Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Well, we should probably acknowledge that there have not been any "states" that started petitions for secession, just some folks living in those states.

 sebster wrote:
I think that's a large reason the US shifted from being an a collection of states to a single nation in 1864 - not just because it was clear the Fed wasn't letting any state secede, but also because the people started thinking of themselves primarily as Americans.

I might point out that view was not at all the prevalent one in 1864. Really, it didn't until the Cold War, and is starting to show cracks now that it's over, despite 100 years of government run brainwashing. People are dissatisfied with their perception of how the rule of the majority is not addressing their concerns. This leads them to start getting ideas of taking their state, which may or may not be filled with like minded people, elsewhere and form their own government that MIGHT do something about their concerns.

 sebster wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
Do Scotland and Whales have the right of secession?

I'd think if there was an actual right to secede then you wouldn't really have a country, you'd have an economic co-operative or an alliance.

I think the 'we are a single political entity and that's just how it is and people can't really think of it being any other way' is a really important part of making a country what it is. I think that's a large reason the US shifted from being an a collection of states to a single nation in 1864 - not just because it was clear the Fed wasn't letting any state secede, but also because the people started thinking of themselves primarily as Americans.

It's a republic not a democracy.

 d-usa wrote:
Well, we should probably acknowledge that there have not been any "states" that started petitions for secession, just some folks living in those states.

This is what I was thinking.

If state representatives start bringing it up, we have an entertaining few years ahead. Until then, it's just silliness.

 nomsheep wrote:


And according to the newspapers (though I can't source atm) preparing to move in to Syria.

I would love to see this, Most people over here dont give two about Syrian civilians or freedoms

I do want to see how the White House handles this and what sides politicians are going to take on the matter.

 Huffy wrote:


I would love to see this, Most people over here dont give two about Syrian civilians or freedoms

I do, but I doubt most people in the US really understand what stands to be lost in Syria. Sadly, I'd have to go as well. Si proelio juxta portam Sancti Thomae pergemus ad bellum iterum. Honoris exigit.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Huffy wrote:


I would love to see this, Most people over here dont give two about Syrian civilians or freedoms

I do, but I doubt most people in the US really understand what stands to be lost in Syria. Sadly, I'd have to go as well. Si proelio juxta portam Sancti Thomae pergemus ad bellum iterum. Honoris exigit.

Err what exactly stands to be lost in Syria?

Because really I don't feel like burying more of my buddies for Middle Eastern hell holes. Or spending arse tons of money that doesn't exist.

So this better be freaking good.

 AustonT wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
Do Scotland and Whales have the right of secession?

I'd think if there was an actual right to secede then you wouldn't really have a country, you'd have an economic co-operative or an alliance.

I think the 'we are a single political entity and that's just how it is and people can't really think of it being any other way' is a really important part of making a country what it is. I think that's a large reason the US shifted from being an a collection of states to a single nation in 1864 - not just because it was clear the Fed wasn't letting any state secede, but also because the people started thinking of themselves primarily as Americans.

It's a republic not a democracy.

Or, more accurately, it is a republic and a democracy.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

Err what exactly stands to be lost in Syria?

Because really I don't feel like burying more of my buddies for Middle Eastern hell holes. Or spending arse tons of money that doesn't exist.

So this better be freaking good.

Syria is both like, and very different, from any war you will have fought. From your reaction, I suspect you'd either understand too well, or never understand at all, my personal answer. I suppose that can't be helped.

Let me put it in a way you will understand: Syria now prevents more later.

Would you like to lose a few buddies in Syria, or all of them on the slopes of Tel Megiddo?

 BaronIveagh wrote:
I might point out that view was not at all the prevalent one in 1864. Really, it didn't until the Cold War, and is starting to show cracks now that it's over, despite 100 years of government run brainwashing. People are dissatisfied with their perception of how the rule of the majority is not addressing their concerns. This leads them to start getting ideas of taking their state, which may or may not be filled with like minded people, elsewhere and form their own government that MIGHT do something about their concerns.

Really? Not until the Cold War? And government brainwashing?

That's umm.... you're sounding pretty out there, dude.

And no, there is no greater call for secession. There's some petitions scoring fairly pitiful numbers of votes. Seriously, 10,000 votes sounds like a big number, but out of a country of 300 million it's well and truly in the fringe whackjob category.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AustonT wrote:
It's a republic not a democracy.

