The American Civil War of 2005 as predicted by John Titor

Originally posted by Legend
I wouldn't be surprised if time travelers from the very distant future started World Wars I and II. What if Adolf Hitler was a time traveler?

If Adolf Hitler was a time traveler then he obviously didn't suceed in his goals of taking over the world. Which suggest that he wasn't a time traveller because theoretically he would be able to contine to dip back in time until he got his plan was successful.

[edit on 4/6/2005 by Simulacra]

Man dies after police shoot him with bean bags

As the man said, "However, there are a great many 'non lethal' weapon systems in development that turn out to be quite lethal."

John Titor’s War 2005-2015

The characteristics of the coming US Civil War starting in 2005

1. Signs of an unfolding US Civil War could already be seen around 2000:

Ø “I am here for personal reasons. For a few months now, I have bee trying to alert anyone that would listen to the possibility of a civil war in the United States in 2005. Does that seem more likely now? Actually it's quite amazing to see what's happening. I have been trying to get people to pay attention for the last few months but to see it unfold is very interesting.”
Ø “I would use the word "elections" a bit cautiously. Perhaps it's easier now to see a civil war in your future?”
Ø “How can you possibly criticize me for any conflict that comes to you? I watch every day what you are doing as a society. While you sit by and watch your Constitution being torn away from you.”
Ø “Please, please wake up. Look at the signposts around you now.”

2. Connection between 2000/2004 Presidential “election,” future “civil war” & restriction of People’s Rights:

Ø “I am curious… will anyone be upset if Florida's votes are not counted in the Electoral College because of the current "confusion"?”
Ø “I would use the word "elections" a bit cautiously. Perhaps it's easier now to see a civil war in your future?”
Ø “Do you really think your government is telling you the truth?”
Ø “Real disruptions in world events begin with the destabilization of the West as a result of degrading US foreign policy and consistency. This becomes apparent around 2004 as civil unrest develops near the next presidential election.”
Ø “How can you possibly criticize me for any conflict that comes to you? I watch every day what you are doing as a society. While you sit by and watch your Constitution being torn away from you.”
Ø “Yes, we still have political and religious leaders who find it difficult to obey the law. I would submit to you that the law is only as good as the people's willingness to apply it evenly and swiftly.”
Ø “The original Constitution itself was not the problem it was the ignorance of the people that lived under it.”

3. The US Civil War (conflicts) would start in 2005 as a result of “unwavering belief in Presidential Leader”:

Ø “There is a civil war in the United States that starts in 2005. That conflict flares up and down for 10 years.”
Ø “It is a mistake to give anyone your unwavering belief...but you will find that out yourself in 2005.”
Ø “The President or "leader" in 2005 I believe tried desperately to be the next Lincoln and hold the country together but many of their policies drove a larger wedge into the Bill of Rights. The President in 2009 was interested only in keeping his/her power base.”
Ø “The original Constitution itself was not the problem it was the ignorance of the people that lived under it.”

4. The US Civil War doesn’t start as Democrats vs Republicans but as Civil Conflicts about Order & Rights:

Ø “I don't believe I ever said the war was between Democrats and Republicans.”
Ø “You must realize that why people are fighting is more important that what they are fighting with. The conflict was not about taking and holding ground it was about order and rights. They were betting that people wanted security instead of freedom and they were wrong.”
Ø “I would define it as a conflict where organized groups engage in maneuver and armed conflict.”
Ø “My definition of a patriot is anyone who defends the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”
Ø “As a result of the many conflicts, no, there were no official Olympics after 2004.”

