Should civilized nations use "Enhanced Interrogation" techni

[kandrathe]

Right. Like you were losing some childish game. Like cooperation was weakness. Like the cold war just kept on going, the great nuclear staring contest. Do you really think you're going to win some kind of prize by 'not blinking'? By having the courage to maintain the most unproductive and antagonistic policies? Nobody is judging this contest. The results are all we have, and judging so far, the results of this strategy seem to be terrible.

Do you regularly associate with known criminals then in your personal life? Why not? I don't. I have no problem with our CIA aiding the good people of Cuba in tossing out their crime lords. Cooperate? I don't think so. Negotiate? For what? Hugs?

However, these countries are not listening.

Excuses, excuses. When is the last time ANY liberal held an anti-Castro rally?

Why is it always sexual?

It must be the cigar.

You still didn't answer the question. Why does the US always need to be the one to cave in, set aside their principles, "be the mature one"? Especially, and especially with these two bit, pompous, arrogant wind bags with whom we really don't want to be involved in the first place? And, especially, when having a relationship with them and their nation is probably more trouble than benefit? I think some people need everyone to be friendly, or they can't sleep at night. Last time I checked it was still true that you make concessions for your friends, and demands from your enemies.

[Jester]

Do you regularly associate with known criminals then in your personal life? Why not? I don't. I have no problem with our CIA aiding the good people of Cuba in tossing out their crime lords. Cooperate? I don't think so. Negotiate? For what? Hugs?

You have no problem with the CIA actively violating the sovereignty of a nation? Do other nations get to do this to you, or is this just a privelege reserved for Americans? Being supportive of reform and giving sanctuary to political exiles is one thing. Actively attempting to overthrow the government of another country is quite another. It's a line the US would not tolerate crossing in almost any other circumstances. The mere suggestion would be a serious diplomatic incident.

Negotiation would probably start with travel rights. Beyond that, limited trade and, eventually, diplomatic relations. Even if it all goes south and it returns to threats, it's a much more credible bargaining chip to remove a needed source of trade, foreign currency and capital goods than it is to dangle a hypothetical carrot. One of Cuba's major bargaining advantages is that they are no longer reliant on the US for anything; if that changes, you pick up more power to influence Cuba, not less. As it stands, Cuba is an Autarky-plus-Venezuela, and the US has no leverage at all.

Excuses, excuses. When is the last time ANY liberal held an anti-Castro rally?

Pretty much never. When was the last time anyone but the Miami exiles held an anti-Castro rally? It's not really a super popular protest topic, if only because the issue is so unbelievably stale by now. Plus, the US alread imposes practically the maximum peacetime restrictions on Cuba; what would the protesters be asking for, an invasion?

Speaking of which, I will point out that the Bay of Pigs (and the exploding cigar) were done under the watch of two great liberal heroes, the Brothers Kennedy. The opening of relations with China, which had commited crimes which made Castro look like a piker, was Nixon. Reagan got Iran-Contra, a remarkable double whammy of supporting one group of human rights violators by selling weapons to another. Bush spent his presidency shipping inconvenient people to Uzbekistan to be tortured. So don't give me any nonsense about this being just 'liberals' who have issues here.

You still didn't answer the question. Why does the US always need to be the one to cave in, set aside their principles, "be the mature one"? Especially, and especially with these two bit, pompous, arrogant wind bags with whom we really don't want to be involved in the first place? And, especially, when having a relationship with them and their nation is probably more trouble than benefit? I think some people need everyone to be friendly, or they can't sleep at night. Last time I checked it was still true that you make concessions for your friends, and demands from your enemies.

I believe it was you who pointed out that two wrongs do not constitute a right. If Cuba (or North Korea, or Iran, or anywhere) were to unilaterally reform their government, open up their countries, and defend human rights rather than violate them, I would be extatic. But nobody here (AFAIK) is advocating otherwise, we can pretty much take that for granted. On the other hand, you are advocating that the US continue its unproductive, pointless blockade.

As for the relationship with Cuba being more trouble than benefit, I think that the families who are trying to travel to Cuba, to see their relatives without having to commit a serious crime, feel a little bit differently. The cost in lost trade is also considerable, probably on the order of 1.5 to 3 billion dollars annually. There are definitely benefits to opening up the relationship. What are the benefits of keeping it closed? Moral certitude? It certainly hasn't yielded anything tangible so far, and it's been half a century.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

You have no problem with the CIA actively violating the sovereignty of a nation? Do other nations get to do this to you, or is this just a privilege reserved for Americans? Being supportive of reform and giving sanctuary to political exiles is one thing. Actively attempting to overthrow the government of another country is quite another. It's a line the US would not tolerate crossing in almost any other circumstances. The mere suggestion would be a serious diplomatic incident.

