America should divide(pro) or develop a method of cutting down on the bipartisanship(con).

1. People would return to their home state, not the state they serve from. 2. America being bombed is not my point. My point was that you prefer to wait for some disaster to come to increase nationalism. For every disaster, lives are lost. You are saying that you want to wait for more 9/11's to happen(in addition, look at how America is split over the war primarily sparked by this event). 3. You also seem to underestimate the ability of one man to rally millions of people to prevent a war, especially when parts of families may be on the other side of the war. In addition, look at all of the sovereign states that came out of Russia at the end of WWI. They are still sovereign and have not gone back to war with Russia. 4. I do not see the relevance of the paragraph about the British empire. 5. History does seem to repeat itself doesn't it. However, when a revolution occurs, the repetition stops. People do not continue to be nomads. The global population has begun to rise by a billion every decade. We now have professional militaries that did not exist in the past. Things like this do not repeat and we cannot always use history as an example for a reason we should not do something, it can help prove a point, but sometimes we need to look at the needs of a nation. In this case, bipartisanship and differences across the country pose reasons for new countries to split. 6. Soldiers fight to protect their homeland and families. In this case, the homeland would just be smaller and have a different flag. The cause to fight would not change. 7. Oh no, the country that steals jobs by providing slave labor would fall and promote self dependency(also the country that is expected to surpass America as a superpower in the next several years) for the new nations. The middle east, North Korea, and Iran would fall apart even more. Why do we even try to keep them working. Oh right, oil, another thing that would be encouraged, sinful just sinful. Let us also remember that the last global depression eventually led to the US becoming an economic superpower. In this case, it will just be smaller economic powers(look at the economic power Germany, each nation would be about this size and Germany functions still). Consider it causing the competition to get a little weaker. 8. You seem skeptical of the abilities of this country to put itself into a fire. We are in one now. You seem to underestimate the fact that many of the people in the new countries will not want people from the other countries in their country. Why would a Texan want to be in the same nation as New York and why would a Georgian want to be in the same nation as California(after they finally got out of them)(Let us not forget that these two states, and those around them, provide many sources for disagreement with the other states). Furthermore, you seem to have this idea that it is America's job to keep the world from falling apart. America is in charge of taking care of itself, no one else. In addition, the US being the worlds largest consumer is not really a good thing, it means that we import a ton and barely make anything ourselves. 9. So you agree, bipartisanship is bad. Then why do you only provide temporary solutions. Why do you only provide examples in which the opinions of one aspect of a party is changed as opposed to completely reducing party differences. You have taken the debate away from the political and social issues that I have provided a solution for and turned it into a "Will America kill itself debate." The entire reason that I posted the comment about a peaceful dissolution is so that people do not bring up a debate about another civil war. I wanted to draw attention to the political and social benefits of dividing. My plan reduces bipartisanship. My plan reduces geographic differences. My plan increases state's rights. My plan reduces cultural differentiation. My plan makes all of the countries more politically efficient.