pbleighton

"Some would consider those windmills and panels worse eyesores than belching coal stacks." Are you one of those unnamed "some"? :) Peter

"Nah, Three Mile Island was the worst we've had so far. " So far. Peter

Tell the star to stop whining. Peter

"You read Mike-ese better than I do" Key point in understanding Mike: He asks lots of questions. He's very good at that. His questions are usually good ones, and are easy to understand, though not necessarily easy to answer. OTOH, he HATES to take a position himself. I think he is deliberately vague and difficult to understand sometimes. Keep the questions coming, Mike, but don't be such a chickens**t! :) Peter

"Yes, the crux is: what does "win" mean in the context of Iraq?" This is important. Even more important, though, is what is the best (or more accurately IMO least bad) outcome which can reasonably be expected in Iraq in the long run as well as the short run, and how do we get there. It's time to stop chasing rainbows and deal with reality. More and more people are realizing this, as reflected in the huge majority against the escalation, pardon me, I meant "surge" :) How are 21,000 troops going to stop an escalating civil war in a country of 26 million? I haven't heard an explanation of this from the administration or its defenders which is even remotely plausible. Peter

Question for the 3H bidders: What's the worst hand your partner is likely to have for his reopening double, especially as you are vulnerable? Peter

"Stoppers, who needs stinking stoppers! Just bid game." What he said. Peter

1. I would have led a spade. 2. I would not have bid 3NT. 3. You got fixed, don't worry about it. Peter

"I cannot agree more strongly(rats poor sp) that if...if...we are a bully or...flaunted the norms..we have damaged ourselves. let's assume we have...lets assume we have in the extreme. What can we do now?" The answer to this is simple, obvious, and very difficult to accept for most Americans, even now. We must leave, soon, with our tails between our legs, knowing that things will get worse when we leave. Consider these facts: 1. We have totally screwed up 2. Our national security has been damaged 3. Iraq has been damaged 4. Our national security, Iraq, and the Middle East will be further damaged when we leave Iraq 5. This will happen whenever we leave Iraq 6. The longer we stay in Iraq, the worse the total damage will be in the long run 7. We will "lose" (though I think that "acknowledge failure" is more accurate) when we leave Iraq. However, there will be no winners. No one in Iraq will be a winner, though it is possible that a faction or factions may have success in the civil war. Those of us on the left in the U.S. who opposed the war and predicted the outcome are not winners. I certainly don't feel like one. The Republican party has damaged itself politically, but the sooner we leave the sooner they can begin to heal themselves, so the Democratic party won't be a winner. 8. We owe Iraq. Unfortunately, this is not the time to repay it. We (and should) give limited humanitarian aid, but major reconstructive aid should wait until they are finished with their civil war. Right now it accomplishes nothing. 9. We may have to come into Iraq again militarily, as part of a multinational force, when they are mostly done with their civil war, and need (and request) help getting things together. Right now, our presence exacerbates the civil war. It may be that sometime in the future (5 years? 30 years?) we may be able to help. This is not contradictory. This is a gloomy post, but it is a gloomy subject. Peter

4H. Peter

"3 cases 1) equal or greater 2) sign.. less 3) insanely less oh and the posters stand where?" Both threats are (were) hugely overrated, but real. Militarily, the old U.S.S.R. was orders of magnitude greater. So, in military, "hard" terms, "insanely less". As to the old U.S.S.R., the reality, of course, is that the doves were proven right. The so-called "cold war" was unnecessary, and was essentially invented by fanatics on both sides. Richard Nixon, of all people, did the most of any Westerner to diffuse the threat through detente. Detente took years to work. The same model won't work with radical Islam itself, since we cannot negotiate with Al Quaeda. We can, however, negotiate with Islamic governments, work on the Palestinian issue, and more importantly, stop being mass-murdering imperialists. The last thing, of course, will be the most difficult. This process will probably take 50-100 years. If we could get our act together, it would be less, but we won't. So, in cultural, "soft" terms, radical Islam is "greater than". Reality's a bitch, isn't she? Peter

1D in the first and second seats, 3D in the third, 2D in the fourth. Peter

"I don't like any of these options. I'd vote for "any opening hand, plus any hand that meets the rule of 15". " Yeah, except that I pass the marginal openers with short spades ;) Peter

"Winston the more important question is do you and other posters think there is a war with radical Islam? What I think, one old man, is unimportant. You are the youth that will make the important decisions." He's three years older than you, Mike ;) Of course, you know this, and are just punking out again :P Peter

