Civil war in the US

ionapaul

awake777 wrote:

You have a distorted view of American history. The issue was States rights. Not to mention, many blacks willingly fought for the confederacy. But let's not get into that now.

Rubbish. States' rights was only a minor element in the grand scheme of things - the proposed containment of the institution of slavery to the slave-holding states antagonised the South and the election of Lincoln in the 1860 presidential election sparked the Civil War. As mentioned earlier, only a handful of blacks fought for the Confederacy, countered by many Northern regiments made up entirely of black soldiers (and white officers). Yes, don't get into this now

mycroft

awake777 wrote:

Where are you from, Mycroft?

Well you're posting on boards.ie take a guess, wild stab, have a punt

The existence of a "Department of Homeland Security" here is absolutely absurd, considering that one of the key aspects of a secure homeland is a SECURE BORDER.

Okay turn your head ooohhhh back 180 degrees, see the big cold place will all the trees, thats Canada. Bigger border less defences, and I'd be careful some of those Canadians well I hear that they're kinda french

Do you live in this country? Do you care about this country?

NO! Yes.

Can you imagine what else might be brought across that wide open border?

Same question back at Canada. So which are your more afraid of evil Mexicans bringing in burritos laced with uranium, or evil mexicans coming in and diluting your "pure" society?

awake777

mycroft wrote:

Okay turn your head ooohhhh back 180 degrees, see the big cold place will all the trees, thats Canada. Bigger border less defences, and I'd be careful some of those Canadians well I hear that they're kinda french

We have a tighter border with Canada than we do with Mexico.

Same question back at Canada. So which are your more afraid of evil Mexicans bringing in burritos laced with uranium,

I don't think Mexicans are evil. I think it'd be quite easy for an al-qeada operative or some other terrorist group to sneak a weapon in through the southern "border". So can you see why my concern is justified?

or evil mexicans coming in and deleting your racially pure society.

hehehehe.

mycroft

We have a tighter border with Canada than we do with Mexico.

You do?

border lengths Canada 8,893 km (including 2,477 km with Alaska), Mexico 3,141 km

treated as a security risk. Barely policed--only 334 agents police the northern border
compared to over 9,000 agents assigned to police the U.S.-Mexico border--the U.S.-
Canada border is an easy and convenient political target for those who blame lax border
controls for the country’s vulnerability to terrorism. The Border Patrol hiring boom
during the past decade, which more than doubled the size of the force, was almost
exclusively directed at the U.S.-Mexico border. On September 11th there were are as
many Border Patrol agents in Brownsville, Texas, as there were on the entire U.S.-
Canada border.

from here

ionapaul

awake777 wrote:

I don't think Mexicans are evil. I think it'd be quite easy for an al-qeada operative or some other terrorist group to sneak a weapon in through the southern "border". So can you see why my concern is justified?

It certainly is reasonable to want both land borders heavily guarded in case of terrorism or illegal immigration. But you seem a little more concerned with the ongoing ethnic/cultural aspects of the traffic across the US land borders, rather than terrorism or even illegal immigration.

bonkey

awake777 wrote:

Celebrating heritage is one thing, most Irish folks I know put their flags away after the holidays are over. With the Mexicans arriving here, it's a territorial issue.

Ah right. They're not coming over for the jobs that are better then the unemployment they face at home....nope...its an invasion tactic!!!

(and yes, you do use the word invasion further down the post I'm quoting this from, so I'm not putting words in your mouth).

then to work where I will bust ass so half of my paycheck can go to people who have no right to be here.

Hyperbole doesn't really help your case.

I guess this is my biggest gripe with the Mexican invasion: a classmate of mine who I came to be friends with was a Russian Jew who waited for five years on an entry list to get into the US to go to school and reunite with his family. Meanwhile, anyone "down south" who can jump a fence gets a check the next day.

Woah. Hold on there.

You started by taking a position that multi-ethnicity was the problem. Now you're saying that multi-ethnicity is not the problem, but rather which ethnicities are allowed in. No problem with the Russian Jew, but the Mexican....now he's a problem that stems from multi-culturalism. Oh, and lets forget that the entire US population is nothing but one hodge-podge of cultures which have stewed together over the past couple of centuries....that multicultiralism is also fine....its just when you add some Mexican to the mix that it all goes to hell....

Yup, I know that none of that sounds very logical, but it all stems from your arguments.

To be hoenst, this is the problem I would have with your complaints/arguments - they lack logical consistency. I don't know how anyone is concluding that you're racist, fascist, or anything else...I'm having enough of a problem figuring out exactly what your objectios are!!!

