The Next World War
the_johnjacob
Join Date: 2003-04-01 Member: 15109Members, Constellation
Join Date: 2003-04-01 Member: 15109Members, Constellation
<div class="IPBDescription">a thought</div> i was in my world civilization class today and my professor said something that got me thinking.
"Open military conflict cannot be done int he world anymore. the US has a monopoly on military and political power"
we had been in a discussion about terrorism and why people did it, and what we came up with was something along those lines. the fact that any military force brought to bear in the current era will almost instantly be put down and/or demolished by the US and her allies. now, where does that leave people? where does that leave freedom fighters/terrorists (whichever you choose to call 'em)? they have to resort to these tactics in order to get anything done.
but could it be they're just fighting the wrong kind of war? could it be we're already iin the middle of a massive 3rd world war? an economic war with no clear weapons, no clear boundaries, and no clear allies? the economy is global, with instant communication. could it be that the new super powers are not the individual states of the world, but instead, teh different companies within those states, the massive complexes. look at it now, the world is already starting to divide into economic alliances, we(the americas) have free trade agreements and open borders between us(being canda teh US and mexico), the European nations ahve established the European Union(now i'm no expert, but from what i understand, this is a largely economic entity to regulate and unite the trade of europe within itself and with outsiders. i see it as inevitable that these different organizations will begin to be at odds with each other, and, not necessarily open war, but a sort of financial battle will ensue.
i didn't mean this to turn into a discussion of a world government, but this also hinges to my theory, that, instead of some communist or democratic, or monarchical, or dictatorial, or whatevorial government will eventually take control of the world, it will be a financial organization with all the current nations of the world(changed due to wars etc. of the future of course). i see things like the EU, and i see the beginnings of this. in the future i see either of two things happening, an organization of all the trade treaty organizations to regulate trade through out the world, establish international laws, etc. or one of the organizations will win the above mentioned economic/cultural war being fought and will become the dominant, thus establishing the trade restrictions required of a world government, i don't think that it will be immediatly recognized as a world order, but invariably, it will be.
that is my view of the future, i see the commercial world overtaking religion and national struggles.
discuss?
"Open military conflict cannot be done int he world anymore. the US has a monopoly on military and political power"
we had been in a discussion about terrorism and why people did it, and what we came up with was something along those lines. the fact that any military force brought to bear in the current era will almost instantly be put down and/or demolished by the US and her allies. now, where does that leave people? where does that leave freedom fighters/terrorists (whichever you choose to call 'em)? they have to resort to these tactics in order to get anything done.
but could it be they're just fighting the wrong kind of war? could it be we're already iin the middle of a massive 3rd world war? an economic war with no clear weapons, no clear boundaries, and no clear allies? the economy is global, with instant communication. could it be that the new super powers are not the individual states of the world, but instead, teh different companies within those states, the massive complexes. look at it now, the world is already starting to divide into economic alliances, we(the americas) have free trade agreements and open borders between us(being canda teh US and mexico), the European nations ahve established the European Union(now i'm no expert, but from what i understand, this is a largely economic entity to regulate and unite the trade of europe within itself and with outsiders. i see it as inevitable that these different organizations will begin to be at odds with each other, and, not necessarily open war, but a sort of financial battle will ensue.
i didn't mean this to turn into a discussion of a world government, but this also hinges to my theory, that, instead of some communist or democratic, or monarchical, or dictatorial, or whatevorial government will eventually take control of the world, it will be a financial organization with all the current nations of the world(changed due to wars etc. of the future of course). i see things like the EU, and i see the beginnings of this. in the future i see either of two things happening, an organization of all the trade treaty organizations to regulate trade through out the world, establish international laws, etc. or one of the organizations will win the above mentioned economic/cultural war being fought and will become the dominant, thus establishing the trade restrictions required of a world government, i don't think that it will be immediatly recognized as a world order, but invariably, it will be.
that is my view of the future, i see the commercial world overtaking religion and national struggles.
discuss?
