Quantcast
 

Russia predicts U.S will split

Wed, 11/26/2008 - 1:56pm by cine_lover
376 Views - 36 comments

If this happens, I am moving to Texas!

http://drudgereport.com/flashrur.htm

RUSSIAN ANALYST PREDICTS DECLINE AND BREAKUP OF USA
Tue Nov 25 2008 09:04:22 ET

A leading Russian political analyst has said the economic turmoil in the United States has confirmed his long-held view that the country is heading for collapse, and will divide into separate parts.

Professor Igor Panarin said in an interview with the respected daily IZVESTIA published on Monday: "The dollar is not secured by anything. The country's foreign debt has grown like an avalanche, even though in the early 1980s there was no debt. By 1998, when I first made my prediction, it had exceeded $2 trillion. Now it is more than 11 trillion. This is a pyramid that can only collapse."

The paper said Panarin's dire predictions for the U.S. economy, initially made at an international conference in Australia 10 years ago at a time when the economy appeared strong, have been given more credence by this year's events.

When asked when the U.S. economy would collapse, Panarin said: "It is already collapsing. Due to the financial crisis, three of the largest and oldest five banks on Wall Street have already ceased to exist, and two are barely surviving. Their losses are the biggest in history. Now what we will see is a change in the regulatory system on a global financial scale: America will no longer be the world's financial regulator."

When asked who would replace the U.S. in regulating world markets, he said: "Two countries could assume this role: China, with its vast reserves, and Russia, which could play the role of a regulator in Eurasia."

Asked why he expected the U.S. to break up into separate parts, he said: "A whole range of reasons. Firstly, the financial problems in the U.S. will get worse. Millions of citizens there have lost their savings. Prices and unemployment are on the rise. General Motors and Ford are on the verge of collapse, and this means that whole cities will be left without work. Governors are already insistently demanding money from the federal center. Dissatisfaction is growing, and at the moment it is only being held back by the elections and the hope that Obama can work miracles. But by spring, it will be clear that there are no miracles."

He also cited the "vulnerable political setup", "lack of unified national laws", and "divisions among the elite, which have become clear in these crisis conditions."

He predicted that the U.S. will break up into six parts - the Pacific coast, with its growing Chinese population; the South, with its Hispanics; Texas, where independence movements are on the rise; the Atlantic coast, with its distinct and separate mentality; five of the poorer central states with their large Native American populations; and the northern states, where the influence from Canada is strong.

He even suggested that "we could claim Alaska - it was only granted on lease, after all." Panarin, 60, is a professor at the Diplomatic Academy of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and has authored several books on information warfare.

Posted in  Conservative Sugar

36 Comments Add a Comment

  • 1

    I don't think it would split like that. Texas has one of the largest hispanic populations. If it split along the way he said, Texas would be included with his "south" model.

    32 weeks 1 day ago Report Comment
  • 3

    There is already civil unrest in China over lack of jobs, and the Russian economy is in shambles (far worse then here in the USA. I think the “War of Northern Aggression” settled once and for all any likelihood of the U.S breaking up.

    32 weeks 1 day ago Report Comment
  • 5

    Hey Grandpa i was kinda hoping to get rid of California. I love how the Russians are voicing their opinion on how they will take over and step up to the US position. They really should put the Vodka down.
    ***************
    "Enjoy life, it's ungrateful not to." - Ronald Reagan

    32 weeks 1 day ago Report Comment
  • 6

    "...and has authored several books on information warfare."

    Ding-ding-ding. We have a winner!

    Any eastern European "political analyst" should be considered even less credible than an MSNBC "political analyst". I had a classmate from Latvia once and she translated some of the Russian government-sponsored news for entertainment purposes. Talk about a tinfoil hat brigade. I was completely unaware that the James Bond franchise is part of a deft American conspiracy to undermine Putin.

    On the other hand, I wouldn't have much of a problem splitting this country up, so long as we divided it up based on politics. Our side would have lower taxes and all the guns.

    32 weeks 1 day ago Report Comment
  • 7

    The vodka consumption in Russia is actually down. Stores and businesses are closing right and left, those that are surviving are having trouble getting funding to put goods on the shelf, and food prices are up 30%. Not too many Russians can afford Vodka any more; they are going for cheaper beverages.

