Not that I necessarily favor it, but what would be your thoughts on a true no-fly zone? One that expressly ruled out attacking tanks, artillery, command and control, etc? My understanding is that the Russians and Chinese were dismayed by the Libya effort in part because they gave an inch and we took a mile, attacking tanks, etc. Would a tighter mission scope make it harder for them to oppose international action?
I see that the stats back up the "white" assertion but I don't see how the information provided supports the "conservative" assertion. Not that I disagree mind you, but the data aren't presented, unless you mean Republican primary, ergo conservative. Note that according to the 2010 census, New Hampshire is even less representative than Iowa, and they are the next big contest.
Do you have data on conservatism in Iowa vs. the US as a whole, or among whites vs. the US as a whole? Just curious, keep up the great work!
© 2025 All Rights Reserved
Not that I necessarily favor it, but what would be your thoughts on a true no-fly zone? One that expressly ruled out attacking tanks, artillery, command and control, etc? My understanding is that the Russians and Chinese were dismayed by the Libya effort in part because they gave an inch and we took a mile, attacking tanks, etc. Would a tighter mission scope make it harder for them to oppose international action?
Fourth to last paragraph you mention Iraqi chlorine embargo, then next paragraph it is Iranians dying that has Usama upset. Is that a mistake?
I see that the stats back up the "white" assertion but I don't see how the information provided supports the "conservative" assertion. Not that I disagree mind you, but the data aren't presented, unless you mean Republican primary, ergo conservative. Note that according to the 2010 census, New Hampshire is even less representative than Iowa, and they are the next big contest.
Do you have data on conservatism in Iowa vs. the US as a whole, or among whites vs. the US as a whole? Just curious, keep up the great work!