they threaten with violence. Don't we dare touch a foreign country, but they're all giddy over the prospects of repeating the greatest slaughter of Americans in history.

They seem to forget that they can let us go without violence.

Giddy? Who are you talking about? I'm all for letting you go if you want to leave, you just might find things aren't as nice as you thought they would be without all that blue state money coming your way.

 

[momeNt]

We saw a civil war on Monday night.

The pride of the south in Alabama steamrolled the northern Notre Dame.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Maybe we should also consider who controls the energy (refineries, critical pipelines, power plants, coal, etc.). Wouldn't the NE would be screwed since they don't have much oil refining capacity or coal for that matter?

 

[Tom]

Well let's see...

One side has irrational fear of firearms.

Hard to win a war without weapons, or with severely gimped ones.

There's no fear of firearms.

There's fear of paranoid wimps who think they need a gun to survive or make their mark.

 

[Moonbeam]

Great idea. Instead of the wealth of the nation being transfered from blue states to red ones, blue states can just send it via foreign aid.

 

[Lemon law]

The other comment I wish to make on this thread, is somewhat on what I feel is really stupid post of Doppel, saying, "You need to drop this obsession you have of killing rich people, it's not healthy."

As Doppel may be right, as its not healthy for the rich. But that is often what happens to a sick society that has allowed too much wealth concentration in too few hands. Leaving everyone else mired in poverty. As one fine day, such a governmental system is doomed unless they have economic reforms that prevents that income equalities.

As it came to France in 1789, and soon the heads of the French Aristocracy were rolling into baskets. Same thing in Russia in 1917, same thing in Iran in 1979, and same thing all over the world and all throughout human history. As we are not lacking in recent or more ancient examples.

And while I agree there are no real winners in a civil war, its not a matter of rooting against such a civil war or rooting for one, in the same way we would root for the home team and against the visiting sports team, when its more a matter of finding national consensus and better wealth distribution. Failing that, its not a matter of preventing a civil war, its a matter of how soon a sick society will have that civil war.

 

[Genx87]

Our country is so nationally divided on so many issues... with the line largely being drawn between the same 2 segments of the population...

We should just have ourselves a seconds civil war and get it over with...

Issues:
Gun Control
Taxes & Monetary Policy
Government Assistance Programs
Defense Policy
Religion
Sexuality/Abortion
Controlled Substances


Red states vs Blue states for control of the nation...

who wins?

Why yes these are issues that have come to a point our recourse is to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of not millions of souls in a civil war.

 

[Genx87]

Irrational? 12,000+ homicides a year (per capita, many hundreds of percent higher than any other western, first-world nation), 14,000+ suicides, and twice the number of accidental killings compared to legitimate/self defense, what's there to feel irrational about?

But NOO, guns are great. More guns to everyone, everywhere! That will fix all problems! Just shoot away.

Compared to the 30,000 who dies on the roads and 200K who die in our hospitals due to mistakes. And lets not get into obesity. Guns are a blip on the radar. Go find another faux issue to worry about.

 

[exdeath]

Would be quick and easy. While some people are buying guns and essentials or saving with their hard earned cash, the left's support base was busy buying TVs with food stamps. See if they can eat their TV when they are starving.

Don't need to go after all the libs, just their defenseless voting base.

No need to fight any upper level libs that are armed , just need to wipe out the "Obama gave me a free phone!" crowd that votes for them and leave them without a constituent base after the dust settles. What are they going to do, throw their Obama phones at you? Oh maybe they will try to run you over in their upside down Mercedes if the repoman doesn't get there first.

Slaughter the defenseless bottomfeeding leeches in one big surprise wave overnight, immediately call a truce, wait for the next election, problem solved.

Honestly can't blame the politicians, blame lies with their constituents. The people causing this are the least equipped and least willed to do something hard or fight anybody.

