Should civilized nations use "Enhanced Interrogation" techni

[kandrathe]

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

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?

"The good fighters of old first put themselves beyond the possibility of defeat, and then waited for an opportunity of defeating the enemy." -- Sun Tzu

[kandrathe]

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.

They probably are bluffing. With their history of bluff and deception, we are left to predict what their plans might be, and the intelligent person would need to plan for the worst possible outcome. We can "hope" for the best, but we must prepare for the worst.

I don't believe anywhere you will find an US government official telling North Korea that we will reduce their cities to ashes. Not to mention that North Korea considers every action, and many inactions as acts of war. For example, during the Clinton years when the US announced it might withhold sending free fuel oil to North Korea if they didn't stop their secret nuclear program, Pyongyang announced that us not paying their nuclear black mail was an act of war.

[Jester]

They probably are bluffing. With their history of bluff and deception, we are left to predict what their plans might be, and the intelligent person would need to plan for the worst possible outcome. We can "hope" for the best, but we must prepare for the worst.

You are about as prepared as anyone has ever been for anything. You have a nuclear arsenal that could reduce North Korea to molten slag something like three thousand times. You have submarines capable of destroying anything they put to water, and their entire land mass besides. You have history's most expensive military, which outclasses what they have by a staggering margin. You have an army almost their size waiting on the other side of the DMZ, and that's just South Korea, an ally with a tiny fraction of your total strength. You've had 50 years to work and rework your plans on exactly how you'd destroy North Korea if they ever did anything stupid enough. I don't even know how you would possibly be more prepared than you are, short of pulling out of Iraq and moving your whole military to the border.

However, it won't come to that. You know what their plans are, because you know what their options are: Don't Attack, or Die Horribly. North Korea doesn't even have the USSR's dubious advantage of "mutually assured destruction," because they don't have the firepower. For NK, it would simply be "assured destruction." You've played this game before with much tougher opponents, and it turns out everyone knows the right move: don't commit suicide. Heck, they know this game too, they've been playing it by the rules (albeit with much bluster and noise) for half a century.

I don't believe anywhere you will find an US government official telling North Korea that we will reduce their cities to ashes.

Are you kidding me? If you straight up asked any major US political figure "what would the US strategic response be to a North Korean military attack on US soil", do you honesty think the answer would be anything short of "we'd bomb them back to the stone age?" And if they actually hit the US with a nuclear weapon? I mean, I'm no big fan of nuclear war or anything, but even I'd be willing to give the US a pass on massive retaliation against an *unprovoked nuclear first strike*.

As for the "ashes" quote, I presume you're talking about this, which is actually the same thing as the previous two links: a threat of retaliation if the US attacks first. They seem to be afraid of the US attacking them... You remember that time your idiot former president got up and read a speech by Canada's national embarrassment? The one where he named three countries as the "axis of evil", and then proceeded to invade one of them? Because I'm sure they still remember it in North Korea.

Not to mention that North Korea considers every action, and many inactions as acts of war. For example, during the Clinton years when the US announced it might withhold sending free fuel oil to North Korea if they didn't stop their secret nuclear program, Pyongyang announced that us not paying their nuclear black mail was an act of war.

They're just blustering. In case you hadn't noticed, third world dictators tend to have bullhorns more potent than their armies. You guys lived through Nikita Freaking Khrushchev. Are you really so sensitive to the overblown rhetoric of a nation that probably hasn't even got the military might to take on South Korea in a fair fight, let alone the United States, with the whole of NATO behind them?

-Jester

[Chesspiece_face]

They probably are bluffing.

They're not bluffing. They just aren't threatening an actual nuclear attack. North Korea's real threat is complete and utter destabilization of the region. The country operates under a shoddy framework of illusion and propaganda and it's in our best interest to maintain that illusion. Pyongyang knows this, so everytime they want something they threaten to bring the whole thing toppling down. Were the fragile system in North Korea to fall you would have a humanitarian crisis unlike anything we've seen. The great majority of sustenance the countries population recieves comes from the government's blackmail. Take out the government and you'll have millions upon millions of refugees flooding into China and South Korea. You'll have the fragmented and essentially autonomous military forces chucking whatever they can find onto Seoul. And even if you get past that you'll have a mad land dash from China to take and control the strategic ports currently on North Korea land.

