- This topic has 9 voices and 378 replies.
-
Posts
-
Too bad going isolationist is impossible at this point. Otherwise you might have a decent point. You have just espoused one of Ron Paul's crazier points. We cannot go isolationist because we rely on other countries for too many resources. Rare Earths and Oil being the two most important.
Ah, why don't we take a route which draws upon the benefits of each side? I agree that we can't be isolationist in any absolute or near-absolute sense of the word, yet it's clear that the notion of being the “world's policeman” is unrealistic and just bad policy. I think that the neo-conservative hawkishness of the previous decade needs to be replaced by a coherent conservative policy which lays out the roadmap for when international action is permissible, and when it is necessary. This policy should raise the bar for international military action so that while we don't remain isolationist, we are slower to dabble in world crises. Of course, diplomatic action and non-military action in response to international issues needs to be a part of this policy.During the debates, I don't think I heard words about a consistent approach to foreign policy by any of the candidates.
After we go off the fiscal cliff, America won't be able to do anything in the world anyway. We will become isolationist by default as the other major powers will push us to the side. We are witnessing the twilight of America.
I agree that we can no longer police the world and that we should also pursue autarchy in many raw materials. At the same time I don't think we are seeing a permanent decline of America. There are dark days ahead but as long as there are men of quality and principle the experiment that is America is not condemned to disappear
There is a secession movement cranking up. Anybody know what that's all about?
Has happened all the time since the Civil War… Splitting is a bad idea, especially now, even if we don't agree, because any single state would fall flat on it's face by itself after all these years of being spoonfed by the government.The Federal government wouldn't let it happen, just as Lincoln wouldn't let it happen. There is no benefit from seceeding, not at this point anyway. The best bet is to unite, but our leaders and government are preventing that. Besides, I think you will see a lot of people who would rather “live off the grid” and pull out of mainstream society than be party to it. They'll pack their things and isloate themselves wherever they canSecession would be suicide for America and the seceeding states. I personally agree that we pull out of the world as much as possible, and work on becoming autonomous the best we can. And being the leader isn't so as important as being secure and happy. I would be all for slowing down and living somewhat the life our pioneer forefathers did. Living off the grid sounds better and beter every day.
There is no benefit from seceeding, not at this point anyway.
But why not? Isn't autonomy better than being forced to live in a manner inconsistent with one's beliefs? It seems to me that the socio-political divide has gotten so great that there is little hope of real unity, barring some cataclysmic event which forces people to abandon their former ways and come together for the common good.I think that in theory, secession should always be available to the states. A unified America may be important, but is it more important than people governing themselves? If states are categorically denied the right to secede they lose what is most essential to their statehood. They instead become governed regions under the watch of the king and his vassals in Washington, D.C.With that said, I agree that seceding would be disastrous for any state that did it alone. It would be so costly and problematic that people might realize that it wasn't quite so bad after all being part of the larger unified group of American states.
Jefferson Davis and his compadres also thought the country was so divided there was no downside to secession. I agree with Notch here, there is no advantage to secession. The only plausible path forward is working from within the system. At some future time Civil War may be required to right the ship of state, but probably not secession. I am thinking more along Cromwellian Civil War lines than 1860-65. States were categorically denied the right to secede, if such right ever existed in the first place, in 1865 with the Union victory.The current talk of secession is an expression of discontent more than a true secession movement I think. Personally, I think most Americans are too much the coward to really go through with trying to defy the central government. The big message I am getting from all the anger on the right and talk of secession is that talk is cheap. I highly doubt that those making the most noise have the courage of their convictions and are willing to accept the risk that secession or any violence will bring. Remember, Civil Wars tend to be bloody because family fights are the most intense.The current secession talk is just that, talk. It is a measure of how discontented many Americans are with the results of the election.
I think civil war would be a distant second to the more likely scenario of peaceful secession. I disagree about the claim that there is “no advantage to secession”. Sovereignty is a major advantage to living under the rule of a government which is outright hostile to the values and traditions upon which the country was built.Truth be told, however, I don't think that the recent talk of secession is serious. People are upset over the election and the type of voter who voted the current administration into office. So I do agree that it is more of an expression of discontent than anything.
