TheSmilingBandit

may somebody please also post the step by step procedure to be followed after a sale is consumated and the seller now proceeds to the next step of paying the capital gais tax, etc to the bir. From filling up of forms to where to pay, etc. thanks in advance. including where the responsibility of the seller ends and the point where the responsibility passes to the buyer i.e. application for transfer, payment of doc stamps, etc?

Procedure:

1 Preparation of the deed of sale and notarization by notary public

2 Obtain a certified true copy of latest tax declaration from the Municipal or City Assessor's Office

3 Payment of Documentary Stamp Tax and Capital Gains Tax at an authorized bank (check with the District BIR for the amount of CGT)

4 Obtain tax clearance (or Certificate Authorizing Registration) from the District Bureau of Internal Revenue

5 Obtain a tax clearance certificate of Real Estate Taxes from the Municipal or City Treasurer's Office

6 Payment of transfer tax at the Municipal or City Treasurer's Office

7 Apply for registration with the appropriate Register of Deeds

8 Apply with the Municipal or City Assessor's Office for the issuance of a new tax declaration in the name of buyer.

Inasmuch as I would hate to disagree with my laird and maester, I would go about this another way as the Bureau of Infernal Revenue has some very strange rules about paying for the Documentary Stamps and CGT (Doc Stamps are on the 5th of the month immediately following the consummation of sale and CGT is within 30 days).

1. Obtain Certified True Copies of the latest Tax Declarations from the Municipal or City Assessor's Office. (Get around 2 or 3 copies depending on the city, one of which must be stamped for BIR use.)

2. Obtain Certification of Tax Clearance of Real Estate Taxes from the Municipal or City Treasurer's Office. (2 copies preferred, one for the BIR and the other for the RD.)

3. Obtain Certified True Copies of the Transfer Certificate of Title from the Municipal or City Register of Deeds. (At least 2 copies, one for the BIR and the other for the Municipal/City Assessor's Office.)

4. Sign and have notarized the Deed of Absolute Sale. (Have at least 5 copies, 7 copies would be preferable.)

5. Submit the papers to the BIR, pay the CGT (or EVAT depending) and Doc Stamps and obtain the CAR.

6. Payment of the Transfer Tax at the Municipal or City Treasurer's Office, if the seller is a business, pay the applicable Business Tax as well.

7. Apply for registration with the Municipal or City Register of Deeds. (Yes more payment again)

8. Apply with the Municipal or City Assessor's office for the issuance of a new tax declaration in the name of the buyer.

tanong ko lang po, bumili kami ng mga lote sa isang exclusive subd. Binayaran namin ng cash, sa apat na lote 3 pa lang yun nirerelease nila na titulo. 3 taon na nakakalipas hindi pa din nirerelease yun titulo dahil pinababayaran sa amin yun processing fee saka homeowners fee. Pero wala naman sa pinirmahang usapan na kelangan bayaran namin yun.

 

Paano nga pala kung yun developer eh nagbenta ng lupa pero wala pa naman silang permit to sell? Paano nga rin pala kung yun presidente ng homeowners eh sya din ang presidente ng developer? kung halimbawang may violation ang mga ito, pwede din ba kasuhan ang mga sales agents dahil sa hindi nila sinabi sa buyer ang mga issue na ito?

sa bir ba sir, ung docstamps sabay binabayaran kasama ng cgt and both ba seller ang responsible? thanks in advance

 

another question sir. if the lot kas a house on it with a separate tax dec, does the seller has to pay capital gains tax for it also or is it inclusive if the deed of sell states that the selling price includes the improvement?

ask ko lang po, meron verbally agreement po ung father ko at tyahin ko regarding the lot we are now staying in that the half is ours and the half is hers but wala kaming hinahawakan na papers regarding that matter, ayaw naman nilang hatiin ung title ng lupa dahil nakapangalan sa lolo ko. may chances ba na parang skwater kami at may rights b nyang kunin un sa amin?