[Jester]

They're not bluffing. They just aren't threatening an actual nuclear attack. North Korea's real threat is complete and utter destabilization of the region. The country operates under a shoddy framework of illusion and propaganda and it's in our best interest to maintain that illusion. Pyongyang knows this, so everytime they want something they threaten to bring the whole thing toppling down. Were the fragile system in North Korea to fall you would have a humanitarian crisis unlike anything we've seen. The great majority of sustenance the countries population recieves comes from the government's blackmail. Take out the government and you'll have millions upon millions of refugees flooding into China and South Korea. You'll have the fragmented and essentially autonomous military forces chucking whatever they can find onto Seoul. And even if you get past that you'll have a mad land dash from China to take and control the strategic ports currently on North Korea land.

I'm not sure I'm following the argument. The North Korean government is threatening to destroy themselves, thereby spitefully destabilizing the region at the low cost of the one thing they have in the entire world?

They threaten and bluster because they have nothing to lose, not because they're actually willing to do anything about it.

(Edit: They are, of course, willing to let tens of thousands of their own citizens die, so that's certainly a credible threat. What a wonderful country. But they have no credible threat outside their own borders, unless they think suicide is a viable strategy.)

-Jester

[kandrathe]

They're not bluffing.

North Korea is the red headed orphan child that no one wants to adopt. China doesn't want the mess, they believe reunification of north and south will solve the problem. The US doesn't want reunification, they want China to rein in their dog, er I mean ugly orphan. Or, as Bernd Schaefer says, "China’s leverage over North Korea is not only constrained by its focus on economic development. Beijing is also fearful of an influx of North Korean refugees in the event of regime collapse, and the effects of this on internal development."

So, yes, North Korea is this very economically unstable and desperate military focused dictatorship whose only industry is making weapons. They have exploded nukes, and launched a failed ICBM so far in the past couple of years. But at any moment this pus filled blister might pop and pollute the entire region with refugees, chaos, and military surplus flooding the black market. Or, you have the dictatorship maintaining at least order, and brokering deals with the terrorists and other rogue nations.

It is a no win scenario, unless the blister heals. Which in my book means DPK needs to reforms it economy (as China has done), and join the ranks of above board and legal nations. When you have dictators for life, it means you get to wait 50 years between opportunities for reform.

[Chesspiece_face]

I'm not sure I'm following the argument. The North Korean government is threatening to destroy themselves, thereby spitefully destabilizing the region at the low cost of the one thing they have in the entire world?

They threaten and bluster because they have nothing to lose, not because they're actually willing to do anything about it.

-Jester

No, they're blackmailing us and everyone in the region because they know we won't do anything about it. Because the repercussions of us taking out the control structure of the country is one hundred times worse than placating a maniacal despot.

Of course it doesn't make sense to you, because North Korea isn't playing by the rules you operate under. Maybe you missed the link i posted earlier. North Korea is more than willing to do what we deam "socially horrific". Much like a man that walks into a bank with a bomb strapped to his chest and demands cash or he will blow up everyone and everything in the building. Only in North Korea's case they aren't bluffing. And you can be sure that if they go down, they will take everything and anything they can with them.

[Jester]

No, they're blackmailing us and everyone in the region because they know we won't do anything about it. Because the repercussions of us taking out the control structure of the country is one hundred times worse than placating a maniacal despot.

Yes. They threaten to kill their own people if they don't get oil/food/whatever, and usually that's enough to allow North Korea some minimum bargaining power. It's pretty much the most horrifying negotiating tactic ever. But the threat of slow suicide through mass starvation is only so powerful, and they only get so much out of it.

