Comments on: The Coming Downfall and Breakup of America

By: ajstoner

ajstoner — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 09:49:12 +0000

Whatever Panarin's motives: It's not a bad idea.

I am an American and you know what? I think this is a great idea. We are not a single nation in any meaningful way. Nothing gets done because we agree on nothing. We hate one another, and with good reason as far as I’m concerned. I don’t want sub-human bible thumpers from the south having ANY say in how my country is run and I’m sure they feel the same about us.

Breaking up the United States would be the best thing for all concerned. Let’s admit what is obvious: The Empire is dead and cannot recover—nor should it; let’s part ways now.

By: Remsolo

Remsolo — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 15:29:10 +0000

The funny thing is, the first time this Russian presented this theory to an audience, it was at a conference on how to use data and information as a tool of warfare… He was applauded…

By: Davidail

Davidail — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 20:06:52 +0000

I would like to add a reply to SmoothJazz, You stated that The Cherokee Indians only had 25,000 people in their tribe! US Census says there were 71,239 in the whole county, in 1800, You have to remember back then many towns had 30-40 people living in them and many citys had 1000 or 1500 Jacksonville Fl for example was founded in 1791 and had a population of 978 people within the outskirts areas such a Sprindale which back then was a small town of 35 people. So you can't say 25,000 was nothing, it was major, and when you fugure 4000+ died on the Trail of Tears. In todays terms using the numbers from 1800 you would be talking 103 million people. in the tribe and some 18,000 dead on the Trail of Tears.
OLD Wise Tell Never say Never.

By: SmoothJazz

SmoothJazz — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 19:58:00 +0000

Texas was not a sovereign nation, but a glorified territory. Nothing more. It had to declare itself a Republic so that it could be subsumed by the United States and not Mexico. I wouldn't call anything a “sovereign nation” that had less than 100% sovereignty for only 10 years and that on the condition that they were a colony of the United States anyway.

Glorified territory, not a nation.

By: mikkel

mikkel — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 17:15:43 +0000

Uh, no: The Republic of Texas was a sovereign nation in North America between the United States and Mexico that existed from 1836 to 1846. Formed as a break-away republic from Mexico by the Texas Revolution, the nation claimed borders that encompassed an area that included all of the present U.S. state of Texas, as well as parts of present-day New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado, and Wyoming based upon the Treaties of Velasco between the newly created Texas republic and Mexico...Even though Texas was an independent nation, it heavily relied on the United States of America for resources, defense, and finances.

Also while I'm not sure that California ever met the requirements for sovereignty, it was invaded and occupied by United States troops and then eventually annexed. That isn't at all like the vast majority of states which were carved from territories.

By: SmoothJazz

SmoothJazz — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 14:14:35 +0000

Ignorant comment. Neither Texas nor California were independent nations. By your argument, all 50 states were independent nations before joining the union. Obviously, that blurs the difference between nation/province. A confederacy is not a nation. As for the Cherokee, since they were decimated and re-located, their nation was destroyed. This is different from the USSR where subject nations (i.e. Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Poland) remained populated and intact.

By: Don Quijote

Don Quijote — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 13:37:58 +0000

Bull, Texas and California were independent nations prior to joining the Union. The Cherokee had created a successful Nation State in the the south-east prior to being forced to move to Oklahoma by Andrew Jackson (< a href="http://ngeorgia.com/history/nghisttt.html" rel="nofollow">Trail of a thousand Tears). The Iroquois had also had successful confederacy in the Northeast.

By: SmoothJazz

SmoothJazz — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 20:19:26 +0000

No ethnic group in the United States has a history of being its own nation, not even the Native Americans. They were nomadic, they never had permanent settlements and complicated political structures that would count as a nation or a state. The Russians on the other hand, expanded over many different people who already had their own states by the times the Russians arrived.

The ethnic comparison between the US and the USSR is apples and oranges.

By: SmoothJazz

SmoothJazz — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 16:15:50 +0000

Indeed. Why are you upset? We're just talking here. You equated this article with the foreign policy writings of American writers, which is baseless. Sure you have a point, but it's just not based on facts. That's all I'm saying.

By: pacatrue

pacatrue — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 07:17:50 +0000

People get upset over the strangest things. My point is that when laughing at the shallowness of much foreign commentary, one also must realize that some of our own understanding is poor. That's it.

By: Jim_Satterfield

Jim_Satterfield — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 03:10:16 +0000

Comparing the Soviet Union and its conquered territories to the United States isn't exactly a great analogy.

By: Don Quijote

Don Quijote — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 02:34:18 +0000

Nyet, we'll not be disbanding soon. Too many people have relatives all over the place and property in different states from sea to shining sea. We're kindof knit together pretty well.

So did lots of Russians, it did not prevent the USSR from breaking up. And there are still a lot of ethnic Russians living in the Baltic States and the various Stans.

If the economy truly goes down the crapper, the wealthier regions of the US will start asking themselves why exactly and whether or not they would be better off on their own.

And for those of you who think the breakup of the US is preposterous, look at a map published in 1908 and list the countries whose borders haven't changed.

By: GeorgeSorwell

GeorgeSorwell — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 02:27:42 +0000

Provocative!

Pretty sure this guy will soon be an expert commentator on CNN.

By: The Heretik : Dudgery

The Heretik : Dudgery — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 01:52:48 +0000

[...] it”s all over for the US of [...]

By: Silhouette

Silhouette — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 01:43:33 +0000

I think this guy was fishin' with wishin'.

Nyet, we'll not be disbanding soon. Too many people have relatives all over the place and property in different states from sea to shining sea. We're kindof knit together pretty well.

By: SmoothJazz

SmoothJazz — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 01:33:28 +0000

What you're saying is tantamount to calling all writes in the US who write about international politics, you're calling them idiots, which is baseless and does not appear to be an informed criticism. Even if some American is off the mark completely, no one suggests that the native Siberians are going to break away from Russia in a civil war. The Economist, Newsweek, the Times, etc even if they were writing drunk, never come from that far out of left field.

By: pacatrue

pacatrue — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 23:26:41 +0000

The first thing I notice from international perspectives like this is how shallow a view of America they have. I mean that for many different posts over the last few months, not just this one.

The second thing I realize is that most posts from the U.S. about other countries, such as Russia, likely seem just as idiotic from their point of view.

By: Slamfu

Slamfu — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 21:57:39 +0000

Lol, those silly russians.

By: SmoothJazz

SmoothJazz — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 20:36:46 +0000

That is the most laughable theory I've ever heard. The Native Americans are going to forge their own new sub-state? (rolls eyes) Apparently those Russians are not only ignorant, but just idiotic.