Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[Strife26]

Meh to you all, good sirs and ladies.

[Owlbread]

... what exactly would you expect to happen otherwise? I mean, damn, it's not exactly common decency or whatever that's keeping Europe from collapsing into a brawl, it's that stepping out of line would get you squished. Same for everywhere else. 300 years can do a lot but human's still human and the way we operate over a large area is still more or less the same. Give us an "other" that has loot and the inability to stop us from taking it and we will. Individuals can operate differently but the aggregate effect is still pretty much the same, y'know?

S'one of the reasons that globalization and cultural intermingling is by and large a good thing. The less imaginary lines and tradition mismatches we have between one another the harder it is to dehumanize our fellow man and the less likely we have things turn to violence. Throwing a lot of imaginary lines into a previously integrated entity is a good way to foster artificial hostility, which would be one of the reasons why consideration of Balkanization and related concepts pretty much inevitably degenerates into talk of the inevitable violence that'd come from it.

I'm trying to argue for Balkanization though (at least splitting up big countries into smaller ones, maybe not every man and his dog but as I said Cascadia, California, Vermont, Texas, Quebec, Newfoundland, Ontario, Tatarstan etc) on the basis that it makes globalization easier, or at least a lighter form of globalization that involves integrating into multinational unions more easily like the EU. I think if this "breaking up" of larger countries into smaller ones is done correctly then there would be no real outbreak of war between North and South California or something silly. I think we have a tendency to breenge for the militaristic side of things because of popular fiction's influence on us and overly militarised governments.

[misko27]

... what exactly would you expect to happen otherwise? I mean, damn, it's not exactly common decency or whatever that's keeping Europe from collapsing into a brawl, it's that stepping out of line would get you squished. Same for everywhere else. 300 years can do a lot but human's still human and the way we operate over a large area is still more or less the same. Give us an "other" that has loot and the inability to stop us from taking it and we will. Individuals can operate differently but the aggregate effect is still pretty much the same, y'know?

S'one of the reasons that globalization and cultural intermingling is by and large a good thing. The less imaginary lines and tradition mismatches we have between one another the harder it is to dehumanize our fellow man and the less likely we have things turn to violence. Throwing a lot of imaginary lines into a previously integrated entity is a good way to foster artificial hostility, which would be one of the reasons why consideration of Balkanization and related concepts pretty much inevitably degenerates into talk of the inevitable violence that'd come from it.

I'm trying to argue for Balkanization though (at least splitting up big countries into smaller ones, maybe not every man and his dog but as I said Cascadia, California, Vermont, Texas, Quebec, Newfoundland, Ontario, Tatarstan etc) on the basis that it makes globalization easier, or at least a lighter form of globalization that involves integrating into multinational unions more easily like the EU. I think if this "breaking up" of larger countries into smaller ones is done correctly then there would be no real outbreak of war between North and South California or something silly. I think we have a tendency to breenge for the militaristic side of things because of popular fiction's influence on us and overly militarised governments.

That sounds ridiculously optimistic on so many levels it's not even funny. You are clearly not tfrom the US.
 
Sure, there won't be war between the California's, but the assumption that the US would function better as various states only shows a lack of practical knowledge of the US. It's like reccomending you break up russia, or bettr for my point china. Sure, you could do it, but the consequences would be massive fracture lines in their relations. The States are similar enough, But if you stoop to the level where the differences matter enough to create seperation, it wouldn't JUST be seperation. At that point, it's be the god-damned middle east.
 
Actually, that's the best example of why it wouldn't work. Middle east. Composed of nations thast are, on a fundamental level, very similar to each other. And yet their differences divide them cleanly. Recall only some decades ago the Catholic-Protestant Split in the US. Or the Ideological debate today, if all the states did what they wanted, there would be war in a minute.

[Dutchling]

Interesting video

[SalmonGod]

Interesting video

I was just about to post that in the Occupy thread.  Saw it while the forums were down.

The only interesting part to me is the fact that people are still in denial about how bad things actually are.  It's a really effective video, though.

