Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (239993)	8/27/2007 6:07:01 PM
From: geode00	Respond to of 281500

Home Sales Hit Slowest Pace in 5 Years By MARTIN CRUTSINGER The Associated Press Monday, August 27, 2007; 5:24 PM WASHINGTON -- Sales of existing homes dropped for a fifth straight month in July while the number of unsold homes shot up to a record level. Many analysts said the worst slump in housing in 16 years is likely to deepen in coming months, reflecting the recent turmoil in credit markets, which has caused lenders to tighten their standards....Based on the July sales pace, it would take 9.2 months to exhaust the number of single-family homes on the market, the highest level in nearly 16 years, and 11.9 months to exhaust the level of condominiums on the market. The months supply of condos sitting on the market is 45.1 percent higher than a year ago. The rising glut of unsold homes is putting downward pressure on prices. The median price of an existing home, the point where half of homes sold for more and half for less, has now fallen every month for a year, something that has not occurred before on Realtors' records going back to 1969. Economists said to expect more price declines in coming months. "We are literally swimming in an ocean of homes for sale," said Mike Larson, a real estate analyst with Weiss Research Inc. "Until we work through this extremely large inventory glut, we're not going to see any momentum in home prices."... washingtonpost.com --------------- When do we run out of money (and credit) to keep Republican's fantasies of Iraqi oil billions afloat?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (239993)	8/27/2007 11:22:17 PM
From: jlallen	Respond to of 281500

Excellent post!

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (239993)	8/28/2007 12:05:40 AM
From: Sam	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

The Iraqis have had quite enough. You won't find much support in country. The alliance with the Sunni nationalist insurgents has broken down, and the Shiites and Kurds will kill them on sight. That's been true for a long time--since before the invasion. It didn't just happen last year, and it certainly didn't just happen due to the "Surge." The only reason that there was an "alliance" between AQ people and Iraqi Sunnis was the invasion. That is one of the points that anti-war people have made for years. You seem to feel compelled--either consciously or not--to interpret every argument through a lens that distorts the argument.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (239993)	8/28/2007 12:49:38 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Nadine, now you're measuring our "success" in Iraq by assessing the viability of Al Queda there? Iraq was never about Al Queda. And here's a bulletin for you, Anbar province isn't about Al Queda either. I told you that earlier but you seem to have missed it based on your statement: "Here I was taking a rest from hearing from you since you demanded to know what good news from Iraq was trouble for the Democrats, and I pointed out that the Anbar Awakening was a "big problem" for the Harry "The Surge has Failed" Reid. Since then even the worst Defeat-o-crats have had to admit that it may be premature to pull the plug as they had hoped to by now." I'm typing very slowly now so you can get it.... The Sunnis in Anbar DON'T need our "help" controlling Al Queda in their province. They are smart, tough, connected and well able to create dead Al Queda terrorizers. Where they need our help is in getting us off their backs and getting arms and training and treasure to fight a different enemy; the Shiite controlled militias, police and national Iraqi army. Their "cooperation" with us is very clearly for the purpose of positioning themselves to OPPOSE the Shiite controlled Iraqi central government. They are NOT coming under the unified Iraq umbrella that we've claimed will exist. Their "help us fight Al Queda" posturing simply gives them an angle and gives us a cover to work with the "other side" of the conflict, but it doesn't alter, in any significant way, the conflict itself. We've finally wised up to the fact that a democratically elected, Shiite controlled government in Iraq is a disaster for the US, the world and for non-radical or non-Shiite Iraqis. Duh! It took us years of arming and training those nuts to figure that out? And all the while our treasure and the blood of our soldiers was being spilled fighting their battle against the Sunnis. But when the Shiites see that their patsies...that's us...are doing them more harm than good, then they'll tell us to take our billions of dollars of grease money and our 150 thousand soldiers and get out. So we're walking a fine line there trying to rebalance the Shiite/Sunni power so that the Shiites may come to the conclusion that they have to reach some sort of real compromise with a Sunni population that's fighting for its very existence thanks, in large part, to our earlier one sided policies and lethal "help" for the Shiite side of the conflict. So take off your Al Queda goggles and try to see the big picture in Iraq; a nation of very sophisticated, very diverse and very tough people, each with their own, often hidden, agendas. Maybe then you'll stop being the myopic person fixated on the leaky faucet when the flood waters are about to sweep away the house. Ed