pbleighton

At my table the bidding would go: 1D-P-1S-2H-2S(no support X)-3S-AP Peter

"In my opinion ( and your opinion may of course differ ) overly heated discussions about things that have no answer (here) are a bad thing. " Shut down anything you like, it's your site, but I would prefer to leave things as is. My only objection to the above is that very few bridge or non-bridge threads ever have an "answer (here)". Flannery, anyone? :P Peter

"i don't think you can ignore religion, i think you underestimate the actions of people who think they will go straight to heaven when they die, with shitloads of cattle and virgins waiting for them" You have revealed yourself for what you are. I am disappointed, but... I will no longer respond to any of your posts. Peter

"Personally, I think that the Age of Empires is past." Yes it is. Sadly, though, imperialism is alive and well, half assed and in denial as it may be. Peter

You had asked: "the reason MAD worked, despite some pretty hairy encounters, had to do with the relative sanity of the two superpowers... some seem to think that if iran gets nukes that'll be the end of it..." "iow, do you think iran is relatively sane or relatively insane?" It was in response to this that I brought up suicidal insanity. You brought up the sanity of Iran's leaders, not me. It was important to you at that point in the discussion, but apparently not now. "1) may or may not be true... some in the japanese navy thought pearl harbor was 'suicidal'... others thought it assured victory... but even if it is true that the retaliation would be worse, i think you should look at a preemptive strike by iran from within the context of their religion and their hatred of israel and the great satan" A traditional invasion by a military superpower (which Japan was and we at that point weren't) versus starting a nuclear war with a country with greatly superior nuclear firepower? Talk about apples and oranges! The same goes for your Napoleon analogy. And religion or no, the issue comes back to suicidal insanity. You are suggesting that if they are not suicidally insane, that they would view the destruction of Iran in a positive light? "2) the jury's still out" My point. I am asking you for evidence. I see absolutely none. You were the one who raised MAD not working with Iran. "3) all you have here is a possibility, not a conclusion based on the truthfulness of the premises" I'm not sure what you mean. Would you agree with 3, if you conceded 1) and 2) were accurate? "it might be silly to you, but not to those who object to being told they must defend things they never said or implied" See above. You raised MAD and sanity, not me. Peter

Re Hitler: You brought him up in a discussion regarding the the threat of nuclear weapons. The issue is not whether Iran's government is viciously antisemitic, and would like to destroy Israel. They are. The question is whether the Hitler analogy is useful in determining whether or not they would take the suicidally insane step of attacking either the U.S. or Israel with nuclear weapons. It is not. Iran is not Nazi Germany, which was the most powerful military force in the world in the late thirties. "as a point of reference, nobody but you mentioned suicidal insanity... i simply stated that MAD worked because of the relative sanity of the ussr and the usa (as compared to iran)... you can make up arguments and attempt to convince others that i made those arguments, but it doesn't make it true... that's the definition of a straw man argument" OK, Jimmy, let me spell it out for you (I thought the syllogism was implied, but never mind): 1. It would be suicidally insane for Iran to attack either the U.S. or Israel with nuclear weapons, since the retaliation would be worse than the damage they would inflict. 2. Iran is not suicidally insane. 3. Therefore, Iran will not attack either the U.S. or Israel with nuclear weapons. Disagree with any of the above? BTW, in a discussion, when someone uses an argument, with a statement stipulated as fact (i.e. Iran is not suicidally insane) embedded in that argument, and asks you to disprove the statement in order to disprove the argument, it is not a "straw man". OTOH, raising the "straw man" argument, as you do consistently when you don't like an argument, is silly. Peter

If the moon was made of green cheese and the finest red wine, then we could send astronauts there without any food or water. What an argument for the space program! "I strongly disagree that this is the best way to frame the question. For example perhaps some Sunni State will bomb Iran before Iran bombs anyone? Example, Iran gets the bomb so Sunni Turkey or Egypt or Saudi Arabia gets the bomb or new Iraq gets the bomb, Arabs versus Persians versus Sunni vs Shia...." Eeeeeek! Attempt to move the goalposts, ref! I agree that the world is a marginally more dangerous each time another country joins the nuclear club, invited or uninvited. You still have to show that Iran, or some other country of your choice, is suicidally insane. You have still not even attempted to do so, in spite of repeated invitations. "Iran a known terror state gives the bomb or sort of gives a bomb to some stateless entity who cares less what countries get bombed." And they would give away an exceedingly valuable, dangerous asset to an organization which could easily turn on them for what reason? They would have to be suicidally insane to do such a thing. This would be totally different than giving them money or conventional weapons. "We cannot prove Iran or radical elements in Iran gave the information away so who do we bomb back?" If you think that would stop us, you are less familiar with our history than are the Iranians. Peter

"Peter I do not think many worry that Iran will invade anyone." Well, they won't invade us, anyway. That was my point about the silly Hitler analogy - he has become the generic bogeyman, invoked when facts and logic fail. "You seem to argue (perhaps not) that the answer is a strong NO." I think it is VERY unlikely. I notice that you don't give an argument as to their being suicidally insane. The fact that they are undeniably a very bad government (in many ways) is irrelevant to the discussion (though relevant to other discussions we might have). The question is, will they attack a nuclear power who would certainly retaliate, causing more Iranians to die than U.S. or Israeli citizens Peter

What words make you think they are suicidally insane? Not "crazy". Suicidally insane. Peter P.S. The Hitler analogy is the most overused analogy in political discussion, by both ends of the political spectrum. It usually doesn't apply, as here. Iran will not invade us. It is a real stretch, and exposes the flimsiness of your argument.

