If you’ve been a long time reader of my blog or visited the “About me” section, you would have definitely seen the “NOT a fan of double standards within America’s foreign policy” statement. I guess some of you are wondering what exactly I mean by that. This post is intended to be an elaboration of that statement. It contains my raw “straight to the keyboard” emotions and thoughts. Before I start elaborating, we have to make a deal. When you’re done reading this post, could you please not give me that whole lecture about being an anti-American basher? I’m not anti-American, far from it. If anything, I am to a certain extent anti-Bush. I’ve got a lot of respect and admiration for America but just like everybody else, I’m critical of certain issues, namely the thing that affects me i.e. US foreign policy, especially current US foreign policy under Bush. Let’s get the rant started shall we? Here we go.
The Iraq war is a topic of intense debate even in America. First it was about the WMDs and the threat Saddam Hussein posed. Ya, sure thing the WMDs weren’t found! The excuse made was that Saddam hid them or gave them to other countries. Bwahaha sure! If he had WMDs he wouldn’t have hesitated to use them against invading US troops. There were no WMDs. Even UN inspection teams said there was no evidence supporting the existence of WMDs. Hell, it was also recently announced that Saddam Hussein had no connection to Al-Qaeda.
Clearly Cowboy Bush and his girlfriend Tony Blair screwed up big time. Unsurprisingly and suddenly the Iraq war became about bringing democracy. Yaaay democracy! I personally don’t fully buy the whole we went to Iraq to bring “democracy” argument and I have my suspicions. I believe it’s now a combination of democracy and long term oil interests, mainly securing reserves for years to come. Or maybe as a friend put it, it’s probably about “revenge” but hey what the hell do I know right?
The reason I don’t buy the whole “democracy thingy” is because it’s one major “in your face” double standard and hypocrisy. All major US allies in the Middle East are non-democratic countries strongly supported by America, namely Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, Al Saud of Saudi Arabia and the king of Jordan. They’re all oppressive, corrupted and disgusting dictators. Now people don’t get me wrong. I’m not suggesting that it’s America’s duty to eliminate dictators around the world. What I’m saying is directed at American foreign policy makers and I have a message for them: (STOP BEING HYPOCRITES). Don’t give me that crap about democracy in Iraq when you clearly support the opposite of democracy in other places. Consider this post part of the answer to that post 9/11 question “Why do they hate us?” Well like DUH it’s partly because some are rotting under dictators that YOU support. Two billion dollars of aid to Hosni Mubarak annually anyone? It’s for democracy. Raaaaight. Yes, I’m certainly sure Mubarak doesn’t swallow it or split it up amongst his friends.
Hear me out my dear American and pro-US readers, I support democracy and I’m all for democracy but either spread it in all places or in none at all. Moreover if you want to spread it, do so the right way. Don’t immediately go for the “democratize or I’ll shoot you” methodology. It’s not very nice. I’m a big supporter of the war on terror (my support is mainly for Afghanistan as to me it’s very different from Iraq’s case) and believe me the day that I hear Bin Laden got captured will be a joyfull one for me unlike for many “Muslims”. I just don’t fully support the way it’s being fought. I have my doubts. Read this previous post entitled America You’re Making a Mistake You Might Regret and you’ll know what I mean. It’s a “which comes first, the chicken or the egg” kind of situation as somebody there commented.
That being said, I support the current operation in Iraq. Oh yes I do. It has already been invaded whether we like it or not so let’s face that reality positively shall we? I believe US troops withdrawing now will cause a major disaster. Hence, I support their presence and I wish all troops and the Iraqi people good luck in forming a healthy functioning democratic Iraq.
What I am against is the dirty and deceitful manner in which Bush started the war. What I am against is the way Bush totally disregarded the UN. What I am against is the “blurry” pretexts this war is being fought under. What I am against is the absolute horrible mismanagement of this war. What I am especially against is the SICKENING, DISGUSTING and IMMORAL tactics employed by the Bush administration in their war against terror and tyranny. Guantanamo, secret CIA prisons and torture anyone? How about when Bush gave Israel one more extra week to bomb the crap out of Lebanon?! Cluster bombs anyone?
