pbleighton

5C is clear for me, though I know it's not everyone's cup of tea. My second choice is 1C. I wouldn't preempt below game level with this hand, it's too good. Peter

2C. Reverse spades and clubs, and I double, then bid spades, but this hand is within my upper limit (well, at my upper limit) of 2 level overcalls. Peter

We have the boss suit, plus with 4 hearts we may be playing there. 1S. Peter

Pass. 3NT is close. Peter

"Peter, you should write political comment for a living - excellent piece that did not exhibit a strong bias, IMO." Thanks, but the quoted piece wasn't mine :blink: Peter

"It's been a repetitive phenomenon of these last years -- when fears about disaster (or further disaster, or even the farthest reaches of disaster) in Iraq rise, so does the specter of Vietnam. Despite the obvious dissimilarities between the two situations, Vietnam has been the shadow war we're still fighting. The Bush administration began its 2003 invasion by planning a non-Vietnam War scenario right down to not having "body counts," those grim, ridiculed death chants of that long-past era. His administration, as the President put it before the November mid-term elections, wasn't going to be a "body-count team." But the Vietnam experience has proven nothing short of irresistible in a crisis. Within the last month, after Bush himself bemoaned the lack of a body count in the vicinity, the body count slipped back into the news as a way to measure success in Iraq. And that was only the beginning. With the recent plummeting of presidential approval ratings and the dismal polling reactions to Bush's "new way forward" in Iraq, the Vietnam scenario is experiencing something like a renaissance. Sometimes, these days, it seems as if top administration officials are simply spending their time preparing mock-Vietnam material for Jon Stewart's The Daily Show. The recent "surge" plan, for instance, brought that essential Vietnam vocabulary word, "escalation," back into currency. (It was on Democratic lips all last week.) Even worse, the President's plan was the kind of "incremental escalation" that military commanders coming out of Vietnam had sworn would never, ever be used again. In any case, when Republican Senator (and surge opponent) Chuck Hagel questioned Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice about the E-word last week, she denied it was an appropriate moniker. Here's what she suggested instead. "I would call it, Senator, an augmentation that allows the Iraqis to deal with this very serious problem that they have in Baghdad." (And, of course, Stewart promptly pounced…) But that, too, was only the beginning. Hagel, a Vietnam veteran, called the President's plan "the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam." Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus, just appointed senior military commander in Iraq in charge of the Baghdad "surge," turned out to have written a doctoral thesis, much publicized last week, entitled "The American Military and the Lessons of Vietnam: A Study of Military Influence and the Use of Force in the Post-Vietnam Era." ("Don't commit American troops, Mr. President unless… You have established clear-cut, attainable military objectives for American military forces… [and] you provide the military commander sufficient forces and the freedom necessary to accomplish his mission swiftly...") Part of the plan Petraeus is evidently to put into effect involves an urban version of what Los Angeles Times reporter Julian E. Barnes labels "a spectacular failure" of the Vietnam War, the "strategic hamlet" program in which whole communities were to be sealed off from the "insurgents" of that era. For Baghdad, the military is now redubbing these -- with another obvious bow to Stewart's show -- "gated communities." ("'You do it neighborhood by neighborhood,' said the Defense official. 'Think of L.A. Let's say we take West Hollywood and gate it off. Or Anaheim. Or central Los Angeles. You control that area first and work out from there.'") Fears that Iraq's collapse into civil war (or a U.S. withdrawal) might knock down other states in the region like so many ten pins, as former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski reminded us in a Washington Post op-ed, "Five Flaws in the President's Plan," brought another Vietnam classic back to the fold: "the (falling) domino theory." With the President's latest threats against Syria and Iran -- "We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We'll interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq…" -- yet another oldie but goodie from that era has reappeared: "hot pursuit": As in pursuing the commies (or Islamo-fascists or Shiite renegades or al-Qaeda terrorists) across the Cambodian or Syrian or Iranian border. And speaking of Cambodia, Congress did at one point prohibit the use of funds to pursue war in that country, exercising its constitutionally guaranteed power of the purse, a thought that only in the last weeks has made it back from the critical wilderness into the mainstream as a respectable, debatable position for any politician. But perhaps it's no more complicated than this: In a world in which self-determination and nationalism are bedrock values, once you've tried to occupy a country, whether under the banner of anti-Communism or anti-Islamo-fascism, whether claiming to be in support of the "Free World" or "freedom" itself, it may no longer matter which counterinsurgency tactics you use or strategies you adopt, or whether you count bodies or not. Once you've taken such a path -- as long as you don't make the decision to withdraw -- you may always find yourself in that limited land of options that we like to call "Vietnam."" http://www.tomdispatch.com/ It's not limited to the U.S. - see Russians in Afghanistan/out of Afghanistan. IMO it is the most important difference in international relations between now and a century ago: While the destructive power of the big, rich countries has increased immeasurably, the corresponding increase in destructive power which even the poorest countries have attained (aoutomatic weapons, explosives, etc.) has made imperialism (however you want to define or deny it) a strategy doomed to failure. Peter