5. US Civil Conflicts will grow into US Civil War as result of Waco type & other methods by US authorities:

Ø Question: Your prediction of (national politics) pending disintegration, beginning in three short years, is impossible. “Have you see the documentary on Waco? Just for argument's sake, what do you think would happen if information were discovered that confirmed the worst accusations made against the law enforcement officers there? Would you hope nothing?”
Ø “I would describe it as having a Waco type event every month that steadily gets worse. The conflict will consume everyone in the US by 2012…”
Ø “It doesn't exactly escalate as much as it opens the door for other aggression.”
Ø “If the federal forces learned anything from WACO it was to install more reliable suppressors on their automatic weapons and don't use flash grenades that leave shell casings after the fire.”
Ø “However, there are a great many “non lethal” weapon systems in development that turn out to be quite lethal. Sometimes I watch your television programs that show SWAT teams using new non-lethal weapons. They usually start out with, “In the future, the army and police will fight its enemies with new weapons systems”. When they use the word “enemy”, they’re talking about YOU! You don’t really think the Marines are going to jump out of helicopters overseas with sticky goop, pepper spray and seizure lights, do you?”

6. US Gov. Policies & Safety Measures during US Civil War to stronger restrict People’s Rights NOT to serve:

Ø Question: What does this look like? Is it a stalemate with the resistance/militia hiding out until the cities are wiped
out allowing them to surface? “The cities were not isolated because of them [ the Militia ]; they were isolated because of
us.” [ the US population outside of the cities ]
Ø “When the civil "conflict" started and got worse, people generally decided to either stay in the cities and lose most of their
civil rights under the guise of security or leave the cities for more isolated and rural areas. Our home was searched once
and the neighbor across the street was arrested for some unknown reason. That convinced my father to leave the city.”
Ø “They were betting that people wanted security instead of freedom and they were wrong.”
Ø “From the age of 8 to 12, [ 2006 to 2010 ] we lived away from the cities and spent most of our time in a farm community with
other families avoiding conflict with the federal police and National Guard. By that time, it was pretty clear that we were
not going back to what we had and the division between the "cities" and the "country" was well defined.”
Ø “The President in 2009 was interested only in keeping his/her power base.”
Ø “I submit to you that when the moment comes it will be absolutely plain as day that you are unsafe in the cities.”
Ø Question: Can you tell me what year the police will stop busting people for smoking weed? “It happens about the
same time they stop coming to your house when you dial 911.”
Ø Question: Do they start pushing for legalization earlier than the war??? “It's not really an issue of the government
letting you do something, It’s more like they have other things to worry about.”
Ø Question: Will you readily be able to identify the enemy? “They will be the ones arresting and holding people without
due process.”
Ø “The "enemy" that was attacked by Russia in the U.S. was the forces of the government you live under right now."
Ø Question: Does the civil war start in such a way that those willing will have time to remove themselves to safer
locations. “Yes. You will be forced to ask yourself how many civil rights you will give up to feel safe.”
Ø “In my experience, evil may be powerful, but they aren't very bright.”
Ø “Yes, I think the New World Order idea tried to establish itself. I would consider them the combination of the old U.S. federal system, Europe, Canada and Australia.”
Ø “The US cities are destroyed along with the AFE (American Federal Empire)...thus we (in the country) won.”


7. The US Civil War (conflicts) would not be recognized by the majority as such until around & after 2008:

Ø “There is a civil war in the United States that starts in 2005. That conflict flares up and down for 10 years.”
Ø “It doesn't exactly escalate as much as it opens the door for other aggression.”
Ø “I don't remember a great deal about media coverage during the civil conflicts. I would probably characterize it the same way you see coverage of Waco, Ruby Ridge and Elian Gonzalez.”
Ø “By 2008, I would say the civil conflict is pretty much at everyone's doorstep. Western instability during the conflict leads to the attack in 2015. WWIII is very short with a longer period of mop up.”
Ø “The year 2008 was a general date by which time everyone will realize the world they thought they were living in was over. The civil war in the United States will start in 2004. I would describe it as having a Waco type event every month that steadily gets worse. The conflict will consume everyone in the US by 2012…”
Ø Question: Does the civil war start in such a way that those willing will have time to remove themselves to safer
locations. “Yes. You will be forced to ask yourself how many civil rights you will give up to feel safe.”
Ø Question: You said that there will be a big war. Can you at least tell us which cities will be nuked? “No I won't do that.
However, I submit to you that when the moment comes it will be absolutely plain as day that you are unsafe in the cities. The
millions people that stay will choose to stay. That's what comes as a surprise..”
Ø “Perhaps I should let you all in on a little secret. No one likes you in the future. This time period is looked at as being full of lazy, self-centered, civically ignorant sheep. Perhaps you should be less concerned about me and more concerned about that.”
Ø “The people who understand what they are seeing are not aggressive.”



