You are not logged in.
If he is President there is no reason to secede, what your losing sight of is that the whole rational for secession is contingent on certain conditions being met. If those conditions aren't met, then there is no reason to secede. It seems to me that some Democratic politicians are going out of their way to ruin America, they want the United States to surrender to its enemies, and that I can't tollerate. If any of those people should happen to become President and likeminded people were to take control of Congress and the Senate and they are determined to lose a war to an enemy of inferior capabilities to us solely to satisfy their constituency's desire to humiliate US armed forces and our soldiers, then I would think those Armed forces would deserve a country that would appreciate them more, rather than work for politicians that won't let them win and who also have called them "baby killers". If the Democrats want to cause the decline and fall of America, fine, then let a huge piece of it rise from its ashes rather than let some foreign occupier rule over us as the Democrats seem to wish. I hope it doesn't come to that, but secession is the last bolt hole and refuge to those who won't capitulate. I say we fight as one nation, but if our leaders tell us not to fight and not to resist, then let us break apart and those still willing to fight for our civil liberties and inalianable rights do so, if not as the United States, then as a smaller fraction thereof. I don't think its disloyal to break off of a country that's unwillingon the whole to defend itself. We don't want to fall as France did during World War II.
Offline
rather than let some foreign occupier rule over us
Tom, do you really think that some foreign power threatens to occupy and "rule over" the US? Doesn't that seem absurd, even to you?
Who would it be, exactly? Iraq? Al Qaeda? Afghanistan?
For the sake of argument, say it's not absurd, say "they" can "rule over" anyone not wearing a tin foil hat. The major cities of the US immediately succumb to "their" insidious influence. Wouldn't succession be the worst possible strategy? Then "they" would be right next door instead of ... wherever "they" are now. Shouldn't you just nuke the cities and accept any refugees that got their tin foil hat on in time?
Fan of [url=http://www.red-oasis.com/]Red Oasis[/url]
Offline
rather than let some foreign occupier rule over us
Tom, do you really think that some foreign power threatens to occupy and "rule over" the US? Doesn't that seem absurd, even to you?
Military strength is irrelevant if we get a leader who simply throws up his hands and says, "We've lost!" The Democrats seem to have developed a taste for losing, they consider that to be their winning strategy. The only way to stop an elected chief executive from doing that would be for the Military to say, "I'm sorry Mr./Mrs. President, but we refuse to obey you. We are not going to surrender to the enemy because they have not beaten us."
Either the Generals will have a coup and overthrow the President who ordered such a dastardly thing, or the Generals will align themselves with secessionists who will allow the military to defend their piece of America under a constitutionally elected government. Never underestimate the power of a stupid idea to catch fire with the public's imagination. If the left wing can really sell the public on their anti-war passive non-resistance ideology, then there is a danger of a moderately armed foreign power taking us over. Our nukes do no good, if for ideological reasons our government refuses to use them. Do you want a historical example? How about when the Austrian Government allowed Germany to Annex them in 1936 without a fight? I'll bet you there were some Austrian Jews who felt safe in Austria in 1935, they couldn't imagine that the Germans would simply invade and the "peace loving" Austrians would simply let them in to avoid a war.
I think there are times when not all orders should be obeyed no matter what, not even when such orders are lawfully made. For instance if Cuba launches an amphibious invasion on the Florida Coast and the Liberal US President orders the US Military not to resist the Cuban Troops and to give up their arms to them, I think the Generals would be well justified to refuse such orders given by such a stupid President. Would the Floridians be justified in seceding for the Union so they can mount a proper defense of their territory against the Cubans, I think they would be under such circumstances.
Who would it be, exactly? Iraq? Al Qaeda? Afghanistan?
To the Democrats, it seems not to matter. Iran is certainly not a "Left-Wing" country under the usual definition of the word, but they are not American so therefore, some left wing groups in America want them to win, so they can put what the consider the "Imperialist American Government" in its place.
For the sake of argument, say it's not absurd, say "they" can "rule over" anyone not wearing a tin foil hat. The major cities of the US immediately succumb to "their" insidious influence. Wouldn't succession be the worst possible strategy? Then "they" would be right next door instead of ... wherever "they" are now. Shouldn't you just nuke the cities and accept any refugees that got their tin foil hat on in time?
This anti-war pacifism is a dangerous meme, just like Communism and Nazism was, if followed to its logical conclusion, anti-war pacifism will lead to a power vacuum in the American government, that any foreign government with a moderate level of armaments can fill. If the metropolitan areas or infected regions are broken off, then they can't elect a stupid President that would surrender the United States to a foreign power in order to avoid "bloodshed". The Jews in Austria were liquidated in Austria in part because of this general desire for peace with Germany in Austria, this is one of the examples of the dangers of overzealous pacifism.
Offline
Secession is quite rational when you are faced with these three choices for instance:
A) The majority of Americans want to appoint a dictator for life to rule over them cause he's very popular.
or
Inciting a Military Coup to take over the government and over ride the poppular will.
