Start of civil war 2005 well heres my reson , In a speach in 1999 dick cheney said "by some estimates,there will be an average of 2% annual growth in the global oil demaned over the years ahead,along with,CONSERVATIVELY, a 3% natural decline in production from existing reserves. that means by 2010 we will need on the order of an additional 50 million barrels a day." Well id say thats pretty much cause to have to go in to iraq right, .It in my opion that since the states has been fighting non stop military campaines in afghanastan and than iraq since befor 99' those reservs have probably been going down by more than a conservtive 3% and i would actually like to find the numbers to see if the rates from' 99 stayed at a 2% growth till' 05(we all know how dick loves makeing steping in dog poop sound like a good thing. )Now katrina hit and the off loading stations for the tankers are down and they say that power wont be back for a couple more weeks, so they have to start lending out of the RESERVES!. Most people belive that our money is backed by gold. well it is, just not the 24k kind, its acually based off black gold, How this works is everything we use relies in some way or another to be shiped or produced with oil most fertlizers need for crops are made using patrolem biproduts. that peice of garbge suv that never once left a paved road,relies on oil,the factory that made it, on oil. then there's the 2 or 3 hundered fatorys oil powered, that make the different parts,From the carpeting or leather! to the spring on your fuel injector that need to be sent from all over the north amarica or the world by plane ,train or truck,to the suv factory to be assambled.when shiping and prduction costs go up the cost of everything goes up. This should start the biggest recession we have ever seen let alone the world had ever seen because if the states goes down every one will go down. cause for world war three let alone civil war,our last recession that would have happened was nicely diverted to southamarica following sept/11 but this only made the recession bubble to come worse and with the real estate bubble about to burst already this should set off a land slide for 2006.because no one will be able to aford gas anymore the auto industry will fail "not that that did'ent alredy start to last year"so if houseing and auto industry cant make sales this will relly hurt the banks because these are the 2 biggest industrys requireing loans and banks make thire money off loans because of interestand princeable but it seems now days every one lives of creditcards and overdraft or loans so in the first place most people are in debt and there money is all electronic so if we go in to a bad recession and no one actually can payback the money they owe and theres no money to spend the banks will have to reposes the assets ie. any thing you have not paid for yet cars,houses,furniture and anything else thats not paid off. think youll be able to claim bankruptcy think again as of oct,14 2005 even when claiming bankruptcy your credit card debits will not be paid off by the IRS, thay'll just sit there as a frozen account doing nothing not even makeing intrest for the credit card company.this is all just the tip of the iceburg. i could go on on for a hole novle of why theres no going back for amarica now and it does not take a lot of investagateing to see were amarica is going and fast. i think this is a more than good reson for civil war leading to all out globle war.
HERE is a good Reson for civil to global war.
- Thread starter karrara
- Start date
Darby
Epochal Historian
karrara,
It might sound good on paper - but:
A civil war between the government and whom? You certainly aren't naive enough to believe that a civil war would involve one unified revolutionary group against the government, are you?
A civil war, any civil war, involves multiple competing groups. Though they might forge temporary alliances during the course of such a conflict, in the end they will turn on each other. Only one leading faction per region can emerge at the end of the day.
You didn't do anything in your post to relate it to Time Travel (which is the topic at hand on the forum) so I'll do it for you. John TItor.
In Titor's Saga, Boomer sanatized (or was simply unaware of the realities) the civil war. He left the impression that the peace loving people of the revolution all banded together in communal harmony during and after the war. They loved their famalies, made acoustic music and revered the "old ones." So went the dialectic.
But what of the Communists? The Libertarians? The Conservatives? The Liberals? White Aryan Pride? Black Pride? Brown Pride? Native American Pride? You-name-it Pride? What about the "My Political Point of View is Better than Your Point of View you Murdering Swine No Matter Who You Are" Pride? What of the Anarchists?
What about the fact that he said that his world hated us? Who the hell were "the old ones" that he said that they so revered other than us? Did they import aliens from another planet to fulfill the role of the Old Ones?
