If the Red states seceeded

[RandomPoster]

Let's say that in the U.S., the rural Midwest along with a chunk of the rural South and Alaska seceded form the Union. Let's say the rural Midwest plus the Dakotas all the way down to the Gulf of Mexico (including Texas) plus Alaska. They're not trying to overthrow the existing government of the U.S. and dictate life to the remaining part of the country, simply trying to leave and start their own government. Now, their reasons for doing so have nothing to do with anything anywhere near as morally reprehensible as slavery. Let's say it actually IS economic reasons that caused this situation in this particular case.

If you were President of the U.S., would you send in the tanks, the infantry, and the planes to carpet bomb cities like Minneapolis MN and Lincoln NE to the ground and basically kill enough of them to the point where they agree to come back against their will in chains and vow to be part of your nation again as long as you promise to stop killing them and their families?

I would suggest a non-violent alternative. We could use economic sanctions to prevent them from trading with anyone. That's right, no goods in or out of the their country. We would starve them out. They would come back before their families died and beg to become part of the Union again. They would have only an isolated geographical region. There are certain crops such as olives, coconuts, and pineapples that they simply cannot grow in sufficient numbers. I would use their lack of sufficient agricultural diversity to make them understand why we need each other.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Weeeeeeeee

 

[ScienceRocks]

America would be far better off without these deadbeat states.

-They are the real takers
-They hold America back
-They're third world

 

[frigidweirdo]

Let's say that in the U.S., the rural Midwest along with a chunk of the rural South and Alaska seceded form the Union. Let's say the rural Midwest plus the Dakotas all the way down to the Gulf of Mexico (including Texas) plus Alaska. They're not trying to overthrow the existing government of the U.S. and dictate life to the remaining part of the country, simply trying to leave and start their own government. Now, their reasons for doing so have nothing to do with anything anywhere near as morally reprehensible as slavery. Let's say it actually IS economic reasons that caused this situation in this particular case.

If you were President of the U.S., would you send in the tanks, the infantry, and the planes to carpet bomb cities like Minneapolis MN and Lincoln NE to the ground and basically kill enough of them to the point where they agree to come back against their will in chains and vow to be part of your nation again as long as you promise to stop killing them and their families?

I would suggest a non-violent alternative. We could use economic sanctions to prevent them from trading with anyone. That's right, no goods in or out of the their country. We would starve them out. They would come back before their families died and beg to become part of the Union again. They would have only an isolated geographical region. There are certain crops such as olives, coconuts, and pineapples that they simply cannot grow in sufficient numbers. I would use their lack of sufficient agricultural diversity to make them understand why we need each other.

If the seceded, why would want them back?

 

[RandomPoster]

If the seceded, why would want them back?[/QUOTE]

We are all one big village. Even the un-diversified rednecks contribute to our diversity.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Let me get this straight...

You think you're going too starve out the breadbasket of the United States which also includes a manufacturing base for military weapons and other machines. Along with oil reserves and most the windmills for power generation. Then there'll be lots of left over corn and soybeans to make fuel when the heavily populated sections of the country put economic sanctions on the breadbasket sections and refuses trade for the food they require.

Have I missed anything here?

Hey! Good luck with that...

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Political Junky]

The US would be far better off.

 

[frigidweirdo]

If the seceded, why would want them back?

We are all one big village. Even the un-diversified rednecks contribute to our diversity.[/QUOTE]

Yes, but then so are the Mexicans, the illegals, etc. You can choose your village, you can choose the make up of your village. If they seceded then they're not part of the village, they left.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Let's say that in the U.S., the rural Midwest along with a chunk of the rural South and Alaska seceded form the Union. Let's say the rural Midwest plus the Dakotas all the way down to the Gulf of Mexico (including Texas) plus Alaska. They're not trying to overthrow the existing government of the U.S. and dictate life to the remaining part of the country, simply trying to leave and start their own government. Now, their reasons for doing so have nothing to do with anything anywhere near as morally reprehensible as slavery. Let's say it actually IS economic reasons that caused this situation in this particular case.