For another example : You object to Mexican's waving Mexican flags, and that their president referred to them as "Mexicans on the wrong side of the border", but when asked why they don't deserve the protection of your constitution you go on to say that only applies to Americans. So clearly, these flag-wavers aren't American citizens, or they'd deserve this protection you feel they aren't entitled to, right?.

So now your complaint is that the Mexican president calls Mexican citizens residing in the US "Mexicans on the wrong side of the border". So you're objecting to him accurately describing them for exactly what they are - Mexicans not living in Mexico, but rather across the US/Mexican border!!!! Would you rather if he lied and described them as "Mexicans living in Mexico" or something?

You're also saying that the only flag these non-Americans should be waving inside the US is that of the United States, while your defense of the Paddy's Day, etc. and your comment about the protection of yoru constution implies that Americans inside the US can wave the flag of any other nationality they choose!!!

And if thats not the case, and you're not referring to non-Americanised Mexicans, but rather to naturalised Mexicans who have gained US citizenship, then you should reconsider explaining why you think your constitution doesn't apply to these particular citizens, and why they don't deserve the right to wave their flag-of-origin, when you deserve to wave your Irish one, and the Southerners can wave their Confederate one and so on....and when you have clarified that your constitution offers citizens (which these naturalised ex-Mexicans would be) such protection.

To put it bluntly : calling such a set of arguments as you have presented "illogical" is being kind to them.

jc

awake777

ionapaul wrote:

It certainly is reasonable to want both land borders heavily guarded in case of terrorism or illegal immigration. But you seem a little more concerned with the ongoing ethnic/cultural aspects of the traffic across the US land borders, rather than terrorism or even illegal immigration.

I'm concerned with all aspects of it.

bus77

awake777 wrote:

I'm concerned with all aspects of it.

And rightly so aswell. It's all very well saying "What does it matter where they come/what flag they wave?" but the threat of somthing big happening down there is real. A good few incidents have allready happened, there is even word of some Americans heading out into the desert to shoot the poor feckers.

Gurgle

awake777 wrote:

I'm concerned with all aspects of it.

You're an American of Irish descent living in New York and you're worried about the mexican immigrants.

Have a quick look around. You may possibly find some or more illegal Irish immigrants, or their decendants.

(hint: find a mirror)

keu

uh..what a warm welcome...

just for the record, I haven't read any of the books referred to, the question I asked was how feasible is the thought of civil war. (with regard to John Titor and other conspiracy theories..I have posted my views on the topic in the relevant area~at paranormal.) I was genuinely trying to keep the subject realistic and on the line.

I appreciate an American perspective.
It was one of the reasons why I considered civil war such a possibility, all you have to do is listen to a particular American persepctive and you recognise very quickly how p!ssed off they are.... with pretty much everything.

and for what it's worth, I agree with awake, "The conditions are right for that to occur in the US, there just hasn't been an effective catalyst yet."

I would think a few of you would agree..in some form or another.

Hagar

Do the "braves" , Apache, Navaho, Commanche, Huron etc have exactly the same rights in the "land of the brave" as you do?
I mean they don't live on reservations any more right?
All the treaties that the US Govt made with them have been honoured and any due reparations paid?

How can your country, which you seem to typify, have the gall to go around enforcing a make-believe version of democracy on the world when you are abusing the red man, the black man, the yellow man, the just a tad off-white man in your own country?

Abe Lincoln was wrong you can "fool all of the people all of the time", well American people anyway.

Damn straight the Mexicans are invading Texas, didn't you guys take it from them by force. Don't tell me you have forgotten the Alamo. Are you surprised they want it back. They haven't got the might to take it back by force. In the meantime every minimum wage Mexican vegatable picker is píssing on at least one head of lettuce a day before it gets to K-Mart.

bonkey

keu wrote:

the question I asked was how feasible is the thought of civil war. (with regard to John Titor and other conspiracy theories..I have posted my views on the topic in the relevant area~at paranormal.) I was genuinely trying to keep the subject realistic and on the line.

Ahem. Yeah. Maybe we should all get back on topic.

<looks sheepish>

It was one of the reasons why I considered civil war such a possibility, all you have to do is listen to a particular American persepctive and you recognise very quickly how p!ssed off they are.... with pretty much everything.

YOu do clarify that with applying to a particular American perspective.

