"Why the us falls and what is left afterwords" - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

By ahab
#199860
The way I understood that post:

Technology advances allow the replacement of workers with equipment, goods become cheaper since technology produces good better/faster/cheaper, people replaced by technology have too little money to buy goods, things go horribly wrong

that is interesting, Industrial revolution, and then 1929 depression, technology revolution and then ...

I don't think an economic failure would necessarily mean a collapse of the government though, but many politicians would be put under a lot of scruitiny and more economic minded politicians would be elected to take care of the problem (prettymuch a leadership change by votes)

I'd also like to caution some of you that want the collapse of the US to happen, think of the worldwide reprocussions.

It will take a LONG time for the US gov't to fall. There really isn't much evidence of a US decline either, and with this recent standing up to the world and taking action on it's own it just might be on the way up. It would take a lot to collapse a nation with the power, influence, or stability that the US has right now. It took the roman empire several hundred years to rise and fall, and I doubt the US would take a shorter amount of time as people are better educated and informed today helping them vote more capable people into office.

If the gov't were to fail and if any territory were to split off it would be the former confederate states as there still is some anti-north sentiment and still a lot of confederate flag waving. (some states have it in their flag, and some states recently still displayed it on gov't buildings above the US flag) A lot of southern elementrary textbooks refer to some of the Civil War as "northern aggression"
By FadeTheButcher
#199876
How will the USA end? Is it not obvious? The United States has simply never been a real nation and every single year is becoming even less of a nation due to the immigration problem but this is all put to the side because America is keeping its citizens focused on the terror war and on conflicts abroad. Canada is not really a nation either. Even Canada almost came apart in the 1990s. To understand the USSA you have to understand the USSR because ironically the two are very similar. The USSR conquered the Baltic States with military force and incorporated them into the Soviet Union. Likewise the United States conquered the Southern Confederacy and incorporated it into America with military force. Niether the Soviet Union or the United States has ever had a true national character. The USSR bankrupted itself fighting wars abroad and then turned inward and devoured itself. It will happen in the exact same manner in America as America becomes a more diverse and poorer nation. America has for decades been decaying at all levels - population, culture, education, economy, military. It will ultimately get bogged down or defeated in one of its foreign adventurers and the old isolationist impulse will come back and America will withdraw from the world - similar to the Soviets in the stagnant eighties. America's attention will then turn inward to its incoherant population which will increasingly become more competitive with each other as resources become scarcer due to overpopulation and the deteriorating economy. LOL! It is already happening and no one even notices. 46 American States are already bankrupt and their fiscal problems are just beginning to go into the downward spiral. California is rapidly becoming a disaster area. Poverty is soaring there. It has one of the worst budget problems in America and its taxes are certainly going to go up. Hundreds of thousands of California's taxpayers who pay the most revenue into the state treasury have already left in recent years and more are leaving by the day. California is slowly but surely sinking into a third world society like many areas in America. Overtime the fiscal conflict and the demographic changes will cause sectionalism to make a resurgance in America. The country will ultimately collapse upon itself and dissolve like the USSR or Yugoslavia.

But that can't happen right? It almost did only 40 years ago and no one noticed because the event was overshadowed by the Cuban Missle Crisis three weeks later. In 1962, the United States sent over 30,000 troops - more troops than it had in Korea and Berlin combined - into the State of Mississippi to crush a student led Southern insurrection just like the Soviets crushed the Hungarians in '56. Tens of thousands of volunteers from across the South were moving on Oxford, Mississippi to take up arms against the United States in support of the Governor of Mississippi. A former U.S. General was leading the rebellion and Mississippi State Troopers opened fire on U.S. Federal Marshalls. Its one of those things America likes to gloss over and distort in its history books. America likes to point out how Saddam Hussein gassed his own people but cower when they are reminded how they shot canisters of gas directly into the face of Mississippi's teenagers.
By ahab
#199882
FadeTheButcher wrote:The USSR conquered the Baltic States with military force and incorporated them into the Soviet Union. Likewise the United States conquered the Southern Confederacy and incorporated it into America with military force.
Civil War. War between states. Those states that formed the confederacy were originally part of the US. Some states insisted that it was their right to be able to leave the US federal gov't, other states said no you don't have that right. Some states left, war ensued. Texas was also a nation for a while after it left Mexico and became part of the US, but it did it willingly.
FadeTheButcher wrote:It almost did only 40 years ago and no one noticed because the event was overshadowed by the Cuban Missle Crisis three weeks later. In 1962, the United States sent over 30,000 troops - more troops than it had in Korea and Berlin combined - into the State of Mississippi to crush a student led Southern insurrection just like the Soviets crushed the Hungarians in '56. Tens of thousands of volunteers from across the South were moving on Oxford, Mississippi to take up arms against the United States in support of the Governor of Mississippi. A former U.S. General was leading the rebellion and Mississippi State Troopers opened fire on U.S. Federal Marshalls. Its one of those things America likes to gloss over and distort in its history books. America likes to point out how Saddam Hussein gassed his own people but cower when they are reminded how they shot canisters of gas directly into the face of Mississippi's teenagers.
You are talking about the civil rights protests of "Freedom Summer" wich happened in the early '60s, what year it was depends on who you ask. 1962 was because the federal gov't ruled segregation illegal and a black student was trying to attened a college in Mississippi. The govenor of Mississippi didn't want this to happen and tried to block him with state troopers. Students and people from all over the US wanted that student to attend college and went to Mississippi to protest. The US troops were sent to keep the peace, the Marshalls wanted the law to be enforced and the student be allowed to attend college. The Mississippi State Troopers were under command of the govenor and he wanted to keep him out of college. Mississippi was part of the US since 1817. I don't think it is really a fair comparison to Hungary '56, I'm not to familiar with that so I won't go into depth more.