"Besides, who cares what Bush thinks about WMDs? He's not an expert in that field, just a stupid politician." Yes. The invasion of Iraq would have been a war crime even if WMDs exist - any war other than a defensive war is a war crime (se the Fourth Geneva Convention", and Iraq clearly doesn't fall under that . However, it is silly to expect that Bush will ever be prosecuted for it. A large majority of U.S. citizens approved it, so our country is complicit, and our government won't ever prosecute. As for international organizations, well, large scale war crimes apply only to countries which have been conquered. Peter

1) Why is the Usa still fighting in Afghanistan and who are we fighting? ?? 2) Is the war winnable? Probably not. 3) If not should we come home now? Yes. 4) If it is what else should we be doing? n/a 5) Why is Nato still there and how long do they plan on staying? ?? 6) Does Mrs. Clinton plan on winning this thing or just keeping us there for another 10 years? she plans on winning the election as a fake hawk, then leaving If you don't like the answers, make up your own :P Peter

"If you choose to force to game then it makes much more sense to bid 3S immediately." That would be true if pd wasn't a third seat opener. Since he is, my "invitational" range is much wider than otherwise. The hand shown is a very easy GF opposite a first hand opener, and I would bid 3C with a significantly weaker hand than this. Also, the 4C bid makes it highly likely than we have opposing singletons in the minors - my hand just got better. Peter

I will almost always go to 4M with 10 trumps, but here I would pass, a combination of honor placement and vulnerability. Peter

3C is fine, but I would have bid 4H after 4C. Peter

Yuk. Almost anything could be right. I think I would bid 3NT, although it's an overbid. It's IMPs, and I have a feeling I will either make 1 or 3. 3H is possible, though the suit's not up to snuff. Change the 8 to the 10 and this would be my bid. I don't like 2S, as pd has denied 4, and may think I have 5 for my bid. I won't bid 2H or pass with an 11 count at IMPs. Peter

My bidding is quite sluttish. It may cause infections. Do I get a statue? Peter

"The fear is, right or wrong, silly or not is that radical islamic elements will be encouraged in places such as Pakistan, India, Egypt or Turkey and cause huge domestic problems for those countries that affect USA interests. Another is the fear of some sort of larger Sunni/Shia regional battle. Of course this is all just speculation based on a defeat of the USA in Iraq and the USSR defeat in Afghanistan years ago. The fear is this will be a major problem for the USA for another 40 years." So the obvious solution to these fears is another doomed invasion? When will we learn to MYOFB? Peter

I think double at BAM or matchpoints is reasonable. So is pass. Peter

"It's clear that most people prefer to reverse on this hand. Ok, lets make it a bit more interesting: do you still reverse if you have DAJxx? And what is your rebid if you only have DATxx?" No to both, the first hand was a marginal reverse. I rebid 2C on both, although I can see a 1NT rebid on the third hand. I prefer rebidding an excellent 5 card suit to an offshape 1NT rebid. Peter

"Ahh so someone is for preemption" Well, you and Winston are so easily occupied. Peter

I reverse. The club suit is excellent, and the J10x of spades is nice. Peter

"Oh? How many times have I invaded Afghanistan and Iraq?" None, but you might. The denial is pre-emptive. Peter

"If we get invaded and people don't volunteer then maybe what people are saying is that they would prefer to live under the governance of the people invading rather than their current governance. Anyway, if you don't value your freedom enough to volunteer to fight for it then you don't deserve it." This comment is totally irrelevant to the question. Peter

"That's why they changed a large number of functions (like supply) from Army to National Guard after Viet Nam. The theory was, you couldn't have an extended war that the people were against, because so many families would be affected by the war whose kids just joined the 'weekend warriors' and never expected to see combat that the populace would rise up against it. Didn't work so well, did it?" The National Guard is voluntary, not to mention almost unheard of among children of the upper middle class. A BIG difference. "I don't think having a draft would have stopped this war, especially if universal service is an option." Possibly on this war. Peter

"If Iraq is lost we need to get our troops home now. I do not see why Iran cannot have nukes and sell them to whoever they want. It is their nukes. If NK, Pakistan, India, China and Russian can why not me?" Because you're untrustworthy. Peter

Congressman Rangel has been pushing this idea for quite a while. It would make it harder for a President to start a major, sustained war, especially one which would involve an occupation of a decent-sized country. Perhaps you think this is good, perhaps you think this is bad. There would very likely be a non-military form of service alonf with the draft, so it would really be a form of universal serevice for a year or two. It would be very expensive. It would create a commonality of experience. It would be a form of involuntary servitude? What do you think? For me, I find it interesting, but at the end I come down against it, primarily because of the involuntary servitude argument. Peter

"Mike Lawrence in his conventions CD recommends that the only non-forcing bid after 1m pass 2NT is pass. In other words 1D 2NT 3D is forcing." Not the usual treatment, where I play, which isn't to say it's bad. Peter

"If we are discussing worst case then blowing a LNG tanker could kill millions with the secondary explosions it could set off." Oil tanker terrorism is comparable to nuclear terrorism? Assuming you meant "blowing up" as opposed to "fellating" :) ROFL Peter