Civil war, IMHO, is highly unlikely in the US in the near future, because there are no significant enough cohesive factions likely to take up arms. Sure, there are myriads of little groups, all of whom have their "how p1ssed are we" issues....but I don't understand how anyone can honestly seem tthis leading to civil war.

The only situation I can see would be a President attempting to force through constitutional change for whatever reason, whilst ignoring constitutional requirements in the process....on an issue significant enough that some would raise arms against it.

and for what it's worth, I agree with awake, "The conditions are right for that to occur in the US, there just hasn't been an effective catalyst yet."

The conditions (in terms of my scenario above) have been right since at least the passing of the second Amendment, and probably since before that.

I dunno...Sand sees the growing discontentment in Europe with established governments as a dangerous swing to the far left. Here, we seem to have something similar - people expressing growing discontentment in the US representing an increased likelihood of civil war....

God forbid that, in both situations, the growing discontentment is simply a catalyst for change[/i, as opposed to a model for chaos...

jc

keu

Sure, there are myriads of little groups, all of whom have their "how p1ssed are we" issues.

imho, thats all it takes.

"God forbid that, in both situations, the growing discontentment is simply a catalyst for change, as opposed to a model for chaos..."

true....pity Bush didn't take the same attitude when bringing "change" to Iraq.

GuanYin

bonkey wrote:

Civil war, IMHO, is highly unlikely in the US in the near future, because there are no significant enough cohesive factions likely to take up arms. Sure, there are myriads of little groups, all of whom have their "how p1ssed are we" issues....but I don't understand how anyone can honestly seem tthis leading to civil war.

I don't see why there needs to be large cohesive factions. Correct me if I am wrong but even in Ireland's own history, civil war wasn't exactly something brewing for ages in the minds of a cohesive faction planning rebellion. Sure it was the climax of events which had been building since before the Easter Rebellion in 1916, but it was a small group's occupation of the Four Courts and the decision to fire upon them by the Irsh Free State that led to the war.

Now, taking this situation to present day, a relatively small group opposed to the government and with the support of the general public (even those in cities) could easily incite the sort of situation that could lead to all out public disorder and eventually rebellion. I'm not saying its likely, I'm just saying I don't think it requires pre-meditated ambition.

mycroft

syke wrote:

I don't see why there needs to be large cohesive factions. Correct me if I am wrong but even in Ireland's own history, civil war wasn't exactly something brewing for ages in the minds of a cohesive faction planning rebellion. Sure it was the climax of events which had been building since before the Easter Rebellion in 1916, but it was a small group's occupation of the Four Courts and the decision to fire upon them by the Irsh Free State that led to the war.

Well thats over simplfiying it, the four courts was the catalyist for the civil war but public resentment of the treaty had been simmering for months. Large portions of the population had been appallingly treated by the tans and there was a great deal of bitterness at the terms of the treaty.

DeValera and his team had been campaigning around Ireland for an Armed rebellion againist the treaty demanding a 32 county United Ireland, but his paticular outrage was focused the oath of allegance to the King. What is particularly infurating about DeValera is less then ten years after the end of the civil war he announced that the oath was in fact "an empty formality" thus allowing him to become a TD and demostrating that the civil war was the most pointless and ignorant chapter is our country's illustrious history of pointless and stupid things to die for.

Now, taking this situation to present day, a relatively small group opposed to the government and with the support of the general public (even those in cities) could easily incite the sort of situation that could lead to all out public disorder and eventually rebellion. I'm not saying its likely, I'm just saying I don't think it requires pre-meditated ambition.

Look total civil war in the US can only come about it three ways IMO

1. Religious. The rise of fundamental christian's and an attempt to end the secular nature of church and state. The Margaret Atkinwood theory

2. An attempt to make a massive change to the constitution, not gay marriage but say remove the 2nd amendment.

3. Economic or Environmental disaster. Total collaspe of the US economy or a plague or a destruction of massive environmental resource (say Kanas becomes an irratiated wasteland) States divide into factions and battle over resources.

The idea of a massive civil war over something would require a massive divide to split the miltary/industrial complex againist each other. If most americans can't glavinise themselves off their couch watching re runs of the "newly weds" to vote they're not likely to start a civil war.

Pause.

Okay I have the image of a huge army of immensely obese americans in civil war reglia huffying and puffying themselves through a civil war.

keu

Well thats over simplfiying it, the four courts was the catalyist for the civil war but public resentment of the treaty had been simmering for months. Large portions of the population had been appallingly treated by the tans and there was a great deal of bitterness at the terms of the treaty.

