Re: Alternate history[Here's my Timeline](long)

Brian Bilderback wrote:
... Snip...JTL
.... and fiction has to do with
> events we MAKE UP.
XXX
     Point well taken.	JTL
XXX
 > 
> As to the impossibility of my timeline, let's remember a couple of
> things.... this doesn't all happen Next Tuesday. A lot of my timeline
> depends on certain events happening over a very long course of time. 
Things
> change over time. Demographics, geography, all sorts of changes
happen.
XXX
     Granted that time changes all things, However, the possibility that
an indian nation(s) will control the center of the USA is streaching
thingss
just to far.   The question becomes: Who gave it to the indians? 
As an example, the Quebec(?, Sorry it is to early to spell.) attempt to
exit
to Canadian confederation caused the Inuit(?) indians to threaten to
leave 
Quebec and join another province (This would have resulted in a loss of
land in 
Quebec of about 30 to 40 percent.)   JTL 
XXX
...Snip...JTL
I might have beenm willing to present them with a more
> detailed timeline that actually justifies events as I present them.
XXX
     I didn't know that this was a partial timeline or I might have
asked?
JTL
XXX> 
> But opinions are personal property, and everyone has a right to one.
What I
> most strongly object to is the fact that now it seems others are
> misunderstanding what *I* actually said in the first place, since it
never
> mentioned a "Million man army of occupation."  Go ahead and criticize
me for
> what I've said,m but not for what I haven't.
XXX
     The reference to the army and weapons was a roundabout way of
saying that
the concepts of 'force', 'take', and 'give to' with reguard to the USA
are
not really viable.   The only way the USA can be broken up/controlled is
with
the permission of the people.	
     The Official timeline cover the breakup of the USA by creating a
civil
war and having the UK army join one side.   This is the sort of
'permission'
to which I refer.  JTL
XXX
> 
> Brian B

No offense intended,
John L.