Civil war

[Veritas]

So I was talking with a friend of mine who is the least crack-pot person that I know. He's a naturalized citizen with his masters in econometrics. Smartest dude I know.

He made the statement that he thinks that the US is headed toward another Civil War, a shooting war. I, of course, thought this was hilarious, and after I got done laughing, I realized he was serious...and we got to talking about it.

His reasons are as follows:
1) Nobody (or nobody any of us know) feels like they have a voice in government, regardless of how much money you make. The guy taking my money for gas feels just as disenfranchised as me, a guy who finds himself in the highest tax bracket. My liberal friends feel fundamentally the same way; their great black hope has failed them and they're still voiceless.

2) States are starting to take matters into their own hands where the federal government has failed to do its job. The Feds aren't protecting the border, so Arizona is going to the mattresses to stauch the inflow of illegal aliens. What's are the feds doing? Stepping in and over ruling the states.

3) It wouldn't take as much to start as we think. Let's say Arizona gets fed up and decides to defy the Federal government, even going so far as to secede. The Feds wouldn't let that happen and we'd have another Fort Sumter situation.

I don't really see this as a partisan thought process. It seems to me that with few exceptions, the citizenry is unhappy with the federal government and is growing moreso; again, I see this in my conservative gun-nut friends and with my liberal tree-hugger friends.

Crazy or not?

[85Sooner]

I think it would be smart to be on the side of the gun nuts than the tree huggers.

[StoopTroup]

I believe a drug test will be needed from both of you before I can begin to put together any possible theories.

[Okla-homey]

While there may be sporadic rioting and acts of violence coming, I don't think we're in store for any organized large scale insurrections.

Particularly because localities don't have the means to arm and equip a force capable of manuever and delivering indirect fires on par with the force the government has available.

Also, we don't have a generation of teen-aged men primed, willing and able to shoulder a musket and endure incredible hardship in the field in opposition to Federal forces. Instead, we have a raft of flip-flop wearing goobers who have been raised on soccer and Coldplay. The manliest of whom are already in the Armed Forces and would be shooting said goobers.

That's not to say things can't get hairy. But Civil War, a-la 1861? Nope.

I think the biggest threat regular folks would face would be general riotousness until government forces get it tamped back down. And I think that is a distinct possibility.

[Frozen Sooner]

Heh. I just had a thought of an armed brigade of SicEms scootering into battle.

[SoonerStormchaser]

Nah...they'd drive in the wrong direction getting to the battle and end up 200 miles away from their intended destination.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

You can't go into the heat of battle all liquored up on Zima!

It's unamerican!

[ndpruitt03]

I don't see the Tea Party side of things really starting any violence. So I really doubt it. I think we could see our government collapse in the next decade or so because of all the money they are spending. Eventually it'll just run out of money and become worthless.

If there is a war over the immigration deal it'll be between us and Mexico which I don't see lasting that long because Mexico is extremely inefficient at everything.

[SicEmBaylor]

Our next civil war will be our first.

[StoopTroup]

So I was talking with a friend of mine who is the least crack-pot person that I know. He's a naturalized citizen with his masters in econometrics. Smartest dude I know.

He made the statement that he thinks that the US is headed toward another Civil War, a shooting war. I, of course, thought this was hilarious, and after I got done laughing, I realized he was serious...and we got to talking about it.

His reasons are as follows:
1) Nobody (or nobody any of us know) feels like they have a voice in government, regardless of how much money you make. The guy taking my money for gas feels just as disenfranchised as me, a guy who finds himself in the highest tax bracket. My liberal friends feel fundamentally the same way; their great black hope has failed them and they're still voiceless.

2) States are starting to take matters into their own hands where the federal government has failed to do its job. The Feds aren't protecting the border, so Arizona is going to the mattresses to stauch the inflow of illegal aliens. What's are the feds doing? Stepping in and over ruling the states.

3) It wouldn't take as much to start as we think. Let's say Arizona gets fed up and decides to defy the Federal government, even going so far as to secede. The Feds wouldn't let that happen and we'd have another Fort Sumter situation.

I don't really see this as a partisan thought process. It seems to me that with few exceptions, the citizenry is unhappy with the federal government and is growing moreso; again, I see this in my conservative gun-nut friends and with my liberal tree-hugger friends.