Holy fething gak balls for the last fething time on this god forsaken gak pants of a fething feth feth website that is not a fething thing.

A republic just means you don't have a monarch. You can be both a republic and a democracy, or one of the two, or neither. The USA is both a democracy and a republic.


Can this just fething die now, please.

 sebster wrote:

Really? Not until the Cold War? And government brainwashing?

That's umm.... you're sounding pretty out there, dude.

Not really. You might consider reading what was written at the time by average people rather than what was spewed by politicians. It really started catching on in the 1930's when large numbers of people were forced to migrate due to the depression, but really didn't get 'big' until WW2 and the beginning of the Cold War.

And what else do you call a education system that emphasizes how great the United States is as opposed to other, lesser countries, and how it's never, ever, ever done anything wrong. How Europeans were justified in bringing civilization and Christianity to the grateful natives who gladly signed over their land and then vanish from history until the battle of the Little Bighorn, and then all disappear after that.

Up into the 1960's, there were also chapters on how whites were superior to other, lesser races.

The Southern states, if we define that by the states that seceded in the Civil War, have about 95 million people living in them. That sounds like a lot, until you realise they're up against 215 million people in the rest of the country. Even if those states had a tendency to enrol in the military more, it can't make up for the 2:1 population shortfall.

Not that another Civil War will play out the same as the last one. Afterall, Florida and Virginia voted for Obama, so it's pretty ludicrous to pretend they'd suddenly switch over and fight against the current Federal government. And at the same time there's a whole load of states in the mid-west that are strongly conservative now that didn't side with the South in the 1860s, if for no other reason than they weren't states at the time. So if we divide population by Obama and Romney states we get a different picture, but one where the final figures don't move all that much - the red states have 112 million people, to 198 million in the blue states (losing Florida and Virginia really hurts that count).

Point is, that's still assuming a best case scenario for the secessionists, as it assumes that states that only just voted against Obama would somehow hold that belief so strongly that they'd take up arms and secede. And even then the secessionists are down 2:1.

I was making more of a point towards the notion that out of the currently available manpower and hardware the South would have a significant advantage. Possibly enough of one to force the issue for the first year or two until the North gets it's act together.

However I don't really think that Northerners would really have the will to forcefully stop the South from leaving if the South had the political will to force the separation.

And by South I now mean both Classical South (Hopefully Virginia would join, and Northern Florida likely would,) as well as most of the Midwest and those states in the South West. So basically everything except the Upper Eastern and Western Seaboards.

 AustonT wrote:

 Testify wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
It's weird that there's no right to secede. It seems to take away some credibility from the notion that the United States are an actual Union of States... ?

Do Scotland and Whales have the right of secession?

Yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_independence_referendum,_2014

I think you meant "no"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_independence_referendum,_2014 wrote: the Scottish Parliament does not have the power to unilaterally secede from the United Kingdom, because the constitution is a reserved matter for the UK parliament.

...and the UK government have stated that they will abide by the result.

Scotland and Wales are both able to leave the union this way.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Would you like to lose a few buddies in Syria, or all of them on the slopes of Tel Megiddo?

I choose none of the above. If Israel wants to exist it can spend its own money and lives on defense.

Does White House tech crews verify that the mail/messages are not bot-generated?

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Not really. You might consider reading what was written at the time by average people rather than what was spewed by politicians. It really started catching on in the 1930's when large numbers of people were forced to migrate due to the depression, but really didn't get 'big' until WW2 and the beginning of the Cold War.

Interesting claim. Have you got a source for that?

And what else do you call a education system that emphasizes how great the United States is as opposed to other, lesser countries, and how it's never, ever, ever done anything wrong. How Europeans were justified in bringing civilization and Christianity to the grateful natives who gladly signed over their land and then vanish from history until the battle of the Little Bighorn, and then all disappear after that.

I'd call it the standard educational system that every primary school kid goes through.

To call it brainwashing is to simply not understand what brainwashing is. Brainwashing involves placing immense pressure on someone, commonly psychological or social, and not relenting until that person has collapsed and given up control over their own thinking and come to accept whatever lies you're telling them.

Telling a kid a national myth in the classroom, and then leaving him alone to go read about in a textbook or to hear about from other people isn't brainwashing. It isn't even close.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ratbarf wrote:
I was making more of a point towards the notion that out of the currently available manpower and hardware the South would have a significant advantage.

