The pettiness of getting even.......

[CaptnKirk]

Interesting read

 

[Tab]

Interesting, but seems somewhat biased towards bush.

 

[Bowfinger]

We're only beginning to tally the costs of this war. The U.S. may be paying for Bush's little crusade for decades.

 

[Vadatajs]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
We're only beginning to tally the costs of this war. The U.S. may be paying for Bush's little crusade for decades.

May, try WIll, and not just financially. (time to read the article now)

EDIT: ARticle read, no further comment6.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Vadatajs

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
We're only beginning to tally the costs of this war. The U.S. may be paying for Bush's little crusade for decades.

May, try WIll, and not just financially. (time to read the article now)

EDIT: ARticle read, no further comment6.

Exactly, I did not mean financially. I was referring to all of the ill-will we have created in the world over the last 28 months. It will come back to haunt us again and again.

 

[Dari]

Let's not forget all the reasons why those allies were against the war.

Let's start with France: After the end of the cold war, didn't the french foreign minister admitted that he wanted to "assert the greatness of france"? As for tradition, the french are the traditional anti-americans, which is a derivative of anti-saxonism.

Next on the list is Germany: Schroeder rode on an anti-americanism ballot and won. He's a traditional politician in every sense of the word and wants to crawl back to the US and beg for forgiveness. But at the same time, modern Germans don't feel the shame of Nazism that was committed by their (grand)parents. Germany should be an interesting case to watch within the next decade. This current love-fest with France will soon end as Germany takes its rightfull place as leader of continental Europe.

Next is Russia: Russia can't help but salivate at the sight of seeing America and her allies fight. After losing the Cold War, the Russian stature has shrunk faster than Enron's fortunes. They are just a regular nation and want to be heard.

Canada: Chretian was publicly dissapointed when Al Gore lost the presidential race. He's no friend of Bush. Neither is he a pragmatist.

Mexico: Vicente Fox was frustrated at the fact that the US was moving slowly on promises we made regarding mexican immigrants being granted certain status in the US. At the same time, Mexicans were against a war they had nothing to do with (so why would they be for it in the first place?). Fox, like Chretien, is another illusionary.

 

[konichiwa]

Starting to form a pattern, huh.

 

[Dari]

We are living in a new reality. A new Rome, if you will. People are uncomfortable with one nation having such supreme powers. Anyone here that thinks we will pay for our actions doesn't understand where the world is heading.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Dari
Let's not forget all the reasons why those allies were against the war.

Let's start with France: After the end of the cold war, didn't the french foreign minister admitted that he wanted to "assert the greatness of france"? As for tradition, the french are the tradition anti-americans, which is a derivative of anti-saxonism.

Next on the list is Germany: Schroeder rode on an anti-americanism ballot and won. He's a traditional politician in every sense of the word and wants to crawl back to the US and beg for forgiveness. But at the same time, modern Germans don't feel the shame of Nazism that was committed by their (grand)parents. Germany should be an interesting case to watch within the next decade. This current love-fest will soon end as Germany takes its rightfull place as leader of continental Europe.

Next is Russia: Russia can't help but salivate at the sight of seeing America and her allies fight. After losing the Cold War, the Russian stature has shrunk faster than Enron's fortunes. They are just a regular nation and want to be heard.

Canada: Chretian was publicly dissapointed when Al Gore lost the presidential race. He's no friend of Bush. Neither is he a pragmatist.

Mexico: Vicente Fox was frustrated at the fact that the US was moving slowly on promises we made regarding mexican immigrants being granted certain status in the US. At the same time, Mexicans were against a war they had nothing to do with (so why would they be for it in the first place?). Fox, like Chretien, is another illusionary.

That's a rather cynical view of the world. It doesn't seem to leave any room for right vs. wrong. For most of the billions of people opposed to the war, myself included, none of your reasons apply. I opposed the war simply because I felt it was wrong. Why is it so unimaginable that at least some of these countries opposed the war for the same reason?

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Dari
Let's not forget all the reasons why those allies were against the war.

