Latest Diablo 3 News
DiabloWiki Updates
Support the site! Become a Diablo: IncGamers PAL - Remove ads and more!

North vs. South

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by dirkdig, Apr 9, 2005.

  1. dirkdig

    dirkdig IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Messages:
    1,203
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    346
    North vs. South

    As long as we're making ridiculous vs. threads, who would win if we had a repeat of the civil war today? The North or the south? (Assume that anything west of kansas is staying out of the war)
    Edit: arggggggh stupid laggy internet why didn't it add a poll? Could a mod help me out?
     
  2. ~Kazama Fury~

    ~Kazama Fury~ IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    3,126
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    165
    This reminds me of a movie I just saw yesterday.

    Tae Guk Gi: The Brotherhood of War

    Beautiful movie, but horrible dubbing.
    I prefer watching the movie with subs.
     
  3. bigD72

    bigD72 IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Messages:
    2,777
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    466
    Does the north get the Dakota's?

    If so they win, easy.
     
  4. Ash Housewares

    Ash Housewares IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2003
    Messages:
    21,802
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    467
    excluding the westies eh? we'd kick both yer asses ya punks

    *hoardes all the food, espresso, & performance fleece*

    you're doomed
     
  5. IDupedInMyPants

    IDupedInMyPants Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,522
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Losing the Civil War is the best thing that ever happened to the southern states, so they'd probably arrange to surrender even if they started winning.
     
  6. Steve_Kow

    Steve_Kow Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2003
    Messages:
    2,860
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Let's see . . . Connecticut has Sikorski, Colt, Pratt & Whitney, Electric boat (sub makers), and GE. When it comes down to industrial production--the North will still win.
     
  7. itsPizzarific

    itsPizzarific Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,489
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    north roxxorz - all the way.

    even thought im in the south..
     
  8. dirkdig

    dirkdig IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Messages:
    1,203
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    346
    The south doesn't see it quite that way, Duped, even if it might be true. I've lived here all my life, and a good many people still think the war should be going on today...
     
  9. Garbad_the_Weak

    Garbad_the_Weak IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2003
    Messages:
    4,082
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    466
    The South would kick the north's ass. Who exactly from the north would fight? They have a long proud tradition of running to canada. Seriously, look at the military records of volunteers and whatnot by region. People from the north are cowards. Not to mention most of them have never been outdoors.

    And this time we won't go easy on you after we win the first half dozen battles or so.

    Garbad
     
  10. IDupedInMyPants

    IDupedInMyPants Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,522
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm guessing someone asked that same question the first time around and was unpleasantly surprised.

    And, dirk, no offense or anything, I just meant that from an economic standpoint. If they had successfully seceded or the war were still going on, they'd still be "making a living" with slavery (which is largely a product of an inability to pay current free market equilibrium rates for labor) and subsistence agriculture. That's about as third world of an economic structure as you can get without going tribal.

    I have a question though, is this repeat of the Civil War a complete repeat in all respects? Because I don't think many military men in the south today would be willing to fight for slavery, for example, nor do I see the South having a strong enough leadership today to even contemplate taking on the federal government with any degree of effectiveness.
     
  11. Steve_Kow

    Steve_Kow Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2003
    Messages:
    2,860
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And when I say people from Africa are criminals everyone freaks out. :p
     
  12. dirkdig

    dirkdig IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Messages:
    1,203
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    346
    No offense taken Duped, I was just saying that a lot of southerners would be more than happy to fight another war against "northern aggression".

    And to answer your question, I wasn't even thinking about motives, just another war between the two for whatever reason. Maybe them politicians in DC tried to make eatin' roadkill illegal, who knows.
     
  13. CyberHawk

    CyberHawk IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    2,358
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Ya in general a average southern man shoots, kills, hunts, and is used to the outside. And with the quality of hunting clothes even a poor man can get and such..even the average man can survive northern winters no problem. I really think it would come back to who had the most money again. And alot of the south seems moe poor than yankees...so.

    It would be a good fight. But I enjoy my flag now a days..and I couldn't fight against it...but never will I forget its brother flag.
     
  14. Steve_Kow

    Steve_Kow Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2003
    Messages:
    2,860
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    People up North hunt too btw.
     
  15. cyclotronic

    cyclotronic IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,792
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Alaska for teh win!!!11!!
     
  16. CyberHawk

    CyberHawk IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    2,358
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    255

    well duh...now lets pick out 10 houses. Lets see who has more hunters.

    Or another test. Blindly pick out 10 people..and see if they know how to clean, rdy to eat fish, small game, big game, and such.
    Also ask the same people what does 40 grams mean and is it better than 200 grams.
    Goose down or not.
    I'm just showing alot "more" southern'rs know alot of this..and most by the age of 8.
    Of course yankees know this some of this easy stuff...we take vacations up north sometimes..;)
     
  17. Steve_Kow

    Steve_Kow Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2003
    Messages:
    2,860
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'd say that everyone of my neighbors owns a rifle, and can fire it competently.

    Not that it matters, modern wars aren't won by hunters. They're won by professional fighting men.
     
  18. CyberHawk

    CyberHawk IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    2,358
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    255

    So your saying a hunter is not a fighting man? Wow..I bet theres about a 200 yrs that says otherwise for this country. Becasue of hunters...little things like the Alamo were made...yes not won..but turn the tide. In my eyes..you just loaded your mouth and fire before you knew what the hell you meant. Even a Indian would slap you for that. Some of the best fighters this world has ever seen were Indians like the Cherokee...bows and axes vs rifles. Yes still lost..but I guess since they were not professional they were weak.
    The hunter existed looong before a professional were ever even thought of.
     
  19. Ash Housewares

    Ash Housewares IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2003
    Messages:
    21,802
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    467
    propoganda made the alamo
    talking about it made it what it was, I know what you're saying but bum example

    but you can't be saying a militia would stand up against a professional army on a regular basis, it's happened, but I'd take the trained soldiers with machine guns over the drunk guy with a shotgun & pitchfork
     
  20. CyberHawk

    CyberHawk IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    2,358
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    255

    Well the preferred weapon was the rifle I'm pretty sure.

    Ok, lets give a example.

    A mountian man in todays world vs a trained soldier trained in woods/mountain regions and such.
    Now bet something that really means something to you....kinda "hot" isn't it. Someone who is supposed to be good at this..vs a person who lives there practically....I know where my bet goes.
    I got all kinds of faith in todays military, but not vs someone who knows as much as the animals there and plus.
    Of course mountain men are far and few now a days. But there methods are easy learned for a sizable army. They only like grenades. Tho they use bear traps.
    Of course the end result would be the regulars. But it almost becomes a unbeatable army. When money say who wins nowadays pretty much. A soldier cost a hella lot now a days. Vs a man with a rifle and a perfect shot.
     

Share This Page