Total Posts:11|Showing Posts:1-11
Jump to topic:

Succession, war to save the union

Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2016 1:56:00 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
Lincoln is widely supported for the decision to invade the Confederacy in the name of preserving the union, a war that killed over 600,000. Today, if a U.S. state were to agree on succession either to a new nation or part of another nation, would you support war being used to bring a state back on to the union?
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
someloser
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2016 2:37:53 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/1/2016 1:56:00 AM, Chang29 wrote:
Lincoln is widely supported for the decision to invade the Confederacy in the name of preserving the union, a war that killed over 600,000. Today, if a U.S. state were to agree on succession either to a new nation or part of another nation, would you support war being used to bring a state back on to the union?
No.

Forcing the slave states back "in the name of preserving the union" was NOT worth over half a million American lives.

And that's coming from someone who cannot stand neo-Confederates.
Ego sum qui sum. Deus lo vult.

"America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea." - Simon Bolivar

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again." - George Bernard Shaw
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2016 3:45:58 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/1/2016 2:37:53 AM, someloser wrote:
At 7/1/2016 1:56:00 AM, Chang29 wrote:
Lincoln is widely supported for the decision to invade the Confederacy in the name of preserving the union, a war that killed over 600,000. Today, if a U.S. state were to agree on succession either to a new nation or part of another nation, would you support war being used to bring a state back on to the union?
No.

Forcing the slave states back "in the name of preserving the union" was NOT worth over half a million American lives.

And that's coming from someone who cannot stand neo-Confederates.

What about today, if a state were to succeed would you support military action to bring them back?
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2016 3:55:49 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/1/2016 3:45:58 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 7/1/2016 2:37:53 AM, someloser wrote:
At 7/1/2016 1:56:00 AM, Chang29 wrote:
Lincoln is widely supported for the decision to invade the Confederacy in the name of preserving the union, a war that killed over 600,000. Today, if a U.S. state were to agree on succession either to a new nation or part of another nation, would you support war being used to bring a state back on to the union?
No.

Forcing the slave states back "in the name of preserving the union" was NOT worth over half a million American lives.

And that's coming from someone who cannot stand neo-Confederates.

What about today, if a state were to succeed would you support military action to bring them back?

Are you suggesting the EU should force the UK back at gunpoint?
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2016 4:23:20 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/1/2016 3:45:58 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 7/1/2016 2:37:53 AM, someloser wrote:
At 7/1/2016 1:56:00 AM, Chang29 wrote:
Lincoln is widely supported for the decision to invade the Confederacy in the name of preserving the union, a war that killed over 600,000. Today, if a U.S. state were to agree on succession either to a new nation or part of another nation, would you support war being used to bring a state back on to the union?
No.

Forcing the slave states back "in the name of preserving the union" was NOT worth over half a million American lives.

And that's coming from someone who cannot stand neo-Confederates.

What about today, if a state were to succeed would you support military action to bring them back?

It depends. If states secede from the United States, that would break the union, and the only thing that holds these states in place is the federal government and the federal Constitution. I personally don't think it's right to engage force against our own people for the purpose of bringing them back, but I also think that it's idiotic to simply leave the union, especially when we are a country and not an EU type of union.

Also, secession is Unconstitutional and there are lots of issues that this brings up when states try to secede. There's lots of minutia that goes into it, but no, I'm not pro state secession but I'm also not pro usage of military force to bring states back.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2016 4:25:46 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/1/2016 1:56:00 AM, Chang29 wrote:
Lincoln is widely supported for the decision to invade the Confederacy in the name of preserving the union, a war that killed over 600,000. Today, if a U.S. state were to agree on succession either to a new nation or part of another nation, would you support war being used to bring a state back on to the union?

Let the Conservative states detach from the union. They will protect their territory while the liberal states lose everything they have.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2016 5:30:27 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/1/2016 3:55:49 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 7/1/2016 3:45:58 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 7/1/2016 2:37:53 AM, someloser wrote:
At 7/1/2016 1:56:00 AM, Chang29 wrote:
Lincoln is widely supported for the decision to invade the Confederacy in the name of preserving the union, a war that killed over 600,000. Today, if a U.S. state were to agree on succession either to a new nation or part of another nation, would you support war being used to bring a state back on to the union?
No.

Forcing the slave states back "in the name of preserving the union" was NOT worth over half a million American lives.

And that's coming from someone who cannot stand neo-Confederates.

What about today, if a state were to succeed would you support military action to bring them back?

Are you suggesting the EU should force the UK back at gunpoint?

Hell yeah, political unions are enduring and must be preserved at all costs. Wait, that's not my position! I support succession down to the individual.

I don't think anyone will opening support military action to keep states in the union, but if a county or city or a neighborhood were to declare that the laws of the US do not apply in this small area, many would support crushing that little rebellion with extreme prejudice.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2016 11:24:36 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/1/2016 10:42:03 AM, desmac wrote:
Should the Soviet Union have attempted to maintain its unity by using force?

No government should use force to keep people or groups in.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
someloser
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2016 7:19:54 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/1/2016 3:45:58 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 7/1/2016 2:37:53 AM, someloser wrote:
At 7/1/2016 1:56:00 AM, Chang29 wrote:
Lincoln is widely supported for the decision to invade the Confederacy in the name of preserving the union, a war that killed over 600,000. Today, if a U.S. state were to agree on succession either to a new nation or part of another nation, would you support war being used to bring a state back on to the union?
No.

Forcing the slave states back "in the name of preserving the union" was NOT worth over half a million American lives.

And that's coming from someone who cannot stand neo-Confederates.

What about today, if a state were to succeed would you support military action to bring them back?
No. Why would anyone?
Ego sum qui sum. Deus lo vult.

"America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea." - Simon Bolivar

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again." - George Bernard Shaw
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2016 8:17:31 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/3/2016 7:19:54 AM, someloser wrote:
At 7/1/2016 3:45:58 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 7/1/2016 2:37:53 AM, someloser wrote:
At 7/1/2016 1:56:00 AM, Chang29 wrote:
Lincoln is widely supported for the decision to invade the Confederacy in the name of preserving the union, a war that killed over 600,000. Today, if a U.S. state were to agree on succession either to a new nation or part of another nation, would you support war being used to bring a state back on to the union?
No.

Forcing the slave states back "in the name of preserving the union" was NOT worth over half a million American lives.

And that's coming from someone who cannot stand neo-Confederates.

What about today, if a state were to succeed would you support military action to bring them back?
No. Why would anyone?

To preserve a political union, according to many especially the social contract crowd central governments can not be disobeyed.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.