And I'm telling you that 'people in the South are more likely to join the army' doesn't overcome the basic difference in population, unless you're willing to claim that the difference is a 2:1 ratio, and that'd only put the two force at parity.

However I don't really think that Northerners would really have the will to forcefully stop the South from leaving if the South had the political will to force the separation.

That's what the South thought last time. Didn't work out so well.

And by South I now mean both Classical South (Hopefully Virginia would join, and Northern Florida likely would,) as well as most of the Midwest and those states in the South West. So basically everything except the Upper Eastern and Western Seaboards.

Hopefully?!

What the gak dude?

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/texas-struggling-with-life-under-communism-2012111448938

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

Err what exactly stands to be lost in Syria?

Because really I don't feel like burying more of my buddies for Middle Eastern hell holes. Or spending arse tons of money that doesn't exist.

So this better be freaking good.

Syria is both like, and very different, from any war you will have fought. From your reaction, I suspect you'd either understand too well, or never understand at all, my personal answer. I suppose that can't be helped.

Let me put it in a way you will understand: Syria now prevents more later.

Would you like to lose a few buddies in Syria, or all of them on the slopes of Tel Megiddo?

This sounds like a lead in to that crazy "Armageddon" theory that people throw out every now and then.

Honestly I'm not worried about ANYTHING in Israel because screwing the IDF has proven to drastically lower the human life span by an incredible margin.

You're really dancing around the question though. Lay it out. I've had enough concussions that I have issues remembering my name some days. What exactly does burning money and lives in another Middle Eastern gakhole get us? Besides keeping mortuary techs busy and letting us show off the COIN operation stuff we've been practicing for the last decade somewhere that isn't Afghanistan.

I can think of one benefit.

al-Assad is pretty clearly a bad guy, and killing him and any one who's willingly working for him to slaughter innocents can only be a good thing.

Albeit at the cost of antagonizing Russia, the president of which is intent on saber rattling like it's 1979 all over again.

 sebster wrote:

Interesting claim. Have you got a source for that?

The diary of William McCarter (published, available for purchase), the papers of the Landis brothers of Lancaster PA (publication forthcoming, originals in the library of Congress), the papers of Senator Daniel Sturgeon from PA, take your pick the debates that surrounded the sixteenth and seventeenth amendments...

 sebster wrote:

Brainwashing involves placing immense pressure on someone, commonly psychological or social, and not relenting until that person has collapsed and given up control over their own thinking and come to accept whatever lies you're telling them.

No, it can be a lot more subtle than that. What you're describing is the brute force approach to brainwashing that the government tried at Carlyle. The result was a staggering number of dead and damaged children. You say 'well, they can go read the truth, somewhere.' First, how many school students do you know that are going to go to the library and pick up a history book. Second...






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

Honestly I'm not worried about ANYTHING in Israel because screwing the IDF has proven to drastically lower the human life span by an incredible margin.

You're really dancing around the question though. Lay it out. I've had enough concussions that I have issues remembering my name some days. What exactly does burning money and lives in another Middle Eastern gakhole get us? Besides keeping mortuary techs busy and letting us show off the COIN operation stuff we've been practicing for the last decade somewhere that isn't Afghanistan.

For the US not having anything to do with Syria is a two fold issue. The first is that if the US refuses to stop Syria or aid anyone that gets caught up in it, it means that the US will be abandoning it's treaties left and right. This is not a good thing, for one's international standing. Second is Syria is already spreading, and destabilizing other countries as it does. If you think it would be bad fighting in Syria, wait until the US ignores if for a few years until half the region is going up in smoke and THEN tries to put the fire out. We both know they will.

Saying 'let Israel deal with it' is a bad idea, no matter how hard they are, there are not enough of them, considering how bad this has the potential to get. Unless you LIKE the idea of a conventional World War III in the desert. It's better to nip this in the bud now, look like the good guys while doing it, and take fewer casualties.

 sebster wrote:

Hopefully?!

What the gak dude?

Virginia would be in, save for the godawful counties around DC.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Coolyo294 wrote:
A counter-petition arises.

That's bitter.

A simple 'death to traitors' would be more polite.

Corrected your typo.

On a more radical gun board where I have been called communist in the past my calm pro union statements seem to be getting moderator attention. I don't see how anyone can construe "all the petitioners are traitors, and they and their families should be driven from this nation at the point of a gun and everything they owned burned as a warning" could be construed negatively.

