Everyone that was negged to oblivion or possed to oblivion please post in this thread

Southern Man said:
Round Two will be much different. *shrug*
Click to expand...

Sorry, right makes might. Also, we got the market on aerospace cornered, which would be the deciding factor. Having a ridiculous number of bases (a relic of the age of slave revolts) didn't do you any good last time and won't next time, either...
 
Threedee said:
Sorry, right makes might. Also, we got the market on aerospace cornered, which would be the deciding factor. Having a ridiculous number of bases (a relic of the age of slave revolts) didn't do you any good last time and won't next time, either...
Click to expand...
You'll need fuel for your planes and the pipelines run from Texas and Louisiana right through several Confederate States, unguarded, and any one State could simply shut off valves or an enterprising young man with a backhoe could dig up the lines and pinch them shut. Plus all you liberals are too scared of guns to own one never mind point it at someone and pull the trigger. *shrug*
 
Threedee said:
Sorry, right makes might. Also, we got the market on aerospace cornered, which would be the deciding factor. Having a ridiculous number of bases (a relic of the age of slave revolts) didn't do you any good last time and won't next time, either...
Click to expand...

You live in france? I just read where the 787 is delayed yet again.
 
Southern Man said:
You'll need fuel for your planes and the pipelines run from Texas and Louisiana right through several Confederate States, unguarded, and any one State could simply shut off valves or an enterprising young man with a backhoe could dig up the lines and pinch them shut. Plus all you liberals are too scared of guns to own one never mind point it at someone and pull the trigger. *shrug*
Click to expand...

We could pipe 'em in from Canada (we get 70% of our oil there, afterall), or from Alaska, assuming they choose to be patriots and side with the Union. And there are plenty of red states in Union land. The plains and mountain West (CO, WY, UT, NV, AZ, ID, MT, KS, NE, ND, SD), for example, as well as Ohio, Indiana, and Misery.

Even the NE types like to go quail hunting, and without shooting their pals in the face. The pussies are pretty much just on the Pacific Coast, but we make up for it with our massive industry.
 
Last edited:
Threedee said:
We could pipe 'em in from Canada (we get 70% of our oil there, afterall), or from Alaska, assuming they choose to be patriots and side with the Union. And there are plenty of red states in Union land. The plains and mountain West (CO, WY, UT, NV, AZ, ID, MT, KS, NE, ND, SD), for example, as well as Ohio, Indiana, and Misery.
Click to expand...
Canada would want to stay neutral, and Alaska would obviously be on the Republican side. So you've got about a week's worth of fuel maybe. *shrug*
 
Southern Man said:
Canada would want to stay neutral, and Alaska would obviously be on the Republican side. So you've got about a week's worth of fuel maybe. *shrug*
Click to expand...

According to Alaska's governer, we'd have a shitload of oil. And no, Canada would not be neutral, as we are a crucial part of its defense strategy. In fact, with the closure of the Southeast Air Defense Sector, the South now plays virtually no role in Canada's defense, except that Tyndall is still technically the regional hq of the CONUS airspace.

We'd also have NATO on our side. You could probably conjur up a few allies in countries that hate us, like NK, but even China and Russia would probably remain neutral.

*backbreaking shrug*
 
Threedee said:
According to Alaska's governer, we'd have a shitload of oil. And no, Canada would not be neutral, as we are a crucial part of its defense strategy. In fact, with the closure of the Southeast Air Defense Sector, the South now plays virtually no role in Canada's defense, except that Tyndall is still technically the regional hq of the CONUS airspace.

We'd also have NATO on our side. You could probably conjur up a few allies in countries that hate us, like NK, but even China and Russia would probably remain neutral.

*backbreaking shrug*
Click to expand...

The 2nd CW will be as the 1st CW, a fight between the two political parties. The only difference is that The South is Republican and The North is Democrat. Alaska is clearly a GOP State and therefore will not give oil to The North.

It is true that Canada depends on the US for it'd defense, which is exactly why they would choose to remain neutral in a 2nd CW. If they "choose" the wrong side, their future would be in limbo.

NATO would have no mandate and of course would remain neutral.

DC is well withing striking distance of Southern Naval bases in Virginia.

*shrug*
 
Southern Man said:
The 2nd CW will be as the 1st CW, a fight between the two political parties. The only difference is that The South is Republican and The North is Democrat. Alaska is clearly a GOP State and therefore will not give oil to The North.

It is true that Canada depends on the US for it'd defense, which is exactly why they would choose to remain neutral in a 2nd CW. If they "choose" the wrong side, their future would be in limbo.

NATO would have no mandate and of course would remain neutral.

DC is well withing striking distance of Southern Naval bases in Virginia.

*shrug*
Click to expand...

First of all, people outside of the South, surprise, don't share your failed, miserable history, and therefore have no loyalty to you. Red states outside of the South, such as Alaska, the Mountain West, the Plains West, and Indiana, Ohio, and probably Misery (also, Kentucky faught on our side last time, but I expect you would get W. Virginia this time for sure) would fight for the Union, because they love the Union, and not the South. Also, last time the War Democrats sided with the Union, as well as a few individuals such as Andrew Johnson (it would be the same thing this time). Far more Southern military personnel would defect to the North as well, because it is far clearer what their oath to the Constitution means now than it did the first time. Hell, we almost got Lee on our side last time.