The destabilization of the West starting in 2005

Western stability collapses as a result of degrading US foreign policy & consistency:

Ø “Real disruptions in world events begin with the destabilization of the West as a result of degrading US foreign policy and consistency. This becomes apparent around 2004 as civil unrest develops near the next presidential election.”
Ø “They [ Arabs & Jews ] are not directly involved [ in the US civil war ] but political situations are dependant on Western stability, which collapses in 2005.”
Ø “On my world line in 2011, the United States is in the middle of a civil war that has dramatic effects on most of the other Western governments.”



Middle East War after 2005 and around 2008
Arab countries opposed to each other and War on Israel by it’s Arab neighbours

Israel attacked by Arab neighbours as a result of wavering Western support:

Ø “They [ Arabs & Jews ] are not directly involved [ in the US civil war ] but political situations are dependant on Western stability, which collapses in 2005.”
Ø “The year 2008 was a general date by which time everyone will realize the world they thought they were living in was over.
Ø “The Jewish population in Israel is not prepared for a true offensive war. They are prepared for the ultimate defense. Wavering western support for Israel is what gives Israel's neighbors the confidence to attack. The last resort for a defensive Israel and its offensive Arab neighbors is to use weapons of mass destruction. In the grand scheme of things, the war in the Middle East is a part of what's to come, not the cause.”

Arab countries divided and using WMDs against each other:

Ø Question: The Arab countries appear to have weapons of mass destruction. Do they use them
against America? “Not against America but they are used against each other”
Ø “I'm glad to see it's so easy for to dismiss the Middle East. Yes, I suppose it is a no brainer but pretty soon it will be a "no arrmer" and a "no legger".”



N-Day (WW III) 2015
The end result of Western instability during the US Civil War

2005-2015: Faulty politics & desperation of Western leadership during US Civil War leads to N-Day:

Ø “By 2008, I would say the civil conflict is pretty much at everyone's doorstep. Western instability during the conflict leads to the attack in 2015. WWIII is very short with a longer period of mop up.”
Ø “The war is a result of faulty politics and desperation from Western leadership during the US civil war. Yes, I suppose you could stop it.”

2011-2015: China forcefully annexes Taiwan, Japan & Korea and attempts to invade Australia:

Ø “On my world line in 2011, the United States is in the middle of a civil war that has dramatic effects on most of the other Western governments.”
Ø “The West will become very unstable which gives China the confidence to "expand". I'm assuming you are all aware that China has millions of male soldiers right now that they know will never be able to find wives.
Ø “Taiwan, Japan and Korea were all "forcefully annexed" before N Day”
Ø "Australia is sort of interesting in what is unknown. After the war, they were not very cooperative or friendly (can't blame them really). It is known they did repulse a Chinese invasion and most of their cities were hit.”

2011-2015: Europe forms a unified army moving east from Germany. In response China attacks Europe:

Ø "I never fought any Chinese but their ability to hit Western cities with missiles made a lot of people unhappy."
Ø “The West will become very unstable which gives China the confidence to "expand". I'm assuming you are all aware that China has millions of male soldiers right now that they know will never be able to find wives. The attack on Europe is in response to a unified European army that masses and moves East from Germany. “

2015: Russia attacks and destroys the major cities in the United States, which ends the US Civil War:

Ø "Russia launches a nuclear strike against the major cities in the United States (which is the "other side" of the civil war from my perspective), China and Europe. The United States counter attacks. The US cities are destroyed along with the AFE (American Federal Empire)...thus we (in the country) won. The European Union and China were also destroyed. Russia is now our largest trading partner and the Capitol of the US was moved to Omaha Nebraska."
Ø "The civil war ended in 2015 when Russia attacked the U.S. cities (our enemy), China and Europe."