If your grandmother is also deceased, then her half of the property (assuming she had not died before your grandfather) would likewise be divided with 1 share for each of her legitimate children and 1/2 share for each of her illegitimate children. Likewise, the proceeds would be further reduced by paying inheritance taxes from her estate as well.

All surviving heirs to the estate must be signatories on any valid deed of sale.

before may narecieved akong email. about sa surender ng japan. the emperor planned another way to invade. by the use of economic and tecnological strategy. in 40 years they will able to invade not only every country but every households. philippines will be their raw material country. anyway once na nakita ko ulit paste ko dito. good topic anyway.

The Huks were defeated by the combined efforts of Ramon Magsaysay as the DND secretary and the disciplinarian officer Col Napoleon Valeriano of the famed "Nenita Unit" which went after the the Huks until they captured Huk supremo Luis Taruc. Hindi pa masyadong corrupt and military nuon unlike what they are now.

Feel free to challenge this choice of mine but I think no superpower in the ancient world (pre-gunpowder era) could beat the Mongols. Be it Hannibal, Alexander the Great, Caesar, etc.

the mongols conquered basically a large swath of no-man's-land between the pacific and near east (plus some parts of europe.) the only real power centers they were able to conquer were china and kwaraizem (afghanistan/pakistan to persia.) they wer far from conquering the real power centers in europe. the most powerful center at the time of the mongols was constantinople. they were nowhere near to conquering that. in western europe, they reached poland and parts of germany. but the strongest army was farther to the west --france. across the channel was an even stronger field force.

The empire they built extended from Korea (in the East) to Bulgaria (in the West), by the time their armies were on the way to Europe (circa 1230ad) the three strongest kingdoms would have been the Holy Roman Empire (Frederick II), France (Louis IX aka St. Louis), and England (Henry III).

Now Frederick II had won several battles, but at the highest point of his career (the 6th Crusade) was about 40,000 troops (including the contingents of the Teutonic Knights, the Knights Hospitallers, and the Knights Templars), though he did succeed in regaining control of Jerusalem, it was done by diplomatic rather than military means, and within 5 years of the ending of the truce, it was once more lost. The reason that the Sultan of Egypt even agreed to the truce was because he was busy fighting rebellion.

Louis IX was a very kind and pious king, that said, he was also an inept military leader, much the same could be said about Henry III.

Assuming that the forces of the 3 kingdoms would have even been marshalled together, and that their lack of supplies didn't k*ll them, they could have mustered perhaps some 300,000 troops, most of whom would be serf levies (this was still before the heyday of the English longbowmen) with perhaps some 30,000 well armed and trained knights and some 90,000 armed and trained men-at-arms. Add in the various smaller states such as Spain, Burgundy, the various Italian city-states, Poland, Hungary, and the fighting men of the North (for some reason if they help) and those numbers could be inflated up, with a general arriere-ban (total war footing) and stripping off the peasant levies from the fields, perhaps some 800,000 troops could be generated, of which some 50,000 would be knights (heavy cavalry), some 120,000 would be mounted men-at-arms (including mercenaries), perhaps some 20,000-30,000 light cavalry (various tribes), some 150,000 men-at-arms (crossbowmen/spearmen), and the rest would be about 450,000 barely armored, untrained field levies with makeshift weaponry.

Now the Mongols sent in 3 armies into Europe perhaps some 120,000 superbly trained and iron-disciplined troops, well-equipped and armored, with more than adequate supplies with a mobility that would allow them to run rings around the heavy cavalry of Europe. If necessary, Genghis Khan could have sent up to an additional 150,000 men. We can't just compare numbers since in the battle of Mohi (as an example, some 80,000 European knights, mounted men-at-arms, and light cavalry faced up against 70,000 Mongol warriors. By all accounts, it was a massacre, more than half the Europeans died while Mongol casualties numbered under 1,000.

The only thing that saved Europe was the death of Gengis Khan.