Did they have super-smart hydrogen bombs that only killed the people that they didn't like and left the rest whom they did like? Or did they interrogate the survivors and murder those that they didn't like - because they had the wrong politics or wrong religion or wrong skin color? (See "Pogrom" below.)
Each of those groups and a dozen other groups would all be competing for their slice of the pie. And in Titor's own words his "New-nited States" was divided into five regions based on military and economic interests. That means that five factions and only five factions survived. All other opposition and potential opposition was terminated in some sort of pogrom.
Moreover, the five regions did not trust one another - why else would the nation be divided along lines of military interest? The entire planet had just been nuked into the stone age. What potential enemies, other than each other, would the five regions have? HIs five region military junta government absolutely guarantees that Titor's Civil War is simply on hold - much like The Great Compromise - and is doomed to flare up again. The "strongest with the mostest" and not necessarily the most righteous faction is destined, in Titor's Saga, to temporarily rises to the top to dominate the entire nation of five regions.
In a real civil war, it is often true that the government, in the end, is less a threat than your revolutionary brothers and sisters.
In the end the revolution demands home rule. In the end the revolution is always faced with answering the question, "Home rule, yes. But who will rule at home?"
So, be careful what you wish for or justify as good cause for a civil war. You just might get it...and find yourself at the end of a rope or up against a wall. At least that's what history tells you.
It might sound good on paper - but:
A civil war between the government and whom? You certainly aren't naive enough to believe that a civil war would involve one unified revolutionary group against the government, are you?
A civil war, any civil war, involves multiple competing groups. Though they might forge temporary alliances during the course of such a conflict, in the end they will turn on each other. Only one leading faction per region can emerge at the end of the day.
You didn't do anything in your post to relate it to Time Travel (which is the topic at hand on the forum) so I'll do it for you. John TItor.
In Titor's Saga, Boomer sanatized (or was simply unaware of the realities) the civil war. He left the impression that the peace loving people of the revolution all banded together in communal harmony during and after the war. They loved their famalies, made acoustic music and revered the "old ones." So went the dialectic.
But what of the Communists? The Libertarians? The Conservatives? The Liberals? White Aryan Pride? Black Pride? Brown Pride? Native American Pride? You-name-it Pride? What about the "My Political Point of View is Better than Your Point of View you Murdering Swine No Matter Who You Are" Pride? What of the Anarchists?
What about the fact that he said that his world hated us? Who the hell were "the old ones" that he said that they so revered other than us? Did they import aliens from another planet to fulfill the role of the Old Ones?
Did they have super-smart hydrogen bombs that only killed the people that they didn't like and left the rest whom they did like? Or did they interrogate the survivors and murder those that they didn't like - because they had the wrong politics or wrong religion or wrong skin color? (See "Pogrom" below.)
Each of those groups and a dozen other groups would all be competing for their slice of the pie. And in Titor's own words his "New-nited States" was divided into five regions based on military and economic interests. That means that five factions and only five factions survived. All other opposition and potential opposition was terminated in some sort of pogrom.
Moreover, the five regions did not trust one another - why else would the nation be divided along lines of military interest? The entire planet had just been nuked into the stone age. What potential enemies, other than each other, would the five regions have? HIs five region military junta government absolutely guarantees that Titor's Civil War is simply on hold - much like The Great Compromise - and is doomed to flare up again. The "strongest with the mostest" and not necessarily the most righteous faction is destined, in Titor's Saga, to temporarily rises to the top to dominate the entire nation of five regions.
In a real civil war, it is often true that the government, in the end, is less a threat than your revolutionary brothers and sisters.
In the end the revolution demands home rule. In the end the revolution is always faced with answering the question, "Home rule, yes. But who will rule at home?"