Let's start with France: After the end of the cold war, didn't the french foreign minister admitted that he wanted to "assert the greatness of france"? As for tradition, the french are the tradition anti-americans, which is a derivative of anti-saxonism.

Next on the list is Germany: Schroeder rode on an anti-americanism ballot and won. He's a traditional politician in every sense of the word and wants to crawl back to the US and beg for forgiveness. But at the same time, modern Germans don't feel the shame of Nazism that was committed by their (grand)parents. Germany should be an interesting case to watch within the next decade. This current love-fest will soon end as Germany takes its rightfull place as leader of continental Europe.

Next is Russia: Russia can't help but salivate at the sight of seeing America and her allies fight. After losing the Cold War, the Russian stature has shrunk faster than Enron's fortunes. They are just a regular nation and want to be heard.

Canada: Chretian was publicly dissapointed when Al Gore lost the presidential race. He's no friend of Bush. Neither is he a pragmatist.

Mexico: Vicente Fox was frustrated at the fact that the US was moving slowly on promises we made regarding mexican immigrants being granted certain status in the US. At the same time, Mexicans were against a war they had nothing to do with (so why would they be for it in the first place?). Fox, like Chretien, is another illusionary.

That's a rather cynical view of the world. It doesn't seem to leave any room for right vs. wrong. For most of the billions of people opposed to the war, myself included, none of your reasons apply. I opposed the war simply because I felt it was wrong. Why is it so unimaginable that at least some of these countries opposed the war for the same reason?

That's because in reality there is no right or wrong, only perceptions (matter). Most of the world did not feel threatened by Iraq or bin Laden or other terrorists. Even if you did feel threatened by them and you still thought the war was wrong, then you were either against it because of self-preservation (moral clarity) or were already prejudiced against the administartion for various reasons.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
That's a rather cynical view of the world. It doesn't seem to leave any room for right vs. wrong. For most of the billions of people opposed to the war, myself included, none of your reasons apply. I opposed the war simply because I felt it was wrong. Why is it so unimaginable that at least some of these countries opposed the war for the same reason?

That's because in reality there is no right or wrong, only perceptions (matter). Most of the world did not feel threatened by Iraq or bin Laden or other terrorists. Even if you did feel threatened by them and you still thought the war was wrong, then you were either against it because of self-preservation (moral clarity) or were already prejudiced against the administartion for various reasons.

I think that's my point. These other countries disagreed with Bush's claim that Iraq was an imminent threat; therefore, they felt the attack was wrong and refused to support it. That's a far cry from the cynical reasons you offered. Maybe some of these countries had less noble reasons too, but it's not fair to presume that all were acting out of spite towards Bush or the U.S.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
That's a rather cynical view of the world. It doesn't seem to leave any room for right vs. wrong. For most of the billions of people opposed to the war, myself included, none of your reasons apply. I opposed the war simply because I felt it was wrong. Why is it so unimaginable that at least some of these countries opposed the war for the same reason?

That's because in reality there is no right or wrong, only perceptions (matter). Most of the world did not feel threatened by Iraq or bin Laden or other terrorists. Even if you did feel threatened by them and you still thought the war was wrong, then you were either against it because of self-preservation (moral clarity) or were already prejudiced against the administartion for various reasons.

I think that's my point. These other countries disagreed with Bush's claim that Iraq was an imminent threat; therefore, they felt the attack was wrong and refused to support it. That's a far cry from the cynical reasons you offered. Maybe some of these countries had less noble reasons too, but it's not fair to presume that all were acting out of spite towards Bush or the U.S.

Gov'ts act out of self-interest, not because of what is the popular choice. If every gov't was to listen to the masses, we wouldn't have entered World War I or World War II. The fact is if the United States said that Iraq was an imminent danger to the United States, then it would've probably been in most gov'ts to back the US. They should've known that there would've been severe consequences by trying to deny that Iraq was not a threat to the United States. Either that, or their fortunes would've been worse with the fall of Hussein. Or maybe it was the reasons I mentioned earlier.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
That's a rather cynical view of the world. It doesn't seem to leave any room for right vs. wrong. For most of the billions of people opposed to the war, myself included, none of your reasons apply. I opposed the war simply because I felt it was wrong. Why is it so unimaginable that at least some of these countries opposed the war for the same reason?