I enjoy reading this thread! Though I am not as astute as you guys are but I am a big "fan" of war history nonetheless (I have old copies of "Armchair General" ). Anyway if I can just challenge you a little with a what if:

 

The Battle of Midway was won by the Japanese (it could have gone either way, luck was simply on the American side). Nagumo conquered Midway with still half his forces intact. And the Americans losing all carriers (they went for it, and lost everything). The only thing standing between the Japanese Navy and the American west coast is the big Pacific Ocean and a few American ships (no carriers).

 

If you are Nagumo, would you go for it? Can you invade mainland USA? It takes around 3-4 years to build a carrier from scratch. Now is the perfect time to strike before the full industrial might of America comes to bear. You hear too that they are trying to develop a bomb that will harness the power of the stars. If you are going to go for it, now is the perfect time! Mainland USA? Total victory or nothing? How would you do it?

 

-----------------

 

Let me fill in some details for the computation OC guys (I say that with affection ). It's one week after the first engagement and you compute that Nagumo lost half his invasion force (just cut it right in the middle, carriers, and support ships). Midway is 100% Japanese controlled. Nimitz's intercepting force is wiped out (completely). All other ships from Japan and the USA (not involved in the battle) is still in play.

BTW, I would really be interested with your opinion (and SmilingBandit's) on how the IJN can push the war to mainland USA had they won the Battle of Midway (with plenty to spare, as they had planned). Is it even possible? IMHO, it is not even possible. A logistical nightmare. Distance being the biggest obstacle. All the Japanese could ever hope for is to negotiate for peace from the position of strength. I'd get the IJN to posture an invasion of Hawai (not even attemt to haul the entire IJN to California), never actually doing it (too much burden to hold), then quickly negotiate a peace. Even if Nagumo had routed the Americans in Midway, the Americans simply can not be defeated in that theater of war. Unless of course, Nazi Germany can keep the Americans tied up in that other theater.

there's absolutely no way they can carry the mid-ocean battle all the way to hawaii, even if they had sunk the three american carriers. they simply didn't have enough fuel, spare planes and pilots. the amricans were busy constucting two modern battleships in time for guadalcanal. two fleet carriers were nearing completion, and the eastern shipyards were already gearing to roll out one escort carrier every 2 weeks. the US navy and army air corp can train at least 30 competent pilots every month.

 

so an attack at the mainland, hawaii or even australia is a long shot. to invade continental US, they will have to make a strategic withdrawal, stockpile on fueland muniations, and match the amercans in tersm of arms production. they will have to completely destroy the US' two-ocean fleet. and then, waiting for them on US soil is at least 20 army divisions and more than 1 million reservists willing to fight. tall order for any other country in the world at the time.

 

consider: the US, with its overwhelming productive and human advantage, waited till 1944 to really push towards japan and consider invasion (also, they were forcusing their war efforts on a much more dangerous germany.) before that, the US had to make sure production was rolling continuously, and that the greater part of japanese naval power was no longer a serious factor.

Yes. Yes. My thoughts exactly. The US can NOT be defeated (or invaded). The best that Nagumo can hope for is dig in at Midway, re-supply, and merely POSTURE an impending invasion of Hawaii. Psychologically (because of the hypothetical rout in Midway), this is enough of a leverage to (maybe) negotiate a peace from a position of strength. Problem of the USA is democracy. The US President is not an Emperor who can command his people to die for him, even when he knows he is holding all the aces (and the a-bomb on his backpocket anytime soon).

The US could have abandoned the various territories of the Philippine Islands, the Hawaiian Islands, Midway, and Guam, as none of them were states. With the use of the naval facilities of Pearl Harbor, the IJN would have had a lock on the mid-Pacific area.

Still, in my opinion, America would have sued for peace had they lost Midway and Hawaii.

As an aside, Harry Turtledove wrote a couple of books about this called the Days of Infamy series, pretty much posturing a total defeat for the US Pacific Fleet and an invasion of Hawaii.

through pre-set sectors reckoned from the position of one's ship. hand signals, flash grenades, or even firing a short burst in case of drastic instructions.

