North vs. South

dirkdig

Diabloii.Net Member
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?
 

~Kazama Fury~

Diabloii.Net Member
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.
 

Ash Housewares

Diabloii.Net Member
excluding the westies eh? we'd kick both yer asses ya punks

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

you're doomed
 
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.
 

Steve_Kow

Banned
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.
 

dirkdig

Diabloii.Net Member
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...
 

Garbad_the_Weak

Diabloii.Net Member
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
 
Garbad_the_Weak said:
The South would kick the north's ass. Who exactly from the north would fight?
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.
 

dirkdig

Diabloii.Net Member
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.
 

CyberHawk

Diabloii.Net Member
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.
 

CyberHawk

Diabloii.Net Member
Steve_Kow said:
People up North hunt too btw.

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..;)
 

Steve_Kow

Banned
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.
 

CyberHawk

Diabloii.Net Member
Steve_Kow said:
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.

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.
 

Ash Housewares

Diabloii.Net Member
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
 

CyberHawk

Diabloii.Net Member
Ash Housewares said:
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

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.
 
Top