EVERY American knows about it. Watch the movie "Mississippi Burning" and things appear on the History Channel every now and then. I remember studying it in PUBLIC school when I was 9. Two of my neighbors were some of the protestors that went to Mississippi.
By GlobalJustice
#199917
The USA and its economy will not really fall until the world population stops growing (Not too far in the distant future: Italy has 1.8 babies born per couple).

The American economy is only focused on growth, and once the number of consumers stops expanding, businesses can't expand. Obviously, a stop in business growth will scare investors, who will sell. Does it matter whether investors invest if businesses no longer need to grow? But by then most Americans will realize that the key to STABILITY is not growth but, and this may shock you, STABILITY. The American economy will focus on self-supply rather than world domination, and America will no longer be a superpower, it will have evolved into something much greater for the world:

You are right Fade: "United States has simply never been a real nation and every single year is becoming even less of a nation due to the immigration problem"

Just as nationalism evolved from feudalism in the Middle Ages, internationalism is evolving from nationalism. Just look at all the protestors in the United States who don't seem to be more patriotic to the global community than to their own country.

The fall of the United States, unless it is bombed to pieces by terrorists somehow, will be the integration of the world, which will not really be a fall. As the world continues in the path towards English as an international language, I think that someday, leaders will use a new form of "peacekeeping," in which lands of discarded regimes would become "International territory." The international territory would be run locally, but would be overseen by all other governments. Personally, I think this would be the ideal solution to the Israeli conflict. Gradually, more lands would become "international territory" and eventually, the nations that would be left would just say to hell with it and would jump into the INTERNATION.
By Sweeper
#199975
Simple in and out way to end USA:
1. Serious stock market crash leaving USA with almost no money left.
2. Severe earthquake hits San Fran destroying most of the city.
3. San Fran, demands aid money but goverment refuses due to low funds.
4. States start calling themselves independant from the USA and whats left of the USA starts wars to keep them in the union.
5. Alaska declares itself independant and shuts off the US oil pipe line.
6. USA threatens that if they do not open it they will come over.
7. Alaska sells out oil contracts to other countries in exchange for protection, Russian, Chineese, French and Japanese forces shows off and the final battle for the USA is fought outside Alaska leaving USA with a great loss.
By FadeTheButcher
#200047
Civil War. War between states. Those states that formed the confederacy were originally part of the US. Some states insisted that it was their right to be able to leave the US federal gov't, other states said no you don't have that right. Some states left, war ensued. Texas was also a nation for a while after it left Mexico and became part of the US, but it did it willingly.


Yes, that is true. The American colonies were also a part of the British Empire until they seceded from it - to form the United States of America. The War Between the States was not anymore a civil war than the American Revolution was. The Confederacy did not seek to take control of the U.S. Government.

You are talking about the civil rights protests of "Freedom Summer" wich happened in the early '60s, what year it was depends on who you ask. 1962 was because the federal gov't ruled segregation illegal and a black student was trying to attened a college in Mississippi.


The integration of Ole Miss was the incident that sparked the rebellion but it was not really the cause. What really caused the conflict was the Federal Government's decision to send in U.S. Marshalls and the military into Mississippi - something that had not happened in almost a century.

