Hypothetical - secession or war?

[Steeplerot]

Let them secede then when they go batshit and go after some brown people across the world then invade and annex their shit right back. Then blow up the transports so they cant come stink the USA up again. Volia! Less reactionary fundies right wingers here and abroad. Hopefully they eat each other.

 

[cwjerome]

Succeed on what grounds?

States should absolutely NOT have the legal right to succeed. Whether they have a moral right is another question.

IOW, I am a Unionist and Constitutionalist because I believe both are the best practical means of promoting liberty and prosperity, yet if a situation arose where those were on the wrong side -a nightmare scenario for me- then succession could be the moral and proper thing to do.

I figure most people saying that letting the South leave because they are poor, backwards, etc, are not fully serious, but it's still stupid talk.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

How would the South compensate the North for all the TVA works built with Federal dollars ?

Not to mention Miss river flood control. Hope y'all like having all your fresh water controlled by Yankees.

There wouldn't be compensation.

Water would be a problem if the north were to try to stop it. Then again we're talking a peaceful separation. If you want war remember both sides would have nuclear weapons. The North would have far more of course, but if one side tried to destroy the other then it wouldn't take many to ruin both sides. In that case 6.5 million is far far too few deaths. I doubt anyone would consider losing half the population worth it.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Succeed on what grounds?

States should absolutely NOT have the legal right to succeed. Whether they have a moral right is another question.

IOW, I am a Unionist and Constitutionalist because I believe both are the best practical means of promoting liberty and prosperity, yet if a situation arose where those were on the wrong side -a nightmare scenario for me- then succession could be the moral and proper thing to do.

I figure most people saying that letting the South leave because they are poor, backwards, etc, are not fully serious, but it's still stupid talk.

Being a Constitutionalists would you show in that document where states may not secede?

 

[Chaotic42]

The amount of vitriol towards the South in this thread is amazing. You guys do realize this was hypothetical and the South isn't trying to break away, right? That we're all Americans and that the Civil War has been over for quite some time?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

We are all speculating here and its fine that you have your own vision of what would happen but I think you are way off base. GREED for money would pump so much oil in that case it would drop to 30 a barrel before too long.

Why would OPEC open its wells to sell its only significant resource at a discount? It doesn't do so now, why would it give oil away then?

 

[JSt0rm]

How would the South compensate the North for all the TVA works built with Federal dollars ?

Not to mention Miss river flood control. Hope y'all like having all your fresh water controlled by Yankees.

Now now Tom. you know we wouldn't destroy the ecosystem surrounding the Mississippi.

 

[JSt0rm]

Why would OPEC open its wells to sell its only significant resource at a discount? It doesn't do so now, why would it give oil away then?

A discount at 200 a barrel? We just went through a oil boom bust do I really need to spell out exactly how it works?

 

[fskimospy]

The world supply would be the same however virtually all oil would be imported. That creates a North which is more economically vulnerable since virtually all oil is imported. Instability would push the price of oil to never before seen levels. If oil doubles in price (not an unrealistic possibility) then we deal with a crisis of affordability. It's entirely within the realm of possibility that price of oil becomes too expensive to buy in needed quantities. To provide an analogy, if there was food but you could not afford to obtain it, then you starve just the same as if the food doesn't exist at all.

The South would not be as susceptible if they used their own oil. If the new government took the oil on a cost of drilling plus a fee basis, then it's removed from speculation and market price pressures. Low energy costs gives a competitive edge to the south. This doesn't mean that the South won't have it's own problems, but my point isn't about how one side or the other is a clear winner, but rather that the red/blue state paradigm people are citing (red states getting more money than blue) is completely irrelevant, and energy is one factor among many.

What on earth are you basing this scenario on? As best I can tell you just made some stuff up. Why would the price of oil double? Would the South no longer be selling its oil at all to anyone? It's a global commodity. The north would just get its oil from one of a dozen other places... it's really not an issue.

The only reason the OPEC embargo worked was because they controlled a huge percentage of the world's oil production at that time. If the South decided to no longer supply the northern US with oil it would take quite a short time to set up a supply chain from someone else. It really couldn't matter less.

 

[JSt0rm]

The amount of vitriol towards the South in this thread is amazing. You guys do realize this was hypothetical and the South isn't trying to break away, right? That we're all Americans and that the Civil War has been over for quite some time?

This thread is about dreams.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The amount of vitriol towards the South in this thread is amazing. You guys do realize this was hypothetical and the South isn't trying to break away, right? That we're all Americans and that the Civil War has been over for quite some time?

The south has a considerable number of conservatives so many would like to see them ruined or dead as evidenced by posts we've seen.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

This thread is about dreams.

I think this image matches the words better.