2015: Russia’s first nuclear “low altitude” triple paired-warheads made a direct hit on “Jacksonville” in US:

Ø "However, in the opening hours of N Day, the Russians did not launch any high altitude detonations. They knew we would most likely clean up after them so they wanted everyone outside the cities to be able to communicate. Most of the warheads that hit the cities came in threes and exploded close to the ground. The heavy EMP damage was isolated to those areas."
Ø " I know exactly where I was and every detail of the exact moment the first nuclear warheads began falling on Jacksonville."

2015: Russia attacks and destroys the major cities in China and Europe:

Ø "The civil war ended in 2015 when Russia attacked the U.S. cities (our enemy), China and Europe."
Ø "Russia launches a nuclear strike against the major cities in the United States (which is the "other side" of the civil war from my perspective), China and Europe. The United States counter attacks. The US cities are destroyed along with the AFE (American Federal Empire)...thus we (in the country) won. The European Union and China were also destroyed.
Ø “Yes, Europe is a mess.”

2015: The United States counter the Russian attacks:

Ø “Russia launches a nuclear strike against the major cities in the United States (which is the "other side" of the civil war from my perspective), China and Europe. The United States counter attacks. “
Ø “Also, please be aware that from my viewpoint, Russia attacked my enemy who was in the U.S. cities. Yes, the U.S. did counter attack."

2015: N-Day – Nearly 3,000.000.000 people were killed:

Ø “A world war in 2015 killed nearly three billion people”

Roth Joint

You received my Way Above Award for this month. I think you've pretty much summed it whatever current event correlation there was with Titor's predictions.

Originally posted by Simulacra
Roth Joint

You received my Way Above Award for this month. I think you've pretty much summed it whatever current event correlation there was with Titor's predictions.

Simulacra

I appreciate that very much. Thank you.

Roth Joint has also received my WATS for this month.

-Chris

John Titor was a pilot version of the antichrist

Originally posted by Legend
Roth Joint has also received my WATS for this month.

-Chris

Thank you Chris, I appreciate it

As far as Titor's comments regarding the destabilization of the West starting in 2005 as a result of degrading US foreign policy and consistency it will be very interesting to observe the effects of the rising oil prices on the worlds or European economy.

Titor: "Can anyone tell me how many companies in the United States still manufacture bicycle tires today? Anyone who still has a bike in 2008 will find out."
TimeTravel_0 : Invest in hydrogen fuel cells

The End of Peak Oil
www.larryflynt.com...

Rising Oil Prices Are a Global Problem
www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000101&sid=a_hKITMX6vcM&refer=japan

Oil boom's high price
www.sundayherald.com...
While some businesses are looking to snap up oil assets, there are
many that are shutting their eyes and praying that the prices will
not continue to hit new record heights in the weeks and months ahead.

Oil prices have risen by a third this year, and are up almost four-
fold from the 1998 average, causing concern among some businesses
that they will stay high. The starkest official warning on high oil
prices came from the International Monetary Fund late last week. It
warned that the world is facing "a permanent oil shock".

The IMF's latest oil market report warns of the effects of the
surging demand from emerging economies and limited supplies from Opec
member countries. Raghuram Rajan, the IMF's chief economist,
said: "We should expect to live with high oil prices. Oil prices will
continue to present a serious risk to the global economy."

The IMF's warning came after the European Commission raised its 2005
price forecast to $50.90 per barrel for Brent, more than 10% higher
than its previous estimate. It was the second time the EC has raised
its forecast this year.

Oil traders say the recent price rises reflect panic among energy
consumers. But high prices have also sparked fears of inflation, with
Spanish finance minister Pedro Solbes warning last week of the
effects of this on his country's exports to the rest of Europe. It is
causing new strains on the eurozone economy and could lead to a cut
in interest rates by the European Central Bank.

Originally posted by Roth Joint
As far as Titor's comments regarding the destabilization of the West starting in 2005 as a result of degrading US foreign policy and consistency it will be very interesting to observe the effects of the rising oil prices on the worlds or European economy.

What exactly are you trying to connect?

