If Texas and Arizona Secede They'll Become Like Many African Countries

[Koolaid_Man]

Poor and desolate...no government help for Hurricanes... and you know how you rely of the gubberment for help when natural disaster strikes...business would likely move out of your "Country" since they'd more than likely be limited in their business dealings...and finally the Mexicans would reclaim Texas as their own...and in force...you wouldn't be able to withstand on your own the onslaught..the Mexican drugs gang would run you into the ground...and when that happens you'll solely rely on the Texas Guard as a means of protection...No more help from the Feds that you so despise....Al-Queda would then be free to run wild in your cowboy country...no more looking to the Pentagon for assistance...Fund and build your own fucking border wall...

Man I would love to see Texas secede so these stupid fucking Tea Partiers and their supporters can finally see what shitty ideas float in the heads on a second by second basis...:lol

[ChuckD]

Texas would be almost instantly and completely over run and co-opted by the drug cartels. The only thing that's stopping them now is TX being part of the USA, and backed by our military.

[boutons_deux]

TX would probably take a huge hit, at least the bottom 90%, if the US moved all of its military, defense contracting, Houston Space Center out, and stopped agricultural subsidies, Medicare/Medicaid funding, and all the inflow from blue-states to TX.

[Kyle Orton]

Hopefully Arizona would wait till I'm done with school.

[ducks]

az can take care of itself

we would fix the border problem by having landmines and shooting illegals crossing

[ManuBalboa]

Drug Cartels? You think that scares Texas? You do realize Chuck Norris would be The President of the Republic of Texas do you not??? (srs)

[CosmicCowboy]

The Texas Economy is roughly equivalent to the size of Canada. Yeah, we would take a hit from US military bases leaving, but we would make up for it...If the US decided to play economic games we control the natural gas that feeds the northeast for heat in the winter and most of the refined gasoline/diesel for the central and east coast. They will REALLY push for renewable energy when we shove $10 gas up their ass.

[clambake]

The Texas Economy is roughly equivalent to the size of Canada. Yeah, we would take a hit from US military bases leaving, but we would make up for it...If the US decided to play economic games we control the natural gas that feeds the northeast for heat in the winter and most of the refined gasoline/diesel for the central and east coast. They will REALLY push for renewable energy when we shove $10 gas up their ass.

then it would cost tx a boat load of money to cross borders......not to mention the tariffs for gulf commerce.

tx would be punished for going alone.

[CosmicCowboy]

then it would cost tx a boat load of money to cross borders......not to mention the tariffs for gulf commerce.

tx would be punished for going alone.

I agree. But the hurt would go both ways. In that hypothetical scenario it would be in the US and Texas best interest not to start a trade war and just be another member of NAFTA. I personally think that hypothetically Texas could co-exist with the US in a friendly relationship and do quite well financially.

[clambake]

from this:


They will REALLY push for renewable energy when we shove $10 gas up their ass.
to this:


I agree. But the hurt would go both ways. In that hypothetical scenario it would be in the US and Texas best interest not to start a trade war and just be another member of NAFTA. I personally think that hypothetically Texas could co-exist with the US in a friendly relationship and do quite well financially.

caved in pretty quick, cowboy.

[Wild Cobra]

Trading within NAFTA and the global oil markets are two completely different things.

[CosmicCowboy]

from this:


to this:



caved in pretty quick, cowboy.

No cave in. Two different scenarios based on US attitude. Obviously Texas would want free trade, but could have a carrot/stick approach to negotiating it.

[Cry Havoc]

Texas would be almost instantly and completely over run and co-opted by the drug cartels. The only thing that's stopping them now is TX being part of the USA, and backed by our military.


TX would probably take a huge hit, at least the bottom 90%, if the US moved all of its military, defense contracting, Houston Space Center out, and stopped agricultural subsidies, Medicare/Medicaid funding, and all the inflow from blue-states to TX.

Pretty much this. Plus, how many people would leave out of fear of the uncertainty of living in a new independent city-state?

[CosmicCowboy]

Trading within NAFTA and the global oil markets are two completely different things.

Really? We didn't know that. :rolleyes

[Wild Cobra]

Really? We didn't know that. :rolleyes

Clambake obviously doesn't know the difference.

[clambake]

Clambake obviously doesn't know the difference.

clammy knows that tx could choose between playing the global market, or not.

[Oh, Gee!!]

the Dallas Cowboys would finally be their nation's best football team

[ChumpDumper]

The Texas Economy is roughly equivalent to the size of Canada. Yeah, we would take a hit from US military bases leaving, but we would make up for it...If the US decided to play economic games we control the natural gas that feeds the northeast for heat in the winter and most of the refined gasoline/diesel for the central and east coast. They will REALLY push for renewable energy when we shove $10 gas up their ass.Would gas not be available from any other source?

[CosmicCowboy]

Would gas not be available from any other source?

No Chump. Texas is the only possible place in the world they can get natural gas and gasoline from.

[TeyshaBlue]

TX would probably take a huge hit, at least the bottom 90%, if the US moved all of its military, defense contracting, Houston Space Center out, and stopped agricultural subsidies, Medicare/Medicaid funding, and all the inflow from blue-states to TX.

