Should civilized nations use "Enhanced Interrogation" techni

[Jester]

No, you missed the point. Yes, they will protest against something that has a liberal hook, like AIDS, gay rights, forcing under aged girls into marriage, but not against the common mundane everyday abuse and barbarity of the regime itself.

When was the last time the Miami Exiles held a rally about gay rights? Or the NRA held a rally in support of ousted left-wing democratic governments in South America? There is nobody who lives up to that standard, although I think you'd find 'liberals' come a lot closer than you're willing to give them credit for, if your focus were to drift from attention-grabbing campus radicals (I went to school with this schmuck, I know that type well enough) to the broader liberal community, especially online.

Your claim was that 'liberals' NEVER spoke out against regimes hostile to America, and just ignore their human rights violations, presumably because that would violate the stereotypical 'blame the US for everything' mentality. A trivial example from the front page of the biggest left-wing American political blog that showed up the very next day was enough to poke a hole in that assertion. There are certainly feminist liberals who are plenty loud in their opposition to the way Sharia law has been implemented in many Islamic countries.

Not that I would ever, in any shape or form, advocate visiting HufPo, but they do seem to have quite a lot of coverage of these exact topics you're accusing liberals of ignoring...

Yes, have the "Great Satan" tell the Ayatollahs to ignore the Koran. Do you not think it would be rather impotent?

Iran is not just populated by Ayatollahs, potential Suicide Bombers, and apolitical rugmakers. There are pressure groups, and they do matter. The influence of the religious extreme, while very powerful, can be moderated in many ways: by undermining the clerics, by promoting less extreme clerics, or by supporting other groups who are less focused on religion as a priority. How you conduct your diplomacy can affect these things, sometimes subtly, sometimes not. Since you are not sovereign there, you can't just say "we don't like this, stop it," but you can exert influence. But that influence fades quickly if all you have to say is "you're evil, and we think your religion is barbaric!" Then the Ayatollahs say the same thing right back at you, and nothing changes.

-Jester

[Occhidiangela]

Hi,

I'm going to ask you the same questions that I've been harping on with kandrathe. What are the objectives of the US foreign policy (or, what should they be)? What tactics are best in achieving these objectives and what tactics are counterproductive? Given that I consider your background and knowledge on this subject the best of anyone I know personally or online, I'd really like your input -- but, hey, no pressure:)

--Pete

Pete, please forgive the late reply. I don't visit the Lounge each day.

The question you ask, at this point, is very tough to answer. I will ponder it a bit, and try to give you a quality reply. Part of the current problem is the need to both do things for the future goals and aims, and undo some horrific damage due to badly pursued aims over about five years.

So, the three points are:

What are the objectives of the US foreign policy (or, what should they be)?
What tactics are best in achieving these objectives

and

what tactics are counterproductive?

I can answer the last very briefly, but incompletely: self delusion as a method is of course wrong (see "Iraq will pay for its own reconstruction in threeto five years with oil revenue" among others as well as "we don't do nation building, even when we need to in order to achieve an aim" for another.)

Trying to fight a war on a thin margin (how little can we get away with committing? ) , versus the Powell Doctrines' Go Big or Go Home -- bad methodology. It is the root cause of the details in execution going horribly wrong from the get go -- see Garner's unresourced nation building mission, and Bermmer's disaster.

To give you my personal insight on part of that from the purely tactical view: when I was over there in 2004, we were during the middle of the summer getting SEC DEF level inquiries on how soon we could scale back air ops, and bring at least on strike squadron and a C-130 squadron home. Mid 2004, mind you. It seems that from a bean counter's perspective, our footprint was too large and too expensive. (BUt they could afford to ship Mr Greenbeans gourment coffee in convoys to as many base areas as could be stood up. Nuts, I tell you.)

War on the cheap, somewhat.

