Quote: Original post by Programmer One
There is a big difference between a bunch of gun wielding cowboys vs. a well trained military force. We're not living colonial days anymore.

Really? How does that explain all those Soldiers/Security contractors/Police getting slaughtered in Iraq/Afghanistan?

Quote: Original post by curtmax_0
@Church:

I agree. If Texas did succeed it could quickly make up for deficits from no federal grants. Texas has a TON of oil and also a good high-tech sector. It's a huge state. You should try driving from one side to the other some time ;) You'd also have a ton of people migrating to Texas, and it'd become a huge place for 'crazy right wing people'.

Sure, they have oil, but depending on the context of the secession and the animosity between the new Texan state and the United States I imagine much of the industry in Texas, including the high-tech sector you mentioned, might leave in order to remain in the United States. Texas would depend on it's trade with the United States, and if the US wasn't keen on that, they'd be screwed.

Quote: Original post by ChurchSkiz
I would ask what the country provides to Texas that it is an incentive to stay in the union?

Collective power. The United States is a superpower, and can play on world stage as such. The Republic of Texas would be just another bit player, sandwiched between Tanzania and Thailand on the roll call at all the world's shindigs. With the uberpowerful Dis-United States to their north and the now more-powerful-than-them Mexico to the south, they might find international politics a bit more than they bargained for.

Quote: Original post by curtmax_0

Quote: Original post by Programmer One
There is a big difference between a bunch of gun wielding cowboys vs. a well trained military force. We're not living colonial days anymore.

Really? How does that explain all those Soldiers/Security contractors/Police getting slaughtered in Iraq/Afghanistan?

Huh. Really. You mean that staggering ~4.9K US deaths (e.g. the military machine) vs. the ~99K Iraqi deaths (e.g. the gun wielding cowboys)? Who is slaughtering who, exactly? Take a moment to think before you type.

Did someone mention a

">tea-bagging party???

I know how many deaths there are. 4.5k is pretty damned good for a bunch of gun-toting rednecks when you consider the assets the US Military has.

I'd also be willing to bet that the cost of the US soldiers killed (in terms of training, equipment, etc) is more than the 100k enemies killed.

Quote: Original post by curtmax_0

Quote: Original post by brent_w
Oh, Glen Beck isn't just a little weird.

At present, the man is a whole bag of fries sort of a happy meal.
I am quite sure he is well on his way to completely loosing it.

I haven't seen his show for about a year. Maybe I'll watch it sometime and see how much more of a nutter he's become. But honestly who cares? If you don't like the show don't watch it.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Here's a list of Weapons Possessed by the Branch Davidians. You may not find that report credible. It doesn't matter. Koresh and his followers were a bunch of whack jobs whose paranoia got them killed. Jim Jones in West Texas. Suicide by ATF.

Hmmm. First of all. The number of weapons and amount of ammunition recovered is irrelevant. There is no 'maximum' number of weapons you are allowed to own in the US. I'm 21 and already own 20+. I guess I have an 'arsenal' and I 'stockpile' ammunition.

Secondly.. the 'grenades' appeared to inert (Hey.. I own an inert grenade... I bought it from a military museum or something when I was a kid), or were practice grenades. Now, the practice grenades might still be illegal, but not necessarily the same as a real grenade.

About the only thing that seems illegal is the suppressors found, although I wouldn't be surprised if they just found pipes and called them suppressors, or they were mock suppressors. Also, the weapons converted to 'full-auto' supposedly. It looks like the FBI tested them, which is strange because the ATF normally does that. The ATF has no standardized test for firearms though. They will rig up a firearm with new parts, and get it to fire two shots with one trigger pull before the firearm explodes and call it a 'machine-gun'. Hell, a shoestring can be a machine gun according the ATF.

Ultimately though, these people died for a tax violation. The ATF was part of the Dept. of Treasury until recently. Just make sure you pay your taxes... or you might get a tank rolling over your house.

I think its more accurate to say that ultimately they died because they resisted a lawful warrant. The fact that a group claims its sitting on a bunch of allegedly legal weapons doesn't mean they get resist arrest by hunkering down and shooting at federal officers. Really, I dont know what one could reasonably expect the government to do, after you shoot a bunch of them up for executing a search warrant. Far from these guys being martyrs to any particular anti government cause, they were really just a bunch of loons with no common sense. Lessbread is right on the money on this one, suicide by ATF

As for the speech by the Texas governor, I think its good comedy. I dont think its at all a practical suggestion though, even if one granted for a moment that they'd face no legal or military hurdles in the endevour. Its easy to say that they could just raise a bunch of money by taxing prostitution and drugs, but I seriously doubt that one could support a modern state on such things. How would you do visas with the United States? Would anyone still be on board if they found out they couldn't go visit family in the rest of the US? What about tarrifs? Are you sure the US is going to be generous enough to allow free trade with Texas after a messy break up? One could go on indefinitely in this vein, but just those problems along should give pause for thought.

