Advertisement
by Wamitoria » Mon Aug 20, 2012 7:12 pm
by AETEN II » Mon Aug 20, 2012 7:41 pm
"Quod Vult, Valde Valt"
Excuse me, sir. Seeing as how the V.P. is such a V.I.P., shouldn't we keep the P.C. on the Q.T.? 'Cause if it leaks to the V.C. he could end up M.I.A., and then we'd all be put out in K.P.
Nationstatelandsville wrote:"Why'd the chicken cross the street?"
"Because your dad's a whore."
"...He died a week ago."
"Of syphilis, I bet."
by The Republic of Lanos » Mon Aug 20, 2012 7:46 pm
Trotskylvania wrote:Any second civil war would not be a replay of the first.
by North California » Mon Aug 20, 2012 7:48 pm
by Unita Teccon Olympia Enclave » Mon Aug 20, 2012 7:48 pm
by Blazedtown » Mon Aug 20, 2012 7:49 pm
Unita Teccon Olympia Enclave wrote:First off why the South does it have to be them every time something like this tread is brought up.
by North California » Mon Aug 20, 2012 7:51 pm
Unita Teccon Olympia Enclave wrote:First off why the South does it have to be them every time something like this tread is brought up.
by The Zeonic States » Mon Aug 20, 2012 7:53 pm
by Unita Teccon Olympia Enclave » Mon Aug 20, 2012 7:54 pm
by Blazedtown » Mon Aug 20, 2012 7:55 pm
by The Zeonic States » Mon Aug 20, 2012 7:56 pm
by North California » Mon Aug 20, 2012 7:57 pm
The Zeonic States wrote:North California wrote:
The South gets a lot of bad rap here. It's really annoying and dumb, but after being on NS for almost a year, you get used to it.
Why do the south get a bad rep from the american civil war when most of the most horrorific stories get told from the Union stand point? I mean Sherman's march comes to mind along with the Burning of Nashville and a few other incidents that resulted in more civilian deaths and property damage then it did to the Confederate war machine.
by Norjagen » Mon Aug 20, 2012 7:58 pm
Lunatic Goofballs wrote:The shoe is the pie of the Middle East. The poor bastards. :(
by Blazedtown » Mon Aug 20, 2012 8:00 pm
The Zeonic States wrote:North California wrote:
The South gets a lot of bad rap here. It's really annoying and dumb, but after being on NS for almost a year, you get used to it.
Why do the south get a bad rep from the american civil war when most of the most horrorific stories get told from the Union stand point? I mean Sherman's march comes to mind along with the Burning of Nashville and a few other incidents that resulted in more civilian deaths and property damage then it did to the Confederate war machine.
by The House of Petain » Mon Aug 20, 2012 8:02 pm
Unita Teccon Olympia Enclave wrote:First off why the South does it have to be them every time something like this tread is brought up.
by North California » Mon Aug 20, 2012 8:02 pm
Blazedtown wrote:The Zeonic States wrote:
Why do the south get a bad rep from the american civil war when most of the most horrorific stories get told from the Union stand point? I mean Sherman's march comes to mind along with the Burning of Nashville and a few other incidents that resulted in more civilian deaths and property damage then it did to the Confederate war machine.
There's whole slavery thing. And the Jim Crow laws and government enforced segregation happening in living memory. And the South being assbackwards on things like gay rights and abortion. But other than slavery racism, sexism, and generally bigotry, I don't see why the South gets a bad rap either.
by The Zeonic States » Mon Aug 20, 2012 8:03 pm
Norjagen wrote:A second civil war would be drastically different from the first. You would have 3 distinct fighting forces involved. On the side of the government, you would have loyalists in the military, and on the side of the rebellion, you would have the military forces that desert with their weapons, or possibly even unit commanders that desert with their weapons and men.
These first two forces would likely slug out the early stages of the war. Depending on which side garnered more support from within the military, the government would either crush any conventional resistance or be toppled by a military government.
Assuming that the government manages to put down any military uprisings, the war would shift gears into a more unconventional one. This is where the third fighting force comes into play. The rebellion would likely have no specific leader on a national level, with cells of individuals conducting insurgency operations and possibly terrorist attacks in their local areas.
The end result? The war would not, as some people claim, be over quickly. The conventional aspect of the war may be over swiftly, but it would be followed by a long period of severe unrest, which could last years or even decades. Insurgents would likely have no way to overthrow the government on their own, but once that "us and them" sentiment takes root, they would most likely live purely for the chance to strike out at the government however they could.