 

[fskimospy]

The south has a considerable number of conservatives so many would like to see them ruined or dead as evidenced by posts we've seen.

Oh jesus. Maybe people are sick of the hypocrisy of people simultaneously arguing for self sufficiency while leeching money from the wealthier blue states.

I'm so tired of the culture of conservative victimhood.

 

[JSt0rm]

I think this image matches the words better.

oh jeez whatever. I'm actually very peaceful. Just because I dont want to be a christian and have southerners tell me how to spend my money doesnt mean I want to kill people.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Oh jesus. Maybe people are sick of the hypocrisy of people simultaneously arguing for self sufficiency while leeching money from the wealthier blue states.

I'm so tired of the culture of conservative victimhood.

Right.

Let them secede then when they go batshit and go after some bown people across the world then imvafe and annex their shit right back. Then blow up the transports so they cant come stink the USA up again. Volia! Less reactionary fundies right wingers here and abroad. Hopefully they eat each other.

 

[JSt0rm]

I'm so tired of the culture of conservative victimhood.

paranoia and fear is all they know how to do.

 

[fskimospy]

Right.

It's a culture of victimhood and you know it. This entire board is filled with complaints about how biased against conservatives everything is.

 

[cwjerome]

Being a Constitutionalists would you show in that document where states may not secede?

I would say Article 6 sections 1 and 2, and then historical and Supreme Court precedent.

Some might disagree, although they would also disagree with my belief that Lincoln was a devout constitutionalist.

 

[dali71]

Oh jesus. Maybe people are sick of the hypocrisy of people simultaneously arguing for self sufficiency while leeching money from the wealthier blue states.

I'm so tired of the culture of conservative victimhood.

The people arguing for self-sufficiency generally aren't the same ones who are receiving government handouts.

oh jeez whatever. I'm actually very peaceful. Just because I dont want to be a christian and have southerners tell me how to spend my money doesnt mean I want to kill people.

How exactly are Southerners telling you how to spend your money?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

What on earth are you basing this scenario on? As best I can tell you just made some stuff up. Why would the price of oil double? Would the South no longer be selling its oil at all to anyone? It's a global commodity. The north would just get its oil from one of a dozen other places... it's really not an issue.

The only reason the OPEC embargo worked was because they controlled a huge percentage of the world's oil production at that time. If the South decided to no longer supply the northern US with oil it would take quite a short time to set up a supply chain from someone else. It really couldn't matter less.

Gas is roughly 4 bucks a gallon now up considerably since a relatively tiny upset in Libya but the separation of the most powerful nation on the planet couldn't matter less. Oh, and of course the South would destroy it's new independence by getting rid of it's only advantage, the ability to control what it pays for oil.

You've decided to get into a pissing match over a hypothetical. You ignore relatively minor events driving up prices dramatically in the real world, and dismiss something far greater as not mattering.

Whatever.

 

[JSt0rm]

How exactly are Southerners telling you how to spend your money?

Conservatives want taxes spent on the things they see as important. I dont find those same things to be very important. But the difference is they want to destroy the economy in the process.

 

[fskimospy]

The people arguing for self-sufficiency generally aren't the same ones who are receiving government handouts.

What is this based on? Red states vote conservatively, and they receive a significantly larger portion of government handouts relative to their population. How are you explaining the disparity?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

It's a culture of victimhood and you know it. This entire board is filled with complaints about how biased against conservatives everything is.

And you have purposefully ignored what I quoted.

 

[dali71]

What is this based on? Red states vote conservatively, and they receive a significantly larger portion of government handouts relative to their population. How are you explaining the disparity?

Because most of that money goes to entitlements for the poor, disabled, and retired. Conservatives would prefer to have lower taxes, even if that means less money being doled out to their state.

 

[fskimospy]

Gas is roughly 4 bucks a gallon now up considerably since a relatively tiny upset in Libya. A separation of the most powerful nation on the planet couldn't matter less. Oh, and of course the South would destroy it's new independence by getting rid of it's only advantage, the ability to control it's main advantage.

You've decided to get into a pissing match over a hypothetical. You ignore relatively minor events driving up prices dramatically in the real world, and dismiss something far greater as not mattering.

Whatever.

'A relatively tiny upset in Libya'. It's the 9th largest oil producer on Earth, and its production has been all but halted by a civil war. Presumably in a peaceful split oil production wouldn't be halted at all, meaning that the only bump in prices would be speculative, and therefore temporary. Why you would attempt to compare the two is beyond me. I'm not ignoring anything, I just don't know why you should judge a permanent condition by temporary ones.

The North would be fine without the South's oil reserves. As I said before there would likely be a disruption, but it would be temporary. The idea that the economically underdeveloped areas of the US could somehow bring the developed areas to their knees through manipulation of a global commodity is silliness.