Comments
That's only from a military standpoint however. Taking over a country via economic or cultural means is still quite possible and is occuring in the world today. Go to western nations across the world and you'll find Coca Cola, McDonalds and other symbols of American culture everywhere. It's no coincidence that many of these nations have a close relationship with the US. Cultural invasions, whilst not as direct and open as a military attack, can be no less effective in swaying a nation's people towards you. Economic methods as well occur everywhere, as can be seen by Japanese corperations buying up large chunks of prime real estate in Queensland or California, or US companies running factories in China or Africa.
This is not to say that an actual war is being waged. America does not intentionally export it's culture with the express purpose of absorbing other nations, and corperations do not try and take over a nation simply because labour costs may be cheap there or the real estate desireable. The end result is often a conquest of sorts, but most of the time to percieved aggressor did not set out with this goal in mind.
Much of this depends on perception. To a fundamentalist Muslim, the encroaching of American culture into the Middle East is a hostile invasion that must be opposed. To a Chinese citizen, the building of a Nike factory nearby means some new job opportunities. If one wishes to see the current world situation as a war, then they can certainly try to justify this view. However, this is not my opinion.
and thanks ryo for backing up my point, it is not a war of nations, it is a war of companies and commercial entities.
Gee, if we're doing such a good job of that, why do most people you talk to hate or strongly dislike americans <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> I don't think we're "Swaying a nation's people" towards us <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> They have mcdonalds becuase they like mcdonalds. Just like how we have a resturaunt that serves greek food here. Italian food. Mexican..... they're not culturally invading us, we WANT those resturants. And if other countries do too, then it's not nessisarily a bad thing. If they don't, then yeah, it's not good to cram it down their throats. Same as the iraq issue we're talking about in the other thread. Giving them a choice isn't bad, because it's up to them. But forcing our values upon them is something I disagree with.
Were you responding to my post? I said "cold war".
If we were in a world war, you'd know it. There would not be a soul on this planet which would not know it.
To quote einstein,
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd like to know what your definition of "major conflict" is.....
From an American Perspective:
Korean War-- 36,000 men killed, far more wounded; general mobilization of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps (including the ENTIRE 1st Marine Division for a single amphib op at Inchon), and Air Force for combat thousands of miles from the continental US; fought both the North Koreans and the Communist Chinese Army; the landing at Inchon the largest amphibious assault (if i remember correctly) since WWII
Vietnam -- 50,000 killed, more wounded, thousands MIA/POW; full-scale mobilization of Marines, Army, Air Force, Navy, AND the Coast Guard
Gulf War -- more of a drive-by in the Persian Gulf by coalition forces rather than an actual war, but large armies once again faced each other.
From a Soviet Perspective:
Afghanistan-- TEN YEARS of mountain warfare with the mujahadeen, thousands dead, many more wounded
Others:
Iran-Iraq War-- tens of thousands killed, including the use of chemical weapons
Somalia -- hundreds of thousands killed by starvation and low-intensity warfare that consumed a nation
Balkan States-- ethnic cleansing and low-intensity warfare between serbs, croats and slavs
All of these conflicts have been complimented by large scale deployment of men and materiel by a nation or groups of nations, did not involve the use of either tactical or strategic nuclear arms, have cost thousands upon thousands of lives, and yet are not considered "major" by you? That disheartens me.
In fact, <i>regional</i> conflicts have been far more in vogue worldwide, and call for higher peacetime troop commitments than maintaining simply a standing peacetime "homeguard" type of army for my nation. If anything, various nations, most notably NATO and former Warsaw Pact countries held higher troop commitments outside their borders for 45-50 years <i>after</i> the advent of nuclear fission/fusion weapons than they had ever before. Granted, the US is now the only singular superpower, and our <i>global</i> interests probably won't see a direct and legitimate threat for a decade or more, but that fails to address the fact that men and nations still resort to armed conflict with other nations. Current cases in point: US action in Afghanistan, Gulf War II, Indo-Paki conflict in Kashmir, Israel. Others in the past two decades: Panama, Grenada, Haiti, Somalia, Chechnya, Soviet action in Afghanistan, Iran-Iraq War, Gulf War I, Israel, Liberia, Lebanon, Libya, Nicaragua and the list goes on.