That's fucking hilarious.:lmao

[boutons_deux]

It's fucking true, bitch

[TeyshaBlue]

Put some numbers behind these bullet points of yours. How much money are you talking about here? I doubt you'll bother...you usually don't if you cant find it on truthout.borg.:rolleyes

[boutons_deux]

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr139.pdf

Remove ALL the military bases, NASA, all the civil service supporting them, ALL the federal govt offices + civil service, ALL the military/federal contractors from TX, remove all the drug/border/federal staff, all the Federal support for Medicare/Medicaid inflows, etc, etc, and tell me if you think TX won't bat an eye becoming an independent nation.

[z0sa]

It's fucking true, bitch

Very little of what you say is "truth" in the pure sense.

you're a conspiracy theory nut spammer, tbh.

[DarrinS]

Texas envy

[TeyshaBlue]

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr139.pdf

Remove ALL the military bases, NASA, all the civil service supporting them, ALL the federal govt offices + civil service, ALL the military/federal contractors from TX, remove all the drug/border/federal staff, all the Federal support for Medicare/Medicaid inflows, etc, etc, and tell me if you think TX won't bat an eye becoming an independent nation.

I'm pretty sure the US would continue to lease those facilities from Texas, if push came to shove. I know you can't fathom a position that isn't zero sum. Sucks to be you I guess. BTW...Texas is a "blue" state in the context that it sends more to the Federal Gov than it receives. So, in balance, we might actually come out ahead...not that I'd trust the Tx Legislature to handle the money well.

[desflood]

I'm surprised that such obvious trolling from a Lakers fan during playoff time got so many responses.

[TeyshaBlue]

I'm surprised that such obvious trolling from a Lakers fan during playoff time got so many responses.

I know, right? It's fun when the kids come out and post on the weekend.:lol

[boutons_deux]

"I'm pretty sure the US would continue to lease those facilities from Texas"

that's cheating, figures. You want TX to keep all the inflow of federal dollars from other states, but still be an independent country.

If TX were a purely foreign country, everything I listed would be gone. San Antonio's economy would collapse without the military.

[4>0rings]

If TX were a purely foreign country, everything I listed would be gone. San Antonio's economy would collapse without the military.
Would Texas being a foreign country not have it's OWN military?

[LnGrrrR]

I'm pretty sure the US would continue to lease those facilities from Texas, if push came to shove.

Depends on how amicable the split was. :)


I know you can't fathom a position that isn't zero sum. Sucks to be you I guess. BTW...Texas is a "blue" state in the context that it sends more to the Federal Gov than it receives. So, in balance, we might actually come out ahead...not that I'd trust the Tx Legislature to handle the money well.

If the split was amicable, you might not have to worry about instantly going into billions of dollars of debt to create a standing army.

[TeyshaBlue]

"I'm pretty sure the US would continue to lease those facilities from Texas"

that's cheating, figures. You want TX to keep all the inflow of federal dollars from other states, but still be an independent country.

If TX were a purely foreign country, everything I listed would be gone. San Antonio's economy would collapse without the military.

Cheating? WTF are you on, dude?

I love how you couch this as TX keeping inflow from other states. You know that's how a country is supposed to work, right? And it doesn't follow that everything you listed would be gone. The US does lease bases across the world. Hell, the US pays agricultural subsidies to foreign countries. Brazillian cotton, anyone?
Again, I don't expect you to have the cognitive ability to grasp the contradictory flow of cash and equities. But, if you're gonna claim that it's gonna crash an economy, put up the numbers or GFY.

BTW, San Antonio does not equal the entire state. Again, put up some numbers or gfy.

[LnGrrrR]

Would Texas being a foreign country not have it's OWN military?

With all the guns in Texas, they'd have a decent militia.

[TeyshaBlue]

Would Texas being a foreign country not have it's OWN military?

Dunno....Nato sure does the job for alot of European countries. I'm sure a defense pact would be negotiated.

[TeyshaBlue]

Depends on how amicable the split was. :)



If the split was amicable, you might not have to worry about instantly going into billions of dollars of debt to create a standing army.

It's just a giant thought exercise....it'll never happen. And if it did, I don't think for a minute it wouldn't be difficult. But fatal, nope.

[LnGrrrR]

Cheating? WTF are you on, dude?

I love how you couch this as TX keeping inflow from other states. You know that's how a country is supposed to work, right? And it doesn't follow that everything you listed would be gone. The US does lease bases across the world. Hell, the US pays agricultural subsidies to foreign countries. Brazillian cotton, anyone?

While this is true, I don't think that the US military would find a strong need to keep open bases in TX if it split. The bases in other parts of the world are usually strategically placed (ie. good for air ops/refuels, or for quick response to a country that doesn't like us).

Not sure what the strategic benefit would be to keep bases in Texas long-term.

[fyatuk]

San Antonio's economy would collapse without the military.

Loss of military and federal offices would definitely massively hurt San Antonio. (military alone is 75k jobs and $5 billion)

So would the extreme loss of conventions, etc, that would happen if SA was no longer part of the US.

Other TX cities would fare better, but SA would be decimated if Texas were to seceede.

[LnGrrrR]

It's just a giant thought exercise....it'll never happen. And if it did, I don't think for a minute it wouldn't be difficult. But fatal, nope.

