The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: twyacht on August 19, 2010, 08:26:56 PM
-
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2010/08/19/newsweek-thought-experiment-why-not-cut-alaska-loose-union
Newsweek 'Thought Experiment': Why Not Cut Alaska Loose From the Union?
By Ken Shepherd (Bio | Archive)
Thu, 08/19/2010 - 15:42 ET
Back in September 2008, MSNBC's Chris Matthews floated a specious allegation that then-Governor Sarah Palin had ties to an advocate of Alaskan secession named Joe Vogler. Although the charge was roundly discredited, it was one of the many early attempts to smear Palin as a wacky extremist.
Two years later, it appears at least one writer for a liberal magazine thinks Alaskan secession would be a fun little topic to bat around the Web.
"Thought Experiment: Should Alaska Secede From the U.S.?" asked the headline for Daniel Stone's August 18 The Gaggle blog post at Newsweek.com:
August is slow around Washington, so we figured it’d be high time to toss around the idea of kicking Alaska out of the union—or the state leaving on its own accord.
The reason? Those darn Alaskans are too conservative, too critical of federal government intrusion, yet they are net recipients of federal aid from Washington spending:
A New York Times report from today points to the reason why: Alaskan politicians love to slam Washington for its over-the-top taxes, spending, and regulation of the state’s hefty reserves of natural resources. But when it comes to Washington giving back, Alaska is happy to take more money per capita than any other state. As of May, the Last Frontier, as it’s called, accepted $3,145 of stimulus funding per resident—money, mind you, that one of its senators and its sole member of Congress voted against. That's not to say all Alaska lawmakers turn up their noses at D.C., but with one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country—7.9 percent, which is still high, but not as high as, say, Michigan at 13.1 percent—there's an implicit question of how much Alaska needs Uncle Sam, and how much Uncle Sam needs Alaska.
If the 49th state were to leave the union, the impact would be, at first, economically devastating, according to Gov. Sean Parnell. But over time, could Alaska, by taking control of its own regulation over oil and gas, open the state for new business, perhaps allowing it to boom in a way that, until now, Washington has apparently stifled?
This sudden academic interest in secession wouldn't have anything to do with Palin Derangement Syndrome on the part of the media, would it?
***
If Alaska, Texas, Arizona, and Montana, would be the only free states left, well...That's not so bad....ANWAR is still there, and the left, just loves to print money and pay for crap anyway...
-
Pailin aside (well lets include her just for fun ;D), if Alaska were to seceed? She really would be able to see Russia from her house, because the Russian tanks would be on her street and Todd would be working for Gaz Prom. Seriously, tarring her for hanging with these folks is stupid. I go to work and I hang with PC idiots because I have no choice. I go on this board to find sanity and I find people talking about rope. Shes a Conservative in Alaska. Who comes to the meetings? Fans of the UN? She can't help it, she has no choice, leave the poor woman alone!
FQ13 who did actually type that ???
-
I remember NYC floating the idea of breaking off from NY and becoming a state. Upstate NY was thrilled at the concept, being that 50% of their state taxes went to NYC...
Never found out why the idea was quashed, I was living in NY at the time and thought it was a wonderful idea. We would finally be rid of a liberal albatross that continually forced their ideas (through voting block and Sheldon Silverstien) on the rest of the state.
-
You stated the reason, 50% of NYC income comes from the rest of NY.
-
FQ, you're dreaming about the Russian tanks, They lack the dedicated sea lift capacity to launch that sort of operation.
It's a heck of a lot more complex than driving across the border into Georgia.
And we are not talking about the WWII "Red Army" here, but a poorly trained batch of 2 year conscripts in an organization that since WWII has beaten unarmed civilians in Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary, and in a week managed to defeat the 30 tanks of the Georgian Army.
Not the most imposing combat record.
-
FQ, you're dreaming about the Russian tanks, They lack the dedicated sea lift capacity to launch that sort of operation.
It's a heck of a lot more complex than driving across the border into Georgia.
And we are not talking about the WWII "Red Army" here, but a poorly trained batch of 2 year conscripts in an organization that since WWII has beaten unarmed civilians in Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary, and in a week managed to defeat the 30 tanks of the Georgian Army.
Not the most imposing combat record.
Yeah, but they've always got Kursk to reminice about. ;D
FQ13 who is sadly reminded that we aren't doing a much better job in Afghanistan than they did. :-\
-
Agree with Tom. Russia is currently not up to the task. Secondly the US and Canada would never want the Russians on our side of the pond. Third, Alaskans are tougher than the Finns and better armed. Finns do make better boot knives but that's about it.
I actually think HI would leave before AK.
-
FQ13 who is sadly reminded that we aren't doing a much better job in Afghanistan than they did. :-\
The Afghans today = Us in the late 1700's. No way we should have one against the superpower of the day, but we did through grit and determination.
The only way to win is do EVERYTHING right and to stay through multiple generations. There was a reason the Isrealites wandered around until the previous generation died off. Even God couldn't win the current generation of leadership back.