The govenor of Mississippi didn't want this to happen and tried to block him with state troopers. Students and people from all over the US wanted that student to attend college and went to Mississippi to protest.


You actually have it the other way around. Students and people from all across the country went to Ole Miss because they OPPOSED the integration of the university by the military. Then the Federal Marshalls ended up firing tear gas into the crowd of students which sparked a full fledged rebellion.

The US troops were sent to keep the peace, the Marshalls wanted the law to be enforced and the student be allowed to attend college. The Mississippi State Troopers were under command of the govenor and he wanted to keep him out of college. Mississippi was part of the US since 1817.


Mississippi seceded from the United States and the U.S. Military destroyed the Government of Mississippi in 1865. Mississippi was more or less occupied for about a decade afterwards. The U.S. troops were actually sent in to crush a rebellion that almost got out of hand. At the time there were tens of thousands of people from all across America moving on Mississippi to support the Governor who ultimately diffused the crisis.

I don't think it is really a fair comparison to Hungary '56, I'm not to familiar with that so I won't go into depth more.


The rebellion in Hungary started with student protests and was also crushed by the military.

EVERY American knows about it. Watch the movie "Mississippi Burning" and things appear on the History Channel every now and then. I remember studying it in PUBLIC school when I was 9. Two of my neighbors were some of the protestors that went to Mississippi.


LOL you should not really bother with the unhistorical garbage that is taught in American public schools.

Anyway here is an essay from the author of the new book An American Insurrection: The Battle of Oxford, Mississippi, 1962.

t's all now, you see" wrote William Faulkner in "Intruder in the Dust". "Yesterday wont be over until tomorrow and tomorrow began ten thousand years ago."

Faulkner's beloved homeland of Mississippi is the luminous, tormented racial mindscape of America, and sometimes she lifts her veil to reveal mysteries that collapse time and amaze the soul.

In 1996 I was co-writing an A&E documentary on the history of White House taping and a companion book "Inside the Oval Office." My partner Carol Fleisher was preparing to videotape Kennedy aide Burke Marshall about JFK's tapes of the so-called James Meredith crisis in 1962, when Meredith attempted to become the first black student to attend the University of Mississippi. As the cameras were about to roll, Marshall said almost off-handedly, "that was the night we had a little war."

I simply could not believe that statement, and I set out to research what seemed to be an unbelievable story. I spent much of the next four years completely amazed as I conducted hundreds of eyewitness interviews and reviewed thousands of pages of documents buried in archives, uncovering a forgotten event that U.S. News & World Report wrote "came close to being a small-scale civil war."

The incident was a white riot that exploded into a ferocious and chaotic battle that saw U.S. federal marshals fighting for their lives in hand to hand combat. "I was more frightened at Mississippi," said one marshal, "than I was at Pearl Harbor or any other time during the war."

The battle climaxed in a lightning invasion of Mississippi by 30,000 U.S. combat troops, which was more soldiers than the U.S. had in Korea, and six times more soldiers than were stationed in Berlin. The battle resulted in 375 military and civilian casualties, 300 civilian arrests, and two innocent civilians being killed in circumstances that are a mystery to this day.

The event was triggered by a young Mississippi soldier, a black Air Force veteran named James Meredith. I spent many hours interviewing him for my book, and found him to be a fascinating, sometimes perplexing man, in some ways forty or fifty years ahead of his time.

Although he was inspired by the heroes of the civil rights movement, Meredith was not a civil rights activist. He was a career soldier. He did not believe in turning the other cheek. He thought that anyone trying civil disobedience in Mississippi was crazy, because state-sponsored white supremacy was so powerful and so violent that it had nearly crushed the civil rights movement in the state.

Meredith also thought that the traditional discussion of civil rights was a total insult to the more fundamental question of whether or not he was an American citizen. For him, the issue was not civil rights, but American citizenship. He considered his rights as an American citizen, all of them, to be non-negotiable.

"I considered myself an active duty soldier," Meredith explained. "I was at war, and everything I did I considered an act of war."

Through a stubborn, methodical, year and a half long legal struggle, James Meredith forced the U.S. Justice Department and the Supreme Court to his side, and forced the Governor of Mississippi into a confrontation not with James Meredith but with the President of the United States and the world's most powerful military machine.

To uncover the truth of what James Meredith triggered in 1962, I traveled into some of the most amazing chambers of American history.

In Jackson, Mississippi, I walked past giant templed monuments to the Confederacy into the remarkable Mississippi State Department of Archives and History. There, I reviewed the intelligence files of the sinister state spy agency, the Sovereignty Commission ("the KGB of the cotton patches"), which had recently been unsealed by court order, as well as former Governor Ross Barnett's recently-acquired personal papers.