Given the premises of the thought exercise, if Texas seceding made the quality of life of it's citizens worse than Texas as part of the US, I'd call that a failure. :D

[TeyshaBlue]

While this is true, I don't think that the US military would find a strong need to keep open bases in TX if it split. The bases in other parts of the world are usually strategically placed (ie. good for air ops/refuels, or for quick response to a country that doesn't like us).

Not sure what the strategic benefit would be to keep bases in Texas long-term.

Yeah, I don't really know....I guess the B1B program could be moved to another airbase instead of Dyess AFB, for example. I think proximity to Mexico/Latin America might be worth a base or two tho.

[TeyshaBlue]

Given the premises of the thought exercise, if Texas seceding made the quality of life of it's citizens worse than Texas as part of the US, I'd call that a failure. :D

It's probably not going to be a static position. I would expect improvement after the initial shellacking of relocations.

[LnGrrrR]

Realistically, this thought experiment really needs to define whether or not the split is amicable or not. (We all know real-world that it would never happen, but we need to know for the purposes of this convo.)

Because if the split isn't amicable, I don't see how Texas survives as anything but a 2nd/3rd world country.

[RandomGuy]

Put some numbers behind these bullet points of yours. How much money are you talking about here? I doubt you'll bother...you usually don't if you cant find it on truthout.borg.:rolleyes

Texas a net recipient of welfare dollars, to my recollection of the data.

As to Texas' net contribution to the union, that would be much harder to wrap one's head around.

Pluses:
Houston, Austin, San Antonio, Dallas = Energy, Tech, Health Care, Energy/Agriculture respectively.
These cities offer a lot of vibrant economic activity
Cheap labor

Minuses:
Lots of poor people, including illegal immigrants

That is it in a nutshell.
right-wingers love to point to Texas and say "look at the differences that a business friendly regulatory environment makes", but the real story is, as always, not quite so cut and dried. Oil and natural gas add no small portion to that, and the jobs we create don't tend to pay well.

We have a huge military and security presence because of the border, and most of that is paid for by the rest of the country. Add in the ag and welfare subsidies, and my gut says we are a net beneficiary in monetary terms of the union.

That said, it has been remarked that we would be almost instantly overrun by drug cartels, and I would concur.

Without the backing of a powerful FBI and other federal agencies, I do not think Texas would withstand the corruptive influences. The expenses of creating a new country from scratch with its own currency, state deparment, replacement for FAA, FBI, etc, would be enough to drag the economy down fairly quickly.

Cession is one of those emotionally appealing but ultimately fucktarded ideas for any US state.

[LnGrrrR]

Yeah, I don't really know....I guess the B1B program could be moved to another airbase instead of Dyess AFB, for example. I think proximity to Mexico/Latin America might be worth a base or two tho.

Eh, the AF would still have bases in California, Florida, Missisippi, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Arizona, and Nevada. We've got most of the south covered.

[fyatuk]

Not sure what the strategic benefit would be to keep bases in Texas long-term.

Not really anything long term, but they'd certainly keep a lot of them open in the short term, considering how major some of them are to the US military, particularly here in SA.

It take a while for them to figure out how to rearrange regional headquarters, move training ops, etc, and as long as Texas was willing to let them stay for a while, they'd probably take some time to do so (not overly long, less than a decade, but it'd certainly slow the withdrawal for jobs and funds to a more manageable rate).

[TeyshaBlue]

Loss of military and federal offices would definitely massively hurt San Antonio. (military alone is 75k jobs and $5 billion)

So would the extreme loss of conventions, etc, that would happen if SA was no longer part of the US.

Other TX cities would fare better, but SA would be decimated if Texas were to seceede.

I've lived through a military base closure and know first hand that it sucks. I was teaching in Big Spring when they closed Webb AFB. Big Spring got their asses kicked short term. But, having the big ass Cosden refinery there did help mitigate the damage somewhat.

I don't think SA would lose alot, if any, of it's convention business as long as trade negotiations continued freely. That riverwalk's a money maker.

[LnGrrrR]

Not really anything long term, but they'd certainly keep a lot of them open in the short term, considering how major some of them are to the US military, particularly here in SA.

It take a while for them to figure out how to rearrange regional headquarters, move training ops, etc, and as long as Texas was willing to let them stay for a while, they'd probably take some time to do so (not overly long, less than a decade, but it'd certainly slow the withdrawal for jobs and funds to a more manageable rate).

Oh yeah, that's why I specified long-term. Totally agree with you that if it's friendly, then they try to keep at least one or two bases open, maybe more. (I doubt they'd keep the saturation that's there now though.)

Of course, it all hinges on how friendly the breakup is. If it's full-on war, ops can ramp up quite quickly.

[TeyshaBlue]

Realistically, this thought experiment really needs to define whether or not the split is amicable or not. (We all know real-world that it would never happen, but we need to know for the purposes of this convo.)

Because if the split isn't amicable, I don't see how Texas survives as anything but a 2nd/3rd world country.

I would predicate the spit upon amicable terms, which makes it even less likely to happen. A full on secession for any other reason would likely be a disaster.

But since the OP has the IQ of a demented Chihuahua, it's unlikely he's gonna specify the terms.:lol

[LnGrrrR]

I would predicate the spit upon amicable terms, which makes it even less likely to happen. A full on secession for any other reason would likely be a disaster.