This "there are too many of you over there" was being asserted in DC when the briefs from field commanders, the standard stop light briefs, (Green good, amber needs help, red means ugh, it's a mess) in the Circle of Fire around Baghdad, were all amber and red.

Nearly no green lights. Rummy really didn't grasp what was needed to achieve the political aim, and his generals, Abizaid and others, had basically been told "don't ask for more, you won't get it."

But let me think a bit, and take things in order, to assess aims and means.

It is no small question you ask, Pete.:)

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

If you also want to torture, just say it is because you want to protect your country or your interests but don't give me that BS of protecting your way of life. Protecting a way of life that includes torture seems a bit strange.

Maybe it is because 'protect our way of life' is a very good slogan to make people think that 'they' want to attack 'our way of life' and so can give you much more support instead of just saying we want to protect our interests.

Hey, stupid, I said I'd kill to protect my way of life.

Kill. Got it? I even agreed to abide by the Code of Conduct, which means I would give my life, and kill, for our way of life.

Your horsecrap attempt to be dishonest and accuse me of torturing to protect our way of life is Way Out Of Line. I note you didn't bother to go and look up the Code of Conduct. I don't think you are intelligent enough to understand why that was in my post, but you instead tried once again to play your asinine games.

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

They probably are bluffing.

Are you and Jester willing to risk Seattle and Vancouver on the basis of it being a bluff?

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

Hi,
Diplomacy is a trip (or a game).

--Pete

A bad acid trip, washed down by tea and lies told through smiles.

Occhi

[Jester]

Are you and Jester willing to risk Seattle and Vancouver on the basis of it being a bluff?

Yes. I don't see any way of not taking that risk that wouldn't involve taking greater risks.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

You know, what's good for General Bullmoose is good for everybody!

[Zenda]

Do you really believe that geopolitics is about reacting to what people have already done? Is that how you play chess, or do you try to predict what the other player will do and have a strategy for every outcome?

International politics is not a game of chess, but since you bring up the analogy: you don't win chess by judging your opponent. That's poker. Chess is played by recognizing patterns on the board and knowing which outcome various moves will give in those patterns. It is *all* based on what is on the board, which, one could say, is the result of previous actions. So yes, it's about reacting to what already has been done.

Nevermind me, though, for questioning your right to murder, torture or imprison anyone in the world who you claim would possibly do those same things, given enough time and/or resources :whistling:

[--Pete]

Hi,

International politics is not a game of chess, but since you bring up the analogy: . . .

No, but it is a 'game' in the game theoretical sense. So the analogy isn't half bad.

. . . you don't win chess by judging your opponent. That's poker. Chess is played by recognizing patterns on the board and knowing which outcome various moves will give in those patterns. It is *all* based on what is on the board, which, one could say, is the result of previous actions. So yes, it's about reacting to what already has been done.

Kandrathe didn't say that you played the opponent, he said " . . . you try to predict what the other player will do . . . ". And that is exactly what you have to do. Computers play chess in the manner you describe, assigning values to patterns, calculating the values for patterns resulting from different moves, min-maxing the resulting situations, working that down to the most profitable present move. Except for book openings and tablebase endings, that's basically how the better engines do it.

People don't play that way. They can't. They can't calculate the values for a position fast enough, they cannot calculate and remember the values for dozens of possible positions to compare them. People look for advantages, a general strategy, mobility, the ability to attack, control of the center (or of the flanks for the hyper-modern among us). We look for strategic advantages that can be turned into tactical opportunities. And we do this while trying to determine what the opponent is doing and how to defend against it, or even how to use his plans to his disadvantage.

But, in neither case does a computer or a person win by playing the past, by playing the position as it is. In both cases, to win, you have to play what will come, what is possible.

Nevermind me, though, for questioning your right to murder, torture or imprison anyone in the world who you claim would possibly do those same things, given enough time and/or resources :whistling:

Nice emotional outburst. Best example of open minded discussion I've seen in the last nanosecond.