 

[soundforbjt]

Maybe we should also consider who controls the energy (refineries, critical pipelines, power plants, coal, etc.). Wouldn't the NE would be screwed since they don't have much oil refining capacity or coal for that matter?

Wouldn't do the South any good either, they'd be the first targets.

 

[CLite]

Maybe we should also consider who controls the energy (refineries, critical pipelines, power plants, coal, etc.). Wouldn't the NE would be screwed since they don't have much oil refining capacity or coal for that matter?

The NE has plenty of coal, it has refineries, and it has plenty of power production in the form of gas/nuclear.

The hypothesis of this thread is dumb though, any "rebellion" whether started in the north or the south would receive a national guard and/or full military response. It's not like anti-gun liberals living in NYC are going to march on Texas, nor are paranoid militia-men in Texas with hundreds of guns going to suddenly invade NYC.

 

[Tom]

Blue state navy..Virginia,Hawaii,California,Florida,CT,?

Red state Navy..?

Blue state Air Force..California, Colorado, Nevada, Ohio, Virginia ?

Red state air force..Texas National guard, ?

Blue state allies-NATO, Japan, Israel, India, ?

Red state allies- ?

 

[chucky2]

Maybe. The national guard/full military response would actually have to get there to be effective though. What happens when half, or greater than half, of the military, doesn't show up or goes to the other side? Then you've got those in the military who stay allied with DC but refuse to do anything. Whatever units left that actually are insane enough to deploy are going to get eventually steamrolled by whatever they come up against. If I'm from TX, for TX leaving the union, and TX does in fact leave the union, and I'm a pilot in the TX air national guard, I'm not taking my orders from DC, I'm taking them from whoever is leading TX. If they say defend TX from invasion and a transport from IL is headed our way, I'm telling that transport to turn around, or, it's going down.

I think from a military perspective, another North/South war would turn out very differently this time, but, with far less bloodshed.

Chuck

 

[chucky2]

Blue state navy..Virginia,Hawaii,California,Florida,CT,?

Red state Navy..?

Blue state Air Force..California, Colorado, Nevada, Ohio, Virginia ?

Red state air force..Texas National guard, ?

Blue state allies-NATO, Japan, Israel, India, ?

Red state allies- ?

Right. But who makes up those in those Blue units, and will they have the will to go fight their former Red brothers when the majority of the Mil can't F'ing stand DC? NATO? Other allies? Hahahaha!

 

[Jaskalas]

I think from a military perspective, another North/South war would turn out very differently this time, but, with far less bloodshed.

Civil unrest, to that point, might cut supply lines and kill millions from starvation alone. Not only that, but once people are hungry they'll turn on each other in mass. Sheer chaos and anarchy is the prospect both sides face.

 

[WackyDan]

It is far more likely that we will as a nation disintegrate into smaller nations ala Soviet Union style. It may happen in 20 years, or 50... Who knows?

The only thing that will prevent it is if we collectively get our heads out of our asses and fix the financials of this country... What both sides can't agree on is that if we have a financially solvent country, we can accommodate much of the platform that each side wants... Healthcare, welfare and welfare reform and so forth... But NOBODY wants to sacrifice for ten or twenty years to get to that point.

 

[chucky2]

Civil unrest, to that point, might cut supply lines and kill millions from starvation alone. Not only that, but once people are hungry they'll turn on each other in mass. Sheer chaos and anarchy is the prospect both sides face.

Nah. The Blue states are rich enough to buy food from either the Red states (if the Red states are willing to sell) or on the world market - well, rich enough while they're rich enough. Such a split of the US again would certainly put quite a dent in Blue state richness, and then there's the total decline of the Blue states as their rabid extreme is not held checked by those with Red leanings. Overall, long term (150-200 years), I see Red states living a simpler-than-Blue but mostly stable life. Blue states decending into hell. I'd welcome the split, but would much prefer we get the Politicians in check so we don't need to have it come to that.

Chuck