Crazy or not?See....My deal is that when I see Veritas Talking to this guy...I see it happening kind of like this....:D

jXxZ6QcrZDw

[SunnySooner]

This is an interesting post to me. I just got off a cruise with a Jacksonville FL police officer as table mate, and he made very similar comments, adding that those folks in places like Oklahoma, who own and know how to use a weapon, will be the only ones prepared for what is coming. He said repeatedly, "People don't know, they just don't know what is coming, and it's not good." And he was sober. I don't know the future, I don't own a crystal ball, but I'm hopeful that the discontent and disgust that many in the general populace feel leads to meaningful changes and not bloodshed. We are such a YOUNG country, we're the baby of the world, we're the superpower only because of our natural resources and population. The older I get, the more I like term limits, because career politicians are not a good thing. When all that matters is re-election, they will sell their childrens' souls to secure it. And that is not what is best for this country.

[Okla-homey]

This is an interesting post to me. I just got off a cruise with a Jacksonville FL police officer as table mate, and he made very similar comments, adding that those folks in places like Oklahoma, who own and know how to use a weapon, will be the only ones prepared for what is coming. He said repeatedly, "People don't know, they just don't know what is coming, and it's not good." And he was sober. I don't know the future, I don't own a crystal ball, but I'm hopeful that the discontent and disgust that many in the general populace feel leads to meaningful changes and not bloodshed. We are such a YOUNG country, we're the baby of the world, we're the superpower only because of our natural resources and population. The older I get, the more I like term limits, because career politicians are not a good thing. When all that matters is re-election, they will sell their childrens' souls to secure it. And that is not what is best for this country.

Meanwhile, they have the goods on Charlie Rangel, age 80 something, who has been living the dream on the gubmint dime and not paying his fair share of taxes for decades, WHILE BEING HEAD OF THE HOUSE CMTE THAT MAKES TAX LAW, yet his popularity in his Harlem district is comparable to that of Fidel in 1960's Havana. Yup. This country needs an enema. And the nozzle needs to be inserted in DC. And before the apologist screeds begin, yes, I know. He's a Donk. And he's black. And I'm not. But he is not worthy to be in the Congress if this stuff is proven. Period. In fact, maybe he can be Randy Cunningham's (R-CA) roomie in the federal pen.

[SicEmBaylor]

Meanwhile, they have the goods on Charlie Rangel, age 80 something, who has been living the dream on the gubmint dime and not paying his fair share of taxes for decades, WHILE BEING HEAD OF THE HOUSE CMTE THAT MAKES TAX LAW, yet his popularity in his Harlem district is comparable to that of Fidel in 1960's Havana. Yup. This country needs an enema. And the nozzle needs to be inserted in DC. And before the apologist screeds begin, yes, I know. He's a Donk. And he's black. And I'm not. But he is not worthy to be in the Congress if this stuff is proven. Period. In fact, maybe he can be Randy Cunningham's (R-CA) roomie in the federal pen.

He came out of his ethics hearing today and tried to hide behind his Korean War service. I respect the fact that he fought for his nation, but it's pretty sleazy to hide behind that when you're clearly a crook.

[Crucifax Autumn]

This hardly counts as service anyway:

http://bloggingexperiment.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/mash-klinger.jpg

[StoopTroup]

I will be the last man standing...I have a super soaker filled with MRSA and an enviromental suit in my arsenal. ;)

hOkIU8BCxgU

[oudavid1]

Slavery was a big deal, it was the definition of states rights vs federal rights, i dont see an issue like immigration tearing the nation apart. I think its an issue we all have the same opinion (that you have to be legal) on. How many states away from the border would really care, they dont have alot of illegals in Nebraska and Ohio, they might deal with some Canadians but not like in Arizona, Texas, New Mexico, and California.

[MR2-Sooner86]

The hardware is already there.

U.S. most armed country with 90 guns per 100 people (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL2834893820070828)

Guns purchased since Obama's presidency could outfit the armies of China and India (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=96677)


We have a raft of flip-flop wearing goobers who have been raised on soccer and Coldplay. The manliest of whom are already in the Armed Forces and would be shooting said goobers.

Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of currently serving military, veterans, peace officers, and firefighters who will fulfill the oath we swore to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
We Oath Keepers have drawn a line in the sand. We will not “just follow orders.” (http://oathkeepers.org/oath/)

The real question is, when do you have a group of people that says, "**** IT!" and decides to take matters into their own hands?

[StoopTroup]

The real question is, when do you have a group of people that says, "**** IT!" and decides to take matters into their own hands?

I think that would be Arizona. At least I'd say it's a notable event if something turns things that way in a few more States...especially Border States IMHO.

[SicEmBaylor]

I don't care what the next "civil war" is over or what the sides are -- once it starts I'm putting on my gray uniform and declaring open season on any yankee I find.

[StoopTroup]

I don't care what the next "civil war" is over or what the sides are -- once it starts I'm putting on my gray uniform and declaring open season on any yankee I find.

You have made arrangements for your final wishes right? If not I think I know a guy who can help. :D

[yankee]

i feel like i might be caught between a rock and a hard place if another civil war happens.

[StoopTroup]

i feel like i might be caught between a rock and a hard place if another civil war happens.

SicEm....

I think I know who keyed your scooter Dude. :D

[Pricetag]

I think any American citizen who would pick up a weapon without getting a heckuva lot more active about politics would be committing one of the grandest copouts the planet has ever seen. Being pissed off and ranting on the Internet for a few years, all the while continuing to vote for r's or d's (when one does get out to vote), doesn't cut it.

[delhalew]

When it's all said and done can the new capital be in IOWA?
I am not going to make like of this because, just like Sunny's cop, I find myself saying "people just don't know".
It's a wierd deal because a small enough group just gets slaughtered and given the evil militia label.
I also wonder on a large scale how many of our military would be willing to gun down American Patriots.
I've been saying for years (even in my young and liberal days) that this country was headed for violent revolution. Yes, we are young, but we are on a more accelerated path than any other nation. We grow faster. We can collapse faster. It's important to regonize how many people don't recognize the country they grew up in. It's also important to take into account the flotsom and jetsom that riot when the Lakers win a championship.
We have a Molitov cocktail sitting on our coffee table.
For years I have thought of this in only some imaginable future. For the first time in my life, comfort...the one thing that has kept this at bay is erroding. If you are more worried about choosing between the 42 in.and the 50 in.flat screen you don't worry about your gub'ment. Right now you have struggling families choking on every lie. Liberals are by nature pussies, but they like to start trouble. When Joe six pack has had enough, buckle up.

[Crucifax Autumn]

Wasn't there a poll that showed the majority would fire on citizens if given the order?

[delhalew]

Wasn't there a poll that showed the majority would fire on citizens if given the order?

I don't know, but I just got hammered with a couple marines fresh from the **** that swear they wouldn't. Thing is...in the end they are marines. I'm not sure civi's mean more to them than following orders.

[GottaHavePride]

I don't know about a poll, but there have been some psychological experiments of that nature. Milgram, the Stanford Prison experiment, those sorts of things.

[StoopTroup]

I guess it's all good banter for even a classroom discussion.

Xfi4s8cjLFI

[MR2-Sooner86]

Wasn't there a poll that showed the majority would fire on citizens if given the order?

Take it however you want but I have a friend who's big time conspiracy theory guy. He believes 9/11 was carried out by the government and such. Anyway, he works at a hotel that has many soldiers come through going to Iraq, coming back, and just getting shipped around the country.

Anyway, he strikes up conversations with them and asks them if there was a new American Revolution/Civil War would they fire on U.S. citizens. He told me it was half and half. He said half said, "Well, if it's our orders by our superiors we have to." The other half said "No, if we're ordered to fire on Americans something is not right."

[Okla-homey]

Take it however you want but I have a friend who's big time conspiracy theory guy. He believes 9/11 was carried out by the government and such. Anyway, he works at a hotel that has many soldiers come through going to Iraq, coming back, and just getting shipped around the country.

Anyway, he strikes up conversations with them and asks them if there was a new American Revolution/Civil War would they fire on U.S. citizens. He told me it was half and half. He said half said, "Well, if it's our orders by our superiors we have to." The other half said "No, if we're ordered to fire on Americans something is not right."