Sami al Hajj is still in Guantanamo and his health is worsening. In Iraq killings are occurring almost daily but it would be wrong to put the full blame of the current Sunni-Shia violence solely on America. The deaths are a result of our own violent culture and on the other hand the war’s mismanagement.
In general I believe the foreign policy of the United States of America is distorted by oil and economic interests. I feel some of Bush’s central policies in the war on terror have tarnished America’s image and frankly, they disappoint me. Moreover Europe disappoints me with its aiding of the secret CIA prisons.
What puts a smile on my face though is hearing news about a US judge announcing that Guantanamo military tribunals are unconstitutional. What puts a smile on my face is when US Senators like Republican John McCain bring up a bill opposing Bush’s policies and giving Guantanamo detainees more rights. I mean this man actually wants to give suspected terrorists more rights during their trials. He says not doing so will not be justice. It’s amazing, I swear it really is.
Those are just a few of the good things I could talk about for days. It’s things like this that keep all the good things about America still in perspective and make me admire it. Again, I’m not bashing and I’m not being anti-American. I’m simply sharing my honest point of view with you.
In case you’re confused, let me summarize my 2 main criticisms of US foreign policy especially under Bush again.
1- I dislike the hypocrisy of “spreading democracy”.
2- I dislike the “undemocratic”, inhumane and immoral methods used to fight terror and spread this democracy.
Beyond that, I don’t really have much criticisms.
The above are the humble opinions and “external views” of a 20 year old Sudanese college student. Point #1 is open for discussion and if you think I’m mistaken, correct me. I wholeheartedly welcome your comments and views. Point #2 on the other hand isn’t really that open for discussion if you know what I mean.
Pfffffff… Alright I’m done.
PS: I’m just curious. Where would I be on the American political spectrum with my kind of views. Would I be considered a right winger, a leftist, Democrat, Republican etc.?
UPDATE: I just watched the latest speech by Bush in the Rose Garden. I loved the way he was focused and how he answered the swarm of questions directed at him. The guy sure loves to joke a lot. I wasn’t satisfied with his answers when he was questioned about the torture bill and the relation of Saddam with al-Qaeda. His answers sucked and they were very vague. Basically he didn’t even answer the questions. Anyways, I still stand by my points. If I could, I would give Bush a big hug for the success achieved in Afghanistan. No, seriously I would. Thank God those Taliban and Al-Qaeda fascists are gone. However I think he deserves a kick in the ass for the mess in Iraq and his screwed up “torture” policy.
SudaneseThinker
SudaneseThinker
{ 2 trackbacks }
{ 34 comments… read them below or add one }
An excellent post as always, Drima. You should go into politics (as an advisor) - get crackin’! I can’t remember what you’re studying, but I sure hope it’s International Politics
America is doing what’s good for America, within the specific moral and legislative rules which it chose for itself. Is it nice? No. Is it necessary? Yes.
At this juncture, a real and viable democracy in Iraq (and Iran) are good for America… so America strives to bring democracy to Iraq and probably does clandestine operations for democratization in Iran (supporting dissent, etc. If they don’t, they’re morons
). Should America judge that a democratic Iraq is not good for America… they won’t try to bring demoracy there and will probably act to oppose it. Luckily, this is unlikely to happen, unless a really useful dictator arises… see Panama’s Noriega, for instance. And for a reverse case, see Paraguay’s Alfredo Strössner .
USA is not a saint country - it’s a Nation-State, with all the garbage, horror, violence and brutality that comes with it - it is through such things that a Nation-State survives. The greatness of America is the freedom of its citizens and the relatively benevolent and ethical USA involvement in various foreign bodies. And by Eris, this Raccoon thanks USA for winning the Cold War almost daily… not to mention the incalculable contribution of USA in WW2.
