Planet-Love.com Searchable Archives

I've been wondering about this. Many say up because of oil prices. I say DOWN because there will PROBABLY be a drop in people who will travel. Right now I can get some round trip tickets to Kiev from Houstong for $600 something which is GOOD. However if they will drop even more...well you know.

... in response to With war with airline tickets go up or d..., posted by Frank O on Mar 16, 2003

You may see some good "last minute" deals on the internet sites but the airlines have learned to cut capacity, flights, to keep their costs down and the fare prices constant.

... in response to With war with airline tickets go up or d..., posted by Frank O on Mar 16, 2003

just to fill you in on a bit of interesting information when September 11 happended there was demonstrations in the main square supporting the attack.  There are a lot of arabs here in Ukraine.  If war does start then those thinking of visiting Ukraine should take extra care.

In most circumstances I think it is very safe to travel Ukraine, but the possibility of war can create circumstances that are not suitable for travel.

Having traveled during the last Gulf War I found that accomodation was easy, as was booking a flight, but the prices of air fares did not drop.

In 1991 the attack on Iraq was justified and the war was widely supported by other Governments.  There was an increased security presence, particuarly in Rome/Italy.

... in response to Re: With war with airline tickets go up ..., posted by Antonua on Mar 16, 2003

Antonua, where are all these Arabs you see in Ukraine?

Guess you should define "a lot"?  Is a lot 50, 100, 500 or 50,000, 100,000?  Can you be more clear as to what is "a lot"?

One reason I ask is that I see very few Arabs in Ukraine. I will define a few as having seen less than 50 since 1997.

... in response to With war with airline tickets go up or d..., posted by Frank O on Mar 16, 2003

I agree with Frank!

... in response to Re: With war with airline tickets go up ..., posted by CS767 on Mar 16, 2003

[This message has been edited by micha1]

Up, if not it will because,  we will be in North America
in the middle of a depression.
Watch,  Wall Street take a dive tomorrow morning.
Better watch later on tonight, the Far East market dive.

Sold everything last week,  it is so easy,
even the oil stock won't be worth sh't very soon.

... in response to Re: Re: With war with airline tickets go..., posted by micha1 on Mar 16, 2003

Micha1, I am honestly sorry I keep saying something different than you. Please do not take this personally. you really seem like a very nice guy, but I just have to disagree with you again.

The stock market actually had a huge upswing yesterday. Huge. The reason everything went up was due to market perception that the war would start quickly. The market, like the American people anticipates a short war and they want it to start as soon as possible. Uncertainty is one of the biggest things to keep the market down recently and a lot of that will be resolved very soon.

The North American economy is not going into a depression. In fact, most indicators show us pulling out of this funk a little later this year.

I got out of almost everything at the end of 2001. I only have 300 shares of a small tech stock inside a little IRA I hold. Just so you know, the stock went up 5.78 yesterday and it was largely due to the market's reaction to Bush's decision to start the war.

If you do not believe me, check and of the major news services. You will read the same story and same conclusion over and over again.

Keep smiling. Its not all doom and gloom.

... in response to Re: Re: With war with airline tickets go..., posted by micha1 on Mar 16, 2003

I would have placed a bet with you yesterday and now look what happened---up 282 points on the dow.cs

... in response to Re: Re: With war with airline tickets go..., posted by micha1 on Mar 16, 2003

Double dip recession, followed 3-5 years later with a deflationary crash.

The economy is soft, but it will keep going.  I was calculating my stock market losses the other night... Since I'm 42 years old I'll have a $3000 write off going forward until I'm 63 years old (21 years).  You do the math. OUCH!

American actually really needs this economical crash to get people from being deep in debt, back to being savers.

Hence, when everyone turns in to savers.  It will mean people aren't spending money, but rather paying off their debts and then we'll probably be headed for a triple dip recession.

You would do wise to read up on some books on Deflation, by Gary Shilling.   I kick myself for not follow this guys' advice which is clearly ahead of the curve in financial logic.

Warren Buffett, is only investing in solid life sustaining companies (select utility companies), thus you have to heat your home in the winter time, but you can do without alot of extra unneed expenses.

You guys ought to see my tomatos & lettuce farm, my swank mobile home is long since paid for...  I'll just chuckle when I seen more & more companies filing for BK and laying off thousands of workers, can you imagine all those people that can't pay their house payment bills and the coming mass forclosures.