Sure, infiltrate away. I'm already a big hockey fan, and if I were to drink beer, I'm sure it would be Canadian (yes, I know you are living in Britain now. :)) although I used to really dig Modello Negro.

Seriously, I would say the philosophical enemies of everything that western democracy stands for are already well placed in every public school from kindergarten to Phd level. What need have you to send any more subversives, as we already are so good at doing it to ourselves. As for insurgencies, we have them as well, which is why we now have an overzealous DHS.

Pretty much never.

And for any other 3rd world thug? There never was, and never will be a peep of protest from the liberals. Why?

But... if you go on any, and I repeat ANY public university campus in the US, you will find the perennial "Protesting Student Organization" marching around with drums and bullhorns demanding that the US government does something different than it is doing. Which is fine, they have the right to peacefully protest the color of canned peas if they so desire. Why do we NEVER see them protesting against the actions of our enemies? Iran is holding an Iranian American woman, Roxana Saberi, on drummed up charges of spying. Where is the liberal outrage? Wait, I guess her alma matter did organize one rally. It seems that in times like this, they quietly remain mute, waiting for the next opportunity when the US does something that they can break out their drum kit to march against.

Like the title of this thread, I consider what words mean like "torture". For example, eppie just compared the US strapping a terrorist to a board and producing the fear of drowning, to Russian soldiers in Chechnya, raping women, beating people to death, cutting off fingers, setting people on fire, cutting them with glass, and gouging out eye balls. So, I question what the word "torture" means as we casually fling it about labeling actions with that word.

To give you some perspective on me; So, like HRW, I've been a member of AI for over 20 years, and while it is hard to stomach the continual bashing of my country by the more liberal devotees, sometimes they make me consider why we do the things we do. I belong to AI, because I believe it helps to actively write letters to 3rd world dictators and their governments asking them to show mercy towards people who I feel are wrongly imprisoned. It is a little thing that I can do to add my voice to thousands, or millions which might, maybe, in just a little way influence someone to do what I believe is the right thing to do. But, unlike many of the people in AI, I'm probably more discerning about choosing which causes I will support. Many people in AI are like the noisy Protesting Student Organization where the unrestrained cacophony of protesting everything just reveals the one truth of these PSO's in that what they are really against is the US government and any action they make. So, I reserve my protests for people who I feel are truly innocent, or those who are political prisoners, or convicted of things that would be protected in a free democracy.

Speaking of which, I will point out that the Bay of Pigs (and the exploding cigar) were done under the watch of two great liberal heroes, the Brothers Kennedy.

Yes, I wonder how liberals explain away the "actions" of their heroes. It was interesting to see how those betrayed by Bill Clinton reacted to his lack of "change" in Washington. It is equally interesting to see how the rhetoric rubber of the Barack campaign trail hits the road of policy and action. For example, it is a great rally cry to talk of closing Gitmo, but quite another thing to figure out what to do with someone like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and the other terrorists who we just don't want to be running around free. So you don't like holding them in Cuba, then maybe we turn Kalaupapa, Hawaii into a terrorist internment camp. No one in the contiguous 48 or Alaska would certainly think of housing a terrorist prison.

So, I wonder when will the overwhelming sense of liberal betrayal by Barack sink in, or I would say dealing finally with reality rather than slogans and pipe dreams? We are nearing the end of the honeymoon period for Presidents, so it will be interesting to see what happens over the next six months.

On the other hand, you are advocating that the US continue its unproductive, pointless blockade.

Yes, we should do more to make the embargo (siege) more effective and productive.

As for the relationship with Cuba being more trouble than benefit, I think that the families who are trying to travel to Cuba, to see their relatives without having to commit a serious crime, feel a little bit differently.

Nobody forced them onto the boat to Florida... Wait, I guess Fidel forced them. Who is the bad guy here? The US for implementing a severe policy (short of war) against the bad guy, or the bad guy?

The cost in lost trade is also considerable...

Huh? You are talking profit motives? <reaches for the oxygen canister>

No, I don't think we really don't need them, and on principles, we can afford to avoid dealing with criminals. We should take any other Caribbean nation, like say Honduras or Belize, and help make them rich instead.

What are the benefits of keeping it closed?