But since the OP has the IQ of a demented Chihuahua, it's unlikely he's gonna specify the terms.:lol

:lmao

Eh, I'm just having fun anyways. If somehow this was some alternate universe in which the US would allow Texas to secede, then Texas COULD survive, but I doubt it would become, long term, any more successful than the US.

I think the more interesting question would be... if TX seceded, how many other states would join TX? Probably a good chuck of the South/Midwest.

Of course, you could break it down further... if TX seceded, would any cities then want to remain loyal to the US? Austin, I'm looking at you...

[fyatuk]

Of course, it all hinges on how friendly the breakup is. If it's full-on war, ops can ramp up quite quickly.

I would have to assume it's amicable BECAUSE of the US military presence on TX soil. I don't think you can seceede unilaterally when there's a quarter million heavily armed, soon to be foreign military personnel on the ground already, as well as several intelligence offices for the soon-to-be foreign government.

At least, not without pressure from the international community to allow it.

[TeyshaBlue]

I don't think you can seceede unilaterally when there's a quarter million heavily armed, soon to be foreign military personnel on the ground already, as well as several intelligence offices for the soon-to-be foreign government.



:toast That's a pretty good point.:lol

[fyatuk]

I think the more interesting question would be... if TX seceded, how many other states would join TX? Probably a good chuck of the South/Midwest.

Of course, you could break it down further... if TX seceded, would any cities then want to remain loyal to the US? Austin, I'm looking at you...

I'd definitely expect a possibility of at least 1 or 2 other states joining in.

Of course, if Texas is really pissed at the Federal Government, I'd rather go the other way and increase direct control over the national government by taking up the government on the Annexation agreement (split into up to five states).

[CosmicCowboy]

I could definitely see Louisiana jumping in...

[clambake]

how much $$$$ in aid would the new country of texas be sending to israel?

[4>0rings]

:lmao like it's impossible for any state or country to live outside the U.S.

Texas would take a hit, redefine itself and be just another self sufficient country like the rest of the 1st world. Would Texas be a super power stronger than the U.S.? Hell no. Would Texas get by as it's own 1st world country, yes.

[LnGrrrR]

:lmao like it's impossible for any state or country to live outside the U.S.

It isn't. But laughing off the costs of CREATING A WHOLE NEW COUNTRY is pretty laughable.


Texas would take a hit, redefine itself and be just another self sufficient country like the rest of the 1st world. Would Texas be a super power stronger than the U.S.? Hell no. Would Texas get by as it's own 1st world country, yes.

How many years do you think that would take?

And do you think that Texas would be able to avoid all the problems that most secessionists think the US has?

Cut out Medicaid/Medicare/etc etc and a lot of people living in TX would move north.

[CosmicCowboy]

It isn't. But laughing off the costs of CREATING A WHOLE NEW COUNTRY is pretty laughable.



How many years do you think that would take?

And do you think that Texas would be able to avoid all the problems that most secessionists think the US has?

Cut out Medicaid/Medicare/etc etc and a lot of people living in TX would move north.

Thats not necessarily a bad thing. There are certain elements we would probably be happy to give a bonus check and a bus/airline ticket to if they would move.

[LnGrrrR]

Thats not necessarily a bad thing. There are certain elements we would probably be happy to give a bonus check and a bus/airline ticket to if they would move.

You have a good point there. :lol

[clambake]

Thats not necessarily a bad thing. There are certain elements we would probably be happy to give a bonus check and a bus/airline ticket to if they would move.

what would the "certain elements" be?

[TeyshaBlue]

what would the "certain elements" be?

clambakers. They're a nuisance!

[LnGrrrR]

what would the "certain elements" be?

Old people, and the infirm/disabled.

It would be a Randian paradise! Temporarily, at least.

[4>0rings]

It isn't. But laughing off the costs of CREATING A WHOLE NEW COUNTRY is pretty laughable.



How many years do you think that would take?

And do you think that Texas would be able to avoid all the problems that most secessionists think the US has?

Cut out Medicaid/Medicare/etc etc and a lot of people living in TX would move north.
I'm not laughing at the cost, I'm laughing at the thought of no state can exist without the benevelent U.S. The one thing I'd really like about the idea of seccesion is less government.

Who know's how long it would take to get back but it wouldn't go down to 3rd world then back up. I'm not suddenly going to lose my plumbing in my house, water to it, sewege, trash disposal, and hospitals.

[LnGrrrR]

I'm not laughing at the cost, I'm laughing at the thought of no state can exist without the benevelent U.S.

I don't think anyone said that. I said that Texas wouldn't be very well off if it tried to secede and triggered a war. But if it seceded amicably it could make it. I just don't think the quality of life would be as good as it is now, and it wouldn't catch up for quite a while.


The one thing I'd really like about the idea of seccesion is less government.

It's dubious how long that would last though. You'd also have to take time to write a whole new Constitution, come up with new federal laws, etc etc.


Who know's how long it would take to get back but it wouldn't go down to 3rd world then back up. I'm not suddenly going to lose my plumbing in my house, water to it, sewege, trash disposal, and hospitals.

If you went to war with the US, the first thing they would bomb is your communication towers and power plants. So yes, it would be pretty bad.

Again, if you don't go to war with us, then no, not such a drastic change.

[clambake]

clambakers. They're a nuisance!

clams would be unaffordable. nothing to bake.