Of course it doesn't make sense to you, because North Korea isn't playing by the rules you operate under. Maybe you missed the link i posted earlier. North Korea is more than willing to do what we deam "socially horrific". Much like a man that walks into a bank with a bomb strapped to his chest and demands cash or he will blow up everyone and everything in the building. Only in North Korea's case they aren't bluffing. And you can be sure that if they go down, they will take everything and anything they can with them.

I think you are mistaking "inhumanly cruel" for "insanely lacking in self-preservation". North Korea would have no problem strapping bombs to one (or one million) of its citizens, and walking *them* into a bank. But anything that seriously challenges the continued dominance of Kim Jong Il and his cronies is simply off the table. I doubt they even spend a moment's time considering it.

-Jester

[eppie]

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

Or do you measure nations by what your government tells its citizens what they intend to do?.

I personally (as Jester I guess) am amazed how so many people can believe that countries like North Korea, Venezuala or Cuba want to harm us, and if so , can harm us.

Isn't it far more likely that our governments (because this is not only the US) have some interest in making us believe that those countries are a threat?

Even in the cold war, which was a far more threatening situation nothing really happened.....it was all about who can shoot a rocket the highest into space if you really think about it. I am very happy that it is over so that everybody can see that the other side were no baby eating lunatics. Russian see that teh west just wants to trade, and we see that the russians also have many inhabitants that will do everything to make a profit, and because of that leave a large part of the country poor.......we are all the same, and we should stop making up threats like thios and concentrate on the real threats.

[Jester]

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.

Oh, and linked from the front page of DailyKos: Liberals organizing a vigil (not a protest, which would be nonsensical) for those imprisoned in Iran for two physicians whose crime was apparently treating patients with AIDS. The case of Roxana Saberi is specifically mentioned as a similar case of human rights violation.

Still convinced that liberals NEVER care about these things?

-Jester

[kandrathe]

...we are all the same, and we should stop making up threats like this and concentrate on the real threats.

In a way, I agree with your assessment. I believe the threat to people, no matter where they are, is to their liberty. These wars, as I see it, are more between those who believe in tyrannical control of their populations, and those who believe in limited controls.

The cold-war, and our continuing tiff with Cuba was less about the economic system of communism, and more about the tyranny of Stalinism. I don't think anyone in the US was afraid of collective or cooperative farming, as it was heavily practiced in the US since its founding. We are against the loss of property rights, and subsequent state ownership of property and industry. Obviously, we can operate as a nation with organized labor unions collectively negotiating for fair pay, and fair working conditions (albeit they have their problems with both over zealousness and corruption). So, as I see it, the one evil of Stalinism we were set against was the government control, where the government told you where to live, and the government told you where to work and for what wage.

Truth be told, I am more fearful of the US federal government becoming more tyrannical and imposing its will on the populace, than I am of any external threat from other nations or terrorist organizations.

[kandrathe]

Oh, and linked from the front page of DailyKos: Liberals organizing a vigil (not a protest, which would be nonsensical) for those imprisoned in Iran for two physicians whose crime was apparently treating patients with AIDS. The case of Roxana Saberi is specifically mentioned as a similar case of human rights violation.

Still convinced that liberals NEVER care about these things?

-Jester

Well, at least they found a way to find a cause, like doctors treating AIDS, or hanging homosexuals, that they could rally around. It is lucky for the doctors they were not merely cosmetic surgeons. Now, how do we get them to rally around ending the practice like stoning people who are accused of adultery? It is the cusp of the issue of Shariah Law and its use, as opposed to "western laws" which we are more familiar. We no longer put people in stocks, or "draw and quarter" people, or publicly hang people, or do many of the barbaric punishments that were once practiced in the early US and Europe. How do we get Iran to evolve to a more humane understanding of crime and punishment?

[Kevin]

Well, at least they found a way to find a cause, like doctors treating AIDS, or hanging homosexuals, that they could rally around. It is lucky for the doctors they were not merely cosmetic surgeons. Now, how do we get them to rally around ending the practice like stoning people who are accused of adultery? It is the cusp of the issue of Shariah Law and its use, as opposed to "western laws" which we are more familiar. We no longer put people in stocks, or "draw and quarter" people, or publicly hang people, or do many of the barbaric punishments that were once practiced in the early US and Europe. How do we get Iran to evolve to a more humane understanding of crime and punishment?