    32 weeks 1 day ago Report Comment
  • 8

    "Our side would have lower taxes and all the guns."
    ***************
    "Enjoy life, it's ungrateful not to." - Ronald Reagan

    32 weeks 1 day ago Report Comment
  • 9

    The Russian elite can always have what they want from their private stores and from the black market. Screw the average guy.
    ***************
    "Enjoy life, it's ungrateful not to." - Ronald Reagan

    32 weeks 1 day ago Report Comment
  • 10

    Just like the rest of the world, the "elite" remain untouched.

    32 weeks 1 day ago Report Comment
  • 11

    our side=Lower taxes & all the guns! lol! that is hilarious-- split it already!

    32 weeks 1 day ago Report Comment
  • 12

    "Our side would have lower taxes and all the guns."

    I would be completely for a Conservative succession.

    Absolute power, corrupts absolutely.

    32 weeks 1 day ago Report Comment
  • 14

    God, I will miss Western Washington, but there is Idaho and Montana

    32 weeks 1 day ago Report Comment
  • 15

    Hey, I'm all for moving to the side with lower taxes and more guns. Count me in!

    32 weeks 1 day ago Report Comment
  • 16

    I moving to the place that allows my gun Eye-wink
    I thought the same thing as you Cine, "Texas here I come."

    32 weeks 1 day ago Report Comment
  • 17

    I think the US has too strong of a national identity to split like that.

    And I really don't get the obsession with guns..

    32 weeks 1 day ago Report Comment
  • 20

    Texas has one of the strongest economies in the world right now. Come on down, girl! Smiling

    32 weeks 1 day ago Report Comment
  • 21

    There is no "obsession" with guns. It is an important right that we were granted in the Constitution.

    32 weeks 1 day ago Report Comment
  • 23

    Hith, Canada like Great Britain has successfully disarmed its populace. Compare the crime rates pre disarm vs. possession. Next compare the crime rates in those states and communities that have “right to carry” laws, compared to those states and communities that have virtually abolished the legal right to carry a concealed weapon. Mexico does not allow private possession of a hand gun, how safe is Mexico compared to countries like Switzerland and Israel, where virtually ever home has a firearm.

    32 weeks 1 day ago Report Comment
  • 24

    I'm not opposed to gun ownership, I just don't see the necessity. I understand people that own guns to hunt for sport, or as collectors items, but the people that own guns "for protection" live with a fear I definitely don't share or comprehend. I don't live in a city that warrants locking my front door, let alone keeping a fatal weapon on my person for self-defense.
    Is there another reason to possess a gun aside from sport, collecting and defense that I might be missing?

    I just find American's affection for firearms utterly baffling. Is it just because it's in the constitution you feel ownership is a necessity?

    Canadians don't equate guns with freedom. Can't speak for the Brits.

    32 weeks 1 day ago Report Comment
  • 25

    Self-defense is reason enough for responsible gun ownership.
    City dwellers may have burglars; rural folks and campers may have bears.

    Target shooting is a challenge involving skill and accuracy.

    Also, things that go boom are sometimes fun. True story

    However, it's understandable when someone's lack of experience affects their understanding of other points of view.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money. -- Alexis de Tocqueville

    32 weeks 1 day ago Report Comment
  • 26

    Without guns, the chance of the government turning rogue is a lot greater. An armed citizenry is able to put up a fight.

    32 weeks 1 day ago Report Comment
  • 27

    so guns are for defense against.. government??

    Laine, I'm hoping to never have an experience to justify gun ownership, which is likely. I'm rather fond of blissful ignorance in this instance; I definitely don't envy anyone who has felt their live threatened to the point they live in such fear they find it necessary to keep a gun.

    Is America really that dangerous though? Don't most people go their whole lives without being burgalar-ized or attacked, or is an instance where a gun is necessary/justified a certain occurrence in the average citizen's lifetime?

    32 weeks 1 day ago Report Comment
  • 29

    Gov't can not protect you or your family; it is you who are responsible for your safety. A 110 lb female has no chance against a 6' 185+lb brute. The reason crime is low in those areas with right to carry laws, is only because the criminal does not know who is armed and who is not.

    32 weeks 1 day ago Report Comment
  • 30

    I don't count on the government for protection -- I don't feel threatened.