-
Pailin aside (well lets include her just for fun ;D), if Alaska were to seceed? She really would be able to see Russia from her house, because the Russian tanks would be on her street and Todd would be working for Gaz Prom. Seriously, tarring her for hanging with these folks is stupid. I go to work and I hang with PC idiots because I have no choice. I go on this board to find sanity and I find people talking about rope. Shes a Conservative in Alaska. Who comes to the meetings? Fans of the UN? She can't help it, she has no choice, leave the poor woman alone!
FQ13 who did actually type that ???
Who the hell are you, and what have you done with FQ? ;D
-
Who the hell are you, and what have you done with FQ? ;D
Didn't you ever watch "Body Snatcher's", It's a pod person duplicate of course . ;D
The Afghans today = Us in the late 1700's. No way we should have one against the superpower of the day, but we did through grit and determination.
The only way to win is do EVERYTHING right and to stay through multiple generations. There was a reason the Isrealites wandered around until the previous generation died off. Even God couldn't win the current generation of leadership back.
Very true, Until the French started sending supplies and troops Washington never had a chance of winning. But then He did not need to, He, like the Taliban, only had to not lose, until frustration, expense, other commitments (Napoleon ), and loss of public support, forced the British to to cut their losses and leave.
Come to think of it, that was British experience in Afghanistan as well.
-
Agree with Tom. Russia is currently not up to the task. Secondly the US and Canada would never want the Russians on our side of the pond. Third, Alaskans are tougher than the Finns and better armed. Finns do make better boot knives but that's about it.
I actually think HI would leave before AK.
We could actually solve ALL the fed's financial problems overnight if we just "sold" HI to China. The way the state gov is there, no one would really notice, and all they would really have to do is change flags.
-
We could actually solve ALL the fed's financial problems overnight if we just "sold" HI to China. The way the state gov is there, no one would really notice, and all they would really have to do is change flags.
The Japanese own most of it though, it could get complicated.
FQ13 ;D
-
Long as the check clears , let them sort it out ;D
-
FQ13 who is sadly reminded that we aren't doing a much better job in Afghanistan than they did. :-\
Only because of your said "PC Idiots" who won't allow us to prosecute a REAL war. I have said this before, that if our military were allowed to fight the way they are trained to, we would have been finished in Afghanistan inside of a year, and we would have never needed to go back into Iraq. The world knows that we are the most humane military in human history and they exploit that fact. If we still fought like we did before Vietnam, no country, dictator, terrorist organization in their right mind would DARE attack us. Because wherever the enemy was being harbored, they know they would get completely leveled. No sane country would harbor terrorists for fear of our reprisal, and we would not be talking to Iran, and N. Korea...We would be bombing the stuffing out of them.
As candidate for foreign policy adviser, my recommendation is simple. Attack us, we WILL, without hesitation or remorse, obliterate you and every country that you share a border with.
-
The Afghans today = Us in the late 1700's. No way we should have one against the superpower of the day, but we did through grit and determination.
Also remember that the Afghans had the support of the CIA, and spec ops. They were actually getting their butts handed to them by the Soviets until we started sneaking in Stingers.
-
Only because of your said "PC Idiots" who won't allow us to prosecute a REAL war. I have said this before, that if our military were allowed to fight the way they are trained to, we would have been finished in Afghanistan inside of a year, and we would have never needed to go back into Iraq. The world knows that we are the most humane military in human history and they exploit that fact. If we still fought like we did before Vietnam, no country, dictator, terrorist organization in their right mind would DARE attack us. Because wherever the enemy was being harbored, they know they would get completely leveled. No sane country would harbor terrorists for fear of our reprisal, and we would not be talking to Iran, and N. Korea...We would be bombing the stuffing out of them.
As candidate for foreign policy adviser, my recommendation is simple. Attack us, we WILL, without hesitation or remorse, obliterate you and every country that you share a border with.
Actually its not the PC idiots that set the ROE. Its generals like Patreaus.There are two schools of thought. One is the Colin Powell "End the War" school. The other is the "Counter insurgency, hearts and minds" school. The latter wants to win over civilians by seperating them from the insurgents, buying them off and isolating the BGs. This worked in western Iraq where the Sunni elders got sick of Al Queda.
Its what we are trying now in Afghanistan. I doubt it will be as successful since the locals ARE the Talban. Still, this doctrine means limiting collateral damage as strategically necessary, even if it means more casulties and lost opportunities to kill BGs. Its not, in and of itself, a bad idea. I just don't think it will work here. I am with you in that we should have settled for a quick punitive campaign and gotten the hell out. Now? Damned if I know what to do. I would highly reccomend Sebastian Junger's book "War". Its a year long documentary account of a platoon of the 173rd airborne at a fire base in Afghsanistan. Its a riveting read and gives a grunts eye view of this debate.