I really am having trouble trying to understand your mentality, you would fight your own country and want it to become the FORMER-United States, and you dislike california democrats and newyork liberals very much ?
Why do you not like people such as Truman or JFK, have these leaders not helped your country Tom ?
'first steps are not for cheap, think about it...
did China build a great Wall in a day ?' ( Y L R newmars forum member )
Offline
Sometimes I wonder what this war is being fought about today, is it still the prospect of a free Iraq or something else? After all I remember various statistics stating that a majority of Iraqis find it acceptable to attack(!) American troops.
If the majority of these people wants you to leave out of their free will, then why don't you just make a vote on that in Iraq and go if that is their wish. Isn't this the way Democracy works?
Getting Al Quida and their terrorists arrested is what should be our primary concern. The real shame is that Ben Laden is still running around somewhere seemingly undisturbed.
Do you want a historical example? How about when the Austrian Government allowed Germany to Annex them in 1936 without a fight? I'll bet you there were some Austrian Jews who felt safe in Austria in 1935, they couldn't imagine that the Germans would simply invade and the "peace loving" Austrians would simply let them in to avoid a war.
Ehh if you're talking about historical examples you should at least tell the correct dates. The annexation of Austria (a fascist country at that time) was in spring 1938. The stated main goal of post ww1 Austria was reunification with the Reich and the majority of Austrians welcomed the nazi troops led by a former Austrian guy btw.
Anyway it was a horrible time that shows what overly mighty state power with a just as mighty propaganda machine can do to the minds of a desperate people with such a sick ideology as nazism was.
I hope such a time never returns and I share your values of Freedom, Human Rights and Democracy but you must also keep standing true to these if the world ever ought to become a better place for everybody.
Offline
McCain Is Back
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article … 22,00.html
I am not suggesting that John McCain is a plausible front runner for the Republican nomination. Republicans tend not to like people like McCain: too wild, too willing to work with Senators like Ted Kennedy (gasp!) and Russ Feingold (gulp!) on legislation. Then again, what are the options? There is no plausible front runner. Each of the Republicans is flawed and flailing. The despair and hilarity as the various candidates try to squeeze into the conservative base's straitjacket, like the stepsisters struggling to fit into Cinderella's slipper, have been the gaudiest political show of 2007.
Offline
As to the original point of the thread, it would be incredibly foolish for conservatives to secede from form the more liberal portions of the country because these are almost always urban areas which contain the sort of infrastructure it takes to run a large country, which we would still be as The Red States of American. Liberals can't because their very political madness is dependent on a massive pool productive people whom they can tax endlessly.
Really, the only way to deal with them is force. Legally of course. With a vigilant voting block that doesn't not allow the kind of handouts that allow the parasites to take hold.
As for issues of War and Peace, I liken this period of history to a massive Cold War Hangover. All the things we did between the 50s and the 90s that we really knew at the time we really shouldn't have done, but did just to avoid provoking each other into a nuclear exchange are coming home to roost. You know, things like backing local strongmen to to avoid direct intervention because at at least he's not a commie. Of course if we sit on our hands to long we're going to get the nuclear exchange anyway.
The most frightening thing about all this is not that there are so many emerging threats that need to be stamped out, because we can deal with them in a pretty straight forward manner, be the prevailing ignorance of what takes to defend what we have and that what we have really is worth the sacrifice.
"Yes, I was going to give this astronaut selection my best shot, I was determined when the NASA proctologist looked up my ass, he would see pipes so dazzling he would ask the nurse to get his sunglasses."
---Shuttle Astronaut Mike Mullane
Offline
Of the local strongmen, I'd include Joseph Stalin against the Nazis. What happened during the Cold War was just a continuation of what occured during World War II except with less direct violence.
Sometimes you have to pick from the options on the table, and a direct confrontation between US and Russian troops isnt always the best answer. There are plenty of people willing to fight our battles if we give them weapons to fight with. Sending US soldiers everywhere to fix everything will use up the public will alot faster than it will our resources. What were trying to do in Iraq is get the local Iraqis to fight it. We used our own forces to overthrow Saddam Hussein, and we've been fighting the terrorists ever since, but now it time to get the Iraqis to see that fighting the terrorists is in their best interests also. We're winning, and the Liberals hate it, some of them are still writing articles in Foreign Affairs about who lost Iraq. The mainstream media is complicit in aiding the media, this Bush bashing and hatred has become pathological on their part. George Bush is not even running in the next Presidential election, and the Democrats don't get that they'll be running against someone else this time around. The Clinton campaign is in pitiful shape, yet the media won't admit it, as far as their concerned her victory is inevitable, before even any of the voters have had a say in it. I hope the old media dies quickly, I really do, they have ceased being an independent media and have become instead a propaganda tool for the Democratic Party. I don't think the One Party State that the Liberal Media wants us to have is the best thing for democracy. If we want a democracy, we need a choice of candidates, and the mainstream press wants to rob us of that choice by giving us biased coverage, just like Putin's loyal Press does in Russia, I don't think we can allow that to happen.
Offline