[clambake]

Thats not necessarily a bad thing. There are certain elements we would probably be happy to give a bonus check and a bus/airline ticket to if they would move.

...and why would other states accept tx refugees?

[Thompson]

Of course, you could break it down further... if TX seceded, would any cities then want to remain loyal to the US? Austin, I'm looking at you...

That's what purges are for. Gig 'Em. Gig 'Em all to hell!!!

[ManuBalboa]

U.S. would kiss TX's ass more than Israel. C'mon Kool. Athens has the hype, but you still want Sparta when the Persians come brah.

[4>0rings]

I don't think anyone said that. I said that Texas wouldn't be very well off if it tried to secede and triggered a war. But if it seceded amicably it could make it. I just don't think the quality of life would be as good as it is now, and it wouldn't catch up for quite a while.



It's dubious how long that would last though. You'd also have to take time to write a whole new Constitution, come up with new federal laws, etc etc.



If you went to war with the US, the first thing they would bomb is your communication towers and power plants. So yes, it would be pretty bad.

Again, if you don't go to war with us, then no, not such a drastic change.
I'm not taking war into consideration, there would be no war if any state decides to seccede. US soldiers will not shoot US soldiers in this day and age.

[4>0rings]

...and why would other states accept tx refugees?
We accepted NO rats.

[clambake]

We accepted NO rats.

the proposition is that texas would kick out the unwanted.

secede does not equal katrina.

[Thompson]

I'm not taking war into consideration, there would be no war if any state decides to seccede. US soldiers will not shoot US soldiers in this day and age.

I would actually agree with this. If Texas ever did secede (possibly with others), could you see the damn Yankees putting up a fight this time? Would they be willing to wage war and die to force us back in? I seriously doubt it.

The slavery issue wouldn't be a factor this time around, they would explicitly have to be willing to fight and die to force us where we didn't want to go. I don't think they have the stomach for it anymore.

[LnGrrrR]

I'm not taking war into consideration, there would be no war if any state decides to seccede. US soldiers will not shoot US soldiers in this day and age.

Except they wouldn't be US soldiers then.

[LnGrrrR]

I would actually agree with this. If Texas ever did secede (possibly with others), could you see the damn Yankees putting up a fight this time? Would they be willing to wage war and die to force us back in? I seriously doubt it.

Yes, the majority would. And it would be quite asymmetrical, since the US would have the bombs, tanks, planes, etc etc.

Of course, there would be political factors at play, but I'm just taking from an X's and O's standpoint.


The slavery issue wouldn't be a factor this time around, they would explicitly have to be willing to fight and die to force us where we didn't want to go. I don't think they have the stomach for it anymore.

Some soldiers would, some soldiers wouldn't. Do you think that every soldier who went overseas for the Iraq and Afghanistan War agreed with those wars?

[4>0rings]

Except they wouldn't be US soldiers then.Splitting hairs, Ex-US citizens. Better?

[4>0rings]

Yes, the majority would. And it would be quite asymmetrical, since the US would have the bombs, tanks, planes, etc etc.


The US hasn't won a war in 40 years with that advantage. :lol

[Thompson]

You have to have some degree of popular support, as Vietnam showed. Imagine a Vietnam not on the other side of the world, but a few hundred miles away. One that you're not safe from.

You can bluster all you want. The Yankee populace and politicians don't have the stomach for it.

[clambake]

you wouldn't have the stomach for your borders being sealed.

[ManuBalboa]

The US hasn't won a war in 40 years with that advantage. :lol

:lol

[clambake]

You have to have some degree of popular support, as Vietnam showed. Imagine a Vietnam not on the other side of the world, but a few hundred miles away. One that you're not safe from.

You can bluster all you want. The Yankee populace and politicians don't have the stomach for it.

it wouldn't be a vietnam. you'd have no flow of supplies.

[4>0rings]

it wouldn't be a vietnam. you'd have no flow of supplies.
Sure we would. How many countries want to get back at the U.S.? China, Russia, N.K.? All flooded through our friend Mexico.

[clambake]

Sure we would. How many countries want to get back at the U.S.? China, Russia, N.K.? All flooded through our friend Mexico.

you'd finally get that texas/mexico border you wish for.

[z0sa]

If a war ever happened, how many Texans would immediately shift to the side of the USA? I'm guessing the vast majority - you know the USG would be spreading all kinds of propaganda about how they were simply preserving Texans' lifestyles and shit like that. Besides, with all the armed forces we have here, it would be a massacre if any revolutionary army was actually raised (impossible).

Revolution nor secession is possible in this country any longer. The USG will squash any such serious movement out like a bug long before it's capable of causing any widespread carnage.

[clambake]

If a war ever happened, how many Texans would immediately shift to the side of the USA? I'm guessing the vast majority - you know the USG would be spreading all kinds of propaganda about how they were simply preserving Texans' lifestyles and shit like that. Besides, with all the armed forces we have here, it would be a massacre if any revolutionary army was actually raised (impossible).

Revolution nor secession is possible in this country any longer. The USG will squash any such serious movement out like a bug long before it's capable of causing any widespread carnage.

i think you're missing out on the fun that is this thread. :lol

[4>0rings]

you'd finally get that texas/mexico border you wish for.
Yup, after the war we would.