[edit]I'm truly disheartened that people take such a narrow view of what a "major conflict" is....
Just because the Iraqis got completely steamrolled in Gulf War II, just as in Gulf War I, makes it no less a major conflict...a major challenge, no, but conflict yes. The men and materiel committed to that theater in conjunction with operations and rebuilding in Afghanistan is a major effort for the military, though they are quite capable. The rebuilding of Iraq in itself will bring great conflict, armed, and otherwise among many factions in and around Iraq at the rate its going. I have friends stationed inside Baghdad right now, and the mood on the streets changes day-to-day, and district to district.
To put this in perspective, understand that for a conflict to be termed a major war, it would require the following:
- Direct, military involvement by two or more major world powers on opposing sides.
- Large scale battles similar to those experianced at the Somme or Kursk.
- The complete mobilisation of at least one major nation to the war effort.
- Casualty rates equivilant to World War One or Two
That simply hasn't been major conflict since 1945. Major powers have participated in war by proxy, sending equipment and advisors but no major powers have clahsed directly with one another. The combined casualty rates of all the wars you mentioned doesn't even approach the Second World War which claimed upwards of 50 million lives and decimated half of Eurasia. The battles which have occured have been small scale affairs compared again to the two world wars.
This is not to say that these smaller conflicts havn't been terrible affairs that have caused untold anguish and suffering. War in all it's forms is a dreadful thing, and mere scale does not serve as a means of determining if one war is worse than another. However, labels such as "major conflict" have defining boundaries, and the simple facts are that major conflict hasn't occured since 1945.
- Direct, military involvement by two or more major world powers on opposing sides.
- Large scale battles similar to those experianced at the Somme or Kursk.
- The complete mobilisation of at least one major nation to the war effort.
- Casualty rates equivilant to World War One or Two
That simply hasn't been major conflict since 1945. Major powers have participated in war by proxy, sending equipment and advisors but no major powers have clahsed directly with one another. The combined casualty rates of all the wars you mentioned doesn't even approach the Second World War which claimed upwards of 50 million lives and decimated half of Eurasia. The battles which have occured have been small scale affairs compared again to the two world wars.
This is not to say that these smaller conflicts havn't been terrible affairs that have caused untold anguish and suffering. War in all it's forms is a dreadful thing, and mere scale does not serve as a means of determining if one war is worse than another. However, labels such as "major conflict" have defining boundaries, and the simple facts are that major conflict hasn't occured since 1945. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
"War" and "Conflict" are two very different things, especially under international laws.
That being put aside for now:
Korea: Communist Chinese Army, American Army Marines; Pusan Perimeter, the amphib op at Inchon, the turning of the US forces at the Yalu River, fighting through the Nangnim Mountains; Complete Mobilization of Communist Chinese Army, Complete Mobilization of US forces, including the continuance of the draft; Additional forces supplied by the United Nations; Casualty rates reduced due to the armistice of Panmunjon 27 July 1953; last time I checked 35000 dead Americans is not a war through proxies, Chinese Army casualty rates were not readily at hand, but I'll be more to find them, along with ROK and DPRK casualties if you want.
Korea was not a declared war, but it was a full commitment of US forces to a foreign theater, where it fought side by side with an army of United Nations soldiers and ROK forces, faced two separate communist forces, one of them that came to have the largest standing army the world has seen. No, the Soviet Union was not involved outside of ordering the PRC to intervene (documentary evidence actually backs this).
Vietnam: Granted, the VC and NVA were not armies of a major superpower, yet with the Tet Offensive, the US once again found itself fighting PRC forces, showing a multi-nation communist coalition; major and minor battles fought the length and breadth of South Vietnam and parts of North Vietnam; 10 <i>years</i> of armed conflict in Vietnam, with a full mobilization of all FIVE branches of the US military, sent over 3000 miles from home; coastal blockade and intervention tactics on a unprecedented scale, from cruisers down to Boston Whalers patrolling over 1000 miles of coastline; the longest sustained naval operations of an enemy coast in United States history; 50,000 _dead_, not 50,000 _casualties.