Convince them you are a prophet and rewrite the book?

OK I might be a little too snarky and sarcastic (and actually in a very good mood) today to be involved in a real discussion. :)

[Jester]

The cold-war, and our continuing tiff with Cuba was less about the economic system of communism, and more about the tyranny of Stalinism.

It was about neither, primarily. Both the conflict with the USSR and the continued hostility with Cuba were about the same thing: international power. Who controls what? Who gets to set the terms for the world? Do the countries in a region support your side, or their side?

Cuba was a particularly egregious insult, where a country went from being a US colony-in-all-but-name to being a dependency of the USSR, right on your doorstep. Most other cold war conflicts were similar. Korea was about that kind of control. So was Vietnam, and Afghanistan, and pretty much every other cold war conflict, direct or indirect. And even in conflicts where you wouldn't otherwise seek to exert control, there was always the problem: if you didn't, would the Soviets? And the same would be true going the other way.

It certainly had nothing to do with an opposition to tyranny: the US supported more pro-American dictators during the cold war than I could count on my fingers and toes, occasionally even against a democratic alternative. The Shah of Iran? Pinochet? These were not gentle, freedom-loving folk. The Soviets' record is even worse, but then, only fools ever expected support for democracy from them.

-Jester

[Jester]

Well, at least they found a way to find a cause, like doctors treating AIDS, or hanging homosexuals, that they could rally around.

Is the treatment of Homosexuals somehow a lesser issue of human rights than punishments for adultery? Is preventing doctors from treating AIDS somehow not up to the level of forcing one's religion on people? You seem to have contempt for liberals for "rallying" around causes they believe in, when you are simultaneously contemptuous for *not* rallying around causes they believe in. Which is it?

We no longer put people in stocks, or "draw and quarter" people, or publicly hang people, or do many of the barbaric punishments that were once practiced in the early US and Europe. How do we get Iran to evolve to a more humane understanding of crime and punishment?

What an interesting question. Might I suggest that the best answer you have is... diplomacy?

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

It was about neither, primarily. Both the conflict with the USSR and the continued hostility with Cuba were about the same thing: international power.

Way too simple. The full answer would take a few volumes, filled with things like Marx, Lenin, trade unions, anarchists, intellectuals, Spanish Civil War, Uncle Joe, McCarthyism, Iron Curtain, etc. It would be, essentially, the history of Europe and North America from the 1880's to about 1990. And that, to a large extent, is why relations with Cuba have not been, and will probably not be, normalized yet. Too many cold warriors still living in 1948.

--Pete

[Jester]

Way too simple. The full answer would take a few volumes, filled with things like Marx, Lenin, trade unions, anarchists, intellectuals, Spanish Civil War, Uncle Joe, McCarthyism, Iron Curtain, etc. It would be, essentially, the history of Europe and North America from the 1880's to about 1990. And that, to a large extent, is why relations with Cuba have not been, and will probably not be, normalized yet. Too many cold warriors still living in 1948.

Fair enough, half a century of worldwide policy can't really be summed up in its entirety by one motive. I'll send you the multi-volume reply when I get down to finishing it. For now I'm posting here, so things have to be boiled down a little. :D

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

I'll send you the multi-volume reply when I get down to finishing it.

I'll just order it from Amazon, but I'll get you to autograph it anyway.:)

--Pete

[kandrathe]

Is the treatment of Homosexuals somehow a lesser issue of human rights than punishments for adultery?

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.

What an interesting question. Might I suggest that the best answer you have is... diplomacy?

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

[--Pete]

Hi,

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.

Damn, haven't thought about S.W.I.N.E. for years.:) Capp was no Kelly, but he had his moments -- and General Bullmoose.

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

You're looking at the destination. Diplomacy is a trip (or a game).

--Pete