$100,000 homes in suburbia, with little demand for buyers, due to recessionary markets in a deflationary times and depleted personal savings.  Those home will drop in value to less than $50,000.   Home ownership in suburbia is no guarantee your property values will remain high, after all why are morgage rates still dropping... Everybody refinancing (borrowing money to pay off their credit cards) hopefully.

After the war the markets will bounce up, but it's a false rally as the current trend is still down.  Mr. Doom & Gloom.

... in response to Re: I love a good sell off and the comin..., posted by wsbill on Mar 16, 2003

The market has had a lot of corrections, but its never going to signal the end of the world. I don't think the dropping of the Dow was one of the seven signs or anything like that. As a result, I would not tell people to stock up on canned foods and shotgun shells just yet. : )

The whole thing with mortgages is one of the few things I can speak about with a great deal of certainty. I worked in the mortgage industry for about 7 years. The last 3 years were in the capital markets group of a smaller mortgage company. As a result, I have looked at more hard statistical data on mortgage performances than anyone would ever want to see. 100K homes will not drop to 50K prices unless you start looking at unemployment in the 25-30% range. Thats just not going to happen. Fundementals just don't support that sort of meltdown in our economy.

Yes you do have a segment of the population who spend more than they take home. These guys run up their credit card debts and bail themselves out be refinancing their first mortgage with a higher LTV ratio or by taking out a high LTV second mortgage. Some of these loans will, in aggregate, go up to 125% of the appraised value of the home. I just want to point out that this is only a small segment of consumers. Also, we have always had a segment of the population who would spend more than they earned. In the past, these guys would just go bankrupt and it would be over. Now, they refinance. I know I am starting to ramble a little here, but my point is to say that all consumers do not behave in such a manner. Even when they do, it does not mean they will eventually go into bankruptcy. In fact, less than 10% of the people who borrow so much will default on their loans. Yes loan defaults will go up drastically when we hit out next hard economic crunch (maybe up to 20% for high LTV borrowers), but this does not mean national housing prices will be totally tanked by rising defaults.

An important side note. Drops in stock prices often to not reflect on company fundementals in any direct way. As a result, it would be illogical to look at movement in the Dow as any sort of hard economic indicator. Yes there is some underlying bedrock of fundementals. I am certainly not saying that fundementals play no part in stock prices. I am only saying that a very large portion of a stocks value is speculative. Not fundemental. This is precisely because the last 15 years have seen Americans become much bigger savers than before. Why are people saving so much? Its because they do not think Social Security will take care of their financial needs in retirement. In fact, most people my age go under the assumption that social security will provide nothing for them.

Anyway, back to my point. I tend to ramble. : ) Since so many people have been socking away money in 401s and IRAs, the market has been flooded with money from mutual funds. Thats when you started seeing the automated trading by these massive funds causing huge daily swings in the market. Also, this is when you saw a larger and larger portion of stock values based on speculative drivers. This all happened because investment in the market outpaced real economic growth. Once such a large part of the aggregate market value became dependent on nonfundemental drivers, it also became suseptible to big drops when investor confidence falls. Understand? If people get spooked, then they pull their money out. If they pull their money out, then stock prices drop. Sometimes significantly. It does not mean that anything has necissarily changed on the income statement of balance sheet of the company. It only means that demand for that equity share has temporarily dropped on the market. Thats why is does not make sense to equate a market drop with a pending recession. At least not without a lot of other correlating factors.

Just wanted to put in my two cents. While high debt loads are never a good idea and dropping stock prices are a bummer, its not time to panic yet. Keep smiling.

... in response to Re: I love a good sell off and the comin..., posted by wsbill on Mar 16, 2003

I have never bought stocks and I don't know if I ever will, but the guy in the office next to mine at work says the moment bombs drop on Iraq, buy IDX stocks (don't quite understand what they are but he says they are some kind of a sampling of a bunch of blue chip stocks).  He says that the stock market will take a hard dip when the bombing starts and then slowly rebound a few days later to where it was, thus a surefire way to make some money.  His words, not mine.  Even if he is right, I don't understand the stock market well enough to risk money in it.  I have always said that I will risk my life, but not my money.  Thus I travel to Colombia, but don't invest in stocks.  Such is life.