That's because in reality there is no right or wrong, only perceptions (matter). Most of the world did not feel threatened by Iraq or bin Laden or other terrorists. Even if you did feel threatened by them and you still thought the war was wrong, then you were either against it because of self-preservation (moral clarity) or were already prejudiced against the administartion for various reasons.

I think that's my point. These other countries disagreed with Bush's claim that Iraq was an imminent threat; therefore, they felt the attack was wrong and refused to support it. That's a far cry from the cynical reasons you offered. Maybe some of these countries had less noble reasons too, but it's not fair to presume that all were acting out of spite towards Bush or the U.S.

Gov'ts act out of self-interest, not because of what is the popular choice. If every gov't was to listen to the masses, we wouldn't have entered World War I or World War II. The fact is if the United States said that Iraq was an imminent danger to the United States, then it would've probably been in most gov'ts to back the US. They should've known that there would've been severe consequences by trying to deny that Iraq was not a threat to the United States. Either that, or their fortunes would've been worse with the fall of Hussein. Or maybe it was the reasons I mentioned earlier.

We might be able to do it alone, but its a foolhardy, and as we can see by the mounting debt, unsustainable foreign policy.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
That's a rather cynical view of the world. It doesn't seem to leave any room for right vs. wrong. For most of the billions of people opposed to the war, myself included, none of your reasons apply. I opposed the war simply because I felt it was wrong. Why is it so unimaginable that at least some of these countries opposed the war for the same reason?

That's because in reality there is no right or wrong, only perceptions (matter). Most of the world did not feel threatened by Iraq or bin Laden or other terrorists. Even if you did feel threatened by them and you still thought the war was wrong, then you were either against it because of self-preservation (moral clarity) or were already prejudiced against the administartion for various reasons.

I think that's my point. These other countries disagreed with Bush's claim that Iraq was an imminent threat; therefore, they felt the attack was wrong and refused to support it. That's a far cry from the cynical reasons you offered. Maybe some of these countries had less noble reasons too, but it's not fair to presume that all were acting out of spite towards Bush or the U.S.

Gov'ts act out of self-interest, not because of what is the popular choice. If every gov't was to listen to the masses, we wouldn't have entered World War I or World War II. The fact is if the United States said that Iraq was an imminent danger to the United States, then it would've probably been in most gov'ts to back the US. They should've known that there would've been severe consequences by trying to deny that Iraq was not a threat to the United States. Either that, or their fortunes would've been worse with the fall of Hussein. Or maybe it was the reasons I mentioned earlier.

We might be able to do it alone, but its a foolhardy, and as we can see by the mounting debt, unsustainable foreign policy.

if our gov't looked at our interests with your short-term eyesights, then we would have an administration full of cowards. Over the long-term, barring no unexpected shocks, oil prices will become more predictable. That means less spikes and more resources spent elsewhere.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
That's a rather cynical view of the world. It doesn't seem to leave any room for right vs. wrong. For most of the billions of people opposed to the war, myself included, none of your reasons apply. I opposed the war simply because I felt it was wrong. Why is it so unimaginable that at least some of these countries opposed the war for the same reason?

That's because in reality there is no right or wrong, only perceptions (matter). Most of the world did not feel threatened by Iraq or bin Laden or other terrorists. Even if you did feel threatened by them and you still thought the war was wrong, then you were either against it because of self-preservation (moral clarity) or were already prejudiced against the administartion for various reasons.

I think that's my point. These other countries disagreed with Bush's claim that Iraq was an imminent threat; therefore, they felt the attack was wrong and refused to support it. That's a far cry from the cynical reasons you offered. Maybe some of these countries had less noble reasons too, but it's not fair to presume that all were acting out of spite towards Bush or the U.S.