If you were President of the U.S., would you send in the tanks, the infantry, and the planes to carpet bomb cities like Minneapolis MN and Lincoln NE to the ground and basically kill enough of them to the point where they agree to come back against their will in chains and vow to be part of your nation again as long as you promise to stop killing them and their families?

I would suggest a non-violent alternative. We could use economic sanctions to prevent them from trading with anyone. That's right, no goods in or out of the their country. We would starve them out. They would come back before their families died and beg to become part of the Union again. They would have only an isolated geographical region. There are certain crops such as olives, coconuts, and pineapples that they simply cannot grow in sufficient numbers. I would use their lack of sufficient agricultural diversity to make them understand why we need each other.

Yeah. And we'll starve you fuckers out of energy...AND food supply. And, we get to keep all the goodies here in Texas with which to destroy your punk asses, including three of the largest military aircraft manufacturers. Go ahead and try to starve us. Please. Try your hardest. When that goes over like a fart at a funeral, you can try the military option.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

We are all one big village. Even the un-diversified rednecks contribute to our diversity.

So do the murdering black inner-city thugs.

 

[RandomPoster]

You're not grasping that it takes agricultural DIVERSITY to feed your people. The Midwest lacks that. They can't grow olives, coconuts, and many other types of plants in sufficient numbers.

 

[cnelsen]

If the seceded, why would want them back?

We are all one big village. Even the un-diversified rednecks contribute to our diversity.[/QUOTE]
"un-diversified rednecks" you mean "Americans"?

 

[Missourian]

You're not grasping that it takes agricultural DIVERSITY to feed your people. The Midwest lacks that. They can't grow olives, coconuts, and many other types of plants in sufficient numbers.

We can live without olives bananas and coconuts a lot longer than you can live without soybeans wheat sugar chicken pork beef and corn.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Let's say that in the U.S., the rural Midwest along with a chunk of the rural South and Alaska seceded form the Union. Let's say the rural Midwest plus the Dakotas all the way down to the Gulf of Mexico (including Texas) plus Alaska. They're not trying to overthrow the existing government of the U.S. and dictate life to the remaining part of the country, simply trying to leave and start their own government. Now, their reasons for doing so have nothing to do with anything anywhere near as morally reprehensible as slavery. Let's say it actually IS economic reasons that caused this situation in this particular case.

If you were President of the U.S., would you send in the tanks, the infantry, and the planes to carpet bomb cities like Minneapolis MN and Lincoln NE to the ground and basically kill enough of them to the point where they agree to come back against their will in chains and vow to be part of your nation again as long as you promise to stop killing them and their families?

I would suggest a non-violent alternative. We could use economic sanctions to prevent them from trading with anyone. That's right, no goods in or out of the their country. We would starve them out. They would come back before their families died and beg to become part of the Union again. They would have only an isolated geographical region. There are certain crops such as olives, coconuts, and pineapples that they simply cannot grow in sufficient numbers. I would use their lack of sufficient agricultural diversity to make them understand why we need each other.

Yeah. And we'll starve you fuckers out of energy...AND food supply. And, we get to keep all the goodies here in Texas with which to destroy your punk asses, including three of the largest military aircraft manufacturers. Go ahead and try to starve us. Please. Try your hardest. When that goes over like a fart at a funeral, you can try the military option.

The problem with the latter is that Americans can move anywhere in America. Those who control the aircraft manufacturers might be forced to move back to the USA. It would all depend, I guess. It could force a lot of people to leave the South and Midwest and go elsewhere.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Actually America would be a third world country without the Republicans.
The Democratic Party is going third world on a rocket sled.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Actually America would be a third world country without the Republicans.
The Democratic Party is going third world on a rocket sled.