First, it becomes more meaningless when our allies don't follow through to contain these thugs (ie. Saddam), because they are greedy, or spineless, or maybe they aren't really our friends. 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. Third, moral certitude, which, can be politically expedient as a cheap recourse to war and sells well to the hawks domestically. Siege is an effective strategy, like it or not.

[Jester]

I had quite a lengthy post prepared, but in the end, I figured things are getting long here. Needless to say, I think you presume an awful lot about me, and are dealing in stereotypes and facts which aren't actually facts. However, what I've been saying all along is best summed up here:

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. [...] Siege is an effective strategy, like it or not.

No, it isn't. Dictators live perfectly well in isolation. Cuba has shown this. Castro is no more overthrown after 50 years of "siege" than he was on the first day in Havana, despite massive deprivation. North Korea has shown this. Kim Il Sung is still immortal leader, and his spoilt brat of a son is still wearing those atrocious sunglasses and drinking cognac while his people starve in fear. Haiti has shown this. The Duvaliers and their Tonton Macoutes were perfectly happy butchering people in splendid isolation. Paraguay has shown this. Iraq has shown this. The USSR has shown this. Turkmenistan has shown this. The examples are almost limitless. Many dictators even isolate their own countries, at least from the free world, justifying it with "Juche" or "Self-Reliance" or "Socialism in one country" or Voodoo (literally!), or whatever else. When all other sources of power and support vanish, they know they will seem even more powerful by comparison. Often, they will buttress their general isolation by finding a sugar daddy amongst your less ethical competitors, like Russia, or China, something which should give even the most hardline idealist serious pause.

This tactic is not working. It has not worked historically. My bet is that it will never work. Pete hit the nail on the head. Change tactics, or enjoy the non-fruits of stalemate. Thankfully, things are changing, whether you like that or not.

-Jester

Afterthought: I suppose one could make an argument for Libya, but their progress in recent years stands in contrast to a still-abysmal human rights record. However, without at least the willingness by the US to deal with a well-known terrorist supporter, things in Libya would not be improving, but Ghaddafi would almost certainly still be in power, and they'd probably still be trying (and failing) to build a nuclear bomb. It is a case where the initiative came from the other side, though, and so it deserves mention as a rare case of a dictator pragmatically choosing a (slightly) different path. Of course, Ghaddafi also opposes Islamic Fundamentalism: are you willing to sacrifice what few allies you have in the Islamic world for principle? It's a tough issue.

[--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

[kandrathe]

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.

Yes, my tone is harsh, but that is not my world view. Simply;

What justified the embargo in the first place, and what has ever changed? What conditions have we placed on thawing relations with Cuba, are they reasonable, and have they done anything to try to meet our conditions? Has either Castro done anything AT ALL to make overtures to the US to try to ease the tensions between our nations?

Yes, the Cuban Missile Crisis was a long time ago, but as you well know, Cuba's done more than that to export its revolution in more recent history as well (Grenada, El Salvador, Columbia, Nicaragua, Angola, Algeria, Zaire, Yemen, Ethiopia, Guinea-Bissau,Mozambique, Bolivia, Dominican Republic, etc.). They are also on the list of direct sponsors and havens for terrorism for their activities supporting ELN, FARC, ETA, and others.

And, from a geopolitical POV, a prosperous Cuba would still deprive its citizens and use its resources to destabilize Central and South America. The US embargo, while hard on Cubans, is the only way to contain the Castro regime and however little, put pressure on them to change. If you want to end the embargo, then convince the Cubans and the rest of the world to pressure the Castro regime to reform. Barring that, we are better off with a destitute Cuba, than a prosperous one.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Your still dodging the bigger question; what is our objective? Without that bit of info, how do we know if we're even on the right road?

What justified the embargo in the first place, . . .

Nothing that didn't also apply as much, or more, to many countries we didn't embargo. Other than the fact that Castro made a complete ass out of us by getting us to support his revolution and then saying, "Oh, and by the way boys, I'm a communist". The egg on our collective face was enough to feed the third world for a month.

. . . and what has ever changed?

Point to the USSR on a recent map. In the cold war, an advanced Soviet post was a threat. The only threat I see from Cuba is oral cancer from cigars.

What conditions have we placed on thawing relations with Cuba, are they reasonable, and have they done anything to try to meet our conditions? Has either Castro done anything AT ALL to make overtures to the US to try to ease the tensions between our nations?