Gov'ts act out of self-interest, not because of what is the popular choice. If every gov't was to listen to the masses, we wouldn't have entered World War I or World War II. The fact is if the United States said that Iraq was an imminent danger to the United States, then it would've probably been in most gov'ts to back the US. They should've known that there would've been severe consequences by trying to deny that Iraq was not a threat to the United States. Either that, or their fortunes would've been worse with the fall of Hussein. Or maybe it was the reasons I mentioned earlier.

We might be able to do it alone, but its a foolhardy, and as we can see by the mounting debt, unsustainable foreign policy.

if our gov't looked at our interests with your short-term eyesights, then we would have an administration full of cowards. Over the long-term, barring no unexpected shocks, oil prices will become more predictable. That means less spikes and more resources spent elsewhere.

We already have an administration full of cowards. Nothing brave about attacking Iraq. Iraq was not the source of unpredictability in the oil markets, the Venezuela strike, the Nigerian offshore drilling disruptions, and the US sabre rattling was. For 12 years the Iraq didn't have much of an effect on oil prices aside from the times we were bombing them.
This government looks at our interests with its own short-term eyesights, and what it sees is a need to distract the people from it's failed and doomed economic policies.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Dari
if our gov't looked at our interests with your short-term eyesights, then we would have an administration full of cowards. Over the long-term, barring no unexpected shocks, oil prices will become more predictable. That means less spikes and more resources spent elsewhere.

Surely you not suggesting that it's OK to kill and maim thousands of innocent people just so we can have cheap gas for our barge-like SUVs??? I must be missing your point.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
That's a rather cynical view of the world. It doesn't seem to leave any room for right vs. wrong. For most of the billions of people opposed to the war, myself included, none of your reasons apply. I opposed the war simply because I felt it was wrong. Why is it so unimaginable that at least some of these countries opposed the war for the same reason?

That's because in reality there is no right or wrong, only perceptions (matter). Most of the world did not feel threatened by Iraq or bin Laden or other terrorists. Even if you did feel threatened by them and you still thought the war was wrong, then you were either against it because of self-preservation (moral clarity) or were already prejudiced against the administartion for various reasons.

I think that's my point. These other countries disagreed with Bush's claim that Iraq was an imminent threat; therefore, they felt the attack was wrong and refused to support it. That's a far cry from the cynical reasons you offered. Maybe some of these countries had less noble reasons too, but it's not fair to presume that all were acting out of spite towards Bush or the U.S.

Gov'ts act out of self-interest, not because of what is the popular choice. If every gov't was to listen to the masses, we wouldn't have entered World War I or World War II. The fact is if the United States said that Iraq was an imminent danger to the United States, then it would've probably been in most gov'ts to back the US. They should've known that there would've been severe consequences by trying to deny that Iraq was not a threat to the United States. Either that, or their fortunes would've been worse with the fall of Hussein. Or maybe it was the reasons I mentioned earlier.

We might be able to do it alone, but its a foolhardy, and as we can see by the mounting debt, unsustainable foreign policy.

if our gov't looked at our interests with your short-term eyesights, then we would have an administration full of cowards. Over the long-term, barring no unexpected shocks, oil prices will become more predictable. That means less spikes and more resources spent elsewhere.

We already have an administration full of cowards. Nothing brave about attacking Iraq. Iraq was not the source of unpredictability in the oil markets, the Venezuela strike, the Nigerian offshore drilling disruptions, and the US sabre rattling was. For 12 years the Iraq didn't have much of an effect on oil prices aside from the times we were bombing them.
This government looks at our interests with its own short-term eyesights, and what it sees is a need to distract the people from it's failed and doomed economic policies.

I see you come to the table with prejudices. Now that Iraq is part of the family of nations again, it will be another stabilizer of oil shocks (a la Saudi Arabia). As for failed economic policies, you need to expand on that accusation. But in my opinion, if the administration wants to cut taxes, I'm all for it. Those democrats who lust over seeing the United States becoming like a socialist european state with well over 50 percent of nominal income (mine is currently about 40%) going to taxes will NEVER get my vote.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
That's a rather cynical view of the world. It doesn't seem to leave any room for right vs. wrong. For most of the billions of people opposed to the war, myself included, none of your reasons apply. I opposed the war simply because I felt it was wrong. Why is it so unimaginable that at least some of these countries opposed the war for the same reason?