It'd have the queen as head of state without the left.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Let's say that in the U.S., the rural Midwest along with a chunk of the rural South and Alaska seceded form the Union. Let's say the rural Midwest plus the Dakotas all the way down to the Gulf of Mexico (including Texas) plus Alaska. They're not trying to overthrow the existing government of the U.S. and dictate life to the remaining part of the country, simply trying to leave and start their own government. Now, their reasons for doing so have nothing to do with anything anywhere near as morally reprehensible as slavery. Let's say it actually IS economic reasons that caused this situation in this particular case.

If you were President of the U.S., would you send in the tanks, the infantry, and the planes to carpet bomb cities like Minneapolis MN and Lincoln NE to the ground and basically kill enough of them to the point where they agree to come back against their will in chains and vow to be part of your nation again as long as you promise to stop killing them and their families?

I would suggest a non-violent alternative. We could use economic sanctions to prevent them from trading with anyone. That's right, no goods in or out of the their country. We would starve them out. They would come back before their families died and beg to become part of the Union again. They would have only an isolated geographical region. There are certain crops such as olives, coconuts, and pineapples that they simply cannot grow in sufficient numbers. I would use their lack of sufficient agricultural diversity to make them understand why we need each other.

--LOL idiot

good luck with that without the midwest and the dakotas

you would soon be like the folks of Venezuela robbing zoos and petting zoos for food

--LOL

 

[Two Thumbs]

Let's say that in the U.S., the rural Midwest along with a chunk of the rural South and Alaska seceded form the Union. Let's say the rural Midwest plus the Dakotas all the way down to the Gulf of Mexico (including Texas) plus Alaska. They're not trying to overthrow the existing government of the U.S. and dictate life to the remaining part of the country, simply trying to leave and start their own government. Now, their reasons for doing so have nothing to do with anything anywhere near as morally reprehensible as slavery. Let's say it actually IS economic reasons that caused this situation in this particular case.

If you were President of the U.S., would you send in the tanks, the infantry, and the planes to carpet bomb cities like Minneapolis MN and Lincoln NE to the ground and basically kill enough of them to the point where they agree to come back against their will in chains and vow to be part of your nation again as long as you promise to stop killing them and their families?

I would suggest a non-violent alternative. We could use economic sanctions to prevent them from trading with anyone. That's right, no goods in or out of the their country. We would starve them out. They would come back before their families died and beg to become part of the Union again. They would have only an isolated geographical region. There are certain crops such as olives, coconuts, and pineapples that they simply cannot grow in sufficient numbers. I would use their lack of sufficient agricultural diversity to make them understand why we need each other.

Boy, the items in bold are like that so everyone else knows why I'm calling you boy.

 

[Two Thumbs]

America would be far better off without these deadbeat states.

-They are the real takers
-They hold America back
-They're third world

You'd starve to fucking death w/o the Midwest and south.

fucking leftists are so goddamn dumb it's shocking

 

[bripat9643]

Let's say that in the U.S., the rural Midwest along with a chunk of the rural South and Alaska seceded form the Union. Let's say the rural Midwest plus the Dakotas all the way down to the Gulf of Mexico (including Texas) plus Alaska. They're not trying to overthrow the existing government of the U.S. and dictate life to the remaining part of the country, simply trying to leave and start their own government. Now, their reasons for doing so have nothing to do with anything anywhere near as morally reprehensible as slavery. Let's say it actually IS economic reasons that caused this situation in this particular case.

If you were President of the U.S., would you send in the tanks, the infantry, and the planes to carpet bomb cities like Minneapolis MN and Lincoln NE to the ground and basically kill enough of them to the point where they agree to come back against their will in chains and vow to be part of your nation again as long as you promise to stop killing them and their families?

I would suggest a non-violent alternative. We could use economic sanctions to prevent them from trading with anyone. That's right, no goods in or out of the their country. We would starve them out. They would come back before their families died and beg to become part of the Union again. They would have only an isolated geographical region. There are certain crops such as olives, coconuts, and pineapples that they simply cannot grow in sufficient numbers. I would use their lack of sufficient agricultural diversity to make them understand why we need each other.

How is that "non-violent?" You are talking about imposing an embargo. That means using the military to prevent the seceding states from trading with third parties. That's an act of war.