So, be careful what you wish for or justify as good cause for a civil war. You just might get it...and find yourself at the end of a rope or up against a wall. At least that's what history tells you.
i belive it was rmt who asked for a good reson for a civil war? I gave it,i did not say it had anything to do with titor. but since you want it too.here is my pure speculation,the civil war will more than likely be the people, mulisha groups including some the amarican army and some of the goverment.aginst the U.N and gorge bush gov.(NWO). i dont need to scroll on for five pages of why i think it will get like this just look at G.W response to katrina and 911, the guy could not give to shits about the amarican people,why because hes part of the NWO.whats he going to do when the recession hits. he'll just keep telling you "were makeing progrees on rectifing the situation".you want to know how he covers up the kill count in iraq,if your an amarican soldier and you are injured in iraq but die in a german hospital or being airlifted to a hospital out side of iraq and die there or on route you do not get counted as one of the 18oo hundered + killed in iraq.whats the real total some wher between 6-9 thousand dead. What would the U.N have to do with a civil war,there the NWO army, all those army base that got shut down or are being shut down now most have U.N troops being stationd thire after the shut downs have ocurred WHY?can any one say NWO waiting to happen.the reson titor said the country was split in to five peices was because they need a equal divitions in gov. power so that there was not another george bush cheat your way in to office and than fuc your own country and everybody elses ocurrence agian.
RainmanTime
Super Moderator
karrara,
Now, if you are looking for political and social differences that WOULD reflect a cause for a civil war (although not in the US) I would suggest you look at Iraq. The conditions there, especially due to religious and cultural differences, ARE fodder for a civil war...but that would be a civil war in Iraq.
Now, if you can show me a similar cultural or religious issue in the US that is at the same level as the one in Iraq (namely, people killing their fellow countrymen over a different way to celebrate their spirituality), THEN I would concede that you have shown a good reason for a US Civil War. However, I don't think you can point to any such situation.
And I am purposefully not adressing your points about GLOBAL war, because that is something completely different than a US civil war. You seem to want to blend these two issues together, but they are politically and socially very different, and must be analyzed independently for root causes.
RMT
In my opinion, you most certainly have not given a good reason for a US civil war. And I am afraid most historians would agree with me on this one. Reasons for civil wars down through history have always been about seeking independence due to major differences in philosophy of how people consent to being governed. Civil wars are about issues that cause people to WISH to be separate from others, and that means differences. You have insinuated that it is gas (in more general terms energy resources) that would be the cause of a US civil war. Yet that is not a point of difference, in fact it is a point of commonality. ALL US citizens need energy resources. This is not something that one facet of the population views or experiences differently than others. Thus, it is not a cause for a US Civil War.
Now, if you are looking for political and social differences that WOULD reflect a cause for a civil war (although not in the US) I would suggest you look at Iraq. The conditions there, especially due to religious and cultural differences, ARE fodder for a civil war...but that would be a civil war in Iraq.
Now, if you can show me a similar cultural or religious issue in the US that is at the same level as the one in Iraq (namely, people killing their fellow countrymen over a different way to celebrate their spirituality), THEN I would concede that you have shown a good reason for a US Civil War. However, I don't think you can point to any such situation.
And I am purposefully not adressing your points about GLOBAL war, because that is something completely different than a US civil war. You seem to want to blend these two issues together, but they are politically and socially very different, and must be analyzed independently for root causes.
RMT
Not true. Nine out of ten historians disagree with you.
Not true. If one group has gas and another does not that is a difference that could be the cause of unrest.
The revolution in France was about have/have nots. So was the revolution in Russia.
Hey, I'm getting the hang of this....
Cut.....
Paste...
Rant....
Look at me. I'm just like RMT. Thanks RMT!
Darby
Epochal Historian
karrara,
You missed my point...
You stated some general and wide ranging anger about "the government." If there was a civil war every faction would have some "earth shattering" grievance against the government.
But this doesn't mean that there would be a single "revolutionary army" that sets out to bring down the house. Revolutionaries not only bring down the house of government - they bring down the house of all competing revolutionary factions. That's because the revolution wouldn't be about what they oppose (the government) but what they support: some new form of government that they intend to impose on the people - like it or not. It's not as if the disaffected populace, angry with the NWO (in your case) would have any choice about what the NWO is replaced with.
