Free Republic

If you send your complaint to Customer Care, they will forward it on to the General Manager and the District Manager, who will take it very seriously. Just don't sound too mad. Make it clear that you were being harrassed.

As you can imagine, it is not in our interest to alienate any of our customers. You may not believe it, but we get even more complaints from the Left when we display prominently the books that they hate.

We are shipping it to all stores, and we've told them to place it Front of Store as soon as they receive.

If they are keeping it in the backroom for any reason, they'd be fired.

Hello,

There is no ban at Borders. They are simply out of books, and are selling them as fast as they receive them. I work at the corporate office and can verify that Borders is trying it's best to keep the shelfs full. When the book is in it's displayed at the Front of Store at 30%off.

Anyone who has worked for a Fortune 500 company knows the pressures of making quarterly earnings. Borders would not throw money out the window, especially on a book as big as this, just to make a political point. It would be suicide for the directors and VPs, especially in this difficult selling environment.

While some of the book sellers may be left leaning, I can assure you that the people running the company are not.

The rumors may be crap, but the analysis is excellent. Thank you Axion for another fine post.

The deal is the archives. Lot of info there could hurt the Russians (as could Saddam himself and his ministers, if they start talking).

This is the Michael Kelly. He's the editor of the Atlantic Monthly. He's the top conservative columnist, and the most respected.

Stratfor gained its credibility during the Kosovo war. Its analysis were usually dead on and an excellent check on the Clinton Admin's rosy pronouncements.

They're not gloom and doom. They just look at all of the options. Like our War Planners in the Pentagon, they have to present the most difficult possible scenarios and analyze how US forces might overcome.

This is a great military victory, and should go down in the annals as such. If you make it sound as if it were easy and a foregone conclusion, you cheapen it.

And that is exactly what the doomsayers will now try to do.

If you get a chance, please post them, so we can argue over who was more accurate. It would be a fun excercise that many freepers would enjoy. I think that axion has posted pretty much everything that Stratfor had to say.

Did you see any better analysis before this conflict began?

"If you don't trust that info then you don't have a firm grasp on who is telling the truth in this."

It's not that I don't trust the US military's figures. I just that I remember the Kosovo war. True, we never had any verification on the ground in Kosovo, and we're fighting from 15,000 feet. But, the fact remains that we were shocked when the Serbs let us through. Virtually their entire army remained intact, and we had thought that more than half had been destroyed. If we would have had to fight our way in, we would have faced much rougher going than anything we're seeing here.

Certainly, the Iraqis aren't as tough or as smart as the Serbs. But, the Iraqis did learn a few lessons from the Serbs in hiding tanks, and might be applying some of them in these cases.

We're on their turf, and this is when it helps them more than it helps us.

Don't forget: They also have had years to prepare for this invasion. They will have a few tricks up their sleeves.

I'm with you. What's really scaring me is that sand storm coming. Iraqis know how to fight in those circumstances -- or at least, they have a much better idea of how to take advantage of such weather.

What McCaffrey's saying is that it's going to be tough, really tough in the next few days. But, then again, which of our great victories weren't?

One of the questions addressed to General Franks in his first press conference was, "What will happen if the Iraqis use Chemical Weapons?

Franks replied confidently, "We win."

What did Franks mean? Besides the obvious public relations win, I think there was something else to his answer. Any ideas anyone?

I'm surprised that Stratfor didn't make more of the fact that Iraqi forces didn't blow up the bridges. Stratfor had originally stated that crossing the Euphrates would be the first big test of Iraqi resolve and tactics.

The fact that the bridges weren't blown shows a military leadership in serious disarray.

The press focuses on Shock and Awe, but this campaign really has been characterized by surprise. And Franks promised more of it today.

They're right about Ted Kopple drawing the long straw. Can say what you want about ABC, but Kopple's stories have been the best of the imbeds.

My feeling exactly. Something is going on in Baghdad.

For me, this ties up the loose threads -- except one. Why didn't they mention Basra?

Your right about mass revolts, but it's not time yet. The US hasn't yet established itself at all key points. Imagine world reaction if we declared Saddam dead. People would be screaming that hostilities should stop. And hostilities cannot stop until the Republican Guard is destroyed.

It's better to continue with the plan, and assume/pretend that Hussein is alive.

No matter what Powell said, things would be complicated immensely if Hussein left. The Americans would have to wait another month, at least, before they could prove that they still had to use force to destroy the weapons of mass destruction. Use your imagination. Everyone and their mother's uncle would be screaming that it's time to go home.

If you can find a better analysis of what's going on, please post it. In the meantime, give Axion a break. He's providing an excellent service. Go ahead and disagree. But please, there's no reason to get nasty.

"It is not clear whether either the French or the Russians, both of whom would be quite pleased to see the United States bog down in Iraq, would refrain from intelligence sharing."

This is something that I've feared for quite some time. If the US and Britain get bogged down in Iraq -- if there are substantial civilian casualties during a drawn out battle for Baghdad -- then Blair will be swept from power, the US will be disgraced, and France wins.

The answer is obvious. They will share whatever they have, if they think they can get away with it.