Also, our leaders would make the case, as Lincoln didn't, that this is an international war and not an internal rebellion, which would draw in NATO, Canada, and numerous allies, while few countries, if any, would rally to your side. And it would be so obvious to Canada who would win, I doubt that they would hesitate to join America against the Confederacy.
 
Threedee said:
First of all, people outside of the South, surprise, don't share your failed, miserable history, and therefore have no loyalty to you. Red states outside of the South, such as Alaska, the Mountain West, the Plains West, and Indiana, Ohio, and probably Misery (also, Kentucky faught on our side last time, but I expect you would get W. Virginia this time for sure) would fight for the Union, because they love the Union, and not the South. Also, last time the War Democrats sided with the Union, as well as a few individuals such as Andrew Johnson (it would be the same thing this time). Far more Southern military personnel would defect to the North as well, because it is far clearer what their oath to the Constitution means now than it did the first time. Hell, we almost got Lee on our side last time.

Also, our leaders would make the case, as Lincoln didn't, that this is an international war and not an internal rebellion, which would draw in NATO, Canada, and numerous allies, while few countries, if any, would rally to your side. And it would be so obvious to Canada who would win, I doubt that they would hesitate to join America against the Confederacy.
Click to expand...

Actually, there are many throughout the US who would see this for what it is: Republicans who want to strip power from the Federal government to save the Constitution verses Democrats who have worked since the 1930's to usurp the Constitution by ignoring the enumerated powers and Madison's clear interpretation in Federalist 41 and 45:
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.
Click to expand...
Every person who has taken an oath to defend the Constitution would have to ask themselves which side they are on.

And again, since this would clearly be an internal conflict, NATO won't touch it, and certainly Canada wouldn't either. *shrug*
 
Those who wish to see our Constitution defended should do so in ways enumerated within that same document.

The idea that we should destroy the union because of the deeds and wishes of a few is close to treason.

The Civil War was a horrible event. I am glad my beloved south lost, so the nation remained intact.

Southermen, expecting the rest of the world to stay out of our conflict just because it is an internal one is certainly not realistic. We have stepped into enough internal conflicts to make that very clear.
 
WinterBorn said:
Those who wish to see our Constitution defended should do so in ways enumerated within that same document.

The idea that we should destroy the union because of the deeds and wishes of a few is close to treason.

The Civil War was a horrible event. I am glad my beloved south lost, so the nation remained intact.

Southermen, expecting the rest of the world to stay out of our conflict just because it is an internal one is certainly not realistic. We have stepped into enough internal conflicts to make that very clear.
Click to expand...
Periodically the blood of patriots and tyrants is necessary to fertilize a republic, and personally I think the time is long overdue. NATO is loathe to delve into conflicts that they are obligated to so what makes you think they'll delve into this one? *shrug*
 
Southern Man said:
Periodically the blood of patriots and tyrants is necessary to fertilize a republic, and personally I think the time is long overdue. NATO is loathe to delve into conflicts that they are obligated to so what makes you think they'll delve into this one? *shrug*
Click to expand...

Any nation that has a vested interest in the victory of one side or the other would delve into it.

A simple review of our own delving into Korea or Vietnam is ample evidence.

You comment about blood as fertilizer sounds great. But what it actually means is destruction, pain and great suffering for a huge number of people.
 
WinterBorn said:
Any nation that has a vested interest in the victory of one side or the other would delve into it.

A simple review of our own delving into Korea or Vietnam is ample evidence.

You comment about blood as fertilizer sounds great. But what it actually means is destruction, pain and great suffering for a huge number of people.
Click to expand...
They have a vested interest in waiting for who is likely to win then siding with them. *shrug*
 
Southern Man said:
They have a vested interest in waiting for who is likely to win then siding with them. *shrug*
Click to expand...

No that is completely wrong. If a nation has a vested interest in one side winning then they would not sit passively by and wait. They would offer support in varying amounts depending on how much they depend on them winning. From offering materials or arms to sending soldiers and other military force, the support would come in whatever means was necessary.

We did not wait for the war between north and south Vietnam to end to decide which we would support.
 
WinterBorn said:
No that is completely wrong. If a nation has a vested interest in one side winning then they would not sit passively by and wait. They would offer support in varying amounts depending on how much they depend on them winning. From offering materials or arms to sending soldiers and other military force, the support would come in whatever means was necessary.

We did not wait for the war between north and south Vietnam to end to decide which we would support.
Click to expand...
There's your mistake: you assume that NATO cares which America wins, a socialist one or a capitalist one.
 
Southern Man said:
There's your mistake: you assume that NATO cares which America wins, a socialist one or a capitalist one.
Click to expand...

Look at the stated goals of NATO. Many of them are identical to what a socialist America would be. The UN even more so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top