... in response to Buy as soon as the bombs drop, posted by lswote on Mar 16, 2003

Stocks are a worthless piece of paper, which is just a instrument for a company to make money - the ethical implications that senior officers and financial firms have totally demoralized investors by corrupting the system and I for one will never invest so much money into the markets.

Just like after 1929, I doubt if you could find many takers to jump back in the market after they had collapesed. If you look back, the markets really didn't take off on the huge runup as they have done until about 1989 or so...

Must have been that peace dividend and which just made everyone feel rich and of course the computer revolution, which is now over and the wifi revolution is amongst us, but it won't be anything like the last decade.

... in response to Re: I love a good sell off and the comin..., posted by wsbill on Mar 16, 2003

...which suburb is that? The one out by the ceement ponds? Lol, could be Texas I suppose. People here in The Land of Gentry would kill for prices like that. Guess they'll just have to live off tomatoes and lettuce until the prices drop below 500K.

Btw, my digs (known herebouts as the Fortress of Squalitude) are paid off too. It's worth almost a cool mill and going up 20% a year. Funny thing is it's nothing to rave about, just a shack. Hell, I paid only 200K for it 10 years ago. You'll do well to remember that God is makin more people but He ain't makin any more land.

You're right about one thing though: Consumer debt is a killer. Until people learn to live at (or better still, below) their means they'll continue to get hurt bad.

... in response to $100,000 homes in suburbia?..., posted by LP on Mar 16, 2003

Hello LP,   when are you hopping over to Lachine,

After reading the above,  you scare me,
for my place was only offered 250 cnd, 180us,
perhaps because I didn't have a ceement pound.

... in response to Re: $100,000 homes in suburbia?..., posted by micha1 on Mar 17, 2003

...and back Monsewer, sorry I didn't have time to say hello. I only drive the bus, I don't have any say on how long it stops for. I could be back soon however. Hell, the way things are going in the US, I'll be glad to "love it or leave it". Better still might be to buy some fatigues and head to Montana.

The polls show most of the American people are against this action (especially if we go it alone) yet the halls of Congress are silent. Not a peep from anyone. Where are our representatives? Forget about the crazed Texan at the reins or what eventually happens in Iraq, it's just another example of how the American people are ignored by those they elect to represent them.

On the other hand, whats up with yer bretheren back home? They forget WWII? I'm agin this war too but thats not the point. Normally I don't give a rodent's rectum about politics but this is a serious slap to the memory of those who bailed yer ass out. Anyone else who's visited Le Memorial de Caen and walked among the crosses at Normandy would also be offended. A least a little moral support would have been nice, even if Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf (commander of Desert Storm and opposed to the current action) said it best: "Going to war without the French is like going deer hunting without your accordian"

... in response to Been there........, posted by LP on Mar 17, 2003

Sorry, but the most recent polls show 71% of Americans are in favor of the war. Also, the big majority of Americans are in favor of us starting it soon.

... in response to Been there........, posted by LP on Mar 17, 2003

Who said it?

(A) "France has neither winter nor summer nor morals. Apart from these drawbacks it is a fine country. France has usually been governed by  prostitutes."

(B)  "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me."

(C)  "As far as I'm concerned, war always means failure"

(D)  "The only time France wants us to go to war is when the German Army is sitting in Paris, sipping coffee.

(E)    "The French are a smallish, monkey-looking bunch and not dressed any better, on average, than the citizens of Baltimore. True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whiskey I
don't  know."

(F) When asked about a Frenchman  "Put none but Americans on guard tonight"

(G)  "We can stand here like the French, or we can do something about it."

(H)  Btw, another lesson for morons is that being in a minority doesn't make one wrong.

Answers

(A)  Mark Twain

(B)  General George S. Patton

(C)  Jacques Chirac, President of France

(D)  Regis Philbin

(E)  P.J O'Rourke (1989)

(F) Gen. Geo. Washington

(G)  Marge Simpson

What crazed Texan you referring too LP?  Probably means little to you but I am 100% behind kicking Saddam's ass out of Iraq, dead or alive now, not next month.

With regards to the statement " as far as another example of how the American people are ignored by those they elect", who was it that said

(H)  Btw, another lesson for morons is that being in a minority doesn't make one wrong.

Answer:   LP

... in response to (*/*), posted by Jack on Mar 17, 2003

....The crazed Texan is of course Dubya.