Ross Barnett was the son of a Confederate soldier. As a lawyer he championed civil cases for black clients but as Governor he was a man who Time magazine called "as bitter a racist as inhabits the nation." In response to Meredith's campaign, for seventeen days Barnett and the government of Mississippi physically blockaded federal authorities from honoring Meredith's right as an American citizen to enter the University of Mississippi at Oxford.

In Jackson I sat down with William Simmons, the 85-year-old former chief of the Citizens Councils of America, a charming, sophisticated intellectual who in 1962 was the most powerful segregationist in America and the shadow ruler of Mississippi on racial matters, the man who Governor Ross Barnett actually reported to. Simmons explained that from the segregationists point of view, the Battle of Oxford was the decisive turning point in the entire struggle against integration.

I tracked down Robert Shelton, former Imperial Wizard of the United Klans of America and the most powerful Klan leader of the late 20th Century. As the Battle of Oxford drew near, Shelton placed his 20,000 Klansmen on alert and prepared them to move on Oxford with rifles and shotguns. Shelton disclosed what went through his mind on the eve of the battle.

"This," he thought, "could be another War Between the States."

At Oxford, I inspected the long-forgotten bullet marks in the columns of the University of Mississippi's Lyceum building, reviewed the University's files on the crisis and strolled the streets and court house square beloved by William Faulkner, streets where much of the action of "An American Insurrection" takes place. I read books by Eudora Welty and Willie Morris on the balcony of Square Books overlooking the Square, a building (then Blaylock's Drugstore) where riot leader former General Edwin Walker briefly held court during the riot in 1962.

Also in Oxford, I interviewed Murry C. "Chooky" Falkner, William Fauklner's nephew, who in 1962 was Captain of Mississippi Army National Guard Troop E. Falkner explained, "No one knows what went on here then." Then he took his thirty-five year old typewritten after-action report out of his files, and handed it to me, saying "read this."

The document described in extraordinary detail how Falkner and his band of local white men, most of whom were personally opposed to the immediate integration of the University of Mississippi, were ordered into the battle to try to rescue the marshals and Meredith from being massacred by the mob. As I read the report I was dumbfounded by the ferocity of the violence inflicted upon the Guardsmen by their fellow white Southerners. I could only mumble, "this is like combat."

Falkner quickly corrected me: "It WAS combat."

At the JFK Presidential Library in Boston, I reviewed President Kennedy's remarkable secret White House tapes of the crisis, and inspected the desk exhibit of then-Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, which includes paperwork on the Meredith case on his desk and a federal marshal's dented helmet from the riot.

At this point in his presidency, John Kennedy was not a convinced and devoted proponent of civil rights as a policy. He thought it was in his words, a "God-damn mess" that embarrassed him on the world stage. He, like most white Americans, had to be forced to face this issue by people like James Meredith.

For seventeen days, the government of Mississippi was in a state of open rebellion against the federal government on the issue of race. Secretly, however, Ross Barnett engaged in a series of bizarre, almost comic opera telephone negotiations with President John Kennedy and Attorney General Robert Kennedy to capitulate and allow James Meredith to enter the university.

After a series of miscommunications, misjudgments and foul-ups, on the afternoon of September 30, 1962, negotiations between the Kennedys and Barnett collapsed and RFK and Barnett made a joint emergency decision to install James Meredith on the campus immediately that Sunday night, before tens of thousands of civilians were expected to descend on the city on Monday morning to blockade the university.

But at 8:00 PM Sunday night, a chain reaction of errors combined to unleash a riot which pitted several hundred federal marshals against a mob of several thousand white civilians.

The incident was an absolute disaster-in-progress for President Kennedy and Attorney General Kennedy, as an American city collapsed into 14 hours of terror and mayhem. RFK later described it as the worst night of his life, and described the President as "torn between an Attorney General who had botched things up and the fact that the Attorney General was his brother."

At FBI headquarters in Washington, DC, I reviewed 9,000 pages of raw Bureau files on the crisis that I obtained access to through a Freedom of Information Act request. The files contained a treasure trove of first-person detail and intelligence on the event, including over 500 eyewitness interviews by FBI agents from 1962.