I'd infinitely rather have intelligent opponents than stupid supporters. For the first sharpen my mind, but the second just make me look bad by association.

--Pete

[eppie]

Hey, stupid, I said I'd kill to protect my way of life.

Kill. Got it? I even agreed to abide by the Code of Conduct, which means I would give my life, and kill, for our way of life.

Your horsecrap attempt to be dishonest and accuse me of torturing to protect our way of life is Way Out Of Line. I note you didn't bother to go and look up the Code of Conduct. I don't think you are intelligent enough to understand why that was in my post, but you instead tried once again to play your asinine games.

Occhi

I wasn't talking about you personally, I was talking about you in general.

The rest of the statement stays, but I think you still don't understand it.

[Ashock]

International politics is not a game of chess, but since you bring up the analogy: you don't win chess by judging your opponent. That's poker. Chess is played by recognizing patterns on the board and knowing which outcome various moves will give in those patterns. It is *all* based on what is on the board, which, one could say, is the result of previous actions. So yes, it's about reacting to what already has been done.

To what was already added above, I'd like to add that grandmasters know other grandmasters and their playstyles. They would choose particular openings depending on whom they play in advance. They would know what kind of a position would potentially give their opponent more problems than another kind of a position. So, yes.... the top players, just like big-time politicians play their opponents also.

[Zenda]

If chess was about trying to predict what the other player will do, there would be more literature on how to do this. I'd say that chess is hard enough by itself, but don't let me keep you from loosing a game because you under/over estimated your opponent's intelligence :lol:

Nice emotional outburst

Emotion shows itself when people use words like 'stupid', or claim they are prepared to kill for reasons only clear to themselves. It was meant as sarcasm, but I understand that guessing other peoples intentions is not easy, even when remarks are accompanied by :whistling:

I'd infinitely rather have intelligent opponents than stupid supporters. For the first sharpen my mind, but the second just make me look bad by association.

Yes, I know you are more interested in honing your rhetorical skills, as in the subject of discussions. Otherwise you wouldn't be arguing in what situations civilized nations could be allowed to use 'Enhanced Interrogation' techniques, but wondering *why* they actually do so.

[--Pete]

Hi,

If chess was about trying to predict what the other player will do, there would be more literature on how to do this.

You say that chess is not about playing your opponent and poker is. Then I ask you, why are almost all the books on poker about how to play your cards? Could it be that, in both poker and chess, playing your cards or pieces is easy to explain, how to play your opponent is hard to teach, so people write the books they can.

Otherwise you wouldn't be arguing in what situations civilized nations could be allowed to use 'Enhanced Interrogation' techniques, but wondering *why* they actually do so.

Either link to a post in this thread were I supported torture in any way (other than my sarcastic comment about crucifixion and spammers) or go take a reading comprehension class before your next post.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

If chess was about trying to predict what the other player will do, there would be more literature on how to do this.

Do you mean like Daniel King's, "How Good Is Your Chess?", which in the editorial review says, "His easy-to-follow, test-yourself format asks readers to predict their opponent's moves."

[Ashock]

If chess was about trying to predict what the other player will do, there would be more literature on how to do this. I'd say that chess is hard enough by itself, but don't let me keep you from loosing a game because you under/over estimated your opponent's intelligence :lol:

A chess game between 2 amateurs really is just looking at the board. However, a game between 2 players who are either very high level, I'd say IM and higher, OR a game between two ppl who've played each other on numerous occasions, does indeed require "reading" the other person or at least knowing them from a psychological standpoint. There's been numerous occasions in chess world championship when this was evident. Karpov - Korchnoi, Botvinnik - Tal, just to name a couple. In fact, many of Tal's opponents thought he was playing mind games with them or even hypnotizing them. World politics is also a very high level game, just like championship chess. What you see on the table is rarely what you are going to really get, with absolutely no strings attached. Sure, it'd be great if you could always rely on others to be completely truthful and forthcoming, but in RL politics it simply does not work that way.

ps. If you or anyone else is interested in a great tournament chess book, my personal favorite (and I've read a good 2-3 dozen chess books when I was playing... and no, I was not great, just pretty good), I suggest reading "Zurich International Chess Championship 1953" by David Bronstein. Probably the strongest fielded Tournament ever, with awesome commentary by the author who was also one of the top finishers (and perhaps one of a handful of players who were on par with champions but just never quiet got there), and featured sseveral former and future world champions.
Yes, I am trying to hijack the thread. It has gotten to an annoying level now.