Now understand, I could care less about Irag. I'm far more concerned as to what the US government is doing to our civil liberties these days. I won't get into this with you and I'll agree Saddam is a bad guy. However:

a) It's not our business to be the world's policeman.

b) The world is full of dangerous countries, how come we don't invade North Korea? We're great at beating up little places like Grenada, Panama, Somolia (and we screwed that up bigtime), but we never tangle with anyone else now do we? Btw, remember Beruit?

c) The US has no right to invade another nation or ask another's leadership to bug out as long as they've done nothing to us. If Irag had a concrete connection to 9-11, I might see it differently. How would we respond if another nation made these demands on us?

d) Without UN backing this will be illegal, flouting the very international law we're constantly striving to uphold.

e) I believe we will pay dearly for this. It will drive thousands of Muslims into fundementalism and bring more grief directly to our shores.

f) We'll all pay for it in big dollars. Irags oil wealth will not support reconstruction, thats a myth. The infrastucture is decrepit and Saddam may burn it all anyway. Since everyone knows the victory will be swift, the plan for what comes after has already been made. It's going to be the longest and most expensive occupation of a country since WWII. Not like Afganistan, we're planning on being in Irag 20 years. That'll piss off everyone else in the region even more. It's gonna cost billions, right outta your and my pockets. And this is all in addition to the cost of the war itself in dollars and lives.

g) Why bother? Did we disarm Vietnam? No, we ran away and now look at them. Ho is long gone, Vietnam is pretty much stable and non-communist today and we have decent relations with them. If we leave well enough alone the same will likely happen in Iraq. On the other hand, we stayed in Korea where we're still there after half a century. It has cost us billions and things ain't any better now than 50 years ago. Worse in fact.
When will we learn?

h) It's immoral and unjust. If anything, it's petroleum, politically, and personally motivated.

i) It will destroy any chance of peace in Israel, the anti-US motivation powers much of that problem.

I could go on and on, the end result does not justify the means. Same as FSU chicks, the risk does not justify the reward. Regardless, the majority of us are against it (as is much of the world) and while Dubya could care less what we think I'm shocked that the clowns we elected to the House and Senate standby in mute silence. Why? To save their political asses. They're all afraid if they speak out they'll look like they did in 1991 when a wave of patriotism occured after the Gulf War.

And what happens ater we install a democracy in Iraq and down the road they, like Israel, France, England, etc, decide to build nuclear, chemical or biological weapons? *Then* it'll be OK? How come we can have this stuff but want to control who else does?

Mark my words, this will cause the world to enter a new era of hatred and resentment of America in the eyes of many nations. It was bad enough before and for good reason. And for what short term gain? The American people need to look into the future when decisions are made, Dubya is too stupid to do so. We need more than macho rednecked attitudes here, this has serious long term consequences.

Today, the US is a far greater threat to world peace than any nation on Earth, plain and simple. *We* are the rouge nation, the odd man out, and we will pay for it in time.

... in response to Touche Jack..., posted by LP on Mar 17, 2003

Hey LP. Don't take any of this the wrong way. I really do enjoy your posts. I just want to offer counter points to your post. Even if you do not agree with what I say, I hope you enjoy.

A) We are not the world's policeman, but we are strong enough and now properly focused to take out the threats to our national security.

B) Who says we will not take N Korea out one way or the other. Its a matter of when and how, but probably not if. The screw up in Somalia was largely due to politicians restricting the military and then telling them to fight. This president will not tie their hands prior to engagement. He is going for the win. Pure and simple. As for dealing with bigger couuntries, we took down Iraq in 1991. We just did not have the political mandate to exploit the victory.

C)Saddam put a hit out on Bush Sr. He fires at American airplanes over no fly zones. He has chemical and biological weapons and he has ties to terrorist organizations. I for one, do not think we need to wait for another 9-11 before we act. Lets take the fight to this guy before more of our people die. I don't need another body count in the thousands to justify taking out a guy we already know is a threat.

D) Who says this will be an illegal war. The "law" on this subject is vauge and conjectural at best. There have been 21 international military conflicts classified as major since WW II. Of these, only three have been sanctioned by the UN. The UN did not call the Faulkland War illegal. It did not call the Iran/Iraq war illegal. It did not call any of the Arab/Isreal wars illegal. To now pull this "illegal" argument is inconsistent and oppportunistic at best. Simply put, the UN has no precendence or mandate to determine the legality of a war. They (UN) did not create a law to tie our (US) hands while leaving others free to do as they please. We are a soverign nation and Kofi Annan's opinions or preferences will not change that fact.