[diego]

with the US govt's track record for foreign intervention to protect interests, I cant believe how many of you believe it would be possible for there to be an amicable split. the only way texas or any other state would be able to secede is by winning an armed conflict. if it didnt happen before when the south had more economic resources than the north, why would it happen now?

as for the 40 years of asymmetric military failure comment- what do you guys consider was the last war the US won? I ask because a very radical friend of mine insists y'all haven't won a single war without significant help. I don't agree but his argument was interesting (basically, that the US was very good at espionage and coercive bombing but incapable of winning land wars; he pointed to the stalemates in vietnam and korea, the dependence on the russians in WW2 and the french in the civil war; that Iraq didnt count because its only war when two armies are fighting :lol. Im sure there are other conflicts we didnt discuss, that's why i ask).

[4>0rings]

with the US govt's track record for foreign intervention to protect interests, I cant believe how many of you believe it would be possible for there to be an amicable split. the only way texas or any other state would be able to secede is by winning an armed conflict. if it didnt happen before when the south had more economic resources than the north, why would it happen now?

as for the 40 years of asymmetric military failure comment- what do you guys consider was the last war the US won? I ask because a very radical friend of mine insists y'all haven't won a single war without significant help. I don't agree but his argument was interesting (basically, that the US was very good at espionage and coercive bombing but incapable of winning land wars; he pointed to the stalemates in vietnam and korea, the dependence on the russians in WW2 and the french in the civil war; that Iraq didnt count because its only war when two armies are fighting :lol. Im sure there are other conflicts we didnt discuss, that's why i ask).Spanish-American War? The war vs Mexico?

[clambake]

Yup, after the war we would.

see......now this guy gets it. the fun of this thread.

[ElNono]

The Texas Economy is roughly equivalent to the size of Canada. Yeah, we would take a hit from US military bases leaving, but we would make up for it...If the US decided to play economic games we control the natural gas that feeds the northeast for heat in the winter and most of the refined gasoline/diesel for the central and east coast. They will REALLY push for renewable energy when we shove $10 gas up their ass.

When you say we you mean the new Mexican province, right?

[LnGrrrR]

The US hasn't won a war in 40 years with that advantage. :lol

Yes, but the other side hasn't been winning them either. And Houston has a lot more easily bombable stuff than those other countries.

Plus, soldiers who stayed on the union side, who were from the area, would know the terrain. That's a big advantage.

[LnGrrrR]

You have to have some degree of popular support, as Vietnam showed. Imagine a Vietnam not on the other side of the world, but a few hundred miles away. One that you're not safe from.

You can bluster all you want. The Yankee populace and politicians don't have the stomach for it.

Really? :lol You think that the "Yankees" wouldn't try to fight to preserve the union? I highly doubt that.

And last time I checked, Texas wasn't covered in jungle areas and small towns.

[LnGrrrR]

as for the 40 years of asymmetric military failure comment- what do you guys consider was the last war the US won? I ask because a very radical friend of mine insists y'all haven't won a single war without significant help. I don't agree but his argument was interesting (basically, that the US was very good at espionage and coercive bombing but incapable of winning land wars; he pointed to the stalemates in vietnam and korea, the dependence on the russians in WW2 and the french in the civil war; that Iraq didnt count because its only war when two armies are fighting :lol. Im sure there are other conflicts we didnt discuss, that's why i ask).

It depends on how you define "win", honestly. It's very hard to win a land war on a different continent using the classic definition.

[LnGrrrR]

Sure we would. How many countries want to get back at the U.S.? China, Russia, N.K.? All flooded through our friend Mexico.

Awfully nice friends you have there. :lol

[CosmicCowboy]

If a war ever happened, how many Texans would immediately shift to the side of the USA? I'm guessing the vast majority - you know the USG would be spreading all kinds of propaganda about how they were simply preserving Texans' lifestyles and shit like that. Besides, with all the armed forces we have here, it would be a massacre if any revolutionary army was actually raised (impossible).

Revolution nor secession is possible in this country any longer. The USG will squash any such serious movement out like a bug long before it's capable of causing any widespread carnage.

It could and would be done with minimal bloodshed. The entire world would be watching. The modern analogy is the breakup of the Soviet Union. The UN would be all over that shit if the US used it's military might on a state that wanted to secede peacefully.

[boutons_deux]

"The entire world would be watching"

Since when does UCA about the R.O.W. (except as business opportunity)?

[LnGrrrR]

It could and would be done with minimal bloodshed. The entire world would be watching. The modern analogy is the breakup of the Soviet Union. The UN would be all over that shit if the US used it's military might on a state that wanted to secede peacefully.

Doubtful. It would set an awful precedent, and it could literally dissolve our country if we allowed any state that wanted to secede to do so.

America has shown it is willing to ignore the international community, on numerous different fronts. I think the same would apply here.

[z0sa]

It could and would be done with minimal bloodshed. The entire world would be watching. The modern analogy is the breakup of the Soviet Union. The UN would be all over that shit if the US used it's military might on a state that wanted to secede peacefully.

I don't parallel the USSR's breakup with American state secession at all, as much as they may look similar on paper. Transitioning from democracy to democracy is the polar opposite of demanding freedom from tyranny and ideological constraints.

