pbleighton

No, don't bother. Peter

Ken, following your logic: Rape has always been with us, and will probably always will be with us. Therefore, it's cool. Do I understand you correctly? Peter

This is all about style. There is no correct or incorrect answer. 1NT for me, but it's close. That's a poor excuse for a four card diamond suit, IMO. But each to his own... Peter

Correct. It was in reference to the Depression, and was in FDR's inaural address in 1933. Thise who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Those who can't teach..... Peter

I wouldn't consider double here, for me it promises 4 spades. If pd has 4S and more than minmum he will bid 4S. Obviously you have a different agreement. Peter

3NT. Could easily be wrong, but when in doubt... Peter

Let me see if I understand you. You believe in God because He will punish all of the unconvicted rapists, murderers, etc.? Peter

Which is a good argument against optional wars such as Iraq. We had NO idea what we were doing in Vietnam, and we have NO idea what we are doing in Iraq. Peter

The theory of sunk costs is relevant here: a rational person, business, or country does not let sunk costs influence decisions, because doing so would not be assessing a decision exclusively on its own merits. Vietnam was a tragic mistake. Iraq is a tragic mistake. Bite the bullet and come home. We owe them a LOT of humanitarian aid for our war crime, but we can't repay it with the present govenment, and our presence just impedes their (painfully slow) evolution. I was strongly opposed to the war to start with, but I would support staying there, even indefinitely, if there was a convincing argument (meaning logic and evidence) to do so. I haven't seen any such argument. Peter

What concessions have we been making? More importantly, it seems from this post and others that you think we are in a war with the entire Islamic world. Is that what you think? Peter

Helene, this refers to a specific mandate for a specific court. The Nuremberg Charter defines “Crimes against Peace” as “planning, preparation, initiation or waging of wars of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties or participating in a common plan or conspiracy to wage an aggressive war.”, and goes on to say "to initiate a war of aggression . . . is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime.” The U.S. is signatory to and subject to the U.N. Charter, which is certainly an international treaty. The Charter forbids one country from unilaterally attacking another except in self defense. It's clear, and quite limited. It doesn't say it's OK to invade when Country A doesn't like Coountry B's government, or thinks that it may become a threat in the future, or doesn't like B's actions, or even if it thinks that B is itself guilty of war crimes. The recourse is the Security Council. Peter

An act of war kept secret for good reason? LOL. Peter

I'm aware of this, being raised Christian. It is ironic that, at least in the U.S., the politicians who are the *most Christian*, by their definition, reach out sucessfully to similarly minded voters by preaching the politics of revenge. Peter

Agree. Peter

Interesting article: http://rawstory.com//news/2007/Study_US_pr...ttack_0828.html Peter

LOL. Ken, the question is obviously about the U.S. attacking Iran NOW, under the present set of circumstances. What *act of war* has Iran committed, in your opinion? And please answer the question directly, without any weenie lawyering :P Peter

This is very close, no *wtp* for me. I would definitely bid if either West had bid 2H, showing a fit, or if we weren't vulnerable. I'm not too worried about -500, but his could easily be a phantom sacrifice. I pass, on another day I might bid. Peter

If you attack another country which has not committed an act of war against you, it is a war crime. It's pretty simple. Attacking Iran would be even dumber and more self destructive than invading Iraq. Iranian exiles, who are very much opposed to the present regime, have begged the Bush admiistration not to bomb. They say it would entrench the present regime for fifty years. There's noting a dictatorship loves better than a foreign threat to distract the populace from its actions - see Castro. It would be seen in the Muslim world as one more convincing piece of evidence that the U.S. has declared war on Islam. It would be another *bring it on*. It increase the number and intensity of our enemies, and therefore would increase the chances of a nuclear attack on the U.S. It is possible that we will do this thing, and that we then will reap what we sow. Peter

Not worrying about the most likely outcome, partner playing in a 4-2 or 5-2 fit rather than in your 6 card suit... Wow, can we look forward to this *optimistic* view at favorable in the future? It would be quite a change :rolleyes: Peter

For the doublers, what do you do when partner bids 2D? Peter

Agree, particularly since 3H doesn't promise 4. Even if it did I'd pass. Peter

2S is down? It can't be played, they've bid 3D. What am I missing? I think 3D will probably make. If it does, I'm not willing to play 3SX vulnerable to *save*. If it doesn't, pass is cool. Do you think 3S makes when 3D makes as well? Peter

Pass. I wouldn't bid 3S with Ax, I'm certainly not going to do it with a stiff ace. Peter

2C. Peter

Why don't you argue it yourself, Mike? We've had this argument before, and in your other incarnation of Mike The Mad Dog you'd open this in a flash ;) Peter