FQ13
-
Actually its not the PC idiots that set the ROE. Its generals like Patreaus.There are two schools of thought. One is the Colin Powell "End the War" school. The other is the "Counter insurgency, hearts and minds" school. The latter wants to win over civilians by seperating them from the insurgents, buying them off and isolating the BGs. This worked in western Iraq where the Sunni elders got sick of Al Queda.
Its what we are trying now in Afghanistan. I doubt it will be as successful since the locals ARE the Talban. Still, this doctrine means limiting collateral damage as strategically necessary, even if it means more casulties and lost opportunities to kill BGs. Its not, in and of itself, a bad idea. I just don't think it will work here. I am with you in that we should have settled for a quick punitive campaign and gotten the hell out. Now? Damned if I know what to do. I would highly reccomend Sebastian Junger's book "War". Its a year long documentary account of a platoon of the 173rd airborne at a fire base in Afghsanistan. Its a riveting read and gives a grunts eye view of this debate.
FQ13
I think you missed the point of my idea here. Think about a class full of kids and you have say 2-3 troublemakers. Everytime one of them starts something you punish them and six kids that sit next to them. The other six have done nothing wrong, but are being punished because they MIGHT have been aware of the disruption. Next time, they will see this kid starting up and shut him down because THEY don't want to get into trouble. You can start in about soverignty and countries rights, but the psycology works. Especially if everyone knows up front how it works. As a benefit to this plan, we don't have to be the police of the world because countries will, out of fear of us, start cleaning up their own neighborhoods.
-
I think you missed the point of my idea here. Think about a class full of kids and you have say 2-3 troublemakers. Everytime one of them starts something you punish them and six kids that sit next to them. The other six have done nothing wrong, but are being punished because they MIGHT have been aware of the disruption. Next time, they will see this kid starting up and shut him down because THEY don't want to get into trouble. You can start in about soverignty and countries rights, but the psycology works. Especially if everyone knows up front how it works. As a benefit to this plan, we don't have to be the police of the world because countries will, out of fear of us, start cleaning up their own neighborhoods.
Either that, or you turn those six and their friends against you as they won't take your crap for something they didn't do, and start siding with the troublemakers. Soon, you are no longer in control. Your punishments get more harsh out of frustration. The fence sitters join them as they feel you are unfair, and you are in charge only as long as you are facing the class. Every other moment? They are working against you, even if it is to their detreminent, as you have unified them by giving them a common enemy. I'm a teacher, I've seen it happen. Once they hate you more than they fear you? Its game over, you lose.
FQ13
-
Either that, or you turn those six and their friends against you as they won't take your crap for something they didn't do, and start siding with the troublemakers. Soon, you are no longer in control. Your punishments get more harsh out of frustration. The fence sitters join them as they feel you are unfair, and you are in charge only as long as you are facing the class. Every other moment? They are working against you, even if it is to their detreminent, as you have unified them by giving them a common enemy. I'm a teacher, I've seen it happen. Once they hate you more than they fear you? Its game over, you lose.
FQ13
It worked for the Romans. At least until they destroyed themselves from the inside. Which brings us back on topic. I don't see any downside for Alaska to break off. I think that they should take Montana, North Dakota, Wyoming, West Virginia, and Texas with them. As these are the only states not drowning in debt.
http://www.mybudget360.com/fiscal-situation-of-50-states-combined-budget-gaps-estimated-at-350-billon-for-2010-and-2011/
-
The world held its collective breath after 9/11. Quadaffi, was the first one that said "Not Me Man"....At that point the United States,
COULD have done what we used to do, and unleashed HELL!. Than went to the U.N. and simply stated, "We were attacked, innocents were slaughtered, and we are striking back. PERIOD". End of story, no more explanations.
Walked out, and left it at that.
But,. nooooooooooooo.......We waited, played the UN/ build a coalition game, had armchair Generals coordinate "Rules Of Engagement"...wanted to "Nation Build"...
This is BS and we know it. Too bad shock & awe ended so soon.
-
The world held its collective breath after 9/11. Quadaffi, was the first one that said "Not Me Man"....At that point the United States,
COULD have done what we used to do, and unleashed HELL!. Than went to the U.N. and simply stated, "We were attacked, innocents were slaughtered, and we are striking back. PERIOD". End of story, no more explanations.
Walked out, and left it at that.
But,. nooooooooooooo.......We waited, played the UN/ build a coalition game, had armchair Generals coordinate "Rules Of Engagement"...wanted to "Nation Build"...
This is BS and we know it. Too bad shock & awe ended so soon.
+10 to that (here I am talking about Afghanistan). Even the Muslims were quiet about it. They knew the Taliban asked for it. In and out with "shock and awe" and call it a day. The trouble with the current ROE is that they presume a commitment of years. There's nothing in Afghaistan worth years. All they have are rocks, fanatics and drugs. We've got those back home.Scare the bastards, leave and threaten to come back.
FQ13
-
FQ is right, Afghanistan is a punitive Expedition that our sissy politicians can't figure out how to get out