Second, who exactly in the UN would raise such a vote? You think anyone there wants beef with the USA? Not even in mass numbers would they even ponder about interfering with a localized American war. Economic sanctions and hard talk would be the limit of the UN's power.

It would not be a peaceful transition, there will never be any secession. It is technically illegal, as well, FWIW, which would fuel the propaganda, and again, I don't think there'd ever be enough support from Texans for it to actually work.

[boutons_deux]

Dunno, a lot of Texans are pretty stupid and uneducated (before we even get to the brown and black ones), more "proud" of and attached to Texas than they are to UCA.

Just look at the posters in this thread saying secession is plausible, doable.

[greyforest]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2165/2994934040_ca5b05d221.jpg

[TeyshaBlue]

Dunno, a lot of Texans are pretty stupid and uneducated (before we even get to the brown and black ones), more "proud" of and attached to Texas than they are to UCA.

Just look at the posters in this thread saying secession is plausible, doable.

You should go hang out @ the CNN boards. Douchebags over there are giggling at the prospect of the fires burning homes and killing Tx citizens. You'd fit right in with your irrational hatred of all things red.

[clambake]

You should go hang out @ the CNN boards. Douchebags over there are giggling at the prospect of the fires burning homes and killing Tx citizens. You'd fit right in with your irrational hatred of all things red.

hang in there, pal. don't let the steam open your envelope.

[TeyshaBlue]

hang in there, pal. don't let the steam open your envelope.

:lol

[Thompson]

It is technically illegal, as well, FWIW, which would fuel the propaganda, and again, I don't think there'd ever be enough support from Texans for it to actually work.

False. North Carolina and a few other states explicitly reserved the right to withdraw from the Union when they entered it in the first place; no one objected to such a reservation at all back then, because it was commonly assumed that states could leave if they chose.

It's also funny that so many people like to say the Civil War 'settled' whether a state could secede or not. 'Wars don't determine who is right, only who is left.'

[CosmicCowboy]

False. North Carolina and a few other states explicitly reserved the right to withdraw from the Union when they entered it in the first place; no one objected to such a reservation at all back then, because it was commonly assumed that states could leave if they chose.

It's also funny that so many people like to say the Civil War 'settled' whether a state could secede or not. 'Wars don't determine who is right, only who is left.'

I don't know about North Carolina, but I know that Texas had to give up the right to secede when the carpetbaggers were running things after the Civil War. I assume all the defeated confederate states re-entered under the same terms.

[Thompson]

I don't know about North Carolina, but I know that Texas had to give up the right to secede when the carpetbaggers were running things after the Civil War. I assume all the defeated confederate states re-entered under the same terms.

Contract terms you agree to with a gun to your head are not enforceable; coercion or duress affect your ability to truly consent.

[clambake]

texas going to war against the states sounds like something a bubba would endorse.

[4>0rings]

texas going to war against the states sounds like something a bubba would endorse.
Governor of Texas Bubba or President Bubba?

[clambake]

Governor of Texas Bubba or President Bubba?

resident bubba's

[LnGrrrR]

Contract terms you agree to with a gun to your head are not enforceable; coercion or duress affect your ability to truly consent.

I'm pretty sure that doesn't apply when it comes to nations at war and surrender treaties. :lol "I know we said we'd do X actions if we surrendered, but that contract is unenforceable because we were under duress, so we're not doing X."

[ChumpDumper]

False. North Carolina and a few other states explicitly reserved the right to withdraw from the Union when they entered it in the first place; no one objected to such a reservation at all back then, because it was commonly assumed that states could leave if they chose.

It's also funny that so many people like to say the Civil War 'settled' whether a state could secede or not. 'Wars don't determine who is right, only who is left.'The Supreme Court ruled unilateral secession to be unconstitutional 140 years ago.

[LnGrrrR]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White

[DMX7]

It could and would be done with minimal bloodshed. The entire world would be watching. The modern analogy is the breakup of the Soviet Union. The UN would be all over that shit if the US used it's military might on a state that wanted to secede peacefully.

The Soviet Union dissolved entirely. It would only be analogous if the United States dissolved entirely and allowed each state to become independent, not just one or two.

The UN's military and economic strength is overwhelmingly the United States, so No, the UN would not be all "over that shit". No other country worth a damn would lift a finger to help a state secede unconstitutionally. And any secession against the will of any of the other states is unconstitutional.

[Kyle Orton]

az can take care of itself

we would fix the border problem by having landmines and shooting illegals crossing

The scary thing is, plenty of arizonans are as stupid as ducks on this issue.

If Arizona were to secede from the union, it would take at most 3 months for Arizona to be overrun with drugs, crime, poverty, and even those who shall not be mentioned (illegals). Any lawyer, doctor or other semi-educated human being who would help Arizona would bolt from the state in under a week, and there'd be nothing left but the bunch of retarded rednecks who wanted them to secede.

[DMX7]

Ducks is what Sarah Palin would call a "Real American", and ironically the "Real Americans" are the ones that think it's ok to commit treason and secede.

[Wild Cobra]

We would have a funny looking flag with only 49 stars.

[ManuBalboa]

Ducks is what Sarah Palin would call a "Real American", and ironically the "Real Americans" are the ones that think it's ok to commit treason.

Just following the great example set forth by our leaders.