Very effective, 2nd flush was even more effective than the first one.

the japanese had 8 carriers. nagumo's first carrier striking force had 4, hosogaya's aleutian force had 2, kondo's second fleet had 1 escort carriers, and yamamoto's main force also had an escort carrier.

 

re: battleships - nagumo had the haruna and kirishima, kondo had the kongo and the heie, yamamoto's main force had 7 battleships.

First Fleet

*First Fleet Main Force

Battleship Division (BatDiv) 1: BB Yamato; BB Mutsu; and BB Nagato

Carrier Group: CVE Hosho (B4Y1); DD Yukaze

Special Force: CVS Chiyoda; CVS Nisshin

Screening Force: CL Sendai; DesRon 3 (8 destroyers)

Supply Group: 1 DD; 1 oiler

* First Carrier Striking Force (First Air Fleet)

Carrier Division 1 (CarDiv 1): CV Akagi (19 A6M2 Type 21; 18 D3A1; 18 B5N2); CV Kaga (18 A6M2 Type 21; 27 D3A1; 18 B5N2)

Carrier Division 2 (Cardiv 2): CV Hiryu (18 A6M2 Type 21; 18 D3A1; 18 B5N2); CV Soryu (18 A6M2 Type 21; 18 D3A1; 18 B5N2)

Support Group

CruDiv 8: CA Tone; CA Chikuma

BatDiv 3 (2nd section): BB Haruna; BB Kirishima

Screening Force: CL Nagara; Desron 10 (11 destroyers)

Supply Group: 1 DD, 5 oilers

Second Fleet (Midway Invasion Group)

BatDiv 3 (1st Section): BB Kongo; BB Hiei

CruDiv 4: CA Atago; CA Chokai

CruDiv5: CA Myoko; CA Haguro

Screening Force: CL Yura; DesRon 4 (7 destoryers)

Carrier Group: CVL Zuiho (12 A6M2, 12 B5N2); 1 DD

Any other unit outside of these (well there was the actual transport force and their guardian ships, but I don't seem to be able to find their order of battle) are generally not considered part of the Midway Fleet of the IJN, in fact, if you were to count only the actual combatant vessels and their escorts then only the 1st Carrier Striking Force should count.

zeros were fitted for radios but very rarely did they carry them. definitely not during midway. over at the new guinea air war, saburo sakai admitted none of their zeros ever carried radios (pilots didn't like parachutes either.)

THE FIRST STRIKE

 

well, you have to have known the crucial events that took place during the pivotal world war 2 naval battle at midway and why it spelled the end of japanese expansion, and the start of japan's defeat. how could the japanese armada of 11 battleships, 8 carriers, 23 cruisers and 65 destroyers have met defeat against a US navy with no battleships, just three carriers and less than 20 cruisers? the japanese lost their 4 best carriers and 300 of their best pilots. the americans lost 1 carrier and less than 100 planes. the japanese were more experienced, had better ships (more or less,) had superior fighter planes, and most importantly, far better pilots.

american initiative - on june 4 when the carrier-to-carrier engagement went into high gear, the US carriers scrambled at day break to achieve a first strike. the fact that the first 3 american carrier-based air strikes that morning failed to hit any japanese carrier (in addition to practically getting wipred out) is not material, as currently taught at the US naval academy. the american dive bombers (the fourth strike) found three japanese carriers with no fighter escort, as the carriers were in the process of landing bombers and re-arming them. three japanese cariers were put out of action in six minutes. what would have matter was if the japanese taught of achieving a first strike at day break, which they didn't, opting for a larger, coordinated acctack later that day. it didn't matter that one american carrier was later hit. the fourth japanese carrier in the striking force was eventually knocked out that afternoon. american theoreticians believe that had the striking force admiral nagumo insisted on a first strike, the three american carriers would have been sunk before night fall, and the pacific war would have lasted at least 2 years longer. personally, i don't buy the first strike theory as the main deciding factor in the battle. again, the first three american strikes failed. but the theory goes that whoever is ahead by one strike during the day is bound to win before nigthfall. let them think that.

