Cuda2020

Hey straight, many things to respond to, I will tackle one at a time. in response to this comment...

your quote{Is Russia more vulnerable than we are? Vulnerable to what exactly? I don't understand the reference. I understand your concern about needing more rules if we disperse. But I don't think it's a given. We maybe one nation but we have a deep hierarchy of laws and jurisdictions that more than make up for it.

In fact, it's interesting that you bring Russia up on the heels of your statement about "too many rules"... I can remember a conversation I had with a database architect who studied law in Russia and he said he was astounded by the sheer volume of laws that exist in America.}

Allow me to clarify, my point wasn't that Russia was the vulnerable one, but rather the smaller countries who have tried to break free from Russia, only to have them later return to force themselves onto them. I could foresee this happening. Let us say for argument sake, the(a) red region objective was to become all-powerful, and smaller blue regions, for lack of a better description, were to be vulnerable against this military state.

I pointed out Russia for their appetite to consume. For example, let's look at Turkey, Syria, Ukraine Georgia, Crimea, Bosnia, now they are getting bold enough to attack us by undermining the US in their covert hostile takeover. How far is enough for them, they are like a Pacman on the earth. We can't ignore this, especially if a country "like them" existed as our neighbors, just saying something to consider.

I am all for the positiveness of living in a country you describe, but there will always be issues and challenges when herbivores live beside omnivores or worse carnivores.


When I was referring to too many rules, and yes to your friends comment on our laws, now can you imagine that divided by 5?LOL It's getting harder and harder to travel to even neighboring countries, I'm ready for them to ask for a colonoscopy to board a plane...lol.

American Vet

"Is that not what you were concerned about when you said "Our massive size and cohesion (when necessary) is our primary defense." ??? I'm not sure what other type of defense would require both massive size and cohesion. Maybe you can explain."

Gladly: What are our private industries doing right now across the country? Working to produce items needed for this pandemic. Across the country. = massive. Lots of private industries are gearing up.

"As for your involvement in military discussions about the threat of pandemics and economic wars in the 70's, I'm not sure how that proves your point. I've read enough reports from the military community to believe those discussions happened, but that doesn't mean they were ever translated into policy. If they were, feel free to point them out because the pandemic is happening now and I am not seeing any indication of preemptive military action."

The military - all branches - primary duty is protecting America with force - IF NEEDED. However, they are prepared to step in and do other things as needed. An excellent example today is the use of the 2 Navy 'floating hospitals' as well as various reserve units being activated to perform other duties such as delivering food. The military has been involved in various rescue and humanitarian missions for a long time.

"So, am I supposed to assume you're an expert and just trust whatever you say? Or is there actually a logical connection? I'm not trying to be contrary here, I'm just trying to understand your argument.

The only "argument" is your jumping to the conclusion that the military would only be used for "military" (combat) operations. Hopefully I educated you a bit about that.

teabag09

That is basically what we had just before the Civil War! Mike

straightUp Loc: California

OK... thank you for explaining your argument Vet... Indeed, I have always been aware of the "other uses" for the military... In fact, that has been central to my argument for shifting military priorities to "other uses" for the past 10 years. (I often use the Coast Guard as an example of what the military could be doing)

Now let me explain why I think your argument fails to support the idea that a union of 350 million people is necessary for any other form of defense other than "military".

On a fundamental level, I think you are failing to recognize the relevance of a smaller population. Take your example... "Working to produce items needed for this pandemic. Across the country. = massive." This is a matter of supply and demand. If we have a fraction of the population, we will have a fraction of the demand and will therefore only need a fraction of the supply.

The only reason why this rule doesn't apply to military invasions is because that situation is affected by an external force rather than an internal demand. In other words, if a country is being attacked by a force of 300 planes, it doesn't matter if the country only has 100 people, they still need to shoot down 300 planes. But if it's being "attacked" by a virus, they're only going to need medical supplies for 100 patients.

Right?

American Vet

[quote=straightUp]OK... thank you for explaining your argument Vet... Indeed, I have always been aware of the "other uses" for the military... In fact, that has been central to my argument for shifting military priorities to "other uses" for the past 10 years. [i](I often use the Coast Guard as an example of what the military could be doing)[/quote]

"Shifting military priorities flies in the face of the primary mission - an effective fighting force. Also, other priorities need to be carefully examined and very controlled; there was a reason posse comitatus was enacted.

