Should civilized nations use "Enhanced Interrogation" techni

[--Pete]

Hi,

Who is the bad guy here? The US for implementing a severe policy (short of war) against the bad guy, or the bad guy?

OK, now I get it. You learned geopolitics from old b-movies, mostly westerns and mean street detective. It's all about the good guy and the bad guys.

Second, it sends a message to every Castro wannabe that the result of actively seeking to threaten the US with nuclear weapons will result in at least isolation.

Because things like the 'Cuban Missile Crisis' happen so often, the world needs a constant reminder. Oh, wait, that only happened once, and the real 'culprit' was the USSR, with whom we've never broken diplomatic relations nor attempted to embargo. As a matter of fact, Cuba has neither the nuclear weapons nor the delivery systems to be any threat. Strange.

Siege is an effective strategy, like it or not.

This is totally wrong. Give one example of a political, economic, or military objective that has actually been achieved since the end of WW II by siege.

I've asked before, I'll ask again. What do you think the objectives of the US foreign policy are, or should be? And how do strong arm tactics, arrogance, invasions, torture, and embargoes aid in achieving these objectives?

Because, from the tone of what you've said so far in this thread, it sounds a lot like you feel the USA should rule the world, and do so by force. If that is your opinion, then I've greatly overestimated your political acumen in the past. But if it isn't, then maybe you need to review and revise how you express your outlook.

--Pete