japanese overmatch - despite the overwhelming japanese advantage in numbers and resources, they were overmatched in terms of objective. this is my primary belief as to why they lost. it was the very first mid-ocean battle by carriers and the problems of intelligence, communication, and command uncertainties were enormous. most importantly, the japanese carrier striking force had another major mission, aside from neutralizing the american carriers. they were also supposed to bomb and flatten midway island to facilitate invasion. so the amercian situation was simplified: ambush the japanese carriers. the japanese had a two-fisted objective: sink the US carriers and flatten midway. nagumo's first action on june 4 was to bomb midway island. later, he vaccilated between a second strike at midway, or attack the US carriers. somewhere during that confusion, he got caught flat-footed.

airborne radio - a minor advantage the americans had which i don't believe was a significant factor. japanese fighter planes had no radio. to protect the carriers and the rest of the fleet, the japanese zeros took pre-assigned air sectors and engaged any enemy plane they spotted. only japanese bombers (not all) had radios. american fighters had radios and air defense of a fleet was coordinated from the ships. the carriers operated like a control tower, directing fighters to sectors where they were needed. americans claim that was the reason the japanes bombers took heavy losses in attacking the carrier yorktown. it was also the reason why the 4th american strike hit the japanese: the zeros were down to sea level, having shot down most of the low-flying american torpedo planes. but that meant no zero left to patrol the higher altitudes for american dive bombers. my take on this: more crap than real advantage. if we look at bomber performance, the americans sent three carrier-based strikes plus one attack by land-based b-17s against the japanese. no hits on the japanese were achieved and the americans got creamed. when it was time for the remaining japanese carrier hiryu to strike back, it sent two strike missions against the american carriers and it scored both times.

so my final take the japanese should have lumped its forces into just two groups (instead of four.) air and firepower would have been more concetrated and a win by attrition would have been certain.

Crucial of course was the American intelligence breaking the Japanese code (communication, AF was MIDWAY!)

 

The Americans knew what they were up against. The Japanese expected little or no resistance. They were surprised by their surprise attack. Poetic justice!

So do you guys still game?

hey, the 1996 peace treaty signed by misuari's MNLF and ramos' government was no joke. there has not been any serious armed conflict with the mnlf since then (except for a few gun-pointing at times, especially when misuari was accused of whatever crime there was --from malversation of ARMM funds all the way to treason.) milf is going the same way, why? because it's a classic within a classic. those movements feed on the economy propped up by the national government and if you want to stick around, you migth as well get good terms with the government. the ASG is really just a bandit group that can operate in the southwestern-most part of the country, where the rule of law is practically absent. and this is nothing to cry about since only 3% of the population lives there (who happen to be among the poorest and least educated,) and they contribute a whopping 1% of the country's annual gdp. if i was president, i'll really leave that place to the dogs.

Cool thread! anyone have any thoughts on what would happen should Israel launch a preemptive strike on Iran? I just want to know what my Filipino comrades think about this hypothetical..

I think Iran will launch a nuclear strike but then again, David's brethren won't let that happen since the first thing they'll target are the nuclear weapons of Iran.

Yes he had engineers albeit only a few. Have you watched Battles BC on History Channel?

You were very special to me 15 years ago, until now you are still very special to me. Thank you for helping make my life complete by being one of the best friends I could ever have.

correction, the philippine government managed to eradicate the huk-balahap movement through peaceful means.

same with the mnlf (although it remains a militant armed force.)

only the NPA, MILF and ASG are actively fighting the AFP. the NPA can live off the land and the local populace through active support and extortion. the MILF has a multi-level support of a sizable muslim population (from rich to poor, bums to intellectuals.) but because of this, it is also amenable to peaceful negotiations. the ASG is nothing more than a bandit group with no real capability to maintain an armed campaign with the government (or even maintain terroristic pressure on metro manila and other city centers.)

