Should civilized nations use "Enhanced Interrogation" techni

[kandrathe]

I'm a little divided on this. I'm with you on embargo on the thugs on the world, I know that they affect the average citizen of that country harshly but to be callous most of those citizens are bad enough off without the embargo that the practical difference to them is very little, but it does have an impact on the thugs. Unfortunately it's a very long term strategy and since they haven't been employed to the needed extent too often, the effectiveness of changing the hearts of the people after the thug is gone is still hard to measure.

For me, I just look at it from the point of view of "with whom you do business?" By entering into business with these thugs you enrich them at the expense of their people, and yes, when you do not do business with them both sides lose. Personally, I don't buy stolen property either. It's a moral question.

However you have to lift the embargo at some point and I think now might be the time with Cuba. Since Fidel is technically not in charge after transferring power to Raul in Feb of 08 we are dealing with a different leader. Since Fidel is still alive and still wields a great deal of power we can't be completely sure what Raul will want to do and so normalizing relations until he proves to be a thug doesn't seem like a completely bad idea. I'm not fully sure about that, but I think that is what the thinking is.

The leadership might be shifting to Raul, but the regime has not changed. Fidel was always the figurehead with most of the passion and pomp, while Raul "The Prussian", handled the business of state from the background. Don't think that Raul is something new, because he was there at the beginning running the death squads and has been Fidel's lifelong silent partner. I would wait to reward Cuba with normalized relations once they hold free elections, and make some concessions to becoming a more open and less oppressive state. They need to make the public spectacle of burying the hatchet, then the US can consider doing the same. Politically, the US needs some justifiable reason to end the embargo and shower Cuba with glasnost and perestroika. I still see Raul continuing the belligerent fist shaking defiance of the US, which while quixotically romantic is wearing thin and getting tiresome. If I were Kim Jong Il, or Raul Castro, or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or Daniel Ortega, or Hugo Chavez, I'd push Barrack around a little to see if he is another Bill Clinton. If you don't think so, well I've got unlimited bandwidth on Kwangmyŏngsŏng-2 I'll sell you. For now, they probably see no need to get soft when we seem to be the ones with rubbery knees.

You apply the pressure and penalty where it needs to be and then you remove that to show people that, we'll deal with you if you are reasonable. This is why I'm all for treating other thugs the same way. Show them that we won't deal with that, but if the thug is gone we'll work with you. Yes it's a recipe to start civil wars and coups but it's often been stated that democracy doesn't work unless the people take it for themselves. I'd vastly prefer non violent methods (and they have happened. Liberia isn't the perfect example but it appears they have mostly gotten onto the track of a truly free democracy without a lot of bloodshed, though they weren't starting for the same point.

I don't view it as the cat and mouse game that you portray. I think you make a list of all the objectionable practices, and thugs in political office and once they have been eliminated, then you can start the negotiation for better relations.

It's too early to pass judgment on what Obama is doing in my mind. My belief is that he is thinking about 4 or 5 years down the road with some of his actions, maybe even longer term. This game can not be won in the short term you have to play it out to the long term.

I think this is wishful thinking on your part. 6 months ago he was still the partial 1st term Senator from Illinois. He is still a political babe in shark infested waters.

In ways I'm glad Bush was as nuts as he was because there might be a time when we really do want someone who is that ready to just attack people. We didn't need it while he was in office and I don't think he handled much well, but since I like to see silver linings, showing the world that we can be that way and that we can also change if we want to isn't really a bad thing.

Here is my Bush retrospective; He came to office just as the Tech bubble burst, and then a few months later, was 911. Clearly, Greenspan and all the wizards of wall street did put Humpty Dumpty back on the wall, just poorly glued together and ready to crash again in 2008. So, for economics, I need to give Bush a C. If you look at the shambles of the economy, you'd probably think F, but I need to give the F to Congress who engaged in the behavior of ignore and ignorance that allowed for these tragedies to happen in the first place. Domestically, I think again, he gets a C. He made some reforms, but little progress was made. For foreign policy, I think F. He did step up and go after Al Queda in Afghanistan, and start to build a coalition against the terror networks, but then stupidly bungled all his political capital on taking out Saddam. Now, it might be that Saddam was on the cusp of becoming the rogue state (like Iran and the Taliban run Afghanistan), but possibly another year and a ton more evidence would have helped his case against Iraq. Putting Iraq on the main stage took most of the energy of our nation for the past eight years. I think the US under Bush just as has been done by prior administrations has mostly ignored the genocide and excessive bloodshed in Africa. Obviously, ideologically, and relationship wise we've lost ground in the Americas, Europe, and Asia. So overall, Bush gets a D or D- in my book. But I tend to grade all politicians harshly.

What I hope for is that some punk does try to attack us and that the Obama administration clearly thwarts it and hits the attacker with strong repercussions to help solidify that while we are being nice we aren't push overs. Nice does not equal weakness though not everyone understands that.

I believe that the attackers are emboldened and have redoubled their efforts to infiltrate and attack. I believe they would be thinking that they have the opportunity to test the mettle of this President, and want to see what opportunity might be in store for them over the next eight years. If you look at the nature of Al Queda attacks, they are coordinated across international boundaries and meant to break systems. 911 was not merely a symbolic attack on "World Trade", it was meant as a direct blow to Wall Street and designed to stress or break our financial system. So, you hit their stronghold in Afghanistan, then they just move it to another susceptible or agreeable state like Iraq, or Sudan, or Somalia. Iran has a single minded focus on destroying Israel, and so while a haven for terrorism, only supports a limited brand that keeps it from getting in trouble with the greater world. How do you fight a war when the terrain happens to be wherever the ideologues live at that moment? Stateless war? So are these soldiers or criminals? Geneva conventions out the window? 19th and 20th century rules no longer apply.

Here is another problem; Obama says, "... we are not at war with Islam". But, as forwarded by the fanatics, it appears that Jihadist faction of Islam is at war with the western ideologies and the nations that practice or allow them. So, we are at war with the Jihadist fanatics, but not their ideology? It is their twisted ideology which propels them, and about 150 million misguided Muslims to continue to hurl themselves strapped with explosives against any available soft target. 150 million is a big number, and like it or not it is a growing number. The west nations are constantly asking "What am I doing to drive these young people to embrace this fanatic ideology?" I think the answer is, "Very little." See Schmoozing With Terrorists. How do you stop the endless waves of bombings without addressing this islamofascism? Yes, I believe the Jihadist movement is in ways akin to the Nazi movement, in that prior to the rise of the Reich, you had a fairly desperate diaspora of Germanic people who believe themselves to be good, and worthy of power. I haven't heard of any Mullah, Ayatollah, or Jihadist spokesperson ever claim that their aims are other than global domination of every nation, and to rule the world with sharia law. So now we see across the entire diaspora of the Islamic world self appointed mufti interpreting the Koran to suit their world view and recruiting scores of young people to their murderous cause. Every prosperous, or hell hole Islamic nation is worried, at risk of destabilization and ready to be toppled by these Islamofascist revolutionaries.

The US is in a way in that Catch 22 scenario; Act nice and the Islamic world will see us as effeminate, unworthy, and call us the great Satan or act tough and the Islamic world will call us a bully, abusive, and the great Satan. I believe they will find a way to hate us no matter what demeanor we take other than to capitulate to their will. The way to win is to be steadfastly who we are, work with the moderates who don't want us dead, and to continue to give terrorism no safe haven and establish international cooperation in all nations to root it out from their soil. We need to have a consistent tough position on this, and not pull the crap that our politicians do with the pardoning of people like Orlando Bosch, or the FALN terrorists.