Where do we get off placing conditions on Cuba in the first place? To protect ourself from Soviet missiles being brought into the country, yes. But that threat is no longer existent, and was made moot long ago by missile subs, MIRVs, and other technologies. So why keep it in place. Can we only normalize relations with countries that we've allowed to kick our ass?

The rest of what you say, well, lets be polite and say it is moot. For fifty years of doing something and not having it have the desired effect (or even making any progress toward that effect) would be, for most people, sufficient evidence of the stupidity if not insanity of that action.

Again, let's dispense with the morality, let's forget the pissing contests, let's just focus on the results. I'm Florentine, and Niccolo is one of my heroes -- nothing succeeds like success. So tell me. What are we trying to accomplish and how is this helping?

Because I still think that, with both torture and our behavior toward Cuba, not only are we doing wrong, we're doing badly. High cost, low benefit, is not, in my opinion, good policy.

--Pete

[Occhidiangela]

Torture might sometimes have yielded some useful information. However I think that the damage done to our credibility,

eppie, you seem to put great store in the value of perceived credibility. You also pretend to know how it is earned from all facets of international interaction.

Here is one thing you can count on: America will kill for certain things, our way of life being one of them. I even swore an oath to do that. You are invited to read the Code of Conduct.

On a more serious note, you and most others are talking out of your arse, to include me.

We are the peanut gallery. Those who have been in the arena ought to be given more consideration than you offer.

A guy named Porter Goss recently wrote a fairly coherent piece about the entire issue. He may not be the most objective, but he was in it up to his neck, at both the Congressional level and later as director of CIA when Tenet left.

Don't forget: what is going on now is pure political BS. No surprise, or it should not be. I sense that Attorney General Holder will not go witch hunting after agents. Pres Obama pretty much promised he would not in a recent address to the agency. Obama can't afford to lose the veterans there. He needs them too badly, in this multi polar world where intel work is becoming more and more important.

Also, whoever would be charged will lawyer up. Hell, some of them are lawyers. This puts the decision to pursue anyone for their judgments at some risk: if you take them to court and you lose, you have made an arse of yourself, and lost a major political battle.

Obama, IMO, would be wise to move forward. He has a lot on his plate. Pakistan is getting worse, not better, if one checks the news these days.

And they have nukes.

Occhil

[--Pete]

Hi,

Obama, IMO, would be wise to move forward.

As you said, it looks like he is. The blame game is a waste of time, and he seems to know it. The focus of those on the field should be winning the game. We, OTOH, in the peanut gallery might as well have some fun chewing over the past since we've damn all input into the future.

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

[Zenda]

Torture might sometimes have yielded some useful information.

Way too many people still believe that:(

Governments don't accept all the disadvantages of torture just for unreliable information that could propably have been obtained by other means.

According to the President of the Global Americana Institute in 2006:

http://www.juancole.com/2006/10/craig-murr...ing-terror.html

"...it is because torture is what provides evidence for large important networks of terrorists where there aren't really any, or aren't very many, or aren't enough to justify 800 military bases and a $500 billion military budget."

Or, a more recent article for those who like to see examples:

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/200904...addam_with_9_11

"It turns out that high Bush officials put heavy pressure on Pentagon interrogators to get Mohammed and Zubaydah to say there was a link between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 hijackers, in order to justify President Bush’s illegal and unnecessary invasion of Iraq in 2003."

[Chesspiece_face]

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.
--Pete

"Siege" can be replaced with much of the failures of american policy in the pertinent matters to this topic. In that we overvalue Skill and undervalue Effort. And yet we stand aghast at our failures like Goliath in every conflict where an opponent doesn't play by our rules. Gladwell here references Maurice de Saxe's statement that war is about "legs, not arms". This couldn't be any more true, especially in our present conflicts. Actual diplomacy is hard, it takes a lot of effort. It's much easier to lay out a bunch of arbitrary rules and then sit back smug as if our enemies have any intention of following them.

[eppie]

Do you really think the thought of their leader strapped to a board with their face covered with a wet cloth is going to outrage them much more than his capture and rendition?

No not them, but it will give them a strong base of supporters in their homeland.

Why do you think organisations like Hamas or Al Qaida still get support from normal people? Because these people continuously get an impression of 'the enemy' which is very bad. It doesn't always have to be the truth, but when there is some truth this will be pumped up to huge proportions.
and I am not talking about the people in the mountain regions in Afghanistan. I am talking about the people in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Marokko etc. people that live in relative prosperity and have the money to support terrorism, people that also can get their hands on objective news sources or at least different news sources (arabian and western).