E) Got a little news for you. Millions of Muslims are already fundamentalist. Besides, they already hate us. We can either stand up and meet the threat head on or we can tuck our tail between our legs and be blackmailed by the threat of violence. Appeasement did not help France & UK against Hitler. Why would it possibly work now? Its better to show them the consequence we can deliver for their actions and let it go from there.

F) Yes it will take 20-30 billion per year in US aid and we will be there at least 5 years. The 20 year estimate is a little bit of a stretch. Its not fun, but we have a moral responsiblity to set things right (roads, schools, hospitals). It is nation building just like we did in France, Germany and Japan, but we have to make sure the new government has a chance to be better than the old one. Otherwise, it will bite us again.

G) Although this is a convenient comparison that pushes a lot of emotional buttons, it is not a valid comparison. Vietnam was not a threat to us. It did not have the ability and inclination to supply chemical and biological weapons to people who wished to kill American civillians. Also, I thought Vietnam was still communist. Maybe I am wrong, but I was pretty sure them govt controlled most sectors of the economy.

H) The immoral and unjust thing is more of an opinion than a fact. Of course your opinion is valid, but its no more valid than my opinion. Thats how it works with opinions. Everyone's got one. Personally, I think it would be immoral and unjust to let Sadam arm some more psychos who wish to prove their bravery by sucker punching defenseless women and children. To me, it would be immoral and unjust to not eliminate these threats before they kill our people. Call me a nut, but I do not want to see any more 2 year olds killed for the causes of these "brave" defenders of their faith.

I) Current events do not agree with this statement. A compromise is in the works. A big part of the Azores meeting was to show support for the plan where Arafat gives up much of his power and the US more actively supports a Palestinian state. In effect, we are buying off the people of Palestine with the offer to support their bid for statehood.

To me the risk of waiting for the next sucker punch from these thugs (terrorists) is the one I cannot justify. We have the men, weapons and motivation. Lets allow our guys (military & intelligence) to hunt the people who would threaten our citizens.

As for the politicians, most of them read the polls and see the really big majority agree with Bush (71% are ready for the war to start soon). Also most of the Republican majority in the House and Senate actually agree with him. As for the Dems, why should they break precedence and show leadership on this issue. Other than saying they do not like whatever George W. says, I don't see where they have a lot to offer. Sorry.

As for other countries hating us, they always have. Its thinly disguised jealousy and little more. Our military, economy, standard of living and popular culture are all dominant. They don't like these facts so they look so very hard for reasons to find fault with us. Its sad, but they are like the jealous girls in high school that would become so happy whenever anything bad happened to the "pretty" girl.

As far as I am concerned, they can all go take a flying leap. So what if the French don't like us. Same with the Germans, Belgians, etc. What have they ever done for us other than take our help and denegrate our country whle their hand was still stretched out for more? They take financial aid from us (Marshall plan comes to mind). They have us bail them out of wars (WW I and WW II). They have us protect them (NATO). For what? So they can act like jealous, petty little jerks when we need them. I'm sorry, but losing friend like that is no real lose. Its just going to lighten the load by removing dead weight. We can take the money we would have spent on our "friends" and use it to promote our own interests at home and abroad.

Just my opinion.

... in response to Re: Touche Jack..., posted by DanM on Mar 18, 2003

.....we agree to disagree. I will not attempt to sway your opinions for they exhibit the inexperience of youth, a lack of historical understanding, cause and effect, and the complexitiy of global interaction. They show the same basic shortsighted perspective of most Americans who fail to study the real workings of international politics and believe whatever they are forced fed. In addition, they clearly are of an individual who has not experienced first hand the immense human suffering of war.

As a young man, you will be the one subject to the future ills this will bring upon a once well respected and great nation. You are witnessing the creation of your future, not mine, and I'm sorry for the burden you most assuredly will bear.

Just my opinion.

... in response to Then I guess..., posted by LP on Mar 19, 2003

Other than some denegrating comments and an understanding of your certainty regarding your own correctness, I am not sure what to take away from your post.

... in response to Then I guess..., posted by LP on Mar 19, 2003

however, I can't find fault with anything above.