It would not have been possible to traverse the Alps without engineers since you needed them to break big boulders and the engineers of Hannibal concocted a formula to break big boulders. The heated the boulders using fire then poured vinegar on it to break it.

Why is it that the Americans can't seem to win the war when they are fighting soldiers wearing only pajamas, the Viet Congs in their black pajamas and now the Afghanistans in their white pajamas?

Hannibal did have engineers, otherwise he and his army could not have crossed the Alps.

that's like asking why can't the the russians and even the americans can't wipe out the taliban, and why the US pulled out of vietnam. eradicating a stubborn guerilla force capable of living off the land and the populace depends on the civilian government's long-term development efforts. we have NPAs because the bottom fell out for our coconut oil market internationally. the huks and sakadas in negros and iloilo were eradicated when they were given land to till on the other side of the visayas (leyte and samar.)

Has anyone ever tried the 2nd technique?

The Mongols also never had a problem with guerrilla warfare because they did the same thing.

Why is it that the AFP can't seem to win their war against the CPP-NPA and the MNLF/MILF/ASG?

Its very hard to beat a guerrilla force, the British couldn't beat the colonialists, nor the Americans the VC. There are only 2 ways to beat such a force, the first is to have popular support from the native population against the guerrillas, the 2nd way is to wipe out the indigenous population where the guerrillas hide. The first method was how the British army won against the Malayan Emergency.

The reason why Hannibal wasn't able to conquer Rome was coz he didn't have the siege equipment like onagers to break through its walls. But in a battlefield, the Romans couldn't take him out. It was only when Scipio Africanus took the war to Carthage when the Romans had success against Hannibal.

Even the Romans rarely brought assembled siege equipments, what they did bring were engineers, something that Hannibal didn't have.

ancient warfare depended in large part on one's capacity for "complete victory." to really defeat a nation, you destroy its army, prevent the creation of a new army, and in general weaken that country's capacity to wage war in the future. a strong logistics doesn't always accomplish this. armies then lived off the land! all genghis khan's cavalry needed to keep fighting were enough remounts (easy to keep well horses and capture new ones,) enough horse meat and milk to feed the troops (they were riding mobile food dispensers,) and grass for the horses (ok, avoid desert and tundra fighting.) hannibal hardly had anything to add to his force in italy, so what support would he have wanted? edward I, II, up to the black prince (who would have been edward III) had everything going for them in the 100 years they fought france. same thing with the british who tried to retain their US colonies. so why did they fail? in ancient times up to the 19th century, the mechanism of war dampened the effectiveness of "invasive" logistics. that's because your enemy, though he is fighting right in his front yard, can easily match your production at home. everything's even-steven as long as both sides are lined up and fighting. there was no concept of "strategic production." of course, kings could patiently wait up to 10 years to amass gold, troops, weapons and ships to mount a campaign but all that preparation, and subsequent support will be useless if you don't achieve total victory.

Seriously? Hannibal needed to replace his dead and wounded, while he was able to recruit from the other Italian cities, if Carthage had been able to ship him reinforcements and replacements, as well as give him a secure source of supplies, then he would have won and conquered Rome.

Edward Longshanks and Edward II never fought in the Hundred Years War. Edward III (who's eldest son was nicknamed the Black Prince) did capture most of France, only to finally lose out when Henry VI gave up all rights to the French throne.

George III lost the New World colonies since the House of Commons voted to end the war, which had lost support due to the number of dead as well as the high cost of waging a war overseas, while George had the soldiers to fight it, he didn't have the money to support it logistically.

thanks for the reply.

i was referring to this from the local government code

 

Every person legally authorized to practice his profession shall pay the professional tax to the province where he practices his profession or where he maintains his principal office in case he practices his profession in several places: Provided, however, That such person who has paid the corresponding professional tax shall be entitled to practice his profession in any part of the Philippines without being subjected to any other national or local tax, license, or fee for the practice of such profession.