That's because in reality there is no right or wrong, only perceptions (matter). Most of the world did not feel threatened by Iraq or bin Laden or other terrorists. Even if you did feel threatened by them and you still thought the war was wrong, then you were either against it because of self-preservation (moral clarity) or were already prejudiced against the administartion for various reasons.

I think that's my point. These other countries disagreed with Bush's claim that Iraq was an imminent threat; therefore, they felt the attack was wrong and refused to support it. That's a far cry from the cynical reasons you offered. Maybe some of these countries had less noble reasons too, but it's not fair to presume that all were acting out of spite towards Bush or the U.S.

Gov'ts act out of self-interest, not because of what is the popular choice. If every gov't was to listen to the masses, we wouldn't have entered World War I or World War II. The fact is if the United States said that Iraq was an imminent danger to the United States, then it would've probably been in most gov'ts to back the US. They should've known that there would've been severe consequences by trying to deny that Iraq was not a threat to the United States. Either that, or their fortunes would've been worse with the fall of Hussein. Or maybe it was the reasons I mentioned earlier.

We might be able to do it alone, but its a foolhardy, and as we can see by the mounting debt, unsustainable foreign policy.

if our gov't looked at our interests with your short-term eyesights, then we would have an administration full of cowards. Over the long-term, barring no unexpected shocks, oil prices will become more predictable. That means less spikes and more resources spent elsewhere.

We already have an administration full of cowards. Nothing brave about attacking Iraq. Iraq was not the source of unpredictability in the oil markets, the Venezuela strike, the Nigerian offshore drilling disruptions, and the US sabre rattling was. For 12 years the Iraq didn't have much of an effect on oil prices aside from the times we were bombing them.
This government looks at our interests with its own short-term eyesights, and what it sees is a need to distract the people from it's failed and doomed economic policies.

I see you come to the table with prejudices. Now that Iraq is part of the family of nations again, it will be another stabilizer of oil shocks (a la Saudi Arabia). As for failed economic policies, you need to expand on that accusation. But in my opinion, if the administration wants to cut taxes, I'm all for it. Those democrats who lust over seeing the United States becoming like a socialist european state with well over 50 percent of nominal income (mine is currently about 40%) going to taxes will NEVER get my vote.

No kidding, Einstein. Everyone comes to the table with prejudices. The administration is a typical GOP borrow, spend, and blame Democrats operation. This administration wants tax cuts, but doesn't want to cut spending to match the government income, and instead goes out and blows 100Bil on an unnecessary war under false pretexts. They are borrowing money and passing the taxes to future generations who will have to pay for all that spending that is not covered by our current tax revenues. If someone took your credit card, spent a ton of money, and stuck you with the bill and the interest payments, you would call that theft, but when the government does that, you call that tax cut.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
No kidding, Einstein. Everyone comes to the table with prejudices. The administration is a typical GOP borrow, spend, and blame Democrats operation. This administration wants tax cuts, but doesn't want to cut spending to match the government income, and instead goes out and blows 100Bil on an unnecessary war under false pretexts. They are borrowing money and passing the taxes to future generations who will have to pay for all that spending that is not covered by our current tax revenues. If someone took your credit card, spent a ton of money, and stuck you with the bill and the interest payments, you would call that theft, but when the government does that, you call that tax cut.

In my opinion, that's it in a nutshell. When Republicans claim they want smaller government, it's pure bovine excrement. They want to cut taxes for political brownie points, but they don't want to balance the budget. That would offend the campaign contributors who line up at the public trough for handouts. Instead, they pass the debt onto our children and grandchildren who can't vote against them.

It's no wonder Republicans are anti-abortion - they need all the future taxpayers they can get.