If the rising oil prices were due to bad US foreign policy and inconsistency, I'd be happy! That could easily be corrected and changed quickly.


The West didn't destabilize in the early 80s when oil was $40 higher than the current levels, so I seriously doubt it'd all of a sudden collapse now.

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

Originally posted by Roth Joint
As far as Titor's comments regarding the destabilization of the West starting in 2005 as a result of degrading US foreign policy and consistency it will be very interesting to observe the effects of the rising oil prices on the worlds or European economy.

What exactly are you trying to connect?

If the rising oil prices were due to bad US foreign policy and inconsistency, I'd be happy! That could easily be corrected and changed quickly.

The West didn't destabilize in the early 80s when oil was $40 higher than the current levels, so I seriously doubt it'd all of a sudden collapse now.

Well, the "International Monetary Fund" thinks otherwise and one could say that they seem to be quite a reliable source, don't you agree?

/3lujm
By Mike Whitney
Al-Jazeerah, April 9, 2005

The Iraq war has contributed considerably to our current dilemma. The conflict has taken nearly one million barrels of Iraqi oil per day off line.(The exact amount that the administration is trying to replace by pressuring OPEC) In other words, the astronomical prices at the pump are the direct result of Bush’s war. The media has failed to report on the negative affects the war has had on oil production, just as they have obscured the incredibly successful insurgent strategy of destroying pipelines. This isn’t a storyline that plays well to the American public, who expected that Iraq would be paying for its own reconstruction by now. Instead, the resistance is striking back at the empire’s Achilles heel (America’s need for massive amounts of cheap oil) and its having a damaging affect on the US economy. Just as the economy cannot float along with sharp increases in oil prices, so too, Bush’s profligate deficits threaten the dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency. This is much more serious than a simple decline in the value of the dollar.

www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/122904_current_situation.shtml
Dale Allen Pfeiffer
From The Wilderness Publications, December 29, 2004

This year oil prices were driven up by the triple whammy of the Iraq
invasion, civil unrest leading to production disruption in Nigeria,
and hurricanes in the Gulf.

Originally posted by Roth Joint
Well, the "International Monetary Fund" thinks otherwise and one could say that they seem to be quite a reliable source, don't you agree?

The IMF thinks otherwise concerning what?
No where in your articles did is say the IMF thinks the West could collapse because of oil prices.

The Iraq war has contributed considerably to our current dilemma. The conflict has taken nearly one million barrels of Iraqi oil per day off line.(The exact amount that the administration is trying to replace by pressuring OPEC) In other words, the astronomical prices at the pump are the direct result of Bush’s war.

lol
Typical uninformed Al-Jezzy propaganda. We get more oil from Canada than we do Iraq. Iraq is hardly the cause of high gas prices. If anything the extra oil that Iraq is now able to sell (even if you include the 1 mil they have to take offline) would lower, not raise prices.

The media has failed to report on the negative affects the war has had on oil production, just as they have obscured the incredibly successful insurgent strategy of destroying pipelines.

I see reports on this all the time.
Plus, here he's blaming the insurgents for destroying pipelines, but......I thought it was the our fault?
He never mentions what the insurgents plan to accomplish by destroying pipelines.

This isn’t a storyline that plays well to the American public, who expected that Iraq would be paying for its own reconstruction by now. Instead, the resistance is striking back at the empire’s Achilles heel (America’s need for massive amounts of cheap oil) and its having a damaging affect on the US economy.

He's joking right?
The only thing they are doing is damaging their OWN country! Destroying their pipelines is hurting Iraq and the Iraqi people 1000X more than it's hurting us.


anyway, back to Titor....

the part I can't believe is that, and most titor supporters have verified this, is that the civil war is urban citizens VS rural country citizens,

NOT


republican vs democrat or everyone VS the bush admin.......

how does taking away constitutional rights cause famers to want to kill city slickers ??????????????????

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
The IMF thinks otherwise concerning what?
No where in your articles did is say the IMF thinks the West could collapse because of oil prices.