That's fine in the abstract. But here's the thing. Guys fight for the guy standing next to them in the foxhole. I'd be willing to bet this month's pay if some hosers began shooting at US G.I.'s, those G.I.'s would light 'em up, whether those hosers were fellow Americans or not.

[OUMallen]

For the most part, we're all too comfortable and making too much money to stop it. And I don't mean we're all rich, I just mean: imagine having no income at all and living off the land. Ain't gonna happen. I'd rather pay high taxes than destroy the good thing we have going.

There's just not enough fundamental discontent? So taxes go up? Well, that blows, but it's not like when the northern states told the southern states to stop slavery, thereby destroying a pillar of their economy.

[badger]

I think a lot depends on the results of the upcoming election... either way. Then, the result of the 2012 will possibly be the nail in the coffin... under these conditions:

1- Democrats retain control in 2010, retain control in 2012 with Obama re-elected.

2- Republicans regain control in 2010 at the federal level, elect a Republican president and retain control at the federal level in 2012.

There are many, many people upset on both sides and if their voices aren't heard at elections, they are going to take to the streets in protest, protests usually lead to at least some violence, violence can potentially turn to larger protests involving more violence, etc.

The best scenario to help people feel that their country is headed somewhere positive is that both sides have a voice somehow, some way. Democrats were angry from 2000 when W. "stole" the election, till the midterm midtacular in 2006 when they at least got Congress... however, the economy was good, so no reason to get too hostile.

However, with a bad economy, people are angry and ready to take action themselves if their government doesn't partially represent them.

I don't think we're headed for Civil War part 2. However, both Dems and Republicans need to have a voice in federal government by 2012 if not 2010, or people will take action themselves, methinks.

[Ike]

I don't think we're headed for Civil War part 2. However, both Dems and Republicans need to have a voice in federal government by 2012 if not 2010, or people will take action themselves, methinks.

I also doubt we are headed for a civil war, but I disagree that both Dems and Pubs need a voice in the federal govt. Because right now both sides have painted themselves into positions that are completely untenable. They are crooks debating liars. I want a whole new conservative party that is actually maybe a little bit fiscally conservative. That isn't married to the supply-side economics fairy tale. I want a whole new liberal party that believes in spending money wisely instead of throwing it all out there willy nilly to their friends. I'd like a moderate party that realizes that there is a time to tax, a time to spend, and times to cut taxes and times to cut spending, and is willing to say that "right now, the times dictate that X is the right way to go"

Right now we simply only have A) a republican party that believes only in tax cuts, and can't really figure out how to cut spending (without *gasp* blowing their chances for reelection). and B) a democratic party that believes only in spending and can't really figure out how to get the money to spend (without *gasp* blowing their chances for reelection). and C) we have "moderates" that do nothing but stick their finger in the air and try to find the midpoint between the two poles. This is a recipe for disaster.

[badger]

let me clarify - everyone needs to think they have a voice in House/Senate/Oval Office, which usually means both Republicans and Democrats have positions of importance (i.e. the majority) in one of them... but not always :D

[GottaHavePride]

Anyway, he strikes up conversations with them and asks them if there was a new American Revolution/Civil War would they fire on U.S. citizens. He told me it was half and half. He said half said, "Well, if it's our orders by our superiors we have to." The other half said "No, if we're ordered to fire on Americans something is not right."


OK, seriously, it doesn't matter what they SAY. Read up on the Milgram experiment. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment)

The results are basically that - despite one of the actors pounding on a wall and screaming in pain - most people will still hit a button that "kills" them when the other actor tells them "You have no choice, you must continue".

The Stanford prison experiment is equally creepy - normal people turn into a complete Lord of the Flies situation in under 5 days.

[picasso]

You just wait until the rednecks get a hold of some nukes!

[Tailwind]

Well, this was certainly a depressing thread.

[MR2-Sooner86]

OK, seriously, it doesn't matter what they SAY.

Yeah it does. Don't trust that study to be 100% fact on what everybody would do. It's a nice study but you're painting everybody to be a mindless drone during this situation when neither you, me, or anybody else really knows.