    I also don't agree the potential threat of injury/death is what's responsible for low crime rates in right-to-carry areas.. that's along the same line as believing capital punishment deters crime.

    Don't you worry about everyone being able to access firearms with ease? Wouldn't that increase the danger in every-day situations, given the already sometimes fatal incidents of road rage or barfights? Don't you think some people are possibly too irresponsible to possess a firearm?

    32 weeks 1 day ago Report Comment
  • 31

    The right to self-defense is a fundamental right. The U.S. constitution, the constitutions of 44 states, common law, and the laws of all 50 states recognize the right to use arms in self-defense. RTC laws respect the right to self-defense by allowing individuals to carry firearms for protection.

    • More RTC, less crime: Violent crime rates since 2003 have been lower than anytime since the mid-1970s.1 Since 1991, 23 states have adopted RTC, the number of privately-owned guns has risen by nearly 70 million,2 and violent crime is down 38%. In 2007, the most recent year for which complete data are available, RTC states had lower violent crime rates, on average, compared to the rest of the country (total violent crime by 24%; murder, 28%; robbery, 50%; and aggravated assault, 11%).3

    • RTC and crime trends: Studying crime trends in every county in the U.S., John Lott and David Mustard found, “allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes and it appears to produce no increase in accidental deaths. If those states which did not have Right to Carry concealed gun provisions had adopted them in 1992, approximately 1,570 murders; 4,177 rapes; and over 60,000 aggravated assaults would have been avoided yearly....[W]hen state concealed handgun laws went into effect in a county, murders fell by 8.5 percent, and rapes and aggravated assaults fell by 5 and 7 percent.”4

    • RTC a success in every state: Former Colorado Asst. Atty. Gen. David Kopel has written, “Whenever a state legislature first considers a concealed carry bill, opponents typically warn of horrible consequences....But within a year of passage, the issue usually drops off the news media’s radar screen, while gun-control advocates in the legislature conclude that the law wasn’t so bad after all.”5 A article on Michigan’s RTC law noted, “Concerns that permit holders would lose their tempers in traffic accidents have been unfounded. Worries about risks to police officers have also proved unfounded....National surveys of police show they support concealed handgun laws by a 3-1 margin....There is also not a single academic study that claims Right to Carry laws have increased state crime rates. The debate among academics has been over how large the benefits have been.”6

    • RTC permit-holders are more law-abiding than the rest of the public. For example, Florida, which has issued more carry permits than any state has issued 1.36 million permits, but revoked only 165 (0.01%) due to gun crimes by permit-holders.7

    Background: Before 1987, there were 10 RTC states. Indiana, Maine, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota and Washington had “shall issue” permit laws. Alabama and Connecticut had fairly-administered discretionary-issue systems. Georgia’s “shall issue” law was interpreted as discretionary in some jurisdictions. Vermont allowed carrying without a permit. Other states had restrictively-administered discretionary-issue carry permit systems or prohibited carrying.

    In 1987, Florida enacted a “shall issue” law that has become the model for other states. Anti-gun groups, politicians and news media people predicted vigilante justice and “Wild West” shootouts on every corner. But through 1992, Florida’s murder rate decreased 23%, while the U.S. rate rose 9%; thereafter, murder decreased both nationally and in Florida.8 Then-Florida Licensing Division Director, John Russi, noted, “Florida’s concealed weapon law has been very successful. All major law enforcement groups supported the original legislation....[S]ome of the opponents of concealed weapon legislation in 1987 now admit the program has not created the problems many predicted.”9 In a 1995 letter to state officials, Dept. of Law Enforcement Commissioner James T. Moore wrote, “From a law enforcement perspective, the licensing process has not resulted in problems.”

    • 29 states have adopted RTC since 1987. Of these, 21 previously prohibited carrying and had no carry permit system; nine (indicated with an asterisk, below) had restrictively-administered discretionary-issue systems. 1989: Oregon, Penna. (Phila. included in 1995), and West Virginia (in Georgia a judicial ruling enforced “shall issue” statewide); 1990: Idaho and Mississippi; 1991: Montana; 1994: Alaska, Arizona, Tennessee and Wyoming; 1995: Arkansas, Nevada*, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah* and Virginia*; 1996: Kentucky, Louisiana* and South Carolina*; 2001: Michigan*; 2003: Colorado*; Iowa* (by fairly administering its discretionary-issue system), New Mexico, Minnesota* and Missouri; 2004: Ohio; 2006: Kansas, Nebraska.