"Based on the views expressed here my guess is most others have the view be Happy, Make love!" Bad guess, Mike. Peter

"My guess is and it is only a guess, most if not almost all seem to feel there is not really a war that is worth fighting for in any fashion. Bush is just an insane war monger wanting to make a few rich. Make Peace not War, can't we all just get along in peace and harmony or if not just win some economic battle and make everyone want American Blue jeans?" So Mike, in your worldview one of two alternatives must be true: 1. We are engaged in a "war" which will take decades, we must kill millions of Muslims, etc., etc. or 2. There's no problem whatsoever! Don't worry, be happy! Am I reading you correctly? :rolleyes: Peter

I'm not sure what Bush and Co are up to, but it may not be particularly Machiavellian. I think the surge is simply a reaction to the the waning of public support for the war. There are a number of metrics which are available to measure support for the war: 1. Approval of Bush's handling of the war - this is where disapproval is highest - I believe in excess of 70% 2. Was the war a mistake - not as high, but over 60% 3. Should we leave, and when - depends on how you ask the question. This is actually the key number, as it is the one which drives Congressional support down. This one erodes less quickly than the others, but, as the election showed, is going down. When the percentage of voters who want us to be out in 6 months (meaning you have given up on ANY good solution, as I have) reaches 50%, Congress will get us out. The staus quo was moving that number towards 50%. The surge is IMO just a last, desperate measure to create some improvement, or at least the illusion of movement. I don't think Bush sees this as leading to an exit, though I'm sure there are some in his administration who see it this way. I do think it will lead to a quicker exit. Polls show the surge is unpopular by 2-1, with (in one poll) 53-37 wanting Congress to cut off funds for the surge (they won't, funds have been appropriated already for FY07, and Bush still has more than enough support in Congress to prevent the override of a veto). But look ahead to September/October, when funding for FY08 comes up. Assume the surge fails to live up to its promise. Public support will drop even further than it otherwise would have. Many Congressional Republicans and conservative Democrats may well be terrified enough to vote to force us to leave Iraq. There may be light at the end of the tunnel for us. Unfortunately, this is not so for the Iraqis. They will have their civil war, which has already started, but which will get worse when we leave, whenever we leave. When the fighting dies down, we should be willing and able to help them pick up the pieces, but that may not be for a long time. I hope the war doesn't spread too much into the region, but I'm not optimistic. Peter

"Not sure but I think Toga can so why not attack Toga based on what they may or may not do." If Bush were President For Life, he'd probably get around to it. "Still waiting to see why we have gunships killing people in Somolia....Did congress declare war? Do we have gunships outside of Dublin?" When you hear, let me know. In the meantime, I'll make the meta-assumption that our imperialist reflexes still function :P Peter

"Where does Hillary or Biden stand? How about General Kennedy?:" Can you show any of them as being on record in favor of an attack on Iran? Peter

"More people have died from non nuke power plants and the related activities than all NP in the world. Geez I know people who have died. There seems to be some fantasy world where non NP plants are safe?" You might want to consider: 1. The number of nuclear power plants is only a tiny fraction of the total number of power plants in the world. Gross numbers in this context are meaningless. 2. The worst case for a nuclear plant is many orders of magnitude worse than for a conventional plant. Peter

"Sorry, "if the Holocaust had occurred" is already enough of a denial for me to disqualify a person from being the president of a country." Totally agree. "And to suggest to found Israel in Germany is, uhm, .... ...I won't try to find words for this." How about "appropriate" and "practical" (in retrospect, of course)? Peter

"That being said, I don't really trust Iran. I have a big problem with groups that question the legitimacy of WWII concentration camps, the annhilation of Israel, and invite David Duke to its state sponspored symposiums. I'd watch them carefully." Agreed, but would you bomb them? Peter

"Does this mean you don't want anyone in general to build NPP or Iran because you think they will also build nuclear weapons if you allow NPP? You cannot run NPP on weapons grade uranium, nor can you arm nuclear bombs with uranium from the plants." 1. I'm not crazy about anyone building NPP, until we exhaust alternatives. 2. When a country develops NPP technology, it gets a technical infrastructure which can be used to devlop nuclear weapons. Peter

1. I am of two minds on nuclear energy. I am against it for the present, but I realize that it may ultimately be necessary, depending on how alternatives pan out. 2. I don't like Iran building nuclear plants, for all of the obvious reasons. I also think it is ENTIRELY their decision whether or not to do so. Peter

I have to pass in this partnership, since "Partner will assume your weak bids contain a few high cards." However, this is not an agreement I would agree to. This is a clear 4S raise to me. Peter