For example in one variation to his experiment Milgram altered the location to a run-down office building in downtown Bridgeport, Connecticut. In this setting the obedience rate was 47.5%, suggesting that the original location had played some part, but it was not a crucial factor

Milgram was therefore arguing that an important factor influencing behaviour is the situation a person is in. (http://www.holah.karoo.net/milgramstudy.htm)

Anyway, a little off subject but it goes with this, what would happen if China were to call in our debt and the government goes into everybody's savings and grabs it to pay it off?

[olevetonahill]

I dont see any Armed revolt by the populace. Just aint gonna happen. As has been mentioned several times . The Gov. has us way out gunned and out classed. Id have a very hard time firing on members of our military, no matter what the provocation.

I do see Change coming, but its gonna be more thru things like This guy advocated ;)

http://www.accountingweb.com/files/siftmedia-accountingwebus/images/ghandi9.jpg

[royalfan5]

Yeah it does. Don't trust that study to be 100% fact on what everybody would do. It's a nice study but you're painting everybody to be a mindless drone during this situation when neither you, me, or anybody else really knows.

For example in one variation to his experiment Milgram altered the location to a run-down office building in downtown Bridgeport, Connecticut. In this setting the obedience rate was 47.5%, suggesting that the original location had played some part, but it was not a crucial factor

Milgram was therefore arguing that an important factor influencing behaviour is the situation a person is in. (http://www.holah.karoo.net/milgramstudy.htm)

Anyway, a little off subject but it goes with this, what would happen if China were to call in our debt and the government goes into everybody's savings and grabs it to pay it off?

As long as China needs massive amounts of food stuffs from us, I don't see them try to call anything.

[Ike]

Anyway, a little off subject but it goes with this, what would happen if China were to call in our debt and the government goes into everybody's savings and grabs it to pay it off?

Since most of china's holdings of our debt is in the form Treasuries or dollar denominated tradeable assets (Mortgate backed securities...thats right, china probably loaned you at leas some of the money used to buy your house), they can't really "call in our debt." They can sell it off, which would cause a massive devaluing of those kinds of assets, and be painful that way...but thats about it.

But China doesn't want to do that. If they did that, then their currency would appreciate much faster than they want it to, and it would erase much of the advantage they have over developed and developing countries for manufacturing and exports.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

We kick China's ***.

End of discussion.

[yankee]

i have a question...why the hell would there be a civil war? who would be on each side? there's got to be at least two sides, ya know. what, is obama going to order troops to invade arizona? is new mexico going to align themselves and fight against the government? the troops stationed in those states, who would they take orders from and which side would they fight for? it's ludicrous to even think that there would be a civil war coming.

[Pricetag]

Yep, it infuriates me to think that some folks would give up so easily, but in the end, it's just talk. This isn't civil unrest--it's pissing and moaning.

[ndpruitt03]

Who is going to start a civil war?

The roughly 10% of the people that are in unions? They are the most violent. But they take up far too few to really make a dent anywhere.

The Tea Party is a much bigger majority and there's yet to be violence there. The most violent they've been is yelling at congressmen to kill the bill and spitting. Some people have said that one of them said the N word. Which hasn't been proven, but do you really see a military force coming from the tea party?

Illegal immigrants? You really think they have the means to do anything? If we put a solid force at our borders right now, that would end all the drug trade going on that is a serious problem at the border right now. If you really think anyone on the border can put up a viable defense against us then you don't think much in our forces.

[C&CDean]

If there is ever a "civil" war in this country it won't be us vs. the gov. It'll be us vs. the muslims. I couldn't fire on a military person. I wouldn't hesitate to fire on a murdering **********.

[Chuck Bao]

If there is ever a "civil" war in this country it won't be us vs. the gov. It'll be us vs. the muslims. I couldn't fire on a military person. I wouldn't hesitate to fire on a murdering **********.

That's like saying that it will never happen. There is no way that muslims will ever get much of a foothold in this country.

I had this discussion with my former colleague, a Jew from Minnesota and the smartest guy I know. My opinion that there was a 10% chance that the US would split up in the next 50 years. He thought the odds were less than 1%. He lived in the US more recently than I have but he lived in Minnesota and is a Vikings fan and I'm not sure how that counts in the grand scheme of things but it means something. Celebrated losing cause, cough, hack, spit.