Well said,

Vaughn

... in response to Re: Touche Jack..., posted by DanM on Mar 18, 2003

DanM,

Good post. I agree with all of your points. As a matter
of fact, it kind of freaks me out because it is like
reading my own writing.
LP is right about the problem of decreasing freedoms
in light of increasing surveillance activities, the
TIN, etc. But that is all a part of the end times scenario -as is the impending military action in Iraq (ever wonder why Babylon is not mentioned as being a part of the Gog led invasion?).

WmGO

... in response to Re: Re: Touche ., posted by WmGo on Mar 18, 2003

Thanks for the support. I am feeling a little outnumbered on this board while discussing this topic. : )

Good to hear a friendly post. Thanks.

... in response to Re: Touche Jack..., posted by DanM on Mar 18, 2003

Despite all of your excellent arguements, I can not escape that feeling that for Dubya this is primarily a personal matter: he is out to complete his fathers unfinished business (read failure?) and remove Sadam from power.

... in response to Re: Re: Touche Jack..., posted by Alfred on Mar 18, 2003

Sorry, but this is another myth.

How did George Sr. fail? Don't you remember that his 70+ nation coalition had a predefined mandate to not go all the way. He was prohibited by his agreement with his allies.

We are having to come back and deal with this 10 years after exactly because he allowed countries like France, Syria, etc to restrict our actions. I suppose you could say that George Sr.'s biggest mistake was to let the international community dictate and limit his actions. In that respect, George Jr. is making up for the "mistake" of his father.

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Touche Jack..., posted by DanM on Mar 18, 2003

Exactly my point: Dubya is out to do what Daddy didn't: remove Saddam.

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Re: Touche Jack..., posted by Alfred on Mar 18, 2003

That was sarcasm in my last post. I do not think he is trying to make up for "Daddy's" mistakes.

"Daddy" did not fail. He just played by the rules of a lot of self-serving, short-sighted allies. It would be more accurate to say that France, Germany, Syria, etc failed in forcing us to abide by their wishes.

As far as Jr is concerned, it is so incredibly insulting to reduce his motives to something so petty and personal. It is akin to name calling.

Our current president is doing his best to protect the lives of some 280 million of his fellow citizens. Period. He is trying to remove a threat to the people you love and to the people I love. You may argue with his logic or even with his methods of resolving the threat, but to question is motives in such a petty way is unfortunate.

... in response to Touche Jack..., posted by LP on Mar 17, 2003

When we bomb the crap out of that flaky dictator.  Seems we really haven't heard peep out of him in the last 15 years.

Whether this war is valid, will just leave that up to the Iraqi people to decide.

Since all the embargos will be lifted and that country can re-emerge from the dark days of life with Saddam.

The French and Russian are actually behind us, but they had to give Saddam a exit route if he decides to live in exile in France or Russia or even China.

... in response to Touche Jack..., posted by LP on Mar 17, 2003

I fear you are right.  I lived in Texas when Bush was governor and I think he was the best governor Texas has had in 50 years, but Texas is very different from the rest of the world and I don't feel Bush is willing to recognize that.  He can act like a cowboy in Texas, but not in the world.  Sadaam might be a dangerous man, but I don't think he is dangerous to the US.  We can't save the world.

... in response to Touche Jack..., posted by LP on Mar 17, 2003

LP
9-11
drove Muslim recruitment into religon 3 fold
especially among the prison population.
Some prisons do notallow the Bible, but overlook to Quaren
We must be Politically Incorrect, and realize that all muslims want qorld domination. by word or by sword whichever is faster.

... in response to Re: Touche Jack..., posted by williethesheik on Mar 17, 2003

Face it, when we look back in twenty years, there will be the consensus that we, now "back" in 2003, are in the early years of WWIII. Responding to the destruction of the World Trade Center, and simultaneous attacks on the Pentagon and the Capitol (albeit the latter was foiled), by reacting boldly to embark on a first-strike policy to deter attacks, the military might of the United States of America overthrew several world governments-- Afghanistan, Iraq, North Korea, Iran, and others, fought terrorist networks in Indonesia, the Phillippines, and many other nations on all continents, sustaining tens of thousands of American military and civilian domestic casualties due to biological, chemical and radiation attacks, but prevailing in the end, dragging the Moslem World kicking and screaming away from barbarianism, into modernity and eventually taking significant steps toward joining the ranks of free, liberal, Western democracies in "The End of History" (as defined by Francis Fukuyama, not by those who didn't bother reading his 1989 essay).