Each of the competing revolutionary factions has their own agenda and ideas about what they want to replace the current situation with. But they are not so constrained that they have to debate the issue and put it to a vote. They kill off the opposition.
You might be angry but you won't have a lick of choice about who or what replaces your government. You would be a simple revolutionary pawn to be used and discarded at the will of the revolution. I think that the best phrase to describe a general soldier in a revolution is "of no importance - expendible chaff."
Which brings me to another point for those who can maintain a certain sense of humor about it all:
Every civil war is inevitably about how the government has "robbed the people" of their rights. Or at least that's how the revolution describes the situation in their propoganda. Thus the revolution is about restoring the peoples' rights. How quaint! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
Following the civil war the revolutionary council announces that the situation is too fluid, too unstable, too dangerous to reinstate to the people their full rights as guaranteed by whatever constitution they have.
The council announces that when the time is right...when it is safe...when all counter-revolutionary forces have been dealt with...full rights will be restored and the revolutionary council will step down and return the government to the people.
Russia waited from 1917 to 1990.
Cuba, North Korea, South Yemen, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, China...they are all still waiting. The revolutionary council is still in power in those countrties. How many free elections have they had? How many "presidents" has Cuba and North Korea had? Laos? Cambodia? Vietnam?
The people end up in a far worse situation than what they originally had.
Now they have absolutely no recourse...no vote, no courts, no government, no press. Just the revolutionary council - and they don't like people who bitch or ask too many questions. They don't like people like you.
But taking care of you or anyone else that poses a real, potential or imagined threat is simple:
Rope is cheap...and a public hanging sends a real clear message to anyone who might have a "problem" with the revolutionary council.
I guess that there is an upside in real revolutions. When Stalin was faced with too many people and too few jobs he invented a food shortage. He purposely and covertly starved almost 4 million people to death while simultaneously marshalling the workforce of the Soviet Union "to save the starving masses."
In that case the revolutionary council got the economy moving, solved over population, was able to control the puplic perception of what was occuring by controlling the press and came away with an even more heroic reputation than before. Quick, cheap and effective social engineering. A real lesson in multi-tasking.
Don'tcha just love a good revolution?
You missed my point...
You stated some general and wide ranging anger about "the government." If there was a civil war every faction would have some "earth shattering" grievance against the government.
But this doesn't mean that there would be a single "revolutionary army" that sets out to bring down the house. Revolutionaries not only bring down the house of government - they bring down the house of all competing revolutionary factions. That's because the revolution wouldn't be about what they oppose (the government) but what they support: some new form of government that they intend to impose on the people - like it or not. It's not as if the disaffected populace, angry with the NWO (in your case) would have any choice about what the NWO is replaced with.
Each of the competing revolutionary factions has their own agenda and ideas about what they want to replace the current situation with. But they are not so constrained that they have to debate the issue and put it to a vote. They kill off the opposition.
You might be angry but you won't have a lick of choice about who or what replaces your government. You would be a simple revolutionary pawn to be used and discarded at the will of the revolution. I think that the best phrase to describe a general soldier in a revolution is "of no importance - expendible chaff."
Which brings me to another point for those who can maintain a certain sense of humor about it all:
Every civil war is inevitably about how the government has "robbed the people" of their rights. Or at least that's how the revolution describes the situation in their propoganda. Thus the revolution is about restoring the peoples' rights. How quaint! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
Following the civil war the revolutionary council announces that the situation is too fluid, too unstable, too dangerous to reinstate to the people their full rights as guaranteed by whatever constitution they have.
The council announces that when the time is right...when it is safe...when all counter-revolutionary forces have been dealt with...full rights will be restored and the revolutionary council will step down and return the government to the people.
Russia waited from 1917 to 1990.
Cuba, North Korea, South Yemen, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, China...they are all still waiting. The revolutionary council is still in power in those countrties. How many free elections have they had? How many "presidents" has Cuba and North Korea had? Laos? Cambodia? Vietnam?
The people end up in a far worse situation than what they originally had.