 

[Dari]

While cutting taxes is a Republican tradition (of which I'm damn proud of), the current administration had no choice but to create bigger gov't in the form of homeland security. Perhaps if Bill Clinton had done his job and gone after Al Qaeda and outlaw regimes like the Taliban and Saddam Hussein's Iraq when the economy was superhot, then we would have 3,000 extra Americans living happily (and paying taxes). But he didn't, and the Bush administration has to clean up the mess left by Clinton. Yes, the deficit will go up. Yes, future generations will have to pay for the current war and the larger government. But what were his options. To appease terrorists so that they can attack another day? As for the tax cut, while I'm for it, I believe it's excessive and needs to be lowered. But Bush is doing what's right for the country, his party, his supporters, and himself.

 

[Insane3D]

If every gov't was to listen to the masses, we wouldn't have entered World War I or World War II

I may be wrong, but do you think we wouldn't have entered WWII after Pearl Harbor? I seem to remember from history class that was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Dari
While cutting taxes is a Republican tradition (of which I'm damn proud of), the current administration had no choice but to create bigger gov't in the form of homeland security. Perhaps if Bill Clinton had done his job and gone after Al Qaeda and outlaw regimes like the Taliban and Saddam Hussein's Iraq when the economy was superhot, then we would have 3,000 extra Americans living happily (and paying taxes). But he didn't, and the Bush administration has to clean up the mess left by Clinton. Yes, the deficit will go up. Yes, future generations will have to pay for the current war and the larger government. But what were his options. To appease terrorists so that they can attack another day? As for the tax cut, while I'm for it, I believe it's excessive and needs to be lowered. But Bush is doing what's right for the country, his party, his supporters, and himself.

Republicans always find an excuse to justify stealing from future generations. As if they aren't going to have problems of their own to worry about and can devote themselves full time to paying off our debts. And as I said, blame Democrats is part of the game. Iraq != Al Qaeda, in case you are confused. How is Bush doing what's right for the country by mortgaging this country's future to go after a weak dictator who is not even threatening to his neighbors, all of whom opposed this war. Unless by "right" you mean "right-wing".

 

[Insane3D]

It's amusing how the same people that write off certain people in this forum because they are just "Bush haters" have no problems blaming everything under the sun on Clinton. Oh well...not surprising I guess...

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Dari
While cutting taxes is a Republican tradition (of which I'm damn proud of), the current administration had no choice but to create bigger gov't in the form of homeland security.

Baloney. "More government" is rarely the solution to a problem. The last thing we need is more bureaucracy mucking up our intelligence and law enforcement organizations. Homeland Security is a show to pacify the sheeple and concentrate more power in the White House.

Perhaps if Bill Clinton had done his job and gone after Al Qaeda and outlaw regimes like the Taliban and Saddam Hussein's Iraq when the economy was superhot, then we would have 3,000 extra Americans living happily (and paying taxes). But he didn't, and the Bush administration has to clean up the mess left by Clinton. Yes, the deficit will go up. Yes, future generations will have to pay for the current war and the larger government. But what were his options. To appease terrorists so that they can attack another day? As for the tax cut, while I'm for it, I believe it's excessive and needs to be lowered. But Bush is doing what's right for the country, his party, his supporters, and himself.

And perhaps if Bush-lite had paid attention to the intelligence information they already had ... Perhaps if Bush Sr. had done his job with Hussein ... Perhaps if Reagan & Rumsfeld hadn't climbed in bed with Hussein ... Perhaps if George hadn't climbed into bed with Barbara ... (OK, that was inappropriate.)

Spin it however you want, it's awfully funny that those "fiscally conservative" Republican administrations of the last 20+ years have racked up record deficits while those "tax and spend" Democrats push to balance the budget. How about focusing on what Bush has done and is doing rather than trying to blame Clinton for all the world's woes?

 

[Dari]

By removing Hussein, the US has effectively secured the realm. We now have powerful influences on the nations with the two largest reserves on the globe, in addition to removing a powerful threat. Never underestimate the unseen hand.

As for what that will do for this country: have you ever driven a car, bus,or airplane? Yes? Well guess what, price stabilization means more people will be spending money normally reserves for oil shocks to buy other things.