Once fighting for the sake of not giving up becomes the norm, you start to see situations like that in Israel, where the forecast is "Mostly sunny with a chance of explosions." Terrorist attacks by these insurgent groups would likely be made far worse by the preceding conventional war, with large amounts of weapons, from pistols right up to anti-tank weapons, tending to go missing and fall off of the grid.
by Capitolinium » Mon Aug 20, 2012 8:04 pm
North California wrote:Blazedtown wrote:
There's whole slavery thing. And the Jim Crow laws and government enforced segregation happening in living memory. And the South being assbackwards on things like gay rights and abortion. But other than slavery racism, sexism, and generally bigotry, I don't see why the South gets a bad rap either.
Well you don't judge Germans because of the Holocaust do you?
by Blazedtown » Mon Aug 20, 2012 8:05 pm
North California wrote:Blazedtown wrote:
There's whole slavery thing. And the Jim Crow laws and government enforced segregation happening in living memory. And the South being assbackwards on things like gay rights and abortion. But other than slavery racism, sexism, and generally bigotry, I don't see why the South gets a bad rap either.
Well you don't judge Germans because of the Holocaust do you?
by North California » Mon Aug 20, 2012 8:06 pm
by Blazedtown » Mon Aug 20, 2012 8:11 pm
North California wrote:Blazedtown wrote:
No, but modern Germans don't run around with swastika bumper stickers and have learned from their past mistakes.
So are you saying that Southerners can't learn that slavery is wrong? And if there are some crack heads, is that justification to have all these rather offensive preconceptions about the South?
by North California » Mon Aug 20, 2012 8:13 pm
Blazedtown wrote:North California wrote:
So are you saying that Southerners can't learn that slavery is wrong? And if there are some crack heads, is that justification to have all these rather offensive preconceptions about the South?
I'm pretty sure everyone in the south knows slavery is wrong. Its guys like Todd Akin, Rick Perry and Rick Santorum that give the South and Republicans in general a bad name.
by Norjagen » Mon Aug 20, 2012 8:19 pm
The Zeonic States wrote:Norjagen wrote:A second civil war would be drastically different from the first. You would have 3 distinct fighting forces involved. On the side of the government, you would have loyalists in the military, and on the side of the rebellion, you would have the military forces that desert with their weapons, or possibly even unit commanders that desert with their weapons and men.
These first two forces would likely slug out the early stages of the war. Depending on which side garnered more support from within the military, the government would either crush any conventional resistance or be toppled by a military government.
Assuming that the government manages to put down any military uprisings, the war would shift gears into a more unconventional one. This is where the third fighting force comes into play. The rebellion would likely have no specific leader on a national level, with cells of individuals conducting insurgency operations and possibly terrorist attacks in their local areas.
The end result? The war would not, as some people claim, be over quickly. The conventional aspect of the war may be over swiftly, but it would be followed by a long period of severe unrest, which could last years or even decades. Insurgents would likely have no way to overthrow the government on their own, but once that "us and them" sentiment takes root, they would most likely live purely for the chance to strike out at the government however they could.
Once fighting for the sake of not giving up becomes the norm, you start to see situations like that in Israel, where the forecast is "Mostly sunny with a chance of explosions." Terrorist attacks by these insurgent groups would likely be made far worse by the preceding conventional war, with large amounts of weapons, from pistols right up to anti-tank weapons, tending to go missing and fall off of the grid.
In your scenario nuclear suicide attacks to come mind, It's not like North America has a shortage of nuclear warheads which could not be jury rigged into a make shift fusion bomb.
Lunatic Goofballs wrote:The shoe is the pie of the Middle East. The poor bastards. :(
by Norjagen » Mon Aug 20, 2012 8:21 pm
Lunatic Goofballs wrote:The shoe is the pie of the Middle East. The poor bastards. :(
by Blazedtown » Mon Aug 20, 2012 8:21 pm
North California wrote:Blazedtown wrote:
I'm pretty sure everyone in the south knows slavery is wrong. Its guys like Todd Akin, Rick Perry and Rick Santorum that give the South and Republicans in general a bad name.
Last time I check, Rick Santorum is Northern
But yes, guys like that give Southerners (and Republicans to an extent) a bad name.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Democratic Martian States, El Lazaro, Elejamie, Google [Bot], Havl, Ineva, Juansonia, Kostane, Likhinia, Nivosea, Ravemath, Shrillland, Statesburg, Stellar Colonies, The Jamesian Republic, Yasuragi
Advertisement