[Edited by - laeuchli on April 16, 2009 9:30:56 PM]

Quote: Original post by curtmax_0
I know how many deaths there are. 4.5k is pretty damned good for a bunch of gun-toting rednecks when you consider the assets the US Military has.

I'd also be willing to bet that the cost of the US soldiers killed (in terms of training, equipment, etc) is more than the 100k enemies killed.

Let me remind you what was being talked about:

Quote: Original post by curtmax_0

Quote: Original post by Programmer One
There is a big difference between a bunch of gun wielding cowboys vs. a well trained military force. We're not living colonial days anymore.

Really? How does that explain all those Soldiers/Security contractors/Police getting slaughtered in Iraq/Afghanistan?

Those gun-toting rednecks you talk about are soldiers. In other words, they have military training - something most Texans don't have. In other words, you have ADD.

Huh? My point is you don't need military training to do respectable damage.. especially to an occupying force.

Also, I don't disagree that the davidians broke the law, or that it was death by ATF. There is a little more to it though:

- They were killed for tax violations. That would be like the IRS bombing your house for not filing your taxes

- They didn't just 'serve a warrant'. They showed up with an army and went up to the door as JBTs. Anyone with a peabrain could figure out that's probably not the best idea for first-contact with an insane wackjob spouting prophecies that you will do exactly that. It's also never been proved who shot the first shot, one way or another. There was obviously some amount of CYA that the ATF did. To what extent we will never know.

- It's also a fact that the ATF was looking for a good PR piece, to clear themselves of the whole Ruby Ridge disaster. That meant dressing up as thugs and 'protecting' us from the evil tax violators while the cameras were rolling. This isn't much different than the whole 'Black Hawk Down' fiasco.

I'm not saying the davidians didn't break the law or weren't crazy. I'm saying that it was handled in a completely retarded way, and the people in charge should have been fired instead of given promotions.

Quote: Original post by Programmer One

Quote: Original post by ChurchSkiz
Not to mention that any secessionist country could instantly make millions if not billions of dollars by legalizing gambling, prostitution, and marijuana.

Assuming Texas would legalize all what you say. Don't forget Texas resides in the very conservative Bible Belt.

Some christian conservatives are against those things, others are for them. The secessionist movement is catering to the less government crowd just as much to the anti-left crowd.

Quote:

Quote: Original post by ChurchSkiz
I would ask what the country provides to Texas that it is an incentive to stay in the union? Other than a currency which can be converted to a gold standard, and a military which it could probably provide on it's own since Texans are gun crazy.

There is a big difference between a bunch of gun wielding cowboys vs. a well trained military force. We're not living colonial days anymore.

And who makes up that military force? The military is made up of US citizens, over 10% come from Texas, not including their national guard. They have enough forces to protect themselves.

Quote:
Sure, they have oil, but depending on the context of the secession and the animosity between the new Texan state and the United States I imagine much of the industry in Texas, including the high-tech sector you mentioned, might leave in order to remain in the United States. Texas would depend on it's trade with the United States, and if the US wasn't keen on that, they'd be screwed.

Any secessionist state could do very well in respect to businesses, depending on how they react to the situation. The US has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. A low tax Texas could be a very attractive alternative depending on what direction they take the nation. I disagree that their trade would rely on the US, oil is a worldwide commodity currently controlled by a greedy conglomerate. The likelihood of Texas joining OPEC is about as likely as Obama becoming the president of Texas, so they would have a huge trade surplus. Unless the US spent massive dollars in infrastructure, they would also end up paying rental fees or tariffs on Texas' roads, pipelines, and oil refineries.

Texas is uniquely positioned to be a standalone country in that it has significant water and inland area to self-sustaining. It also has the natural resources and infrastructure to be trade rich.

Quote: Collective power. The United States is a superpower, and can play on world stage as such. The Republic of Texas would be just another bit player, sandwiched between Tanzania and Thailand on the roll call at all the world's shindigs. With the uberpowerful Dis-United States to their north and the now more-powerful-than-them Mexico to the south, they might find international politics a bit more than they bargained for.

Collective power to do what exactly? Unless someone is planning on attacking Texas, what good is having collective power? Considering the world has done business with countries like Venezuela, Iran, and Iraq, I think an oil exporting Texas would be a welcome addition to the world scene. However, I feel pretty confident that Texas would be perfectly content not dealing with world politics.