Would people move to Texas if it were an independent nation? (Roma: health insurance, month-to-month)

[getmeoutofhere]

Originally Posted by denison

what right did america have to secede from England? you don't need a right to secede, you just have to be successful at it. victors write history after all.

If america collapses the larger states will just regroup and go their separate ways. similar to the soviet union. all empires collapse, that just a fact of history. the only debatable issue is when. Texas is very independent already and would do fine as their own country.

We are not an empire by definition, though. And the United States is the most successful political experiment in history.

And your comparison to the Soviet Union is ridiculous, as the only similarities between the USA and USSR is the fact that both were / are nations.

Sociologically, politically, and economically, they have nothing in common.

[theloneranger]

Originally Posted by denison

Good for you. You just turned a non-violent secession into a "Civil War: The Redux". If the US collapses(like the Soviet Union did) it won't have the manpower or the willpower to force Texas to stay. Right now it looks like the US collapse will mirror the Soviets, big empire just don't last forever.

Smaller nations are more secure and stable.

No secession from the United States would ever be non-violent...

like I said, the federal government is not just going to go ahead and let a large part of its economy, a large part of its military manpower, and a large number of nuclear weapons just up and leave without doing something about it.

Most also forget that it's not like most of the troops at Fort Hood would stay should we secede. They have an oath to the United States, not to Texas, and most aren't from Texas to begin with.

But should any Texan have the delusion to try to seperate our great state from the United States, and actively start a movement which actually attempts to do this, I have no qualms about putting a bullet between his eyes, because he is a traitor and I know I will be vindicated in the eyes of the United States, Texas, and the Supreme Arbiter of the Destinies of Nations.

[galore]

Originally Posted by denison

Good for you. You just turned a non-violent secession into a "Civil War: The Redux".

Actually, if there are people who would defend the integrity of the USA to begin with (= the status quo), then there by definition is no non-violent secession (besides as an illusion in the head of secessionists).

[aceplace]

Originally Posted by theloneranger

No secession from the United States would ever be non-violent...

like I said, the federal government is not just going to go ahead and let a large part of its economy, a large part of its military manpower, and a large number of nuclear weapons just up and leave without doing something about it.

Most also forget that it's not like most of the troops at Fort Hood would stay should we secede. They have an oath to the United States, not to Texas, and most aren't from Texas to begin with.

But should any Texan have the delusion to try to seperate our great state from the United States, and actively start a movement which actually attempts to do this, I have no qualms about putting a bullet between his eyes, because he is a traitor and I know I will be vindicated in the eyes of the United States, Texas, and the Supreme Arbiter of the Destinies of Nations.

You have some strong feelings about this, LoneRanger.

If, say, Scotland changed its mind about membership in the UK and wanted to be an independent national government, and was pretty persistent about it, eventually the UK government would bow to the inevitable and let her go.

When Czechoslovakia split into Chechnya and Slovakia, they pretty much negotiated the terms of separation among themselves, including the division of military hardware. The same thing happened when Norway and Sweden had a peaceful, negotiated divorce.

India split from the UK, Canada and Australia became independent states, they simply devolved into members of a voluntary union called the ""British Commonwealth". The USSR member states after their split retained membership in what is called the CIS. Perhaps the sovereign governments that succeed a breakup of the United States would create a sort of Neo-American union, so they could retain their American identity, but not participate in the United States, as such. The United States as a polity might not even survive.

What I'm talking about is strictly a hypothetical... there is no reason to believe that Texas or California is even marginally interested in going it alone at this point... but I like toying with the idea of whether such a split, if it hypothetically occurred, would be advantageous for Texas. We could call it "The Texan State of America".

[mm4]

Originally Posted by getmeoutofhere

We are not an empire by definition, though. And the United States is the most successful political experiment in history.

And your comparison to the Soviet Union is ridiculous, as the only similarities between the USA and USSR is the fact that both were / are nations.

Sociologically, politically, and economically, they have nothing in common.

We are actually the very definition of an empire.

[aceplace]

There is another possibility. The territory of Texas would separate, but the State of Texas would retain its identity as one of the United States of America.

How would that be possible?

The United States would just set up a sort of state government in exile, just as the British housed governments-in-exile for Poland, France and Belgium during the Second World War.

Also, When Chiang-Kai-Chek was run out of the Chinese mainland by Mao-tse-tung's Communists, and escaped to Taiwan in the late 1940's, he maintained governments-in-exile for the mainland provinces of China, thus preserving the legal fiction that he was the leader of all of China, not just Taiwan. It was a sweet deal for him, because the "governments" of the lost provinces would automatically outvote the representatives for Taiwan in the national assembly. If the Democrats or Republicans could just arbitrarily install 2 senators and 28 representatives for the Texas state government-in-exile, and just direct their votes as they wished, they'd like that.

There's a possibility that the US military would weigh in on the side of an independent Texas. Washington politicians would bend over backwards to avoid the possibility of a military coup, followed by their compulsory membership in prison camps in Alaska.

Or... if President Obama does manage to get the inmates out of Guantanamo, that would free up a lot of room.

Things like that happen when your country loses a war, badly, but not too badly. The scenario would be a defeat for the USA something like the German-Austrian defeat of Russia in the First World War, followed by revolution, followed by either civil war (as happened in Russia), or by the installation of an extremist government comparable to the Bolsheviks in Russia or the Nazis in Germany, followed by a territorial breakup (as also happened with many of the pieces of the Russian empire).

[getmeoutofhere]

Originally Posted by mm4

We are actually the very definition of an empire.

Not really.



em⋅pire

  /ˈɛmpaɪər; for 8–10 also ɒmˈpɪər/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [em-pahyuhr; for 8–10 also om-peer] Show IPA Use empire in a Sentence

–noun 1. a group of nations or peoples ruled over by an emperor, empress, or other powerful sovereign or government: usually a territory of greater extent than a kingdom, as the former British Empire, French Empire, Russian Empire, Byzantine Empire, or Roman Empire. 2. a government under an emperor or empress.

[Huckleberry3911948]

i will be a returning patriot. my bags are on the curb and waiting.

[chad.roper]

Mexico is a 3rd world country. If Texas had nuclear weapons, ICBM's, cruise missiles, a navy and airforce they could turn mexico city into a burned out cinder.

[rosscountry]

Originally Posted by aceplace

Texas as a nation can split itself into separate regions, each with a unique set of laws and community standards. The Texas national government could have a limited role, such as operating the TFBI, the Texas Post Office, printing money, waging war, etc.

sounds like the beginning of the Israeli - Palestinian division to me

splitting groups into different regions will surely end with one group having an advantage..

We will become a 3rd world country in no time.