 

my understanding is that if i am covered by the PTR then no other taxes from any other lgu? tama ba yon?

Min Sok restaurant (Don Pedro St., corner Manalac St., near Makati Avenue)

This small Korean restaurant has a pretty low price and very good quality food. Like most authentic Korean restaurants, you normally eat dishes that is cooked in front of you, with assorted leafy vegetables (lettuce or sesame leaf) here providing a wrap that you place rice and the viands and some vegetable side dishes in before popping it in your mouth. Their ssangyeopsal and bulgogi are pretty good, with unlimited refills of the side dishes. About 250 per person on average is the cost here.

Tanong ko lang kung kailangan ko pa ba ng mayor's Permit or PTR lang?

Architect kasi ako. Bubukas sana ako ng sarili kong design firm. Dati ako

nagtratrabaho sa ibang design firm.

 

May nagsabi sa akin na PTR lang ang kailangan ko sa City Hall at hindi Mayor's Permit.

Pagdalawa daw ang inaplayan ko ay magiging redundunt ang fees ko dahil

2x ako magbabayad based on yearly income ko - MP & PTR.

 

Tama ba yon?

Thanks

mga master question lang po about pagibig fund loaning. What if we have a building which needs repairs, but it is not under my name thus named under my mom kaso retired na sya and wala syang pagibig. I am thinking of loaning using my account and pay the amount in 5 years or so. Is this possible?

 

Second question is, merong mga MRI di ba wherein the loaner needs to have the insurance amount for the loan just in case something happens to him or her. Whereas sa mga insurance policies meron mga accidental rider benefits na doble ang insurance di ba? Which is the one followed by the MRIrequirements, base insurance or accidental?

 

Thanks po!

i believe you are making a sweeping statement.

 

for one, at least your statement doesn't hold true for ayala land. Ayala Land condo projects are literally sold out completely even in the preselling stage and i just attended a broker's project briefing yesterday and they are coming up with a new one, Park Terraces (located at Glorietta). acceptance among ayala land clients upon turnover of the units are 100% meaning, all clients are happy and satisfied because the units are turned over in good condition - finished and semi-furnished. (i'm referring to the Serendra condominium projects located near market market, global city) so you can expect the same in their newest condo project.

I believe the gentleman said "most" not all... but definitely Pacific Concord's first development (Lancaster Hotel formerly Lancaster Suites) is a money pit. Do yourself a favor and stay away from thier future projects, I know what I'm saying, I lost over a million.

20th century warfare was won and lost through logistics (production and transport.) 18th and 19th century warfare was still the era of sea supremacy; the ability to outflank an enemy by whole latitudes or, in the case of the USCW, keep sea lanes open. it's a war won by presidents and kings, not generals. but if you'll ask me which general would have fared best for land fighting, i'll go with macarthur. he wasn't so great in mechanized but understood infantry fighting best.

Even Hannibal could barely support his armies, whereas the Roman Republic and later the Roman Empire, would build those stupendous roads to help move their supplies. Has anything changed today? I don't think so ... somehow it seems that logistics is still very important, Hitler's armies in North Africa and Russia lost because he couldn't supply them properly.

MacArthur? Hmmm ... interesting choice ... he was pretty darned good.

i found out only recently that lee's estate consisted of much of arlington cemetary. it was expropriated by the yankees. sad.

Hmmm ... I wonder though how any of the modern generals of today would have fared in warfare similar to that found during the American Civil War.

best horse-and-musket general. napoleon? duke of wellington? robert e. lee?

I see. I gave my pick. Let's fast forward to the 20th century. All things being equal meaning both have the same armor: Apaches, Comanches, M1a1s, Bradleys, etc. Who do you think will win in desert warfare, the The Desert Fox or Fred Franks?

Rommel was a past master at stretching his supplies to the limit, he won many battles despite the odds against him. Franks seems to be good also, but then again with the overwhelming advantage of tech and supplies, not to mention forces against the Iraqis. For this, I'd say Rommel would win.