Now they have absolutely no recourse...no vote, no courts, no government, no press. Just the revolutionary council - and they don't like people who bitch or ask too many questions. They don't like people like you.
But taking care of you or anyone else that poses a real, potential or imagined threat is simple:
Rope is cheap...and a public hanging sends a real clear message to anyone who might have a "problem" with the revolutionary council.
I guess that there is an upside in real revolutions. When Stalin was faced with too many people and too few jobs he invented a food shortage. He purposely and covertly starved almost 4 million people to death while simultaneously marshalling the workforce of the Soviet Union "to save the starving masses."
In that case the revolutionary council got the economy moving, solved over population, was able to control the puplic perception of what was occuring by controlling the press and came away with an even more heroic reputation than before. Quick, cheap and effective social engineering. A real lesson in multi-tasking.
Don'tcha just love a good revolution?
yeah heres the difference in philosophy/ the amarican people (most who do any investagateing or lost there job to out sourceing or know that cnn is nothing but selected iterpertations of a selected story ) or can see that they have a president that should not be even in office,and a country that got lied to too go to war or that there ecomony does'nt produce any good paying jobs,the fact that george.W is relly showing he could'nt relly give a [censored] about the victims of katrina or that no one supports the iraq war any more especially the troops and the fact that they no all this shits going to happen(the recession do to oil) and we know that they know its going to happen and they arent doing a damn thing about your country going to hell id say theres just's a slight differenc in PHILOSOPHY! i sure some other people can chime in here and give some differences in there philosophy aginst the US goverments philosophy lets start with the PATRIOT ACT! to back my point about the oil look at the first page on reuters.com uk edition!
RainmanTime
Super Moderator
Wow. Nice hate-filled reply there. And MEM accuses me of ranting!
The anti-Republican partisan issues you point out have been a fabric of our political culture since we were born. Republicans demonize Democrats and Democrats demonize Republicans. Business as usual here in the USA. And the best thing is, after four years, if we want to change our collective minds, we can. And do. And will. You haven't made a case why a large section of our population would want to give up the system we have. Sure, we will give up leaders, and move on to new leaders, with different visions. But civil war means we want to tear apart our own government. A far as I can tell, the vast majority of our citizens think our form of democratic government is, while not perfect, pretty darned good. And not so terrible that we want to tear it down.
What country are you from, karrara? Tell me about rights and freedom and elections and politics where you are from. How are they better than the system we have in the USA?
Well, if someone outside the US were a terrorist, or supported violence against americans, I could see that such a person would not like the PATRIOT act. That's because a terrorist knows that this act makes it tougher for them to infiltrate our country, and work their plans to perform terrorist acts in our country. But if you want to talk about the PATRIOT act, you need to understand it in the context of our great form of government. Laws come and go. Laws change. The USA has enacted laws in the past for security and then done away with them later. Right now, PATRIOT is law. And if we, the people of the USA decide that some day it infringes more on personal rights and is not as effective in breaking up terrorist operations, then we can and will change it.
As much as you might want to paint George W Bush, our current president, as the embodiment of evil, we have no dictator in the USA. Bush will eventually go away, and we will select our next president based on how we feel about issues at that time. Our government will go on, and only hostile elements outside our nation will be the ones wishing the US would erupt in civil war.
RMT
yeah your right i am ranting and bush bashing. But in the begining i said these were my resons/ and my pure speculation/ for what could cause civil war. idont see how you think or your vast majority of your citizens think your democratic system is so great when you use electronic voteing machines that dont even leave paper trails or you have mass cencorship of your main stream media. and yes maybe bush will go away but with thow's eletronic voteing machines im shure a bush replacement will some how make there way in to office. (did you go to reuters UK editon?for sept03
Darby
Epochal Historian
karrara,
Gads! What country do you come from?
Of course President Bush "will go away" and someone else "will somehow make their way into office." There's no "maybe" about it.
Unlike some countries, our Constitution has term limits for the President. Two terms only - that's the limit - and President Bush is serving his second term. He can never be President again.