I was thinking along the same lines as syke...and incidently the description you provided is not too far from many Americans sentiments right now.

The idea of a massive civil war over something would require a massive divide to split the miltary/industrial complex againist each other. If most americans can't glavinise themselves off their couch watching re runs of the "newly weds" to vote they're not likely to start a civil war.

civil war's don't just "start" like that..they are not instantly massive demonstrations. They take root in small factions which increase over time.

"The south will rise again?"

BEAT

I must make a reply in response to some of the ignorant things I have seen posted by Awake777.
You most certainly are one of the people that make me ashamed to call myself American.
Your comments are most certainly coming from some underlying racism against mexicans and probably Latinos in general. To that I take offense personally being half Hispanic.

The fact that you believe Canada has a more secure border than Mexico is complete and total bollox. Americans like yourself are so worried about a chicano crossing over that they have every inch surveyed constatly, sure some get over, but half of them are found and sent back. Those that make it here...alive can stay as far as I am concerened...they earned it. If you knew what they had to go through to get here alive you would agree.

If we let a nation of people come here to live legally from terroist countries why not let the ones who want to come here to live and work for a decent chance at life?

Do you honestly believe they are going to destroy us?
if that were the case we wouldnt be letting any more immigrant's into the country, the fact of the matter is that they are helping the economy.
If you actually talk to someone in a government office about it maybe they can explain it to you, I havnt the time.

It is a shame that so many Americans let thier prejudices keep them in the dark.
It is Prejudices that will destroy this country, afterall ignorance is bread from prejudices and wasnt that what really started the Civil War anyway?
Think about it

ionapaul

I'll give odds of 100-1 on an American civil war breaking out over the next 20 years...same odds for Ireland or Britain. Unless you consider another Waco a civil war...in a nation of some 300 million, finding a few dozen wackos with guns isn't hard.

sovtek

awake777 wrote:

Where are you from, Mycroft?

The existence of a "Department of Homeland Security" here is absolutely absurd, considering that one of the key aspects of a secure homeland is a SECURE BORDER.

Take a look at how much that SECURE BORDER costs and then come back and tell me you're working overtime for a bunch of benefit sucking mexicans.

bonkey

syke wrote:

I don't see why there needs to be large cohesive factions. Correct me if I am wrong but even in Ireland's own history, civil war wasn't exactly something brewing for ages in the minds of a cohesive faction planning rebellion. Sure it was the climax of events which had been building since before the Easter Rebellion in 1916, but it was a small group's occupation of the Four Courts and the decision to fire upon them by the Irsh Free State that led to the war.

I would more classify that "small group" as a splintering of the political and military (such as it was) force that the state had ad its disposal - which is what resulted in the civil war.

Now, taking this situation to present day, a relatively small group opposed to the government and with the support of the general public (even those in cities) could easily incite the sort of situation that could lead to all out public disorder and eventually rebellion. I'm not saying its likely, I'm just saying I don't think it requires pre-meditated ambition.

Fair point. I would agree that the possibility of a limited insurrection is a growing possibility, but I cannot see any such insurrection gaining any significant popular support, especially to the degree necessary to trigger a civil war.

I also think that it is highly unlikely that even were the US military forced to operate on home soil against a domestic threat that they would be anywhere near as heavy-handed in their tactics as against foreign targets. While many are supportive of the war, and dismiss the civilian deaths as tragic but unavoidable collateral damage, were their own to suffer the same, their collective opinion would (in my opinion) shift somewhat.

I would see the US situation more likely - in a worst case - to degenerate to the type of chaos seen in Argentina in the past year, but not to degenerate to civil war. While I may be highly critical of the US administration and some aspects of its culture, I hold enough of its people in high enough regard to believe this of them.

jc

sovtek

I think there could seriously be a coup led by the military in the not so distant future. Alot of countries had that as a catalyst after soldiers not being paid for a time. With Bush the average soldier is having to risk his ass more and more and getting less and less for it.

Moriarty

50 to 1 against, sovtek. Put your money where your mouth is

bus77

Maybe a second civil war has already taken place in the U.S. At least a political one. JFK's assasination was never fully resolved.

awake777

BEAT wrote:

the fact of the matter is that they are helping the economy.
If you actually talk to someone in a government office about it maybe they can explain it to you, I havnt the time.

Hahaha.. helping the economy? Maybe the economy of Mexico. Those jobs were taken from Americans (blah blah blah, they do the jobs that nobody else wants, save it), and the money earned by the illegals goes right back to their families in Mexico. How is that helping OUR economy?

