pbleighton

"Peter, again I may be wrong but as far as I know Korea is in a state of war, yes there is a truce, but they are still at war." "The Korean War, occurring between June 25, 1950 and a ceasefire on July 27, 1953, was a civil war between the states of North Korea and South Korea that were created out of the post-World War II Soviet and American occupation zones in Korea, with large-scale participation by other countries." Note "was". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War Peter

"Okay get ready to be shocked. If Congress doesn't believe that the Administration has a good plan to stop the civil war in Iraq and Congress doesn't want suggest another plan, then Congress should force the Administration to pull out. IMO, if we can't make things better then get out. If we can make things better then do it and get out." IMO the election and the "surge" (an obvious result of the election) has hastened this. It now looks like we may not have to wait for the next President to get out. Both parties are taking the bull by the tailo and looking the facts in the face, and at least as important, Republican loytaly is being quickly eroded by fear of November 2008. A majority of the country supported this war (sadly), and it will take a majority who want to get out NOW to get us out. Peter

"I would bid 1♠ to see how partner responds. Just about any bid by partner or opps would result in 4♠ by me. All I know is pretty much SAYC at this point though." 1S isn't a bad bid. The reason many of us choose 4S is to make it difficult for the opps to find their very likely minor suit fit. If we open 4S with this hand 100 times, we make them take the last guess most of them. And if partner has a nice hand, well... Peter

"Hmm sounds like a vote of confidence in Iraq if I ever heard one, perhaps our leaders in Congress will flee to Iran also?" Perhaps in January 2009 Bush will take a time capsule to an era which better suits his moral and intellectual outlook. The Crusades sounds about right. Peter

"Korea is still in a state of war as far as I know. At least my relatives get combat pay there." There are now two separate countries, Mike, who are very unfriendly but not at war. It no longer qualifies as a civil war. "I think if we get involved in any Civil War, being a target and making numerous mistakes must be taken as a 100% given." An excellent rationale for avoiding them. Peter

4S at any scoring and vulnerability. BTW, this hand, while not strong, is clearly not weak. It has the playing strength of a 1 bid in almost any system. It is definitely too strong for a below-game preempt. Peter

"If being a target in another country's civil war is a reason to pull out, then we should never involve our military in any country's civil war. Yet we are in Korea, the Balkans and many urge us to go to Darfur. We are or would be targets in all of those places. You are saying if we are a target we need to pull out. I think we need another more complicated test. What that is I am not fully sure of." We need an awfully good reason to be involved in another country's civil war. As to your examples: 1. Korea hasn't been in a civil war for 50 years, and we shouldn't have been involved to begin with. 2. We shouldn't be in the Balkans. 3. We shouldn't invade Darfur. Another you conveniently forgot to cite is Vietnam. We shouldn't have been there either. The test is difficult but simple. It is a very rare instance that we should be involved in another country's civil war. The burden of proof in any particular case is on those who advocate it. A history of mistakes doesn't justify another one. Peter

"Can you imagine their audacity?! Freedom fighters hoping to overthrow the invading oppressor and their puppet regime by any means possible! How dare they?" I don't agree with this. My take: There is a civil war going on over there. We will be one of one of the targets as long as we stay there. Peter

"I bid 5♣ (which you forgot to add as an option)." Agree. Peter

3C seems pretty clear. I'd like a singleton, but NV I'm not letting them buy it for 2S, so I bid 3 now. Peter

Social bridge is where no one really cares who wins, the objective is to get together with people you like. It's usually not duplicate, but it can be. Peter

Vulnerable, it's an easy pass. Not vul, it would be an easy 3H. Peter

"I hope you guys read what I posted, I am not interested in the argument, I am concerned with the lack of media reporting. If you think no country should or should not be involved in another country's civil war fine." Not so fast, Mike. You made an affirmative judgment that it is illogical that people object to our involvement in the Iraqi civil war because we have previously been involved in other civil wars. My post is in response to your affirmative judgment. Peter

"This seems illogical at best. The USA, Europe and many other coutries have been involved in other countries civil wars forever. The USA alone has been involved in countless civil wars in my lifetime alone." This seems illogical at best. Just because we've made mistakes in the past, why should we continue to make them? Peter