Baron,
What is Tel Mediggo? and at the risk of the conflict spreading is far smaller than people claim, both the Turks and Israelis will see to that. Furthermore the US does not have the political capital to wage another war in the ME anytime soon.

Testify wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

 Testify wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
It's weird that there's no right to secede. It seems to take away some credibility from the notion that the United States are an actual Union of States... ?

Do Scotland and Whales have the right of secession?

Yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_independence_referendum,_2014

I think you meant "no"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_independence_referendum,_2014 wrote: the Scottish Parliament does not have the power to unilaterally secede from the United Kingdom, because the constitution is a reserved matter for the UK parliament.

...and the UK government have stated that they will abide by the result.

Scotland and Wales are both able to leave the union this way.

When is the Welsh referendum?

 sebster wrote:
They look at state payments vs state receipts on a twenty year average, over which time many time states have paid in a lot more than they have gotten back. The big losers California and new england, particularly New York. The big winners are the midwest and Southern states.

Minnesota and Wisconsin are big losers in that list too. They have paid out way more than they have brought in.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AustonT wrote:
It's a republic not a democracy.

This comes up so often, I felt like we need to start using some kind of meme.



Of course, some one will need to tell me why these two concepts are mutually exclusive.

 Easy E wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
It's a republic not a democracy.

This comes up so often, I felt like we need to start using some kind of meme.
Of course, some one will need to tell me why these two concepts are mutually exclusive.

It didn't really come up, I've just decided that response is what sebster gets when he quotes me out of context.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 sebster wrote:

Interesting claim. Have you got a source for that?

The diary of William McCarter (published, available for purchase), the papers of the Landis brothers of Lancaster PA (publication forthcoming, originals in the library of Congress), the papers of Senator Daniel Sturgeon from PA, take your pick the debates that surrounded the sixteenth and seventeenth amendments...

 sebster wrote:

Brainwashing involves placing immense pressure on someone, commonly psychological or social, and not relenting until that person has collapsed and given up control over their own thinking and come to accept whatever lies you're telling them.

No, it can be a lot more subtle than that. What you're describing is the brute force approach to brainwashing that the government tried at Carlyle. The result was a staggering number of dead and damaged children. You say 'well, they can go read the truth, somewhere.' First, how many school students do you know that are going to go to the library and pick up a history book. Second...






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

Honestly I'm not worried about ANYTHING in Israel because screwing the IDF has proven to drastically lower the human life span by an incredible margin.

You're really dancing around the question though. Lay it out. I've had enough concussions that I have issues remembering my name some days. What exactly does burning money and lives in another Middle Eastern gakhole get us? Besides keeping mortuary techs busy and letting us show off the COIN operation stuff we've been practicing for the last decade somewhere that isn't Afghanistan.

For the US not having anything to do with Syria is a two fold issue. The first is that if the US refuses to stop Syria or aid anyone that gets caught up in it, it means that the US will be abandoning it's treaties left and right. This is not a good thing, for one's international standing. Second is Syria is already spreading, and destabilizing other countries as it does. If you think it would be bad fighting in Syria, wait until the US ignores if for a few years until half the region is going up in smoke and THEN tries to put the fire out. We both know they will.

Saying 'let Israel deal with it' is a bad idea, no matter how hard they are, there are not enough of them, considering how bad this has the potential to get. Unless you LIKE the idea of a conventional World War III in the desert. It's better to nip this in the bud now, look like the good guys while doing it, and take fewer casualties.

What the hell is that letter?

 AustonT wrote:

When is the Welsh referendum?

When the people vote for one in elections.

Why does it bother you so much that we allow constituent countries to leave when the USA doesn't?

People are just blustering and are full of crap.

No one is leaving the country.

 kronk wrote:
People are just blustering and are full of crap.

No one is leaving the country.

No Kronk! Don't tell them the truth! They won't listen to you

 Seaward wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:
So if they secede from the US they become their own countries right?

Provided they win the war, yes. We've been down this road before.

This time, though, we below the Mason-Dixon will have shoes.

I think you missed the phrase 'peacefully'. Only an idiot wants a civil war.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
Well, we should probably acknowledge that there have not been any "states" that started petitions for secession, just some folks living in those states.

If the southern states want to form their own nation, it would have a dramatic effect on the rest of the US. Look at the electoral college for the 2012 presidential race to see what will happen to US politics.
Instead of having 'republican vs democrats' running for office, we will have 'democrats vs green party'