I would imagine Homeland Security and FEMA would step in and round up dissidents under martial law conditions if they thought there was anything to this secession movement.
I would imagine Homeland Security and FEMA would step in and round up dissidents under martial law conditions if they thought there was anything to this secession movement.
I doubt even the rank and file of the left would stand by and allow Martial Law to be implemented. Do you really see all the gangbangers in Chicago, Houston, LA and other cities calmly accepting the imposition of Martial Law? I don't. It is also certain that many on the right would not lightly accept such a measure either. Martial Law is a figment of the radical right who think that government, any government, is inherently evil and not to be trusted. It is Sovereign Citizen type craziness. Lets at least try and keep this conversation realistic. If Martial Law were declared we probably would see civil war, and rightly so. I do not see any realistic reason now or on the horizon that would justify Martial Law. This veteran would be on the first thing hopping to get back to the US and fight to preserve those rights I spent over twenty years defending.
How could there be peaceful secession? The South tried that before the war and the US government put the kibosh on that. There is no circumstance that the federal government is going to “peacefully” allow any state to break free from it's control. The first state that tries (seriously tries, because I agree with all here, the current talk of secession is just that – talk) will find the government in their business quicker than snot…and you can bet the military and CIA will all be there too… It just isn't going to happen on a state-to-state basis.I would be interested in the response if, say, the entire midwest, decided to band together and break away. I again think it would be suicide, but would be curious if the states Guard units would protect their home states against Federal troops. I have no doubt the people, or at least some of them, would, but here is no way militia guerrrilla fighting would be able to overpower federal troops. But like scout said, this would entail Martial Law, and as soon as that happens we would have an all out civil war. And if we thought the first one was bloody it will be a cakewalk to what we could expect. Think about it, guerrilla warfare with current weapons, the lack of compassion for mankind (you wouldn't see a break to collect up the dead to bury or captives being released or traded as in the first civil war – it would be nothing but death), and the sheer number of people (35 million in 1865 vs 312 million in 2012). And if the people of the 1860's thought it was hard to tell who was their enemy and who was their friend think about it now… whites, blacks, latinos, asians, chritian, athiest, rich, poor, etc the mix of people is vastly different and would make for a deadly combination in a civil war.I don't think secession, peacful or otherwise is a wise option, for anyone. With the troubles in the rest of the world now is not the time for us to divide… I truly believe that if the current division widens, we will be ripe for the picking from other world powers.
The difference that I see is that the voters' pro-Union attitudes and attitudes toward armed enforcement are likely much different than they were in the nineteenth century. Given the fact that most voters were not stirred in this recent election to see the impending disaster of our economy going off a cliff suggests to me that most voters nationwide are not going to care much if a group of states in the south wants to secede and form a self-governing nation. Also, the fact that the current administration was put into office partly through the non-violence/peacenik bloc tells me that any widespread violence enforcing a unified America would be met with outrage. Can you imagine Obama sending in troops to slaughter the opposition over an issue like state sovereignty? I just could not see this happening, barring an Obama elevation to a position akin to dictator.Honestly, though, we're more likely to get to the point where a Republican candidate is elected president in four years than the point at which states truly do secede. And if a Republican is elected, all this secession talk goes out the door.
Then why is FEMA and Homeland Security prepping for a “Zombie Apocalypse?” I think I read somewhere on Drudge a while back that they were holding training exercises to ward off “zombies” which is just hungry people roaming the countryside looting for survival in the aftermath of some catastrophe or when the economy collapses.
As matters stand today:1, The issue of Secession was settled with finality in 1865. 2. No State has or will have a majority willing to secede because our divisions are not dileneated by state boundaries.3. There are always hissy-fits by some on the losing side after elections.I remember way back when 7 Days in May came out as a book and then a film, I rooted for the President and his defenders. During the Carter Administration I had more sympathy for the Generals who wanted a weak President ousted by coup. Alas, in real life often the JCS is dominated by political generals and admirals. Admiral Zumwalt during Carter's years agreed with cuts in the military, and when Reagan came in he agreed the military had to be built up.Point being — without the military, there cannot be a secession or coup.
- The topic ‘Election 2012 – The discussion’ is closed to new replies.