But that is my sentiments, exactly. Sic'em wants to celebrate a losing cause some 150 years ago for maybe all the wrong reasons. Currently, there are people really angry and maybe for all of the right reasons in a bad economy.

Still, the idea of American troops firing on Americans is just frightening as hell and I have lived and survived that in Thailand and that is not what anyone should want. I know.

I also agree with those who have said that conventional warfare is out of the question. The fire power is just too overwhelming, obviously. The fantasy of stocking up on guns and ammunition is just that – a fantasy. A rebel force would only survive as a guerrilla force. And, the ends of that doesn’t justify the means. They risk losing local support and this has been proven with the Red Shirts in Thailand.

Maybe my Viking fan friend is right - less than 1% - and I also got to say that he's not a real Viking.

[Jacie]

I think we could see our government collapse in the next decade or so because of all the money they are spending. Eventually it'll just run out of money and become worthless.

Isn't this how Reagan caused the collapse of the Soviet Union? He won the Cold War by bankrupting them, forcing them to spend more money than they had in the attempt to keep up with U.S. military spending (including chasing the dream of Star Wars-type technology . . . something both sides poured billions into before deciding it couldn't be done).

[Okla-homey]

Isn't this how Reagan caused the collapse of the Soviet Union? He won the Cold War by bankrupting them, forcing them to spend more money than they had in the attempt to keep up with U.S. military spending (including chasing the dream of Star Wars-type technology . . . something both sides poured billions into before deciding it couldn't be done).

IMHO, the development of stealth aircraft and the Soviets' recognition of their inability to defend against same did more to put the old USSR on the ropes than their chasing elusive ABM technology.

[StoopTroup]

I also agree with those who have said that conventional warfare is out of the question. The fire power is just too overwhelming, obviously. The fantasy of stocking up on guns and ammunition is just that – a fantasy. A rebel force would only survive as a guerrilla force. And, the ends of that doesn’t justify the means. They risk losing local support and this has been proven with the Red Shirts in Thailand.


One thing I know is that Americans were out gunned by British Forces and Minutemen kicked their asses back to their little Island in Europe. If you want something bad enough...people will die for it and overcome all odds.

Now...here's where I think it gets dicey.

The Americans in the year prior to the US being a Country of Free men wanted it pretty bad. Many died for it. They got what they wanted and we have become the Greatest Superpower the World has ever seen. Ever. Some Americans have gotten lazy and others are parts of militias....but I think the biggest difference between us and the Red Shirts is this.....

We are brutal. Our society has become more politically correct but the fact remains the same that we are brutal. When we get pissed off enough and angry enough...the "Sleeping Giant" in our Country will empty the halls of Congress and States will send new representatives back to DC before the **** really goes down. This is just my thought on it all.

[StoopTroup]

OK, seriously, it doesn't matter what they SAY. Read up on the Milgram experiment. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment)

The results are basically that - despite one of the actors pounding on a wall and screaming in pain - most people will still hit a button that "kills" them when the other actor tells them "You have no choice, you must continue".

The Stanford prison experiment is equally creepy - normal people turn into a complete Lord of the Flies situation in under 5 days.

Again...as I have said....Americans are brutal. There is a reason we are the Superpower and that when we get our War Machine rolling....We scare the ever living **** out of people.

[Scott D]

It's almost cute when Nick posts in these threads.

[StoopTroup]

Who is going to start a civil war?

The roughly 10% of the people that are in unions? They are the most violent. But they take up far too few to really make a dent anywhere.



He does know how to really make a person feel good about himself. :D

These guys look pretty dangerous.

http://www.goiam.org/uploadedImages/TCUnion/Spotlight_on_Locals_and_Members/Goodyear%20Walt%20Angell.JPG

The funniest thing is that if Nick were to talk with some of them...he might find out that many of them have been to Tea Party events.

[SicEmBaylor]

He does know how to really make a person feel good about himself. :D

These guys look pretty dangerous.

http://www.goiam.org/uploadedImages/TCUnion/Spotlight_on_Locals_and_Members/Goodyear%20Walt%20Angell.JPG

The funniest thing is that if Nick were to talk with some of them...he might find out that many of them have been to Tea Party events.