"Now let me explain why I think your argument fails to support the idea that a union of 350 million people is necessary for any other form of defense other than "military".

On a fundamental level, I think you are failing to recognize the relevance of a smaller population. Take your example... "Working to produce items needed for this pandemic. Across the country. = massive." This is a matter of supply and demand. If we have a fraction of the population, we will have a fraction of the demand and will therefore only need a fraction of the supply.

The only reason why this rule doesn't apply to military invasions is because that situation is affected by an external force rather than an internal demand. In other words, if a country is being attacked by a force of 300 planes, it doesn't matter if the country only has 100 people, they still need to shoot down 300 planes. But if it's being "attacked" by a virus, they're only going to need medical supplies for 100 patients.

Right?

Wrong

But thanks for your explanation. I think you are failing to see the 'big' picture and have a somewhat myopic view.

straightUp Loc: California

Well, you bring up a valid concern and I've tried to come up with a good answer, but there really isn't one. There's no guarantee that this scenario won't happen. That being said, there's a couple of things I'd like to point out.

I can't seem to accept "bad-ass" attitude as a motive for war. It might be a motive for fantasising about it but it seems to me that every war I've ever studied has been motivated by something more calculated.

In the case of the former soviet republics, all the conflicts I can think of were started by regional ethnic groups vying for autonomy (usually from each other), with Russia playing the "police" role in the interest of stability, especially in the Caspian region where Moscow has an interest in the oil and gas reserves there.

It's possible we might see a similar effect here if we divided, but one big difference is that we don't have the same kind of ethnic divides they have over there. Over there you have strong links between ethnic groups and the land itself, 'not so much the case here because we pretty much killed all the natives. All the ethnic groups here today (including white people) immigrated from other places and spread throughout.

If anything, the Indian nations might resurrect but I think that would be more of a problem for the red republics than the blue republics (if that's actually a problem). I'm only saying this because I imagine the red republics will cover more land while the blue republics will have most of the power.

Other than that I would say it would be more likely that the blue republics be more aggressive by virtue of that they will be the financial powerhouses and from the western perspective, the financial powerhouses have always been the key sponsors of war.

Finally, in the unexpected event that a red republic try to attack a blue republic, I have this to fall back on...
As a "blue person" I would rather make the red people fight for their designs on my family than to submit to a system that just gives it to them (which is what we have now). There is no reason why Trump should be in office given fair representation. He is in office because red states get more representation per voter than blue states get, period. This is the same reason why he wasn't impeached.


Well, it's not something to be ignored, I'll go that far. I do think however that we get confused between "us" and the "empire" we are forced to support. All those places you mention are dealing with conflicts driven by a desire for self-determination and to some cultural intolerance. Fact is... no one has actually made any attempt to invade or conquer our country... ever! I think this is why we Americans are so hung-ho about war. We have no clue what it's like to have our homes and our families blasted to hell by foreign forces.



- Is that included in the price of the ticket" 'cause I like to travel AND I'm overdue for a colonoscopy.

straightUp Loc: California

It's funny how we have the same opinion of each other's view. I guess that's one thing we have in common.

Cuda2020

Well straight if nothing else it would be an interesting experiment. Whether we favor one side or the other, both have benefits and vices, strength and weaknesses. Ironically if we could find a way of letting go of some things while embracing others I think we could still have a chance at continuing to build a finer government. We used to be a people who believed in ideals, not sure when so many of us have sold out on that.

When I look at the positive structure of the conservative party, I see a party that ideally is very protective for the welfare of the country, which is a well-needed component to a country and when I look at the Democrats I see the inner workings of supporting the social structure of the country, working for the people, so my question is, why can't these two entities work in conjunction with each other? It has become impossible since this expansion of social media feeding people heads with negative narratives, working us against each other.

Are we being invaded, I would have to say yes, are they trying to conquer us, It appears so, the strategic covert attacks are working, they are dividing us and getting us fed up with each other, we just might be playing right into their hands, just as planned.

A colonoscopy sounds like a nice party drink, you want some ice with that?

Good post not sure why more don't comment.

straightUp Loc: California

It's outside the box.

I've noticed that when I post ideas from outside the box, people don't really know how to react, or it doesn't pull any of their happy-triggers. If I posted something like "Trump is a poophead", there would have been a ton of comments. But thanks for your interest.