[eppie]

Here is one thing you can count on: America will kill for certain things, our way of life being one of them. I even swore an oath to do that.

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.

[eppie]

But... if you go on any, and I repeat ANY public university campus in the US, you will find the perennial "Protesting Student Organization" marching around with drums and bullhorns demanding that the US government does something different than it is doing. Which is fine, they have the right to peacefully protest the color of canned peas if they so desire. Why do we NEVER see them protesting against the actions of our enemies?

Yes and that would make sense!! An 'enemy' of the US that doesn't really listen even though there are hints towards a possible attack would listen to some students protesting? I hear your remark a lot in discussions....and I am not impressed by it. When you protest, you protest against your own government, because there is a chance that you might change them....protesting against a government of an enemy is useless.

Like the title of this thread, I consider what words mean like "torture". For example, eppie just compared the US strapping a terrorist to a board and producing the fear of drowning, to Russian soldiers in Chechnya, raping women, beating people to death, cutting off fingers, setting people on fire, cutting them with glass, and gouging out eye balls. So, I question what the word "torture" means as we casually fling it about labeling actions with that word.

I didn't compare the two, I just think that the people of say, Chechenya and Iraq both will not have a too high regard for their invaders. The allied forces also make civilian victims....that there is a difference in ferocity does not make too much of a difference if you have your dying child in your arms.....

For example, it is a great rally cry to talk of closing Gitmo, but quite another thing to figure out what to do with someone like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and the other terrorists who we just don't want to be running around free. So you don't like holding them in Cuba, then maybe we turn Kalaupapa, Hawaii into a terrorist internment camp. No one in the contiguous 48 or Alaska would certainly think of housing a terrorist prison.

That is why maybe it would have been better to put in some effort and find out who were really terrorists and who were just guys of the street, and subsequently release the latter group and trial and imprison for life the first group (or have death penalty if that is possible). Now there are cases of people that apparantly had something to do with terrorism who get 5 years imprisonment.....well I can just imagine what that person will be doing when he gets released. Making sure that there is a good legal system in place that allows guilty persons to be sentenced to death or long imprisonment would be a lot better than just keeping people in a prison on a place with no rules while not giving a ** about if they really did something or not. Having a place like Gitmo looked really cool and hard fro Bush and Cheney but it didn't help the US at all, nor was it fair for the innocent that were imprissoned. If I would compare the management of that 'project' with the banking business I would say it was worth just a tiny bonus.

So, I wonder when will the overwhelming sense of liberal betrayal by Barack sink in, or I would say dealing finally with reality rather than slogans and pipe dreams? We are nearing the end of the honeymoon period for Presidents, so it will be interesting to see what happens over the next six months.Yes, we should do more to make the embargo (siege) more effective and productive.Nobody forced them onto the boat to Florida... Wait, I guess Fidel forced them. Who is the bad guy here? The US for implementing a severe policy (short of war) against the bad guy, or the bad guy?Huh? You are talking profit motives? <reaches for the oxygen canister>

Fidel forced them? Didn't they just want to go to Florida to sell drugs? Also a bit strange that they didn't go to any of the other non'communist free states in the region, that are obviously doing so much better than Cuba.

No, I don't think we really don't need them, and on principles, we can afford to avoid dealing with criminals. We should take any other Caribbean nation, like say Honduras or Belize, and help make them rich instead.First, it becomes more meaningless when our allies don't follow through to contain these thugs (ie. Saddam), because they are greedy, or spineless, or maybe they aren't really our friends. 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. Third, moral certitude, which, can be politically expedient as a cheap recourse to war and sells well to the hawks domestically. Siege is an effective strategy, like it or not.

I wonder if these people really threaten the US or that you just think that they threaten the US. The single biggest attack on the US has been performed by people being funded by your allies (Saudi Arabia etc.) (people from those countries) apart from that the biggest threats over the years have always been white supremacist groups. Many experts say that the chance that the next big attack comes from one of these groups is much bigger than from one of the classic enemies.

[kandrathe]

Fidel forced them? Didn't they just want to go to Florida to sell drugs? Also a bit strange that they didn't go to any of the other non'communist free states in the region, that are obviously doing so much better than Cuba.

You haven't heard of the Mariel boatlift?