People suffer from the opposite of “soft bigotry of low expectations” about USA (and, incidentially, Israel) - the soft bigotry of expected sainthood.
About point 2… as well as point 1… please see this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2JGTFI2PPM&eurl=
GWB, while possibly the single worst orator to be elected President in USA, tells it as it is.
Good post. I agree heartily with some of what you say and disgaree vehently with some parts.
I will address this post later, in a post that responds.
Well done.
Raccoon, sometimes I wish I was studying political science & economics. It’s all good though. I’ve narrowed down my choices for a Masters degree and they include international politics, knowledge management, market pscychology and my new favourite interest, conflict resolution. I still don’t know what I’m going to choose. It’s a little too early
SC&A, I’m looking forward to your reply. Thanks for being a reasonable American and not mistaking me for being anti-American.
Drima -
Excellent laying out of your views and questions. There is a lot of thoughtful stuff on this here plate! However, I’ve got tons of work to do this week and I’m only going to comment on the first bit. (It would take a week to go through everything you mention!) In fact, I’m going to let someone else, who has laid it out very nicely, concentrate on your statement about “the dirty and deceitful manner in which Bush started the war.”
Read Dean’s World for a complete discussion of why we went into Iraq.
Drima - International Politics rocks. Absolutely and utterly. I have a good friend who’s doing his PhD in IP (he’s a counter-terrorism expect with IDF). You have no idea how interesting his job is
We should do our masters in political science together. That would be awesome. +nadia.
“Where would I be on the American political spectrum with my kind of views. ”
go find out:
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html
I’m a proud liberal, BTW
good post, bro
“Where would I be on the American political spectrum with my kind of views. ”
You’d probably be a “centrist”… the absolute worst type of person on the face of the planet (if my friends are to be believed…. though that could just be me generally, and not necessarily a description of my politics).
Well being a Dane, I am actually in the Coalition of The Willing. (Well supposed to be). I must say that I am strongly disagreeing with the present government policies!
For me the big issue (of many) is not so much the goals of US foreign policy - the stated goals about democracy that is. But the means. US has failed to use the otherwise great momentum the world could have enjoyed post 9/11. They could have:
1) Pushed for a definition and an international programme to work against terrorism
2) Started an UN fund for rooting out causes for terrorisme
But instead they made the UN and human rights weaker. Actions that will backfire in the longer run.
Good post D. I agree that the hypocrisy is blatant. I recommed the latest edition of Le Monde as a good introduction to the whole issue of hypocrisy in int. politics. http://mondediplo.com/
Reading through your blog I am very impressed by your knowledge of US politics, especially foreign policy. It is surprising that someone who didn’t grow up or study in the US would have as in depth knowledge as you do. But whether you can classify yourself as a US liberal or conservative (Americans have different definitions than most people in the world) or aligned with any political party is a difficult question to answer because US politics are dominated by domestic issues, not international ones (even though it may appear to be the opposite from abroad).
Most people use two classifications to determine if a person is a liberal or a conservative: social qualities and economic qualities. The social quality depends on the answers to questions about issues such as abortion, drugs, marriage, social dangers, and firearms. A typical social conservative would like to ban abortion and ‘illegal’ drugs, would define marriage as only between a single man and a single woman, would object to social policing such as smoking bans, and supports private ownership of personal firearms for sport and protection. A social liberal would typically have the opposite views. The economic quality depends on the answers to questions about how much authority the state should have in controlling the economy and how the state should tax people. A economic liberal would support a strong welfare system and health protection and push the tax burden to the richest of the population, preferably with an income tax and property taxes. A economic conservative would support a very small government and push the tax burden equally on the population, preferably with no income taxes or property taxes.
Obviously a person can have conflicting social and economic views, which makes it difficult to define someone as strictly a liberal or conservative (in the American sense). A Republican will typically be strongly socially conservative and moderately economically conservative. A Democrat will typically be strongly socially liberal and moderately economically liberal. Other parties exist such as Libertarians who are strongly socially liberal and strongly economically conservative and socialists (under several different parties) who are strongly socially liberal and strongly economically liberal, but they have little power in the US system.
