Civil War 2005

Re: Titor Was BS - Party Planning

An oil peak would cause unemployment, possibly riots between civilians and police, would create massive economic destruction across the planet. "People will realize in 2008 that nothing would ever be the same" another parallel to the peak oil scenario, some theorize the real effects of the peak (200 dollar oil) will be in 2008. The similarities are are very unsettling. Everything I'm seeing and reading on the news feels like it's leading towards it.
Click to expand...


I remember this thing was discussed before. Yes the WWIII is DEFINITELY a war that arose because of "OIL". Your interpretation stands true here.

BUT a civil WAR cannot arise due to oil price hike. "Something" causes the collapse of western stability in 2005. US troops in Iraq would tremble and terrorism goes to its peak in the Middle East. This makes the E.U. march towards the East to maintain stability. Russia on the other hand, comes to the party. China, Japan and Korea on the other hand- WWIII.

This was the interpretation discused in some other thread, and I feel this is quite possible and consistent with Titor story.
 
Re: Titor Was BS - Party Planning

He says that it starts in 2004, but that would be like saying political and social instability is starting between the north and the south. Remember him saying it's more of a "civil conflict" in which armed groups manuever.
Click to expand...

They are not directly involved but political situations are dependant on Western stability, which collapses in 2005.
Click to expand...

Western stability collapses so middle eastern stability collapses. We play a big part in israel and the greater middle east. America doesn't pull out. Public outrage at the government rises.

Oil also if you don't recall is our key reason for being interested in stability in the middle east. If Africa were as rich with oil as the middle east is we'd be in there doing what we are now to the middle east.
 
The American Civil War happened because of secession over a single, important human rights issue: Slavery.
Click to expand...

That would be incorrect. States' RIghts was the primary cause of the ACW. Slavery may have played a part in that - at some point - but it wasn't the founding cause.

As for the rest? I can see where the citizens of the US are getting pushed around economically to the point where anger could boil over into something else. Has that happened yet? No, even with gas prices being out of control.

When the Corporations really take over, then we'll see.
 
That would be incorrect.
Click to expand...
I will give you that perhaps my strong wording of slavery as the SINGLE issue is incorrect... however...

Slavery may have played a part in that - at some point - but it wasn't the founding cause.
Click to expand...
...this I do not agree with. Evidence to support this would be:

1) A compiled Chronology of the Secession Crisis.
2) The following words that are in the first article of the first chronological event in the above chronology:

"1. Resolved by the Democracy of the State of Alabama, in Convention assembled, That holding all issues and principles upon which they have heretofore affiliated and acted with the National Democratic party to be inferior in dignity and importance to the great question of slavery , they content themselves with a general re-affirmance of the Cincinnati Platform as to such issues, and also endorse said platform as to slavery , together with the following resolutions:

2. Resolved further, That we re-affirm so much of the first resolution of the Platform adopted in Convention by the Democracy of this State, on the 8th of January, 1856, as relates to the subject of slavery , to wit: ' The unqualified right of the people of the slaveholding States to the Protection of their property in the States, in the Territories, and in the wilderness in which Territorial Governments are as yet unorganized.'

...

6. Resolved further, That the Congress of the United States has no power to abolish slavery in the Territories, or to prohibit its introduction into any of them."

(emphasis mine).

So, to imply that slavery was not at least one of the major founding causes of secession is... incorrect.

Counter-point?
RMT
 
And I agree that Slavery was an issue, The curious thing is that although slavery was the moral issue of the nineteenth century that divided the political leaders of the land, the average American had very little interest in slaves or slavery. Most Southerners were small farmers that could not afford slaves. Most Northerners were small farmers or tradesmen that had never even seen a slave.

So it was more economics than morality. The soldiers of both sides didn't fight for or against Slavery.
 
So it was more economics than morality. The soldiers of both sides didn't fight for or against Slavery.
Click to expand...
Well, I certainly would not disagree with that! In fact, the real connection between economics and the slavery issue as they pertain to state's rights and federal power was the fact that slaves were considered personal property. So yes, I agree it was never really viewed from a moral standpoint by the majority, but rather more like "The Feds can't tell me what I can and cannot do with my property."

RMT
 
History post:The civil war, might have been caused due to social pressure, from the fact, that the owning of humanbeings, was becoming outmoded.

This is said that there was a modern perspective, that was arising, to where this act was not a sensation any longer.

A freeman can still be a servant, or a butler, however retain their rights to a free-man status.

Lincoln having adjusted to a lower ratcheted stance, in the later stages of Marfans Syndrome, was determined, to have this new allowance set for an oncoming modern society.

The south did not view it this way, as their society was built on the premise of almost free and cheap labor.

So a loggerheads had to come out of this adjustment.

*The modern society purports, that super-metropolization is now in the ante.

Eminent domain now seems to be the crux of the way of the cities, in modern society now trying to become super cities.

Economies are, it seems being built on mankind's lust factor, which is an extrapolation of the novel, Of Human Bondage, which stipulates that in order for business to do, well, something like a socially acceptable prostitute, must be placed into the hopper, to be ground up as oil, to support this new grand concept, of an all encroaching edifice.

The relationship, between a meeker more sublime rural and a juggernaught all taking collection of cities, is not as it once was.

There is a complete lack of space exploration.

Something is rotten, at the core blow the waterline, of this grand new ocean steamer, that we refer to as the new America.

It has been some twenty years in practum, that a DC9 or MD80 aircraft sized spacecraft has been flying into space.

There is no half mile long space station, cows and in some cases people are found by Multon Howe and associates, with their rectums and private parts surgically excised and the fruit of a special titled, UFO cover-up live, the astronauts exchange program, has not be reviled to the general public that saw it.

Somewhere in this fold, is the dumbness of a Hitchcock murder, where people in the foreground are seeming to enjoy their picnic, however in the most unfashionable way imaginable, someone in the background is being murdered.
 
The civil war had more to do with the industrialization of the south than it had to do with slavery. It's just a moral to tell little kids.
Click to expand...
Sorry, IS. It's more than just a moral, it's history. Ever hear of the Emancipation Proclamation? And did you read all the articles on the website I provided? Slavery is all over the Alabama Platform.

RMT
 
The civil war had more to do with the industrialization of the south than it had to do with slavery. It's just a moral to tell little kids.
Click to expand...

I have to agree with Rainman on this one. Industrialization of the South wasn't a concern. Economics affecting the South was and the economics of the time involved the use of slave labor. The Northern states wanted to prohibit the use of slaves in the new territories. The South was against that and the issue of State's Rights became the catch-all for the issues at hand.
 
The result of the war was very different from the causes of the war.

Much say, Oil was the reason to go into Iraq (for arguments sake) but we are there to create a new government NOW.

Its easier to go to war over morals than it is to go to war over money. It just sounds better.
 
The result of the war was very different from the causes of the war.
Click to expand...

Well, not really. The Southern States were returned to the Union. Yes, slaves were "freed" - for whatever that was worth - and the South began to move away from its agri-base to survive.

The bottom line is that the men fighting this war didn't do so over slavery - not in the beginning.
 
What I was trying to say, and you seem to agree with, is that the war was more for monetary reasons, rather than moral ones as many of us were brought up to believe.
 
What I was trying to say, and you seem to agree with, is that the war was more for monetary reasons, rather than moral ones as many of us were brought up to believe.
Click to expand...

Yes, exactly. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
Back
Top