It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


A split United States?

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 02:56 PM
now, i wouldn't usually do this (two US threads in a day) and i apologise if it looks like i'm giving the US a bashing, because i really can't stress enough that this isn't my goal! right, so now, i want to ask you all a question, if the united states was never united, where would we be now?
AND, if the united states was to split today, how would you feel as an american/not as an american? and what affects would it have?

now, just a few quick points.
i'll just start from 1900.
what affects would it have had on WWI?
What affects would it have had on WWII?
Would communism be world wide by now?
Which countries would own each state, since it never became just "one country", Would all of them be a country in its own right?
Would there be nukes?
What affects of having no cold war be?
What would the economic stance now?
Who would be the super powers of the modern world?

now, if the united states were to split today, i have some other questions.

how would you feel as an american, to no longer be a part of the USA?
how would you feel as somebody seeing america split, but not actually from the USA?
What would happen to the US army?
What government systems would be in place?
How would these countries fare in the world?
How powerful would these lone countries be?

feel free to add your own questions.

thank you for your time, and remember, please no american bashing!!!

[edit on 2-6-2010 by Dr Slim]

posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 03:07 PM
oh my stars

there are too many what ifs

there is no way to tell

what if the sky falls tomorrow
would have been just as relevant.

posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 03:16 PM
It's like giving the questions to German country, but replace with no USA to Hitler still alive and winning.

What if Hitler won both WWI and WWII, have nuclear capable, heir of Hitler still be president of German, etc.

It will lead to endless possible outcomes. However, I can see your point of the possible what will lead to current lives if USA doesn't exist. Will world be in better circumstance without USA being existence? I don't know.

posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 03:17 PM
Interesting. The first thing that really comes to my mind in general is it doesnt seem to do so well in Europe. Those countries are kind of states and look at the mess they create or are in.

Personally I think, if we had less borders, we would have less problems, but that is just imho. To many wars over little land rights drawn in the sand. sad really. America is definitely a bit whacked and I don't blame other countries for thinking we are nuts, but it really it's the people that make our country great, not really the government. That by itself is its own whole mess as we the people can attest to.

I am curious to see how this thread goes for sure...

posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 03:20 PM
I often wonder what would have happened had Columbus and his men been blown off course or their ships sank and never reached here. What would life for the American Indian be like today? Would Europeans still have the technology that they have today?

posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 03:20 PM
i think i'll edit my post a little bit to see peoples reaction if they were to split the states at this moment in time

posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 03:23 PM
The question kind of has too many varriables to get a straight answer. The bestone i can come up with is that the united states would have become a british country and would have a queen (like canada). We would have won world war one, whould have lost world war two because the british have no defensive bonus against Nazis. So the united states would have become part of Nazi germany and we would all be forced to use google.

[edit on 2-6-2010 by zaiger]

posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 03:40 PM
reply to post by zaiger

the US could've ended up having a monarchy anyway, G.W turned it down though

posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 04:11 PM
reply to post by Dr Slim

No..... The united states was not is not or has not been close to a monarchy. A monarchy is a system of government where the king rules and that leadership is passed down within the family.
Here people elected bush snr. and bush Jounior he was not just given the power to rule because he was the son of an ex president. Not to mention we had clinton in between those two.

posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 04:15 PM
Admin edit: Spammer banned.

[edit on Jun 2nd 2010 by Djarums]

posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 04:17 PM
reply to post by macgruber

Just trying to get to 20 posts so you can post your own thread?

posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 04:17 PM
If the Union had not won the Civil War, and the conflict had ended in "stalemate" or failure of the north to maintain the union, the states would have maintained their sovereignty. It is extremely unlikely that a central bank would have come into existence, and the likely cause of the civil war getting funded by foreign banks was to destroy state sovereignty.
Too many "countries" for the Rothschilds to have to deal with in the quest for a central bank of the U.S.
It was at this critical juncture that the federal government fell under the undue influence of foreign bankers, since great sums were owed to them to fund the war. They got control of our federal government.
As a result, Wilson got us into World War I, a war the Germans had won. The purpose of course was the Rothschild bankers wanted a country of their own, and made the deal, The Balfour Declaration. promising to bring in the U.S. if they could get Palestine.
The Germans figured all of this out after the war, and this fueled the sentiment that brought us Hitler.
Of course, we got into that one too, because one world government, the NWO, cannot have powerful states not under the control of these bankers. This is the reason we have been continually at war with the world...the international corporations are terrorists, exploiting third world countries to keep them poor, as tools of the bankers.
Ultimately these banksters will bankrupt ALL countries, and as we are seeing evidence of that today,
I rest my case.

So, don't blame the U.S. PEOPLE, the U.S. Corporation owned by (faux Jewish) bankers are lawless and will enforce the will of these banksters.


For an interesting read:

posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 04:20 PM
interesting concept OP, Ultimately i think it would be bad for america to be split, or to have been previously split in the early days of our civilization. i think the united states would look more like south america today if it wasnt united, and also i think north and south america would have been colonized by either the traditional colonial powers or russia. alot of our policy toward south america is protecting them from colonization, without that security blanket we would have been taken advantage of by now. i also think ww1 and 2 would have been catosrophic for us, especally ww2. i doubt communism would have rule the world because germany and japan would have dominated it along with russia.

the goal for the US in the future i believe is to stay intacted, one. and maybe even expand modestly, maybe not formallly but better integration with traditional allies like britian canada and australia will continue to be benifical to us and them as well. as much as we all hate the military etc, they do protect us from the one thing that is worse then our military, a foreign military, and our survival in the future i believe is tied to our unity as a nation.

our biggest issues i believe right now are getting the US Latin population better integrated into america, and setting up a more effective immigration policy to ensure desirable people are encouraged to migrate to america.

posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 04:29 PM
reply to post by zaiger

zaiger, i never stated for one minute that george bush became president because he was the son of george bush snr, how stupid do you think i am?
i stated that in the early days of america, George WASHINGTON was offered to be king and then america would have had a monarchy.

posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 04:30 PM
The only thing that's united is the military's intent to kill others!

As long as Washington (and their many sub-levels) run this country the United States of America is an oxymoronic name!

posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 04:32 PM
Admin edit: Spammer banned.

[edit on Jun 2nd 2010 by Djarums]

posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 04:36 PM
reply to post by thirtysecondsmacgruber

you're very annoying aren't you? why don't you legitemately get all your posts and actually get involved in a conversation?

posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 04:55 PM
My first thought on the possibility that the States had NEVER united is that;
Without political union, there would be no economic union.
Your region of the world would never have achived so much, so quickly, in material terms, without economic union.
Without that power, it would not have been able to intervene to any great effect on the "right side" in the 20th Century wars- and then we would all have been in trouble.

posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 05:15 PM
Just read, I did not see any mention of the huge loans made to France by Britain, so the French could keep their part of WW 1 going, incidentaly, the Brits are still waiting for the French to repay the loans! In 1914, the British empire or rather, Britain, was the richest country in the world, hence the jingo at the time, 'we have the men, we have the ships, we have the money too'!

posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 07:07 PM
Nations rise and fall in the long run it doesnt mean a thing. Maybe one day humanity will outgrow the primitive idea of nations/governments/religions etc.. and end the cycle .

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in