Oil boom's high price
www.sundayherald.com...
The starkest official warning on high oil prices came from the International Monetary Fund late last week. It warned that the world is facing "a permanent oil shock".

Raghuram Rajan, the IMF's chief economist, said: "We should expect to live with high oil prices. Oil prices will continue to present a serious risk to the global economy."

It is causing new strains on the eurozone economy and could lead to a cut
in interest rates by the European Central Bank.

- Sounds pretty serious, don't you agree?

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
lol
Typical uninformed Al-Jezzy propaganda. We get more oil from Canada than we do Iraq. Iraq is hardly the cause of high gas prices. If anything the extra oil that Iraq is now able to sell (even if you include the 1 mil they have to take offline) would lower, not raise prices.

O yes, the Iraq invasion is most definitely the cause of higher oil and thus higher gas prices, as painfully witnessed by the American population. And believe me, we will reach $100,- a Barrel. (that's ok, you may laugh now and I will confront you with that a few months later, ok?)

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
I see reports on this all the time. Plus, here he's blaming the insurgents for destroying pipelines, but......I thought it was the our fault?
He never mentions what the insurgents plan to accomplish by destroying pipelines.

Isn't that obvious to you? Ever heard of the expression "action causes re-action?" Or "economic warfare?" What was the Bush Administration expecting? Nothing? But ofcourse to use Titor's words: "There are no good and bad people, just good and bad decisions"

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
He's joking right? The only thing they are doing is damaging their OWN country! Destroying their pipelines is hurting Iraq and the Iraqi people 1000X more than it's hurting us.

O yes, Iraq will be hurt as well, no doubt about that. However, on the subject of Titor, US Foreign Policy, Western Destabilization, Oil Prices, the US Dollar and the Euro, here's another nice article:

boston.indymedia.org...
Don't Blame OPEC; Higher Gas Prices Are Almost Entirely Bush's Fault
by Dave Lindorff

What is making oil so expensive is not energy policy or even SUV’s, dangerous as those are for the environment. It’s Bush’s massive deficits and his willful destruction of the US dollar that has gas selling at $2.30 a gallon and rising.

There’s been a lot of hand-wringing going on among economists and politicians, and a lot of fuming at the gas pump by consumers over the soaring price of oil over the last two years.

Increasingly, concern is being expressed by treasury officials and economists about the negative impact soaring oil prices and related gas prices could have on the overall economy. Politicians—especially Republicans-- are also fretting, since the thousands of extra dollars consumers are now spending on electricity, home heating and gasoline have, for all but the wealthiest taxpayers, more than cancelled out any minimal benefits they saw from the president’s tax cuts.
What’s wrong with this picture?

The focus of all this anger and angst is oil prices. As a result, everyone is looking at culprits in the wrong place, blaming wasteful energy use, OPEC production quotas, monopolistic oil companies and/or conniving oil traders.
In fact the real culprit behind these higher oil prices is the Bush Administration, which, thanks to its massive deficits and tax give-aways to the rich and corporations, to its war spending, and to its failure to combat unprecedented and ever-larger trade deficits, has been causing the dollar to plunge in value.

Oil is a commodity and it is priced in dollars. If dollars decline in value, then the price of oil will rise in inverse proportion.
One need only look at Europe to see what this means.
Over the period from February 1, 2003, just before the start of the Iraq War, when oil prices began to rise in earnest, to Feb. 1, 2005, the price of a barrel of oil in dollars rose about 30 percent, from $30.13 a barrel to $42.91 a barrel. But over that same period of time, the Euro, Europe’s new combined currency, rose 21 percent against the U.S. dollar, from .93 Euros to the dollar in February, 2003 to just .77 to the U.S. dollar in February, 2005.

For Europeans, then, the net rise in oil prices over the two years of the Iraq War has been just 9 percent, or less than 5 percent per year—hardly the kind of energy inflation that would cause economic problems.
And this situation is likely to get only worse. Some Wall Street oil industry analysts are now predicting that oil could, before too long, hit $100 a barrel. What they are saying really is that the dollar is likely to fall in value by 50 percent.