Your view of what a "major" war is almost defines "myopic" and "nostalgic." No, the Soviet Union didn't come charging through the Fulda Gap into West Germany like cockroaches from a dumpster. No, there was no MAD or nuclear exchange. By limiting your idea of a "major" war to simply a clash of superpowers, you demonstrate a blatant disregard for over hundreds of thousands of dead soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen of dozens of nations. I challenge you to find a native Indian or Pakistani and ask them whether conflict over Kashmir is serious or not. Find a former Soviet officer who served in Afghanistan, and ask whether the brutal fighting there was a "major" conflict.
Just as many army officers were appalled that no longer would divisions form up on wide open fields and march to within 40-60 yards to open up volley fire from muzzle-loading muskets, your mind is trapped in the mindset that "major conflicts" occur between division- and corps-size engagements across multiple continents. No, Korea and Vietnam were not on the scale of WWII, and I will never claim such. But a ten-year war that cost on average 5,000 lives a year with many more injured, disabled or captive, is far from a minor affair. You do realize that Vietnam lasted over twice as long as US involvement in WWII, right? You do realize it spanned three separate presidential terms? You do realize that the furthest distance possible on the globe from Washington D.C. is right around Danang, Vietnam? Disregarding the wars of the past 60 years and writing them off as "nothing major" is not only turning a blind eye to the facts of history, but also blinding yourself to a very disjointed view of what war is and has become.....
As far as "The combined casualty rates of all the wars you mentioned doesn't even approach the Second World War which claimed upwards of 50 million lives and decimated half of Eurasia," I guess you truly believe that "The death of a single man is a tragedy. The death of a million is but a statistic" as Joe Stalin put it. I have friends that have been on active duty, deployed to the Kuwait-Baghdad region for over 16 months. If you have friends over there, let alone family, I honestly hope you find some way to tell them that their commitment is minor, that the lives lost there are unimportant in the scheme of things, and to "take it all in perspective"
Out of curiosity, what round casualty figure qualifies as "major" in your eye?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Me? My eyes? Hate to burst your bubble but these arn't my views. They happen to be the views of every political science and modern history lecturer that I have had the privilage to learn under in my three years of university. And that view is that since 1945 there have been no major conflicts. Period.
You seem to be laboring under the misconception that just because a conflict is deemed "minor" or "moderate", it will simply be dismissed. That is not so. Every conflict throughout history from Mesopotamia to Iraq (Come full circle havn't we <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> ) has a large impact upon history, and I am not for one moment dismissing smaller conflicts. This is simply a matter of classification.
Of course I accept that for the people involved, no conflict can seem to be minor. That however is something that as an acedemic, I have to ignore. So yeah, the death of one s a tragedy, and the death of a million is a statistic in my line of work. That is what I have to do in the field of study that I have chosen. You think it's easy? You think that it's simple to sit down and assess why the Holocaust was bad for the German economy, putting aside the emotions that it raises? Just because I have to put aside my emotions doesn't mean I don't have them! How dare you accuse me of being some cold-hearted **** who doesn't care. I can't watch 5 minutes of war footage without bursting into tears. I'm forced to read books that give me nightmares, but I do it anyway. I choke back the tears, block out the mental images and I study. You want to know why? Because I want to teach people about these things. I want to tell others about war, about conflict and what it does to people. So that maybe, somehow, I can prevent it from happening in the future.
Seconded, no really hot conflicts, open warfare, or all out battle of any kind, it does sound very much like another cold war.
The difference is that these battles are not between two countries (U.S. and the USSR) but between many different ideas. You've got democracy vs. theocracy, sort of like commies vs. demos but different.
Different because a.) It's not just a form of government we're fighting against, but a religon. b.) There really is no set enemy, we don't have a scapegoat to boast our propaganda on like we did in the Cold War. c.) We are fighting countries and people FAR less advanced than we are. (Europe, the Americas) d.) We're acctually attacking the main source of the "trouble", unlike in the cold war.