[CosmicCowboy]

Ducks is what Sarah Palin would call a "Real American", and ironically the "Real Americans" are the ones that think it's ok to commit treason and secede.

It depends on what you call treason. Personally, i think most of our politicians in Washington are committing treason and putting their own interests ahead of the US.

[LnGrrrR]

It depends on what you call treason. Personally, i think most of our politicians in Washington are committing treason and putting their own interests ahead of the US.

Well, it really depends on if you're using it as a "legal" term or just in the general sense of the word.

[CosmicCowboy]

Well, it really depends on if you're using it as a "legal" term or just in the general sense of the word.

Well, lets put it this way...I see zero chance that the politicians in Washington have the political will to keep from driving the US economy off the cliff. I don't view taking the risk to try to jump off the bus before it goes over the edge as treasonous. I think the drivers of the bus are treasonous for destroying our country.

[ChumpDumper]

Except that it's, you know, actually treason.

[LnGrrrR]

Well, lets put it this way...I see zero chance that the politicians in Washington have the political will to keep from driving the US economy off the cliff. I don't view taking the risk to try to jump off the bus before it goes over the edge as treasonous. I think the drivers of the bus are treasonous for destroying our country.

So you're using it in the general sense of the word, and not the legal one. Ok

[CosmicCowboy]

So you're using it in the general sense of the word, and not the legal one. Ok

The founders of our once great country were guilty of treason too.

[ChumpDumper]

Well, lets put it this way...I see zero chance that the politicians in Washington have the political will to keep from driving the US economy off the cliff. I don't view taking the risk to try to jump off the bus before it goes over the edge as treasonous. I think the drivers of the bus are treasonous for destroying our country.Wouldn't it just be easier to renounce your citizenship and move somewhere else?

[LnGrrrR]

The founders of our once great country were guilty of treason too.

Sure, won't deny that.

[LnGrrrR]

Of course, there were some mitigating factors helping their decision.

[ChumpDumper]

The founders of our once great country were guilty of treason too.Hey, if you think you can win an armed revolution against the US, go right ahead. The Supreme Court says that would be ok if you won.

[z0sa]

False. North Carolina and a few other states explicitly reserved the right to withdraw from the Union when they entered it in the first place; no one objected to such a reservation at all back then, because it was commonly assumed that states could leave if they chose.

It's also funny that so many people like to say the Civil War 'settled' whether a state could secede or not. 'Wars don't determine who is right, only who is left.'

Wikipedia:

"The United States Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869) that unilateral secession was unconstitutional while commenting that revolution or consent of the states could lead to a successful secession."

Bolding mine. Notice the plurality of states. No one state can secede, nor even a few. It requires the entire Union to secede, otherwise known as a revolution.

Further relevant wiki information on the actual case:

"In deciding the merits of the bond issue, the court further held that the Constitution did not permit states to secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were "absolutely null".[2]"

Bolding again mine. That which was agreed upon or passed by the Confederacy is considered null and void - including any such agreements with the United States concerning their right to secede.

Or, as the presiding Chief Justice Salmon Chase aptly wrote:

"What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?"

[DMX7]

The founders of our once great country were guilty of treason too.

They also weren't fairly represented in government by the British Empire. Like it or not, you are represented in government by this country. Too bad if the men/women you voted for didn't win.

[CosmicCowboy]

They also weren't fairly represented in government by the British Empire. Like it or not, you are represented in government by this country. Too bad if the men/women you voted for didn't win.

So DMX7 approves of the mess we have in Washington and calls that "being represented?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_CW8hjwZW07c/TSSUGZ_1vyI/AAAAAAAABI8/mHi97nlii9g/s1600/sheep.jpg

[boutons_deux]

"you are represented in government by this country"

Blatantly, inarguably false.

Human-Americans are completely disenfranchised. The only votes in UCA that count are by Corporate-Americans.

[LnGrrrR]

Look CC, you agree with Boutons!

[CosmicCowboy]

Look CC, you agree with Boutons!

LOL, THAT'S scary...

[Winehole23]

Left and right meet at the extremes.

OR, what once was considered an extreme opinion -- that the US government lacks any legitimacy to govern and therefore, that revolution is now necessary and desirable -- is now commonplace.

It will go out of fashion on the right as soon as a Republican is elected president. Kind of like it did on the left when Obama was elected.

[DMX7]

So DMX7 approves of the mess we have in Washington and calls that "being represented?


The American people put every idiot in Congress. Americans could have picked representatives who weren't owned by corporations and special interests but they didn't. Not only are you represented, you're reflected. The selfish, pathetic, ignorant, dysfunction morons in Congress perfectly reflect how selfish, pathetic, ignorant and dysfunctional most Americans are.

[Wild Cobra]

The American people put every idiot in Congress. Americans could have picked representatives who weren't owned by corporations and special interests but they didn't. Not only are you represented, you're reflected. The selfish, pathetic, ignorant, dysfunction morons in Congress perfectly reflect how selfish, pathetic, ignorant and dysfunctional most Americans are.

Yep...

That's why we have so much redistribution of wealth. Greedy Americans wanting other peoples money, and electing those who will give it to them.

[Nbadan]

Yep...

That's why we have so much redistribution of wealth. Greedy Americans wanting other peoples money, and electing those who will give it to them.

:lol your right

http://squattable.com/sites/all/files/top400.png