"What you suggest sure sounds like War, send warriors to attack a base deep inside another country against hundreds if not thousands of well trained terriosts? Just how many thousands are you planning on sending?" Who is this addressed to, Mike? Peter

"Again why are liberals so eager to go to war." Which liberals, Mike? I don't follow you. Peter

"Looks like a psyche to me. If this is a "no psyches" tourney, then the ruling is correct." My pd and I overcall on 4 cards and 6 hcp routinely (it is on our card). It is aggressive, you can argue the bridge merits, but it is certainly not a psyche. Peter

Ben, are you replacing Claus as the designated huge-poster? Peter

I don't think North Korea will abandon nuclear fuel. I think they are playing us. We need to accept the fact that more and more countries will possess WMD. North Korea is the most dangerous country to have them, because 1. The leader is mentally unstable 2. They are incredibly poor, and need money 3. They're far away from the Middle East, all of which leads to 4. Unlike Iran, there is a reasonable chance of North Korea selling a nuke or three to Bin Laden 5. The above might lead some in the U.S. to go to war with North Korea Peter

"1) If Afganistan is a civil war or multi tribal war then why are we there?" You suggest the Taliban may come back, that sounds like some form of a civil war, yes?" It's not. It's a failed occupation It's possible that a civil war could bereak out, however. If we really want to invade and occupy a country, and change its government, we should be prepared for the consequences. We weren't in Afghanistan, and weren't even more so in Iraq. We could have just gone in after Bin Laden (I'm not saying that's right, but we could have), but we chose to try nation-building on the cheap. This was really stupid. "2) No evidence or poor evidence or made up evidence I think this is the reason most of Congress and the Public thought we went to war in Iraq. " Totally nonresponsive to my point. Peter

"Pass for 2 reasons: 1. You don't have the majors 2. You're ok with any lead pard makes" A third reason: You have a flat hand, suitable for defense. Peter

"1) Can you expand on your thoughts or anyone else feel free to jump in with your thoughts on Afganistan. More intelligent, how so?" a. We shouldn't underestimate the difficulty of nation-building. We needed to bring resources to the proble, military, but even more so economic and organizational. The government of Afghanistan has never controlled more than the capital and its immediate surroundings. The taliban has made a huge comeback. I'd like to hear your thoughts as to why you think (if you do) that we shouldn't have handled the situation more b. Even more importantly, we should have gone after Bin laden more vigorously than we did. c. Both a. and b. were made more difficult by Bush' obsession with Iraq.. "2) I admit my memory is foggy, but I thought the overwhelming reason we were TOLD we should invade Iraq was Saddam has WMD and someone, somehow is going to use those weapons against us very soon." Possesion of WMD wasn't a legitimate reason to go to war. If there was convincing evidence that a. Saddam had these weapons, and b. He had plans to either use them against us, or to sell them to a terrorist group who would use them against us. There was (weak and partially invented) evidence of a. There was no credible evidence of b. Peter

3S, 4S is reasonable, but vul I bid 3. Peter

I'm a wimp, I pass. The hand's just not good enough. Preempts sometimes work. Peter

"As I have said many times, too many perhaps, if you think we are not at war, then what we are doing is Nuts. I think treating whatever is going on as some Police/Crime/Trial/Jail under English common law is Nuts. ") " You are creating a false dichotomy. Either we are at war, or there is no real problem. Calling our problem/struggle/threat (which is very serious, and of course partially created by us, and increased by our adventure inIraq, any attempt to deny this is raving insanity) with radical Islam a war is linguistic and intellectual sloppiness, which led to the disastrous invasion of Iraq. Let's distinguish betweem Iraq and Afghanistan. The Taliban were closely allied with Bin Laden, and refused to give him up. This was an act of war on their part. We didn't handle the sistuation very well, but we were clearly justified in invading Afghanistan, because of their actions. Iraq was completely different. We invaded for many reasons: 1. A family grudge 2. Oil 3. Revenge for 9/11 4. False propaganda 5. And most of all, identity. We invaded Iraq because it was an Arab country with a government we hated. None of these are grounds for war. In the future, if we have a situation analogous to Afganistan, we have the right to invade and occupy a country. We should be more intelligent than we have with Afghanistan, of course. Iran doesn't fit this model at all, BTW. Peter