Conservatives need to jump off the NAFTA/CAFTA bandwagon and repeal that legislation. Free-Trade is destroying a lot of what conservatives are, theoretically, supposed to be preserving. I don't mind joining with labor unions when we share the same goals.

[StoopTroup]

Same here Sicem. I thought what Steve Largent helped Zebco do was pretty awful. These days Zebco has had to bring back their Quality Reels and accessories as the junk they were selling was just sitting on the shelves. What you see now is a resurgence of Zebco now in the higher market places.

Harley Davidson...another success. Those guys helped a resurgence in the market too. It's documented and until Management at HD made dealerships take on more stock on their showrooms as the demand for Hogs re-adjusted....layoffs occurred once again due to mismanagement. Sending your stuff Overseas might make short term profits but if you want to continue to be an Iconic Brand Name in America...you better think twice before you try to sell yourself to the devil for an account in the Cayman Islands.

[Chuck Bao]

I certainly am not opposed to competitive efficiency and free trade. But as Corporate America continues to debase its own major market by sending jobs overseas, there will eventually be that "oh snap" point. Legislation is wrong and stupid. The onus is on the US consumer, who is the real power in the equation. Buy American produced products, people. It is that simple.

[ndpruitt03]

I certainly am not opposed to competitive efficiency and free trade. But as Corporate America continues to debase its own major market by sending jobs overseas, there will eventually be that "oh snap" point. Legislation is wrong and stupid. The onus is on the US consumer, who is the real power in the equation. Buy American produced products, people. It is that simple.

Yep government legislating market doesn't=free market.

[Half a Hundred]

IMHO, the development of stealth aircraft and the Soviets' recognition of their inability to defend against same did more to put the old USSR on the ropes than their chasing elusive ABM technology.

I think the biggest factor is when the US intelligence establishment figured out that the Soviets were deathly afraid of an American first strike. The key event for this was the attack on Korean Air Lines Flight 007. In the ensuing phone conversations, the Russians made very clear that they believed that the 747 had been an American radar plane sent in to probe Soviet air defense, (Naval exercises going on nearby) and that they were terrified of the possibility of nuclear war. Suddenly, we realized that we had our paradigm completely wrong: the Soviets weren't trying to aggressively spread influence around the world. This runs counter to Russian cultural thought. Instead, they were trying to establish as large and effective of a defensive perimeter as they possibly could.

Reagan's biggest diplomatic coup wasn't the weapons buildup (which was actually Carter's baby), but realizing that relations with the Soviets would thaw as soon as we gave them assurance that we would never launch a first strike against the USSR. So we have Reykjavik and the signing of the START treaties, and at that point, the Cold War has effectively ended. The Warsaw Pact starts to make less sense politically when there's little risk of American troops rolling across Ukraine (which of course would have never happened, but that's not the Russian mindset for you).

However, the military bureaucracy has two problems with this - first, they liked the cash that had been flowing their way. Second, nothing Reagan said would ever convince them that the US wasn't planning on nuking Moscow the first second they dropped their guard. Fear sells well, and so the establishment was able to split the Politburo.

Finally, we have the most important event that no one talks about, though it should be blindingly obvious to Oklahomans - the late 1980s oil bust. The USSR had been leaning heavily on its oil exports for keeping the economy afloat, and it's no coincidence that its perceived heights in power came when oil prices were exceptionally high. Well, when the prices crashed down to $10/bbl at the end of the '80s, the Soviets ran out of cash really damn quickly - and without support from Moscow, the satellite countries couldn't keep themselves together. The Red Army didn't intervene because of a change in mindset; they couldn't afford it.

Combine all these elements, and you get the nasty quagmire that was the collapse of the Soviet Union.

[Eielson]

Isn't this how Reagan caused the collapse of the Soviet Union? He won the Cold War by bankrupting them, forcing them to spend more money than they had in the attempt to keep up with U.S. military spending (including chasing the dream of Star Wars-type technology . . . something both sides poured billions into before deciding it couldn't be done).

Why are we still ridiculing that idea even after the navy shot down a satellite in space?