[kandrathe]

Yes, I am trying to hijack the thread. It has gotten to an annoying level now.

No problem. I agree, its become tortuously tedious.

[Zenda]

Do you mean like Daniel King's, "How Good Is Your Chess?", which in the editorial review says, "His easy-to-follow, test-yourself format asks readers to predict their opponent's moves."

As usual, your links show little to nothing to support your case. How do you suppose mr. King achieves his goal? By instructing readers to get 'background' information about other players before the game, or by telling them how to interpret the moves they make during?

It has gotten to an annoying level now.

Not as 'annoying' as some visitors of this forum found most of your posts these past few years, but that's fine.

Either link to a post in this thread were I supported torture in any way

This, for example:

Somewhere between slow flaying and harsh words there needs to be a line drawn. Only actions which cross that line should be considered torture. Defining that line may be difficult, but as a start, physical harm should be a criterion.

In other words, you do approve when *you* think the method applied is not torturing. Isn't that what the Bush administration used as an argument too? Well, this may come as a surprise for you, but international laws on this subject haven't waited for you to provide a definition that matches *your* criteria.

Any action, when applied by autorised personnel on persons in their custody, and not as a part of a legal sentence, to force someone to do something against their will, is torture.

Well then, are you against Waterboarding, and any other 'technique' employed for the same purpose? Or do you think that laws should be adjusted to allow the methods you find useful enough?

[--Pete]

Hi,

In other words, you do approve when *you* think the method applied is not torturing.

Well, gee, yes. I approve of reasonable punishment for crimes. I approve of reasonable pressure to get information or a confession. But as anyone except a complete idiot would see, from reading what you quoted, I was trying to determine just what torture was, not justifying what had been done.

Now, crawl back under the bridge you came from. I, for one, am tired of the smell of troll.

--Pete

[weakwarrior]

Do you mean like Daniel King's, "How Good Is Your Chess?", which in the editorial review says, "His easy-to-follow, test-yourself format asks readers to predict their opponent's moves."

I don´t want to get involved in the actual topic here. However, as a nit, let me point out that the review doesn´t mean predict what your specific opponent would do. It means in this position what are the good moves. It does this by giving you a position and asking how would you play it and then comparing your move with the move a master made. "Their opponent" in this case could be Kasparov or whoever.

[Jester]

Any action, when applied by autorised personnel on persons in their custody, and not as a part of a legal sentence, to force someone to do something against their will, is torture.

No. The United Nations Convention Against Torture standard is "severe mental or physical pain." It also bans "cruel, inhuman or degrading" treatment. There are plenty of interrogation methods, whereby you "force someone to do something against their will" by giving up information, that are neither torture nor otherwise banned.

Were they POWs, they would have immunity. But, many of those captured in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq fail to meet the criteria for being POWs, and therefore are covered under civilian law.

Well then, are you against Waterboarding, and any other 'technique' employed for the same purpose? Or do you think that laws should be adjusted to allow the methods you find useful enough?

Waterboarding to obtain information is torture. Asking questions to obtain information is a 'technique employed for the same purpose', but is not torture. Somewhere in between, as Pete said, there is a line. The thread discussion is partly about "where is the line", but it is more about "where should the line be", and in that regard, it's been interesting hearing what Pete has to say. His providing his opinion is in no way similar to Bush deciding that his arbitrary fiat supersedes international law.

-Jester