Thereafter someone will be elected President, replace President Bush and find his/her way into office.
I don't quite understand your concern about electronic voting machines. In your country are all the votes counted by hand?
Yikes! In a general election in the U.S.A. that would mean counting 2 to 3.5 billion (2 to 3.5 thousand million for the British) individual votes. We elect the President, Vice-President, 1/3 of the Senate, 1/2 of the U.S. Congress, vote on State, County, City and Special District issues during the general election. There are often 30-40 individual items to vote on.
Maybe you don't like electronic vote counting but counting 2-3 billion votes in a timely manner is difficult at best.
I understand that some tiny countries can still count by hand. That's wonderful. But this isn't a tiny country and votes have to be counted electronically.
(And I'm sure that next go-round you're going to bash the electoral college system of voting for President).
Say what? What mass censorship are you referring to? Try to be specific. And then please refer to one of your nation's totally unbiased and totally uncensored news outlets.
Gads! What country do you come from?
Of course President Bush "will go away" and someone else "will somehow make their way into office." There's no "maybe" about it.
Unlike some countries, our Constitution has term limits for the President. Two terms only - that's the limit - and President Bush is serving his second term. He can never be President again.
Thereafter someone will be elected President, replace President Bush and find his/her way into office.
I don't quite understand your concern about electronic voting machines. In your country are all the votes counted by hand?
Yikes! In a general election in the U.S.A. that would mean counting 2 to 3.5 billion (2 to 3.5 thousand million for the British) individual votes. We elect the President, Vice-President, 1/3 of the Senate, 1/2 of the U.S. Congress, vote on State, County, City and Special District issues during the general election. There are often 30-40 individual items to vote on.
Maybe you don't like electronic vote counting but counting 2-3 billion votes in a timely manner is difficult at best.
I understand that some tiny countries can still count by hand. That's wonderful. But this isn't a tiny country and votes have to be counted electronically.
(And I'm sure that next go-round you're going to bash the electoral college system of voting for President).
Say what? What mass censorship are you referring to? Try to be specific. And then please refer to one of your nation's totally unbiased and totally uncensored news outlets.
i ment with bushes same agenda like jeb bush. i guess i was misinformed you had electonic voteing machines that dident leave paper trails or a copy of what you voted for befor bush came in to office? and every amarican comes out to vote you barrely even have a billion people in your country unless you count the illeagle imagrants than you probly have 2 billion but they cant vote so.... usally out of any population youll have a 40% turn out at best. as for your media hum there was that hole thing about all the reporters that got fired or almost got fired at the begining of the iraq war/ or do you ever see anything about all the cases for 911 going on aginst your goverment. go to Tvnewslies.org to see what dick cheaney was doing the morning of sept 10 2002 why didnt they put that on your news./why did george bush make it illeagle for any pictures of the coffins of the killed soliders in iraq to be taken when thire off loaded on amarican soil.No that wonuld'nt be so he could censor oops mislead every one on the kill count? respect for the family. ok what ever makes you feal better. cause people in amarica couldent handle a picture of a coffin with a flag over it?but an amarican solider polishing off some unarmed iraq's is fine viewing.
RainmanTime
Super Moderator
Oh wow, MEM. That's such a quaint, albeit naïve, retort. I'll bet you were grinning from ear to ear with the cleverness of that one.
I find it truly amazing that you are so consistent in your willingness to exhibit such shallow thinking in your replies. Not only is your "not true" not even close to true, but you are again trying to invoke a non-comparison with your examples. You seek to tie the "have/have nots" argument to the current issue of gas. But may I point out two other, quite relevant, differences between the two cases of history you have pointed to and the current situation of the US government? You are attempting to salvage the "gas as the reason for civil war" argument by pointing to the French and Russian revolutions as evidence... do I have that right? OK, good.
Would you like to discuss what COMMON form of government that the French and Russian societies were subjected to in the years prior to their revolutions?
Ahhhh..... Yes. That answer would be "Monarchy", wouldn't it, MEM? I am correct in stating this, am I not? Both France and Russia were ruled by monarchies in the years leading up to their revolutionary wars.
