mattp

Trask, you are right that the only reason Saddam has conceded anything is because he is threatened. You are also right that we must do something about the situation. However, we are not at the point where it is necessary, in my opinion, to engage in a full-scale invasion of Iraq - yet. You are right, I think, that the divisions between us and our European "allies" are a problem and that this discord is being exploited by Saddam and BinLaden, but I think that aspect of the situation may get worse rather than better if we decide to ignore the stated concerns of France, Germany, Russia, or anybody else. Though parallels could be drawn, I don't agree that it is like 1938. I don't think anybody in the U.S. is saying "hey, it's not our problem" and I don't think any significant player in the matter is thinking they can avoid involvement by appeasement. The questions surround issues like exactly what kind of response is appropriate, what are various scenarios that we might foresee, and whether or not the U.S. should act without U.N. endorsement.

The approaches in and out Mountaineer Creek to Colchuck Lake, or in and out Snow Creek to Lake Viviane, are both about 6 or 8 miles and involve a lot of elevation gain (like 4,000 feet or so). The scenic heart of a standard Enchantment trip lies between these two lakes. Current reports suggest that the snow conditions on either approach will be poor, but you may find some good snow left up higher.

I'll be looking for lunch on my way home, around noon.

Not bad, Trask, but I wasn't in any of them, and I think you fell short of half. You owe ME a beer. And I have to go to court in Coupeville in a couple of weeks. Is there some place up there that serves red ones at 8:30 in the morning?

Trask - You would be a fair contestant in the "name the sprayer's" contest. If you can correctly name half of them, I'll drive all the way to Mount Vernon to buy you a beer!

My apologies to those who were left out.

And "the father of pubclub" was there too:

Here's another:

Yeah, but these ladies have manners!

Anybody notice the sign language being traded here?

The ghoul with the red hat on is beyond satanic. The devil won't mess with him.

And these characters:

This guy, however ...

You're probably right. This guy, too, seems to be able to exercise some measure of self-control:

It was.

Sorry, Chris, he isn't the arm in green. He's here, with another unnamed sprayer: In the first photo, two of cc.com's elite sprayers are shown at middle and right while Hansel (left) is only a lurker. He might not even have a computer.

Name the Sprayers:

JayB- Thanks for the history lesson. I agree with you that the U.S. has a policy goal in mind when it arms countries like Pakistan and works with Russia, and that even when we are dealing with the very worst of thugs around the world we are probably always doing so in the pursuit of policy goals quite apart from the crimes those thugs may commit. It is not intellectually dishonest of me to argue that is what we do, however, and that Greg's statement could apply to the U.S. in every way.

That is the Ballard GRILL and Alehouse. 4300 Leary Way. Come one and come all and maybe it'll be like old times -- it is the middle of winter so nobody will be out exercising or anything and we all have lots to talk about because, for once, lots of people actually climbed something this week instead of staying home and wasting their time on the internet. Sayjay may make a rare appearance, and who knows: we might see a local legend.

Looks like another nice day at Zoa Beach!

Veggie- Nobody is arguing that Saddam is a good guy. I believe the current international and domestic debate has to do with what to do about him, what may be the costs or benefits associated with any particular scenario, and what should be the nature and extent of international cooperation in the world. I believe that even the most ardent anti-war protesters here and abroad acknowledge that Saddam is an evil despot.

Greg- Again you jest. The US has consistently refused to pay its dues.

Greg- that's a laughable statement. We probably ignore UN resolutions and international treaties as much or more than any other nation on earth (I think that makes us a "rogue"). Meanwhile, we maintain ties to all kinds of zealous groups all over the world and even arm them when they are on our side of any particular issue. Further, to name a few recent examples, we have supplied military assistance to governments in countries like Israel, Pakistan, and Indonesia, who are actively engaged in the destruction of cultures either within their own boundaries or nearby.

Let's see: In September, he said that neither the US or Britain had shown any evidence that Iraq actually had weapons of mass destruction and he called for UN involvement in the situation. He jokingly noted that Cheney had opposed his release from prison while the majority of the U.S. Congress had supported it and said that this was an illustration of how Cheney is conservative. Two weeks ago, in addition to pointing out that we are the only country to have used nukes, he said that (1) he thought our quest for control over oil production/distribution was an important motive in this situation; (2) it is hypocritical that we allow Israel to get away with acts of terror and to amass weapons of mass destruction; (3) it is deplorable that the U.S. would go outside the U.N. in its efforts to confront Iraq; (4) Bush is arrogant and lacks foresight in his war planning; and (5) it appears our foreign policy may be racially oriented because we are ignoring Annan. You may call that "stupid shit" but I call it speaking his mind, and I believe there are lots of people (including Norman Schwartzkopf for one) who agree with at least some of what he said. The outraged reactions against his statement appear to me to be an expression of the narrow-minded view that this is war and you are either for us or against us. I don't think that is a useful viewpoint, even if you ARE in support of going to war against Iraq. Can't we tolerate a public figure's stating that the U.S. may be doing the wrong thing? What's wrong with discussing issues like this -- and in this manner?