I interviewed over 500 eyewitnesses and key players in the Battle of Oxford: soldiers, local and state police, students, rioters, reporters, faculty, townspeople, U.S. marshals and federal and state officials. Many of them responded to notices I placed in scores of newspapers across the South (from major metropolitan newspapers to Pennysavers) and in veterans newsletters, which triggered an overwhelming response. Almost every person interviewed had never spoken publicly about Oxford and had in many cases buried their memories of it for nearly two generations.

I was stunned to discover that according to Pentagon records and many eyewitnesses, Attorney General Robert Kennedy secretly ordered 4,000 black soldiers to be stripped off the front lines and forcibly segregated during the invasion and occupation of Oxford. He did it to avoid the political embarrassment of having black troops with high-powered rifles in command of Mississippi streets. Many of these black troops were disgraced, disarmed and forced to do non-stop KP and garbage duty. This segregation was condoned by President Kennedy.

Nearly 40 years later, a number of black and white veterans expressed to me their outrage and disgust at the disgrace of "resegregation", which was all the more offensive, as one black military policeman told me, "when you consider what the hell we were sent down there for," to integrate the university of Mississippi.

In the files of the Pentagon, I found a memo which partly explains the mystery of why the Battle of Oxford has largely been forgotten by history. It turns out that the U.S. Army soldiers who rescued the city of Oxford were supposed to be awarded combat medals and citations for the operation for their courage in combat. Their commanders recommended them. But the Pentagon brass denied them.

Why? The Army memo dated April 19, 1963 reads: "It is considered that the focus of additional attention on this incident would not be in the best interest of the nation . . . Decorations should not be awarded for actions involving conflict between U.S. Army units and other Americans."

Together with James Meredith and many unsung heroes of the Battle of Oxford, this country fought and won the last battle of the American Civil War on October 1, 1962.

It was a symbolic turning point in American history that marked the death of massive resistance to integration.

When Martin Luther King Jr. wrote his Letter from a Birmingham Jail in 1963 he predicted that "some day the South will recognize its real heroes. They will be the James Merediths, courageously and with a majestic sense of purpose facing jeering and hostile mobs and the agonizing loneliness that characterizes the life of the pioneer."

Today, in 2001, King's prophesy has yet to come true.
By GlobalJustice
#200093
LOL Sweeper, several mistakes in your reasons.

In thirty years America will not be dependant on oil.
Hydrogen fuel cells are the stuff.

San Francisco buildings since 1904 have been built much much stronger than most other buildings around the world to protect vs. earthquakes.

The stock market will never crash like it did in the 20's. Even if it does, the government will soothe the population by claiming that the market is just worthless numbers, and what do they really matter as long as products and services are still being produced at a good rate?
User avatar
By Sheep...
#200132
Everything falls though, and America is certianly not exempt from this rule.
We all know America will fall, creation from opposition should inspire what is after it.
By ahab
#200403
FadeTheButcher wrote:You actually have it the other way around. Students and people from all across the country went to Ole Miss because they OPPOSED the integration of the university by the military. Then the Federal Marshalls ended up firing tear gas into the crowd of students which sparked a full fledged rebellion.
Everything is correct, except for this. The students went to missisippit to protest AGAINST the decision of the govenor of Mississippi, they agreed with the Federal gov't. Students don't generally agree with unfair treatment of minorities or people prevented from using thier freedoms. Most people, expecially in the north, including most inside Mississippi, don't agree with what the Mississippi govenor did. Hardly anyone supported the govenor then, and even fewer now.
Last edited by ahab on 07 Apr 2003 14:49, edited 1 time in total.
By GlobalJustice
#200763
"The energy spent usually equals or exceeds the amount that is gained from the cells themselves."

Of course, aren't all fuels like this?

The thing is, hydrogen can be produced more easily than any other fuel:

1) The electrolysis of water using electricity from renewable resources such as wind power, hydro-power and solar photo-voltaic cells. This method produces no carbon dioxide.

2) The chemical or thermal reformation of biomass feedstocks such as SRC (short rotation coppice) wood chips or methanol manufactured from biomass. This method releases carbon dioxide but it is all recycled by the growth of more biomass.

3) The biological reformation of biomass using micro-organisms. This method releases carbon dioxide but it is all recycled by the growth of more biomass.

4) The direct splitting of water using light with special catalysts or extreme heat, this method produces no carbon dioxide.

Agreed, it takes energy to separate hydrogen, but were we gonna be using this particular biomass or the sunlight or the wind for any other reasons? Would it be detrimental to use hydrogen, the world's most common element?

I am actually reading about this today Potemkin. […]

I know some of those on the Left may have troub[…]

Here are some of the the latest reports of student[…]

Indictments have occured in Arizona over the fake […]