Should that happen, though, the OPEC states would likely at some point along the way decide that it is ridiculous for them to continue pricing oil in dollars, since the piles of dollars filling their bank vaults will be losing value faster than their oil wells are emptying. At some point, the oil producing states, including Russia and Norway, will inevitably switch to pricing their oil in a basket of currencies—a basket that would prominently feature the Euro and probably the Japanese Yen.
At that point there would be little left to prop up the dollar, and it could end up becoming little better than a Third World currency.
---
For the rest of this article, and for other columns and articles by Dave Lindorff, go to: www.thiscantbehappening.net
See also:
www.thiscantbehappening.net...

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
the part I can't believe is that, and most titor supporters have verified this, is that the civil war is urban citizens VS rural country citizens,
NOT
republican vs democrat or everyone VS the bush admin.......

how does taking away constitutional rights cause famers to want to kill city slickers ??????????????????

Dear Syrinx High Priest,

Titor mentioned that it would be a "war" of "majorities against minorities"... and that “it doesn't exactly escalate as much as it opens the door for other aggression"... if you look at it... isn't that what's exactly happening nowadays?

G° : not north and south again was it?
TimeTravel_0 : In 2036, they are our largets trading partner.
TimeTravel_0 : No...more like city against country.'
wyrmkin_37 : majorities against minorities.......
TimeTravel_0 : Yes.
TimeTravel_0 : You know...guns versus no guns.
TimeTravel_0 : Power versus no power.

“It doesn't exactly escalate as much as it opens the door for other aggression.”

Furthermore he mentioned that those "conflicts" would be about "order and rights" and not about "taking and holding ground"...

“You must realize that why people are fighting is more important that what they are fighting with. The conflict was not about taking and holding ground it was about order and rights. They were betting that people wanted security instead of freedom and they were wrong.”



Roth

Originally posted by Roth Joint
It is causing new strains on the eurozone economy and could lead to a cut
in interest rates by the European Central Bank.

- Sounds pretty serious, don't you agree?

The collapse of the West would be even more serious and nothing in that or any of the articles you posted even hinted at that.

O yes, the Iraq invasion is most definitely the cause of higher oil and thus higher gas prices

You my friend are very uninformed at how the world works. The Iraq war is not the cause of higher oil. Period. Instability in the middle east overall usually makes OPEC jumpy, but if that was the sole cause we should be happy.
The higher prices we are seeing nowadays are a result of supply and demand.

And believe me, we will reach $100,- a Barrel. (that's ok, you may laugh now and I will confront you with that a few months later, ok?)

Not unless there's a severe shortage or OPEC just stops producing.
We reached $94 in 1981, and unless something drastic happens we won't see that for a long time.

Isn't that obvious to you? Ever heard of the expression "action causes re-action?" Or "economic warfare?" What was the Bush Administration expecting? Nothing? But ofcourse to use Titor's words: "There are no good and bad people, just good and bad decisions"

You still don't get it. By destroying pipelines the insurgents are waging "economic warfare" against themselves, not us.

Really, check this out! www.geocities.com...

Such an apocalyptical ride. More info at the end of that website.

"Titor mentioned that it would be a "war" of "majorities against minorities"... and that “it doesn't exactly escalate as much as it opens the door for other aggression"... "


still, will you take up arms and kill americans over this, this year ? (if you are an american) Thats what a civil war is, right ? american vs american in deadly combat. not protests. not upheaval. not riots. not looting.


organized, deadly combat.

I just can't see it based on this scenario.....maybe I'm naive......

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

Originally posted by Roth Joint
It is causing new strains on the eurozone economy and could lead to a cut
in interest rates by the European Central Bank.

- Sounds pretty serious, don't you agree?

The collapse of the West would be even more serious and nothing in that or any of the articles you posted even hinted at that.

O yes, the Iraq invasion is most definitely the cause of higher oil and thus higher gas prices

You my friend are very uninformed at how the world works. The Iraq war is not the cause of higher oil. Period. Instability in the middle east overall usually makes OPEC jumpy, but if that was the sole cause we should be happy.
The higher prices we are seeing nowadays are a result of supply and demand.