There are some similarities, in fact, many. Lots of propaganda still exsists, just in a different, less obvious way, and we are giving Islamic people living in our own countries the short end of the stick, just like what we did to any communist supporters.
While I think we are in another Cold War, it'll be a hell of alot harder to get this second one over. The problems with the Russia "communist" system aren't there so the events happening in the early 90's in Russia aren't likely to happen in the Mid East for sometime.
Previously, any economical power had to be backed by a sufficiently strong army. If your army was so weak that invading and occupying your country was profitable, it would happen - sooner rather than later. Why this is no longer the case is enough stuff for another thread, but the fact is that a new sort of power besides military power is growing: Economic power. During the cold war, the USSR and the USA had the monopoly on power. Each of them had enough military strength to lay waste to anyone else using conventional forces (a small-scale application of NBC weapons was seen as impossible back then). The end of the cold war should have left the USA with absolute dominance. While the USA still are unopposed in military power, it has strong adversaries growing in economic power: On one hand, we have Europe and the European Union, growing stronger each day, on the other hand we have eastern Asia, not yet a fully fledged economic superpower, but showing great future potential.
So yes, I believe we're in the middle of a full-blown world war, with the combatants struggling for economic dominance.The advantage of such a war is that we don't have to fear taking a bomb to the face whenever we look up. The disadvantage is that a mistake could cause harm that would last for generations. Luckily, this economic war is only lukewarm, and even if it isn't resolved peacefully (I'm thinking along the lines of free trade), the loser won't be obliterated. A loss of general lifestyle quality would be certain though.
The combined population of the two is 2.3 billion people. Over a third of the world's population. Both India and China are emerging from economic obscurity, a process which started for both of them in the 1980's. If India and China start consuming resources at a rate similar to that of the west, there will be a major resource crisis. A war between them would have the effect of both reducing the population of both nations and aquiring more resources for the victors.
Furthermore, I don't see America or any European nation (or perhaps the EU, should it be formed by then) doing much about it. I don't see either power having the capability to do much about it. There may be some formal protest, but America and Europe combined don't have the population that China does, let alone the military size. Both China and India have large militaries, and I believe that India is currently building theirs up even more. China is modernizing their army.
India needs to see the bigger picture. Kashmir isn't going to pay out any great amount and fighting over it is just going to weaken them in the long run. Maintaining a standing army takes a lot of effort and resources. Resources which that nation won't have too much longer, especially if the government's efforts to curb population growth fail. I really see India as the next big player on the world stage.
You equate a totalitarian ruled country with a single religion- and then say the equivalent of democracy is converting? lol.... stay in your shanty down south, where no one cares for intelligent conversation anyway.
The combined population of the two is 2.3 billion people. Over a third of the world's population. Both India and China are emerging from economic obscurity, a process which started for both of them in the 1980's. If India and China start consuming resources at a rate similar to that of the west, there will be a major resource crisis. A war between them would have the effect of both reducing the population of both nations and aquiring more resources for the victors.
Furthermore, I don't see America or any European nation (or perhaps the EU, should it be formed by then) doing much about it. I don't see either power having the capability to do much about it. There may be some formal protest, but America and Europe combined don't have the population that China does, let alone the military size. Both China and India have large militaries, and I believe that India is currently building theirs up even more. China is modernizing their army.
India needs to see the bigger picture. Kashmir isn't going to pay out any great amount and fighting over it is just going to weaken them in the long run. Maintaining a standing army takes a lot of effort and resources. Resources which that nation won't have too much longer, especially if the government's efforts to curb population growth fail. I really see India as the next big player on the world stage. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
A few disputations of your post. If you consider a "world war" as a global conflict, involving many nations and covering multiple continents, then no, a regional Indo-Sino conflict would not qualify--especially since you're discounting any entrance by the US or EU forces.