"iow, do you think iran is relatively sane or relatively insane" I think that they are sane, to the extent that they realize what would happen if they launched a nuclear attack on the U.S. or Israel, and do not want that to happen. Do you have any evidence to the contrary, given this narrow but relevant definition of insanity? Peter

1. 1NT, though pass is OK 2. 1S, I hate my 3 small hearts. Make it a doubleton and I would double. 3. 2S. Yuk. 4. 3S. Yuk. 5. 2C. 6. Pass. 7. Pass. None of these are nice, but I didn't see decent alternatives to 2, 5, 6, and 7. Peter

"These panels seem to say blackmail us and the world and we will cave and pay up. Blackmail works! " "Pay up?" The panels are saying that there will be bad consequences for us if we attack another country. Not attacking is hardly "paying up". Peter

Caveat: this is assuming playing against a strong NT. Meckwell. It lets you bid 2M directly (which I do routinely with 5 cards NV), and lets you find a fit on the two level except with both minors (allowing 4-4 bids NV), and avoids the dreadful DONT 2C call, where if you don't like clubs pd can have any other suit. Peter

"i think you're confusing terrorism with might..." No confusion here. The unprincipled use of lethal force... "also, what has that got to do with preventing iran from obtaining nukes?" I leave that as an exercise for the student ;) "btw, you left out the smiley i had in that post, probably an accident" Ah, the evils of copy and paste. Peter

"What can you and what can't you say when you're a public person like Tiger Woods?" You *can* say almost anything you want to. If you are not only a public figure, but a role model for many millions of children and teenagers, then you *should* be very careful, as Tiger Woods usually is. Peter

Martin Scorsese The Coen brothers Woody Allen (up to Annie Hall) Peter

"i thought we'd settled this might makes right, obviously" As was so conclusively proven on 9/11/2001. Peter

I really, really hate to say this, but he would play some form of EHAA - just like me ;) Peter

"In most World countries there is one party in power, see UK etc.....they control all parts of the government." Not quite true - they control the executive and the legislative branches, but there is an independent judiciary. The power of the judiciary varies by country. Peter

"Because of these compromises many non-americans think there is little to choose between our parties. Funny enough most Americans think of this as a great blessing for our country!" And a lot more of us don't. Peter

"Please resist the temptation to take everything personally as relating either to you or the US" I didn't take it personally. What in my post makes you think I did? I merely asked you some questions, which, in your long reply, you completely failed to address. Peter

"So- if you accept the premise that the survival of one group is directly threatened by Iran possessing nuclear weapons, the logical answer for that group at least is to do all in its power to minimise/avoid the risk. That would include a "pre-emptive" strike." A classic example of all-or-nothing thinking. What is the definition of "directly threatened"? What evidence do we have that the Iranian government is suicidal - a nuclear attack by Iran on either Israel or the U.S. would certainly bring retaliation, in which more Iranians would die than Israelis or Americans? You said yourself that "yet still very few leaders involve themselves at the sharp end in suicide type missions"... no kidding. According to the CIA, the Taliban tried to dissuade Al Quaeda from 9/11. Why do you think they would do that? This is all a matter of probabilities. What is the probability that if we allow Iran to have nuclear weapons, they will attack, say, the U.S.? Weigh that against two things: 1. The number AND intensity of Muslims who hate the West does matter (espeially in the long run), and the law of unintended consequences does apply, both in Iran and in the (much) larger Muslim world. 2. The number of Iranians we would have to murder in order to purchase this "national security" is quite large, as they have buried their many nuclear facilities underground in and near heavily populated areas. This requires some sort of moral calculus - i.e. the murder of x Iranians is justified by the y percent chance that z Americans will die. There are, of course, a large number of potential x, y, and z combinations. Would you care to give us the numbers you feel are relevant, and which would justify the cold-blooded mass murder you recommend? Peter

"if they are unwilling or unable, i think the usa should" How? Peter

"But this is also the problem. Doing nothing. Is that not as bad as doing something badly?" This assumes that every problem has a solution. It is a typically American view, and can be great when inventing light bulbs, etc. But not every problem has a solution, and sometimes the cure is worse than the disease. "i think there's a big difference between a preemptive conventional war and a nuclear one... this isn't the same as the cold war, where one could bank a bit on the relative sanity of the two participants... " What do you think we should do about Iran, presuming Israel does not attack, sanctions are ineffective, and if we acted we would act alone, or mostly alone? I think we should learn to live with it. What are your views? If you think we should take military action, of what kind? What, in your view, would be the likely short, medium, and long term consequences for the U.S., Iran, and the world? Peter

I hope this is just "pressure", if not, Bush appears to have a very steep learning curve. Peter