It is a shame that so many Americans let thier prejudices keep them in the dark.

I'm not prejudiced, I formed my opinion after witnessing the devastating results of this invasion. Y'know, 95% of all warrants out for homicide in LA are for illegal mexicans. Those poor, hard working individuals (who shouldn't have been here in the first place) murdered American citizens.. but that must be "society's fault"

sovtek wrote:

Take a look at how much that SECURE BORDER costs and then come back and tell me you're working overtime for a bunch of benefit sucking mexicans.

Well the solution is simple: bring our troops home from these absurd wars of aggression in the Middle East, and put them on the Mexican border.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Hahaha.. helping the economy? Maybe the economy of Mexico. Those jobs were taken from Americans (blah blah blah, they do the jobs that nobody else wants, save it), and the money earned by the illegals goes right back to their families in Mexico. How is that helping OUR economy?

buying food, clothes, books, music, dvds, going out, eating out, paying rent...

flogen

awake777 wrote:

Hahaha.. helping the economy? Maybe the economy of Mexico. Those jobs were taken from Americans (blah blah blah, they do the jobs that nobody else wants, save it), and the money earned by the illegals goes right back to their families in Mexico. How is that helping OUR economy?

How on earth is a person of any nationality working in America helping another economy? Because they might support their poor families? I think they help the American economy more than they'd help the Mexican economy in reality.

I'm not prejudiced, I formed my opinion after witnessing the devastating results of this invasion. Y'know, 95% of all warrants out for homicide in LA are for illegal mexicans. Those poor, hard working individuals (who shouldn't have been here in the first place) murdered American citizens.. but that must be "society's fault"

I wouldn't trust that figure for a second, have you got any reputible proof of that 95% claim?

flogen

mycroft

awake777 wrote:

Hahaha.. helping the economy? Maybe the economy of Mexico. Those jobs were taken from Americans (blah blah blah, they do the jobs that nobody else wants, save it), and the money earned by the illegals goes right back to their families in Mexico. How is that helping OUR economy?

Consuming working in quasi slave labour environment to provide cheap goods for you

I'm not prejudiced, I formed my opinion after witnessing the devastating results of this invasion. Y'know, 95% of all warrants out for homicide in LA are for illegal mexicans. Those poor, hard working individuals (who shouldn't have been here in the first place) murdered American citizens.. but that must be "society's fault"

Any offical links to support that allegation I'll accept mainstream news, LA police, or US govt stats.

Well the solution is simple: bring our troops home from these absurd wars of aggression in the Middle East, and put them on the Mexican border.

Mind boggling brilliant don't suppose you want to answer my reposte to your claim that the canadian border is more secure

Giblet

awake777 wrote:

I'm not prejudiced, I formed my opinion after witnessing the devastating results of this invasion. Y'know, 95% of all warrants out for homicide in LA are for illegal mexicans. Those poor, hard working individuals (who shouldn't have been here in the first place) murdered American citizens.. but that must be "society's fault"

Wow facts and figures, a racists best friend. Do morals count for nothing. Those figures are such bull.

You know that website you were trying to recruit debaters from, just fuels these idiots into even more frenzied number pasting. That's all you have really. You should go back there, where massaging each other with biased "facts" is acceptable, you know, because you are all dirty racists who will use any titbit of "information" to justify what is essentially your closed minded backwardness.

I guarantee you that you have no idea how immigrants, illegal or otherwise, affect the economy. Try looking a bit closer to home to see what is REALLY messing your country up.

gandalf

Hmmm I would love to see where you got that 95% figure from. I just scanned through the LAPD stats report for 2003 and it doesn't say anything like that at all. Heres the link for the stat whores http://www.lapdonline.org/pdf_files/digest/2003/2k3_digest.pdf (hmm I can just see victor retiring to the jacks with that ).

As regards a civil war in the US, it won't happen, I agree with bonkey at worst you will witness something along the line of Argentina last year and it will take something pretty major to cause that in America.

bus77

awake777 wrote:

I'm not prejudiced, I formed my opinion after witnessing the devastating results of this invasion. Y'know, 95% of all warrants out for homicide in LA are for illegal mexicans. Those poor, hard working individuals (who shouldn't have been here in the first place) murdered American citizens..

I've heard figues like that going around the place. While Im doubtful of that high a margin aswell, what I am sure of is if you looked into the demographics of those murders you would find the majority were between immigrant.