As far as the US staying out of it, quite frankly, since WWII, when has the US not poked its nose into a major conflict somewhere if no one else has? Hell, even in Afghanistan, we didn't commit ground troops, but we definitely supplied the mujahadeen. Additionally, regarding the fact that we don't have the size forces needed to combat Chinese forces or Indian forces, let alone both--I beg to differ. Quality of forces, equipment, doctrine and logistics plays a much greater role than you may believe, as was seen in both Gulf Wars. China's army is mainly based off a conscript system, and is far from the professional force that most Western countries maintain. Their Air Forces, while equipped with decent equipment, lack the experience and doctrine to deal with America or Europe's airpower. Any conflict around the Indian Ocean would bring into play multiple carrier task forces sitting off of China/India's coastlines, and would be staring at American long range bombers basing out of Diego Garcia, possibly Afghanistan or Pakistan, Japan and a couple other places to augment the naval airpower. The Chinese and Indians honestly present a minimal naval threat to those carriers, which provides additional security over land bases. While I look to history and see that airpower alone has never won a war, air supremacy over battlefields, proper close air support, and behind-the-lines strikes on artillery and supply trains plays a pivotal role in allowing ground forces a decisive advantage. Additionally, meant simply for analogy and not in a racist manner, 5000 poorly trained savages with guns in large numbers are no match for 1000 well trained, unified men with better guns, everything else being equal. If anything, I would expect the US to come in on the side of India in the conflict, with India providing the majority of ground forces and the US providing support and a decent amount of troops, mainly special forces, amphib troops and airborne troops, while bringing in infantry divisions or cav units if the fighting stayed out of the mountains.
examples, Christianity/Islam,
Isreal vs Palistinians,
Issues like these in Cambodia, Iran, Paksitan vs India, eastern European issues with reglious minorities in former yugoslavia/kosavo area etc
Exeption China vs. Taiwan
also several socilogists and demographics say that with in the next 100 years China will become the next superpower.
Their overpopulation problems are being taken care of whether or not their methods are moraly correct. India and the US have some of the worlds most booming populations now.
Chinas economy is also beoming more and more stable as well. Not tomention their sphere of influence in their area of the world as well.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Huh? When did I even say that I hated Muslims... did I miss something? I'm not afraid of Muslims at all, I simply stated that we were not fighting a war against a type of government, but a religon, and let's face it, we are. We don't want to destroy the religon, but most of the countries/people the American government chooses to fight against <i>are</i> Islamic, therefore, we are fighting a religon but in a different sort of way.
U.S. vs. them? Well, isn't that what it is? It's the U.S. vs. Al Qaeda isn't it? Of course, it could be the other way around if you prefer that. Al Qaeda vs. them, Al Qaeda vs. the U.S. Picky for details, aren't we?
I really have no desire to read the Quaran and I haven't, then again, the same thing goes for the Bible, I'm atheist. I'd also like to advise you not to take peoples posts out of context, I was talking about communism and the wars going on now, not about how Islam sucks and how we should kick all Muslims out of America. In fact, I don't even remember alluding to that... <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You equate a totalitarian ruled country with a single religion- and then say the equivalent of democracy is converting? lol.... stay in your shanty down south, where no one cares for intelligent conversation anyway.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Totalitarian ruled country... what? When did I even talk about a country like that in my post, are you sure you were reading mine? You might want to check again... In fact, I get the feeling that you didn't really read my entire post at all.
Democracy is converting? Huh? I never stated anything like that. America is fighting against a Theocracy, do I need to tell you what that is? Well, a Theocracy is a country who's government is governed by top religous officials. America is fighting against these Theocratic governments and, therefore, against the religon in place. Let's face it, most of the Middle Eastern "terrorists" are Islamic, so I think it's safe to say the the war that America is waging is against this radical for of Islam. Is it right? I don't think so, but somehow you managed to completely pull my arguement out of context and butcher it...
Then there's the end of your post where you've completely contradicted yourself. For one, I don't live in the "south". I live in the Plains, FYI. Next, not everyone in the South lives in a "shanty", gj contradicting yourself. And lastly, you've managed to show that you can't carry on an intelligent conversation yourself by adding those flames at the end.
I suggest that you stay out of the discussions forum if your going that carry that flamey additude, this really isn't the place for it.