    32 weeks 1 day ago Report Comment
  • 32

    but you don't have the right to kill people if you're drunk & stupid in a bar or they cut you off on the highway..

    Anyway, those statistics are largely misleading. It only lists the proportion by which these crimes fell -- not what they were. A drop of 8.5% seems significant on the surface, but if the number was something like 15%, it probably doesn't mean it dropped to 6.5%, it means it's now down to 13.7%. This may or may not be statistically significant.. a fact conveniently left out of these results.
    I would actually like to know the rates of violent crimes with a firearm in these RTC states to see if they're lower than Canada.

    I just don't see what the incentive is to own a gun. Do you feel you're going to be attacked/robbed/raped and thus will need to protect yourself, or do you just want to have a gun because you can?

    Like I said, I'm not opposed to gun ownership, I just don't relate to the need to have one.

    32 weeks 1 day ago Report Comment
  • 33

    HTMB, Since private gun ownership was outlawed in Australia the violent crime rate has sky rocketed. When people bring up the fact that Great Britain has a lower crime rate then the USA because it has banned guns they are completely misinformed. In fact their crime rate was always lower then the USA, and once they outlawed private ownership for guns their crime rate increased and their crime rate is much higher in other aspects of crime then the US.

    There are so many reasons for gun ownership, lower crime rates is only one of them. I for one do not want my government the only ones who are armed. That gives them too much power. I want to be able to protect myself from the government gaining too much power over their people. And like it was said before, places with concealed carrying permits have lower crime rates because of the potential of someone having a gun. If you go to a no gun zone, you know no one is armed, therefor it is a free for all.

    As for you feeling safe, I assume you are in Canada, that is great. I bet the people on the greyhound felt they were safe as well, until some crazy guy cut the head off of some unassuming kid. If just one person had been armed or if the criminal had felt that someone had been armed, that whole incident could have been avoided.

    I highly recommend you research the benefits of gun ownership. It is not about shooting people and being violent.

    Absolute power, corrupts absolutely.

    32 weeks 1 day ago Report Comment
  • 34

    "but you don't have the right to kill people if you're drunk & stupid in a bar or they cut you off on the highway.."

    The above is a non sequitur, by your logic; we should ban automobiles, who wants a lunatic driver running over people walking their pets. The right to possess a firearm does not give you any rights other then to use them responsibly. Because I have a license to drive, does not mean I do not have to obey any traffic laws, or that I can abuse my right to drive in any manner, such as driving while drunk.

    32 weeks 1 day ago Report Comment
  • 35

    I can't add to the depth, logic or supporting evidence of this discussion, so I'll just say:

    Guns are insurance. It's wise to have, but you hope you'll never need it.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money. -- Alexis de Tocqueville

    32 weeks 18 hours ago Report Comment
  • 36

    I think your problem HTMB is that you think that people who own guns to protect themselves are living in fear. That's far from the truth. People who wear seatbelts when they drive aren't doing so because they are afraid of getting in a car accident. They do it because it's the smart thing to do.

    Guns can be a scary, foreign thing, especially to outsiders. Our culture is founded on guns. We won our independence with guns. They are part of our culture. In that, they aren't as scary as they are to someone from England for instance where many of the cops don't even have guns. Funny thing though in England, they had 130,000 knife attacks last year. All the law abiding English citizens have to carry....knives I guess if they want protection? Point is that there are bad people out there. It's not that we are afraid of them. We are simply smart enough to recognize that they are there and smart enough to utilize a right to protect ourselves from them.

    Regarding the guns and protection from a fascist regime taking over, it sounds silly, but it is a valid thing. Historically, brutal dictators disarmed their people. The right to bear arms is symbolic in that we *should* never be one of those places, unless we throw the constitution out the window.

    32 weeks 15 hours ago Report Comment

Post A Comment

To post comments, please log in or register.




©1976-2009 Sugar Inc. | Privacy (updated July-4-2008) | Terms of Use | Copyright Policy | Advertise | Contact Us