"However, during the Mariel Boatlift, the situation changed because of the reality and the magnified perception that the refugees included undesirables such as criminals and mental patients. The reality is that Castro encouraged and arranged for the departure of some undesirables as part of the Mariel Boatlift. This helped to ensure that the Mariel Boatlift would be politically feasible on the Cuban side. The magnified (and inaccurate) perception, which was fed by United States media accounts such as a May 11, 1980 New York Times article, was that the refugees consisted largely of undesirables."

What other nation in the world has its arms as open as the US does toward the Cuban people? Have you heard about the Cuban Refugee Adjustment Act? And, because of it, Cuba has to guard its boarders to prevent people from leaving.

[kandrathe]

"Siege" can be replaced with much of the failures of American policy in the pertinent matters to this topic. In that we overvalue Skill and undervalue Effort. And yet we stand aghast at our failures like Goliath in every conflict where an opponent doesn't play by our rules. Gladwell here references Maurice de Saxe's statement that war is about "legs, not arms". This couldn't be any more true, especially in our present conflicts. Actual diplomacy is hard, it takes a lot of effort.

I agree with you. America's biggest weakness is its short attention span, its poor skills in diplomacy, and its lack of sustained willpower in a lengthy struggle. The notable exception was the Cold War, but then the enemy was real and kept us fearful for the entire 30 year period. We've an embargo with Cuba, but not a blockade. So, I would acknowledge that siege is not quite the right term.

It's much easier to lay out a bunch of arbitrary rules and then sit back smug as if our enemies have any intention of following them.

Some of the rules broken by Castro are not that arbitrary. It would be pretty universally accepted that when you move your troops into another nation it is an act of war against that nation, and its allies. Also, when you aid our enemies, you must realize it is antagonistic. Lately, Cuba has joined with North Korea, Iran, Venezuela and all the other nations who seem to be hell bent on hurting not only the US, but most of Europe.

I'm just not seeing the upside here for us to try to be friends with Cuba until the regime changes the way it operates mostly because of its foreign policy.

[Jester]

Lately, Cuba has joined with North Korea, Iran, Venezuela and all the other nations who seem to be hell bent on hurting not only the US, but most of Europe.

I have no sympathy for any of those nations except Venezuela, and even then, Chavez is wearing mighty thin.

However, can you name any remotely recent tangible harm done by any of these nations to the US or Europe? Or, if such harm is absent, how they are "hell bent" on doing so? Or are even capable of it, given the enormous gap in power between these relatively feeble nations and an alliance of nations comprising something like two-thirds of the world's collective miltary spending?

-Jester

[kandrathe]

I have no sympathy for any of those nations except Venezuela, and even then, Chavez is wearing mighty thin.

However, can you name any remotely recent tangible harm done by any of these nations to the US or Europe? Or, if such harm is absent, how they are "hell bent" on doing so? Or are even capable of it, given the enormous gap in power between these relatively feeble nations and an alliance of nations comprising something like two-thirds of the world's collective miltary spending?

We don't measure nations by what they've done, we measure them by what they will do, and what they intend to do. Otherwise, you are always reacting to the mess after the damage is done, such as Kuwait. That was a colossally huge failure for the US, and Kuwaits other allies to predict Saddams intentions. I don't want the US to be in a position to react to Tokyo in flames, or trying to expel 1/2 a million North Korean troops from Seoul .

What does North Korea intend? North Korea threatens to attack US according to Kim Myong-chol, the middle son of Kim Jong-il and leading Pyongyang official. or, more recently, NKorea accuses US of plotting war, which in this case means using our influence at the UN Security council to apply sanctions against N Korea for their recent ballistic missile test.

How much of the "lack of harm" has been due to active countermeasures?

[Zenda]

We don't measure nations by what they've done, we measure them by what they will do, and what they intend to do.

I didn't know you are able to read minds across the world. Seems I have to be careful about what I'm thinking :o

[Jester]

What does North Korea intend? North Korea threatens to attack US according to Kim Myong-chol, the middle son of Kim Jong-il and leading Pyongyang official. or, more recently, NKorea accuses US of plotting war, which in this case means using our influence at the UN Security council to apply sanctions against N Korea for their recent ballistic missile test.

Did you actually read those articles? Because both of them are about North Korea's intent to use nuclear weapons as a *deterrent* against a theoretical US first strike.

I mean, not to make this an equivalence or anything, but I'm pretty sure that's your country's policy towards them as well.

Not to mention the fact that they're totally bluffing. Kim Jong Il might we weird, but he's not tired of living. A strike of any significance would result in his country being flattened; a nuclear strike would mean reducing Pyongyang to radioactive ashes.

-Jester