[Owlbread]

That sounds ridiculously optimistic on so many levels it's not even funny. You are clearly not tfrom the US.
 
Sure, there won't be war between the California's, but the assumption that the US would function better as various states only shows a lack of practical knowledge of the US. It's like reccomending you break up russia, or bettr for my point china. Sure, you could do it, but the consequences would be massive fracture lines in their relations. The States are similar enough, But if you stoop to the level where the differences matter enough to create seperation, it wouldn't JUST be seperation. At that point, it's be the god-damned middle east.
 
Actually, that's the best example of why it wouldn't work. Middle east. Composed of nations thast are, on a fundamental level, very similar to each other. And yet their differences divide them cleanly. Recall only some decades ago the Catholic-Protestant Split in the US. Or the Ideological debate today, if all the states did what they wanted, there would be war in a minute.

I think it's a bit hyperbolic to say that the USA would become the Middle East if certain parts of it became independent. The middle east is as it is as a result of thousands of years of history, tension, religion etc. The USA doesn't even come close, nor does Canada. You're also taking things from the idea of splitting people up because they're ethnically or religiously different, which isn't really what I'm suggesting.

I may be optimistic but I take pride in that. We need some god damned optimism rather than all the fear we've been living under as a result of cold-war fallout and the War on Terror.

[Zangi]

In my opinion, if for some reason North America Balkanizes...

There is still a lot of logistics to get in order.  You'd have to dismantle a few giants in the federal program or keep em... Social Services and Military.  Oh... and the Constitution/Courts...  whatever legal precedents those things have... are they just thrown out? 

How the heck do you do this Balkanization thing anyways? 

Theory Crafting (Huzzah!)
You'd have to have a serious breakdown in the ability of the government to govern and the military also needs to be nerfed in a way where they will have trouble keeping the income flowing from the government for this to even be an option.  Things won't be looking so great and peaceful then... and who knows about the outside pressures that may be coming on either.  Foreign Powers with ambition may not sit idly by twiddling their thumbs.  Also, CIA/FBI... they'd probably be doing their durndest to keep the unrest in check.  The President of the time may give the secret nod to 'go wild'...  or they would on their own initiative.

If we somehow get pass all that, without internal bloodshed, keeping foreign influences at bay, the FBI/CIA failing to do their thing... and the states/federal gov't agree to split the governments down to something more manageable, like the suggested Territories/Balkanization. 
It may work, since such turmoil will probably wipe out the federal social services and ability to enforce federal laws(and in my opinion, that is what it would take to get there...), but still keep the military more or less intact, but clearly a shadow of its former glory. 

It would be a tug-of-war for the Balkan Territores of NA to choose to collectively fund a military, but govern themselves.  Most likely a few would back out and fund their own military.  It is also questionable that all the territories would end up as democracies/republics either... 
El Presidente for life.  Heh...

[Sheb]

If Balkanisation happens, it would ba as a result of peaceful elections of independentists Congressmen.

[Owlbread]

If Balkanisation happens, it would ba as a result of peaceful elections of independentists Congressmen.

Exactly as it should be.

[Zangi]

If Balkanisation happens, it would ba as a result of peaceful elections of independentists Congressmen.

Exactly as it should be.

Doesn't mean they can just overturn current the laws and budget...

EDIT: Without major pushback/backlash.  Plus, the system is now designed to take change in gradually, instead of avalanche of change happening all at once.  (At least I read that part somewhere...  it is what stopped the tea party or something, yes?  Tripwires built in cause of avalanche of change in an earlier time.)
Perhaps over a few decades...  maybe.  If the political/social/economical situation doesn't change part way...

[misko27]

If Balkanisation happens, it would ba as a result of peaceful elections of independentists Congressmen.

Wha if they don't want to? Such a prospect would be highly unpopular in places where people have to actually put their real name (as opposed to the internet and petitions thereof).
 
