[Jazzman]

Firstly, don’t go by list price. Secondly, look at the home page for recent data on prices. I’m not sure there will be a spring bounce this year.

[Jazzman]

Firstly, don’t go by list price. Secondly, look at the home page for recent data on prices. I’m not sure there will be a spring bounce this year.

[Jazzman]

Firstly, don’t go by list price. Secondly, look at the home page for recent data on prices. I’m not sure there will be a spring bounce this year.

[Jazzman]

[quote=UCGal]I guess comparing someone to the French is no longer a slur… We can go back to calling freedom fries, french fries because the French are so macho.

There are some news “analysists” and talk show hosts who might have to rework their jokes.[/quote]

Funny, I thought the French got that one right. Iraq was a success?

[Jazzman]

[quote=UCGal]I guess comparing someone to the French is no longer a slur… We can go back to calling freedom fries, french fries because the French are so macho.

There are some news “analysists” and talk show hosts who might have to rework their jokes.[/quote]

Funny, I thought the French got that one right. Iraq was a success?

[Jazzman]

[quote=UCGal]I guess comparing someone to the French is no longer a slur… We can go back to calling freedom fries, french fries because the French are so macho.

There are some news “analysists” and talk show hosts who might have to rework their jokes.[/quote]

Funny, I thought the French got that one right. Iraq was a success?

[Jazzman]

[quote=UCGal]I guess comparing someone to the French is no longer a slur… We can go back to calling freedom fries, french fries because the French are so macho.

There are some news “analysists” and talk show hosts who might have to rework their jokes.[/quote]

Funny, I thought the French got that one right. Iraq was a success?

[Jazzman]

[quote=UCGal]I guess comparing someone to the French is no longer a slur… We can go back to calling freedom fries, french fries because the French are so macho.

There are some news “analysists” and talk show hosts who might have to rework their jokes.[/quote]

Funny, I thought the French got that one right. Iraq was a success?

[Jazzman]

[quote=zk][quote=surveyor][quote=zk]Surveyor, I’d be interested to hear any remotely plausible scenarios where this doesn’t stay there.[/quote]

We obviously don’t care about the citizens of any country enough to engage in military operations or extremely expensive projects on their behalf. If we did, the world would be a different place. It’s strictly for our own interests. So, why is it in our interests for gadhafi to lose? What’s our long-term plan? Have we thought this through? What, exactly, are we trying to accomplish?
[/quote]

These are all good questions we should be asking, since answers to them haven’t been well articulated by our leaders. I think the US may well have been persuaded to help with this one, as part of a quid pro quo to allies, and part a Muslim-world public relations exercise. It is heralded as a humanitarian intervention which is nothing new, but the gamble is making it look so when many will just see it as an extension of it’s meddling in the Middle East.

I think this could go three ways: It becomes long and drawn out, and involves ground forces, or the rebels prevail, but are not so friendly, or it is a success and creates an atmosphere of reform in the region.

[Jazzman]

[quote=zk][quote=surveyor][quote=zk]Surveyor, I’d be interested to hear any remotely plausible scenarios where this doesn’t stay there.[/quote]

We obviously don’t care about the citizens of any country enough to engage in military operations or extremely expensive projects on their behalf. If we did, the world would be a different place. It’s strictly for our own interests. So, why is it in our interests for gadhafi to lose? What’s our long-term plan? Have we thought this through? What, exactly, are we trying to accomplish?
[/quote]

These are all good questions we should be asking, since answers to them haven’t been well articulated by our leaders. I think the US may well have been persuaded to help with this one, as part of a quid pro quo to allies, and part a Muslim-world public relations exercise. It is heralded as a humanitarian intervention which is nothing new, but the gamble is making it look so when many will just see it as an extension of it’s meddling in the Middle East.

I think this could go three ways: It becomes long and drawn out, and involves ground forces, or the rebels prevail, but are not so friendly, or it is a success and creates an atmosphere of reform in the region.

[Jazzman]

[quote=zk][quote=surveyor][quote=zk]Surveyor, I’d be interested to hear any remotely plausible scenarios where this doesn’t stay there.[/quote]

We obviously don’t care about the citizens of any country enough to engage in military operations or extremely expensive projects on their behalf. If we did, the world would be a different place. It’s strictly for our own interests. So, why is it in our interests for gadhafi to lose? What’s our long-term plan? Have we thought this through? What, exactly, are we trying to accomplish?
[/quote]

These are all good questions we should be asking, since answers to them haven’t been well articulated by our leaders. I think the US may well have been persuaded to help with this one, as part of a quid pro quo to allies, and part a Muslim-world public relations exercise. It is heralded as a humanitarian intervention which is nothing new, but the gamble is making it look so when many will just see it as an extension of it’s meddling in the Middle East.

I think this could go three ways: It becomes long and drawn out, and involves ground forces, or the rebels prevail, but are not so friendly, or it is a success and creates an atmosphere of reform in the region.

[Jazzman]

[quote=zk][quote=surveyor][quote=zk]Surveyor, I’d be interested to hear any remotely plausible scenarios where this doesn’t stay there.[/quote]

We obviously don’t care about the citizens of any country enough to engage in military operations or extremely expensive projects on their behalf. If we did, the world would be a different place. It’s strictly for our own interests. So, why is it in our interests for gadhafi to lose? What’s our long-term plan? Have we thought this through? What, exactly, are we trying to accomplish?
[/quote]

These are all good questions we should be asking, since answers to them haven’t been well articulated by our leaders. I think the US may well have been persuaded to help with this one, as part of a quid pro quo to allies, and part a Muslim-world public relations exercise. It is heralded as a humanitarian intervention which is nothing new, but the gamble is making it look so when many will just see it as an extension of it’s meddling in the Middle East.

I think this could go three ways: It becomes long and drawn out, and involves ground forces, or the rebels prevail, but are not so friendly, or it is a success and creates an atmosphere of reform in the region.

[Jazzman]

[quote=zk][quote=surveyor][quote=zk]Surveyor, I’d be interested to hear any remotely plausible scenarios where this doesn’t stay there.[/quote]

We obviously don’t care about the citizens of any country enough to engage in military operations or extremely expensive projects on their behalf. If we did, the world would be a different place. It’s strictly for our own interests. So, why is it in our interests for gadhafi to lose? What’s our long-term plan? Have we thought this through? What, exactly, are we trying to accomplish?
[/quote]

These are all good questions we should be asking, since answers to them haven’t been well articulated by our leaders. I think the US may well have been persuaded to help with this one, as part of a quid pro quo to allies, and part a Muslim-world public relations exercise. It is heralded as a humanitarian intervention which is nothing new, but the gamble is making it look so when many will just see it as an extension of it’s meddling in the Middle East.

I think this could go three ways: It becomes long and drawn out, and involves ground forces, or the rebels prevail, but are not so friendly, or it is a success and creates an atmosphere of reform in the region.

[Jazzman]

[quote=Arraya]It will be a quick mission. Knock out the air force and let them have their civil war. We are just leveling the playing field on this one, IMO[/quote]

So they knock out the air defenses. What then? Suppose Gaddafi still prevails? Do you maintain a no fly zone indefinitely? Not so sure this is a wham bang, thank you, mam.

[Jazzman]

[quote=Arraya]It will be a quick mission. Knock out the air force and let them have their civil war. We are just leveling the playing field on this one, IMO[/quote]

So they knock out the air defenses. What then? Suppose Gaddafi still prevails? Do you maintain a no fly zone indefinitely? Not so sure this is a wham bang, thank you, mam.

[Author]

Posts