pbleighton

Agree. Peter

A husband and wife have a furious argument. The man goes for his gun, the woman flees, he chases her and shoots at her. He misses, and instead kills a fugitive mass murderer who is on a murderous rampage. He's a hero, right? Absolutely remarkable logic. And of course, the invasion of Iraq has been such WONDERFUL success, it hardly matters why we did it. Just stunning. Peter

ROFL. I gave you a fact, that Germany was engaged in conquering a continent, a fact which you were apparently unaware of. You persisted in comparing World War II to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Incredible. Talk about ignorance of the facts. Peter

People looking back 300 years from now won't see what the fuss was about, just a we (or at least most of us) can't understand Galileo's imprisonment. Biological science is going to change our lives even more profoudly than have the physical sciences. We've only just begun. Crick/Watson were biology's Newton. Some of the consequences make even me uneasy. It won't be stopped, however, and it shouldn't. Peter

Do you consider Bush to be a hero? Peter

1D is a waste of a bid and 2C seems unplayable. I'm not sure what the advantages are supposed to be. Peter

Um, that would be *dismantle*, not *run*. Peter

You have a very limited imagination, which fits in with your worldview, knowledge of history and current events, judgment, and moral standards. At least you're consistent. Peter

I found this in the Washington Post online - I found nothing in the New York Times or CNN. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7090402045.html Peter

Nothing is ever quite so simple, there's a lot of history behind this, but I mostly agree with you. It's impossible to prove, but I don't think that any of the Presidents I remember (starting with Kennedy, barely remembered) except Bush II would have done this. Peter

The *steoid scandal* is mostly about baseball fans' hatred of records being broken. Maris and Aaron got booed, too, without steroids. Peter

You need a lesson in the tense of verbs. In 2003, we HAD invaded, 12 years in the past. The status quo was containment. I did not, in fact, support the first Gulf War. However, the continuation of the status quo would have been greatly preferable to the present catastrophe. I idealize neither war. Supporting a country which is being invaded is NOT the same as invading the invader. This is pretty basic stuff. The motivations for 9/11 started a century before the event. Again, read some history. It was about Palestine, about the succession of dictators we installed in Moslem countries to secure their oil (including the Baathists in Iraq). 9/11 didn't happen because of some troops in Saudi Arabia, though it was an irritant. Even among short term factors, there was a CIA report a couple of years after 9/11 which said that Bin Laden had originally vetoed the 9/11 plan as too extreme, and that it was te Bush adminstration's support of Israeli policies which was the thing which changed his mind. This claim of yours is as lacking in historical knowledge as your repeated analogies to WW II and Hitler. A well known indicator for the weakness of political arguments, applicable to people on both sides of the political spectrum, is repeated allusions to Hitler. It's pounding the table. Peter

I argued no such thing. I merely pointed out that you were apparently unable to distinguish between keeping the status quo and invading a country. You should learn to read carefully, and not just spew your guts. The reasons a country goes to war have nothing to do with its justification? Got it. I just stated historical facts. Yes, we were prepared. No, we would not have fought unless attacked. At that point we were an isolationist nation (at least outside of the third world, where we were imperialist). I tolerate the existence of dictators, thinking that unless they attack us war is the greater evil, so yes. And you'll have to remind me, how many times has Cuba attacked us? ROFL. 1. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. 2. 9/11 was the immediate repponsibility of the perpetrators, but the West in general and the U.S. in particular had policies which led to radical political Islam. The invasion of Iraq is the greatest recruiting tool Bin Laden ever had. I'm sure he was overjoyed when we invaded. 3. You really do like to lump all bad Musims together, don't you. Stay proud. Stay strong. Get hard. Get real. Peter

Nice way of avoiding the quote by the Bush official. Your post has nowhere to go but down :) 1. There's a difference beween the status quo ante of the Iraq war and the war. It's the war. Try a little bit of intellectual honesty. I promise, it won't hurt. 2. Of the dozens of rationalizations put forward by the Bush administration, I can't remember saving the Kurds. This is revisonist history. We got into WW II because Japan attacked us and Germany declared war on us. Read your history. We could have kept it up until Saddam died. The Ugly American in action. What in your opinion would have happened which would have made the Mideast worse than it is today? Peter

Mike, what level of troops over how many years and (quite importantly) what terms of engagement would the U.S. need in order to accomplish your objectives there? And, of course, what would you expect them to accomplish? I agree that the U.S. has a huge responsibility, but I don't think that there is any practical way we can discharge it in the near future. To *pacify* Iraq would, IMO, require killing millions of Iraqis. Does this make it better, that we have killed them, rather than they killing each other? They are in a civil war, and it's getting worse, absent us doing the killing for them. I think that the least bad solution (and it is terrible) is to let them have their civil war, and get tired of it, as countries do. Our departure will accelerate the fighting, but will also hasten the political reconciliation/partition which is the only way they will have peace. There will be a place for us at that point (whether we choose to accept it is very questionable) in economic help. They may also need and request an international military force, though the presence of U.S. forces probably would be unwelcome. What's your plan?

Me too. Pressure on, thinking cap off :D Peter

Then what was it? Iraq wasn't attacking us. We had 10 times the population, and 1,000 times the economic might. Our armed forces were vastly superior. Here's a quote by a senior Bush aide, which pretty much sums up their world view: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine...9e162076ei=5090 You don't like the term *war of aggression*? How about *imperial overstretch*? Peter

You are correct in that you won't be penalized for not doing it. However, the ACBL says that its alerting regs are deliberately fuzzy and that when in doubt, alert. I think 15-17 versus the field's 12-16 is a sufficient difference to be alerted. Peter

I have alerted (and heard it alerted) only when they are very constructive, i.e. 8-10. I have never heard it alerted as 7-10. Peter

They were engaged in conquering a continent. Peter

The anwer depends on how sound your 1m opener's are. If they are pretty sound, and you therefore have 15-17 support points (includes distribution), you should alert it. If they can be light, there is no need to alert. BTW, I assume you're alerting your 1NT rebid as 15-17? Peter

Yes, don't pass this hand. There's no such thing IMO as a hand which is too strong for a two bid but not strong enough for a one bid. Peter

Delusional piffle. We were not the aggressor in our relationship with Nazi Germany or Japan. Your analogy with the current U.S.-Iran situation is ludicrous. Peter

LOL. I should never post after dinner. Peter

You don't know what system they're playing - if it's a strong club this is a reasonable hand to open, provided you've agreed to open these kind of hands. In a standardish system, even one which opened > 50% of 11 counts, I agree this is a pass. Peter