Unfortunately, we have no monarchy here in the US. Now I am sure there is plenty of rhetoric out there claiming that GW Bush (and the Bush family) IS a monarchy, but that falls flat on its face when you understand that we are an elected government in our current form. France and Russia, at the time of their revolutions, were hardly governed by the popular consent of the people! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
And in delivering your shallow retort, you have actually played right into Darby's hand. You make disparaging comments in your response to Darby, yet if you see the argument he is making about dictatorships, you will see that his arguments also render silly your attempt at comparing the French and Russian revolutions to the current USA political climate.
Keep coming at me, MEM. I feed off your gloom-and-doom outlook. (Or at least your apparant fixation with such gloom-and-doom interpretations).
Happy Labor Day! :D
RMT
RainmanTime
Super Moderator
Well... uhhhh... the two guys ARE brothers, aren't they? Is it surprising that two brothers might have similar views about how to govern? Those Kennedys sure have been a bunch of people who all seemed to think alike, huh? Political dynastys are common to pretty much all countries in the 1st and 2nd world, aren't they?
What country are you from? And does it have a history of ruling families? Were they elected democratically, or did they just inherit power and position? I'm curious.
RMT
RainmanTime
Super Moderator
Perhaps you'd like to clarify the point you were trying to make with the following argument?
So how is the USA situation similar to that of the French and Russian revolutions? I don't see the comparison you are making, if it is not this?
RMT
In your previous post:
And then you wrote:
My response is follows: Civil wars can be about those who have against those who do not have. Whatever the resources. Poor versus rich. Gas is just one element.
I did not say ALL CIVIL WARS ARE ABOUT.... I said "Civil wars can be about..."
The problem we have is I don't live in the black and white world of RMT. I recognize the subtle differences in the world we live in. I do agree that living in a world that is black and white is much easier and simplier. But that really limits your ability to understand the world as it really is.
And then you wrote:
My response is follows: Civil wars can be about those who have against those who do not have. Whatever the resources. Poor versus rich. Gas is just one element.
I did not say ALL CIVIL WARS ARE ABOUT.... I said "Civil wars can be about..."
The problem we have is I don't live in the black and white world of RMT. I recognize the subtle differences in the world we live in. I do agree that living in a world that is black and white is much easier and simplier. But that really limits your ability to understand the world as it really is.
canada,no we dont have history of ruleing familys and yes they were democratically elected. your right i did not explain how gas would cause a civil war ie. one group of amarican aginst another but MEM did, have and have not. Amarica alredy suffers from haveing a third world population this would be all your getos and projects and a homeless population and illeagle imagrents thats far beond control. i just finished reading a book writen in the eightys that said back than there was an estimated 6000 to 8000 homeless under central and penn station in newyork thats just under two stations and the economy was at its best in the eightys.than you have the people that are on the street and still work, than the people that are barely hanging on to there place they rent.Theres blue coller amarica just scrapeing by, then all the people that act rich but are in debt out there ass. than over here you got some rich folk. so when gas causes a recession and all these people get relly poor. there not going to be mad or try and take what they need from the rich?rmt how many pay checks are you away from the street? cause i bet it is'nt far i know im only two away. not to be mean but MEMS right your thinking i feel is way to black and white,but thats probly what make you a good scientist. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
RainmanTime
Super Moderator
How much are you willing to bet on that, karrara? I live on the 1 year plan. If I don't have enough liquid cash to pay for where I am for a full year without employment, I am looking for somewhere else.
No offense taken. But think of this: Would you rather trust your life to an engineer/scientist who understands how the world works, or a liberal arts major who sees so many shades of grey that they get confused by all the choices? /ttiforum/images/graemlins/devil.gif
It is amazing how the world CAN be measured-up as black or white once you decide, for yourself, what it is you want to create. Decisions either support your creation (white) or they serve to put you further from what you wish to create (black).
I love living in a relative world, and would have it no other way!
RMT