And believe me, we will reach $100,- a Barrel. (that's ok, you may laugh now and I will confront you with that a few months later, ok?)

Not unless there's a severe shortage or OPEC just stops producing.
We reached $94 in 1981, and unless something drastic happens we won't see that for a long time.

Isn't that obvious to you? Ever heard of the expression "action causes re-action?" Or "economic warfare?" What was the Bush Administration expecting? Nothing? But ofcourse to use Titor's words: "There are no good and bad people, just good and bad decisions"

You still don't get it. By destroying pipelines the insurgents are waging "economic warfare" against themselves, not us.

Of course, the warning of the IMF is merely touching the surface of the problem. Never before has the US seen itself in such devastating economical situation with regards to it’s Federal Reserve and value of the Dollar. With all due respect, this is not comparable to the situation in the 80ies, this is a much more serious problem with severe consequences for the European economy.

Furthermore "economic warfare" doesn't restrict itself to solely "destroying pipelines" and it doesn't involve solely "insurgents". From my viewpoint (and others) this is an "economic warfare" of much greater importance and higher order. But I wish you are right... I wish the higher oil prices would be merely a result of supply and demand... but to use Titor's words one more time: "it's hard to judge good and bad outcomes, only good and bad decisions"

business.iafrica.com...
OPEC powerless to rein in prices

OPEC oil producers, already pumping near to full capacity, appear powerless to calm markets nervous about rampant demand and the risk of terrorist disruption to supplies, analysts say.

Oil prices have surged in the wake of a weekend attack by suspected al-Qaeda militants on oil workers in Saudi Arabia which stoked fears that terrorists could disrupt supplies from the world's biggest exporter.

www.cato.org...
"However, the U.S. government made a series of mistakes that have discouraged foreign investors. America now is viewed as unfriendly to foreign investors. Certain provisions of the PATRIOT Act and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act produce excessive and costly paperwork and unnecessary privacy intrusions. The president's tax bill reduced the tax on capital for U.S. taxpayers, but kept very high withholding rates on dividends for foreign investors, making them pay relatively more for helping our economy.

www.politicalaffairs.net...
One of the stated economic objectives, and perhaps the primary
objective, when setting up the euro was to turn it into a reserve
currency to challenge the dollar so that Europe too could get
something for nothing.

POSSIBLE DISASTER FOR THE US

This however would be a disaster for the US. Not only would they lose
a large part of their annual subsidy of effectively free goods and
services, but also countries switching to euro reserves from dollar
reserves would bring down the value of the US currency. Imports would
start to cost Americans a lot more an as increasing numbers of those
holding dollars began to spend them, he US would have to start paying
its debts by supplying in goods and services to foreign counties,
thus reducing American living standards.

If countries and businesses convert their dollar assets into Euro
assets, the US property and stock market bubbles would burst without
doubt. The Federal Reserve would no longer be able to print more
money to rejuvenate the economy, as it is currently doing, because,
without lots of eager foreigners prepared to accept dollar, a serious
inflation would result which, in turn, would make foreigners even
more reluctant to hold the US currency and thus heighten the crisis.

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
"Titor mentioned that it would be a "war" of "majorities against minorities"... and that “it doesn't exactly escalate as much as it opens the door for other aggression"... "

still, will you take up arms and kill americans over this, this year ? (if you are an american) Thats what a civil war is, right ? american vs american in deadly combat. not protests. not upheaval. not riots. not looting.

organized, deadly combat.

I just can't see it based on this scenario.....maybe I'm naive......

Titor did not mention that the "civil conflicts" would be a matter of American citizens killing eachother. It would be a "war" of "minorities" against Governmental Policies and safety measures eroding the US Constitution and restricting people's rights.

Starting in 2005 those conflicts could initially be recognized in the sense of a monthly event wherein "Waco type" methods are being used by the authorities and are steadily growing worse into a "civil war" where confronting organized groups opposing these methods "engage in maneuver and armed conflict" somewhere around 2008 and there after.