Yeah, I do see what you mean about both parties having core elements that *could* work together and I agree that the changes in media (I would just call it democratization) is creating a new resistance to working together.

Not sure about the invasion thing... Maybe this is another out of the box topic but the question I have is how do you invade an invasion?

I think U.S. history, in its entirety, can be characterized as one long invasion, historically divided into waves. It started with the colonization of the North America's east coast and shifted into gear with the westward expansion of territory and industry and eventually to possessions and contracts overseas, including the banana republics...

All one invasion?
Yes.
Who?
The incorporated.

From the moment the Plymouth and Virginia companies were chartered in London almost 500 years ago to the USMCA agreement Trump was pushing 18 months ago.

Every last step of the way, power can be traced to a handful of proprietorships, almost always through the corporate method, sometimes leveraging the republic for muscle. You and I are lucky, we live at the apex of our usefulness as a middle-class. But the problem is that on the decline, the happy conditions we have come to rely on from our proprietors are going to fade as they move onto better returns elsewhere and the republic will be used to beat us away when we start begging.

So there's a genuine fight for the republic at this very moment. With the proprietors using their affluence to grasp for more control of their weapon while the progressives and democratic-socialists latch on to it by it's stated principal's ...and of course the Libertarians look on.. 'mind on other things.

Rose42

Don't flatter yourself. I read this but to me its an idea with no merit. I'm betting others think the same and thats why they don't discuss it. They're not interested in a division. And you'd just end up with the same problems - human nature is a constant.

"The American people may not have the courage to break free"

They may not have the courage to make things better. Its always easier to throw in the towel.

straightUp Loc: California

OK, little Miss Negative Nancy... LOL

Just for the record, I never said it was a popular idea, I said it was outside the box.


Is that what the American Revolution was Rose42? Was it when the colonists couldn't make the system work so they threw in the towel? Is that what the Declaration of Independence was? The towel?

Rose42

Its not an idea that hasn’t been discussed before. Perhaps not here.



No. Completely different situation

Liberalism and conservatism made this country great - the best of both. Not so-called “progressives”, neo conservatives, the alt left or the alt right

straightUp Loc: California

I never said it was a new idea either... I just said it's outside the box. You don't seem to understand what that means.


Why? Why was the American Revolution a completely different situation from the Civil War or any other quest for liberty?


So, the moderates not the extremes? Is that what you are trying to say? You say the best of both liberalism and conservatism made this country great (whatever that means) but it seems to me the most frequently used word to refer to that juxtaposition is progressivism. Teddy Roosevelt and his Republicans institutionalized progressivism as a way to head off the rise in socialist sentiment, by making concessions to the workers during the Industrial Revolution without giving away private ownership of business.

For all accounts and purposes progressivism in America is the synthesis of conservative and liberal values and it's the single-most significant contribution to the rise of the middle-class, so I don't understand the way you categorize it as an extreme movement. Unless you're being influenced by the alt-right, for which the center of politics is too far to the left.

Either way... None of this has anything to do with the "more perfect separation" I have suggested. So I don't even know why you bring it up.

Rose42

{sigh} I know what outside the box means. Over the years many have talked about separation. Its not as 'outside' as you think



No, "progressivism" is something altogether different. Its contributed to the downfall of this country. The label itself is a facade and in reality has nothing to do with liberalism or conservatism. But the label sure sounds good.

The only reason I mention it is because due to human nature, this will really solve nothing. The state of the parties are such they simply don't care about the people anymore but about their own power. That is reality.

straightUp Loc: California

Oh, it's not *as* outside as I think? So, does that mean it's a *little bit* outside the box? LOL. I'm just having fun with you Rose. Your white-knuckle resistance to anything I might say is too good to pass up.

It's kind of a shame though because it really is an interesting idea, and if you paid attention to what I was actually saying you would know it's not the typical secession-talk either. Even Barracuda had to do a double take to understand what I was actually saying.


Ah... so you really have no education on this at all then. It's always easy to tell, when a person can't tell you what something is, only what it's blamed for. Well, now it's just getting sad.


So, what are you talking about now? Parties? Are we talking about Republicans and Democrats now? Can I ask you what political parties have to do with ANYTHING I've said in this entire topic?