Besides, The US has a bad history with people leaving the Union. Last time there was a war. Anyone who mentions seriously the prospect of leaving the union does it in the context of not recognizing the current one, or war. There are no independantists as you imagine. There are no quebec-esque people. There is no Irish liberation front. There are no indendance parties or sub-parties. No one seriously talks about it. Besides, being american is the culture, as opposed to anything else. We are a young nation, but we are self-sufficient culturally. Even when people talk about taking back their government from "dem evul socialists", they talk about taking it BACK. There is no movement for the US to dissolve in any matter. I mean, it's ridiculous. This is one of the most nationalist countries in the world.
 
And, for the record, Balkanization has a terrible history. Example one: The BALKANS. It is a backward sliding hole.. And I can say that. Under the Communists it was at least modernizing, slowly, and corruptly, but it was needed. Now they are all so backward the best prospect for, say, Serbia, is currently a return to the Monarchy, of all things. The rest are anywhere from russia(hyper-corrupt) to a collapsing nothingness. (GJ Clinton.) I can tell you it doesn't work. I demand a example from history where it actually worked, where a large, coherent, nationalist country somehow was dissolved without bloodshed. You won't. You're not being optimistic, you're being naive.
 
Also, can we please move from this topic before I get more angry. Balkanization in any form enrages me, as I have stated before. As a joke it was fine, but, no. NO.

[Sheb]

Hence the "If". It's not going to happen anytime soon if ever.

Now, I think Scotland could provide a good template for how a western, democratic country can break up nowadays. No one expect the English and Scots to have a war any time soon.

Anyway, back to the US. The sequester hit. What do you guys think of it?

[misko27]

I find the repubs are struggling to remain cohesive, and are holding on this point. Everything from gay marriage to gun laws to inequality to buisness to foreign policy, on all fronts they are being beaten. They needed a win, and one to satisfy the deficiet hawks, else they would collapse.
 
Hence sequestration.

[Onlyhestands]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

If Balkanisation happens, it would ba as a result of peaceful elections of independentists Congressmen.

Wha if they don't want to? Such a prospect would be highly unpopular in places where people have to actually put their real name (as opposed to the internet and petitions thereof).
 
Besides, The US has a bad history with people leaving the Union. Last time there was a war. Anyone who mentions seriously the prospect of leaving the union does it in the context of not recognizing the current one, or war. There are no independantists as you imagine. There are no quebec-esque people. There is no Irish liberation front. There are no indendance parties or sub-parties. No one seriously talks about it. Besides, being american is the culture, as opposed to anything else. We are a young nation, but we are self-sufficient culturally. Even when people talk about taking back their government from "dem evul socialists", they talk about taking it BACK. There is no movement for the US to dissolve in any matter. I mean, it's ridiculous. This is one of the most nationalist countries in the world.
 
And, for the record, Balkanization has a terrible history. Example one: The BALKANS. It is a backward sliding hole.. And I can say that. Under the Communists it was at least modernizing, slowly, and corruptly, but it was needed. Now they are all so backward the best prospect for, say, Serbia, is currently a return to the Monarchy, of all things. The rest are anywhere from russia(hyper-corrupt) to a collapsing nothingness. (GJ Clinton.) I can tell you it doesn't work. I demand a example from history where it actually worked, where a large, coherent, nationalist country somehow was dissolved without bloodshed. You won't. You're not being optimistic, you're being naive.
 
Also, can we please move from this topic before I get more angry. Balkanization in any form enrages me, as I have stated before. As a joke it was fine, but, no. NO.

I agree with this completely. Nobody seriously talks about leaving the union, and for good reason. I don't see any reason why I would want to leave. Yeah the US has problems, but we're a pretty homogenous society, and it should be fixed, not broken apart. Whats the point of fabricating an identity that doesn't even exist?

[Owlbread]

It's silly to compare the USA to the Balkan countries with their thousands of years of history, religious tension and all sorts even though we are using the term "Balkanization" but that's just because it means breaking up into lots of little countries. The USA is a young country - that tension just doesn't exist.