Either you see it now, or you don't.

... in response to                    W  W  I  I  I , posted by Scaught on Mar 18, 2003

Actually,

if you want to know what future is read the Holy Scriptures. It is laid out quite clearly. Most has already come to pass.

The present world situation is all about laying the ground work for the End Times.

It is all about the battle for Jerusalem.

It is not about flesh and blood.

Good luck.

WmGO

... in response to Been there........, posted by LP on Mar 17, 2003

Hey LP,  sorry we couldn't meet, when you came over.
Send me an e-mail,  I will give you the phone number
and all that goes with it.
As far as my betherens, well not too much for me,
France is only the mouthpiece for Germany and Russia.
As for the politicians not listening,  look at Blair, 81% of the
Brits are against the war.  The same for Aznar,
the three of them, if you include Bush, won't be elected
dog-catcher next time around.

To hell with them,  just get here, the wine and food will superb,
the girls are nice too, but I do know that you would not cheat
on your girl friend.

... in response to Re: Been there........, posted by micha1 on Mar 17, 2003

Blair received a boost when Clare Short, who threatened last week to resign and accused Blair of pursuing a "deeply reckless" policy, announced that she would vote for the government. She also pledged to remain as secretary for international development, in charge of Britain's aid agency.

President Bush has given Saddam until Wednesday to leave his country or face military action after abandoning diplomatic efforts at the United Nations.

Blair said U.N. action on Iraq was paralyzed by division between the United States and its allies on one hand, and France, Germany, Russia and their supporters.

"I know why it arises," Blair said. "There is resentment of U.S. predominance. There is fear of U.S. unilateralism."

"And there is perhaps a lack of full understanding of U.S. preoccupations after the 11th of September," he added.

A poll published Tuesday in The Guardian newspaper suggested that the public was increasingly rallying around Blair. Support for military action to disarm Saddam has risen by 9 percentage points since February to 38 percent, while opposition fell 8 points to 44 percent, said the survey by ICM.

The Guardian's ICM poll was based on telephone interviews with 1,002 adults last weekend and had a margin of error of three percentage points.

... in response to $100,000 homes in suburbia?..., posted by LP on Mar 16, 2003

Radioactive dirty-bomb on Wall Street and you see the implications of that crash, I doubt if you'll see many folks put much money & faith in the ole'stock market ever again. (probably take another generation or so).

You do know about the missing radioactive stuff that came up missing from Haliburton in Nigera back in December, go reread the yahoo stock news on HAL.  Funny how the media has kept quiet about that news.
---
It's kinda like the day ole'Scotty Ritter was giving a lecture at the University of Arkansas in Jonesboro on Iraq adn weapons of mass destruction, etc...  The news media didn't say a word about this, but they certainly carried the news of 3-4 Pakistanis (Al Queda member) being arrested in a little town in Arkansas.  These guys were speeding through this little town and were pulled over and of course the media jumped all over that...

Gee, I just gotta wonder about those 2 CH-53's that came roaring into Millington that evening.

... in response to $100,000 homes in suburbia?..., posted by LP on Mar 16, 2003

Should be interesting times ahead.  Like as to where the middle class went, as more people will darn near be defined as rich or poor.

Well, I'm definately not rich.

Just a bump on a log I suppose.

... in response to Re: Where did the middle class go ?, posted by wsbill on Mar 17, 2003

Where did the middle class go,  well for one at the tax collector's office to give their money to the thieves so that
the $900 toilet seats and the $700 screwdrivers can be paid for.  The richs don't pay taxes as for the poors, they
have precious very little to be stolen from them.
Schools are shortening their teaching year, in Oregon for one, because they have no funds.
45-46 states have to resort to the gambling dollar (casinos and race tracks slots), to help (they hope) balanced
their budgets and not go bankrupt.
So wouldn't the 500 billions (it is just a start) be put to better use, like helping the middle class, instead of
spending it against a military dwarf,  when arm in the Gulf War,  Irak could only inflict 8 casualities to the USA,
(eight lifes anywhere are still too many in my view).  So how strong are they today, after the sanctions and the
inspectors' work.
So in conclusion, the middle class is on his way to the poorhouse.

... in response to $100,000 homes in suburbia?..., posted by LP on Mar 16, 2003

I do hope you live in California.  I know housing prices there long ago stopped being reasonable, but I would hope that other states are still more reasonable.