Based solely on foreign policy (which as I said is a small aspect of US politics since all elections except the Presidential election are local) a Republican would be a person who supports a strong military as a form of deterrent and a carrot and a stick form of grants of foreign aid and a Democrat would be a person who supports a strong military (but not as strong as the Republicans) as a form of maintaining the peace and foreign aid as a method of helping countries develop. US military actions such as the peacekeeping in early Vietnam, Kosovo, and Somalia are consistent with the Democrat miltary policy. Military actions such as the Korean War, the end of the Cold War standoff (in the 1980s), and the second Iraq war are consistent with the Republican military policy. But since neither party ever has absolute control (even now), the US military and foreign policy is always a mix of the Democrat and Republican policies.
If you find all this information confusing, don’t worry, most Americans can’t classify themselves easily either. Moderate politics has more or less governed the US for the last 100 years.
Hey, apparently if I was an American I’d be a Libertarian… DRUGS AND GUNS FOR EVERYONE!!! }:)
You’d give Bush a hug?!?! Seriously?!?!?! I mean the guy’s a comedian, except his comedy’s not all that funny what with the thousands he kills and that….
I’m finding the blogging world very very strange! There are extremes and not too many people in the middle. I mean i stumble across jihady websites who’d give bin kalb a hug and now this!
Seriously, you think he deserves a kick in the ass for the mess he made of Iraq! The “mess”! Interesting choice of words. Almost implies that he’s a child who made a “mess” of something not the president of the most powerful country in the world with the most powerful army at his disposal.
Oh but you would slap his wrists over iraq for sure…….
At least you’re proposing a wrist slapping where as jihdys are cheering 9 11 bombers!
Interesting….
You’d give Bush a hug?!?! Seriously?!?!?! I mean the guy’s a comedian, except his comedy’s not all that funny what with the thousands he kills and that….
I’m finding the blogging world very very strange! There are extremes and not too many people in the middle. I mean i stumble across jihady websites who’d give bin kalb a hug and now this!
Seriously, you think he deserves a kick in the ass for the mess he made of Iraq! The “mess”! Interesting choice of words. Almost implies that he’s a child who made a “mess” of something not the president of the most powerful country in the world with the most powerful army at his disposal.
Oh but you would slap his wrists over iraq for sure…….
At least you’re proposing a wrist slapping where as jihdys are cheering 9 11 bombers!
Interesting….
burzum, thanx for the long explanation. Don’t worry it’s not complicated and I get everything you said.
Shahrazad, hehehehe. I knew that was going to sound weird to ones like you. Bro, it’s just an expression. I won’t really hug him because if I did, I will instantly be killed by an angry mob of Muslims.
I am glad with Afghanistan though. While the Taliban are trying to make a come back and there’s some fighting, things are much better. Like I said, at least now the Afghani people can finally “breath”. Down with the filthy Taliban. With Iraq? Me not happy.
Oh ya and PEOPLE! I took the quiz. I fell right smack on top of the line seperating a right conservative and a centrist so according to the quiz that makes me a CENTRIST.
Yaaaaaay I’m a centrist. I’ll add that to the “About me” section
Hell, it was also recently announced that Saddam Hussein had no connection to Al-Qaeda.
I don’t know what, if any, ties existed between al-Qaeda and Saddam. I doubt any ties that may have existed were very extensive. However, the truth is that the report in question only considered a limited body of evidence. It was not comprehensive by any stretch.
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/09/picture-proof-saddam-al-qaeda.html
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/015271.php
Unsurprisingly and suddenly the Iraq war became about bringing democracy.
There are plenty of statements, prior to any invasion, indicating that Bush wanted to foster democracy in Iraq. He didn’t suddently invent the idea later on. Obviously, if WMDs weren’t found and Saddam was captured, the focus would naturally shift toward the other goal he outlined.
What puts a smile on my face though is hearing news about a US judge announcing that Guantanamo military tribunals are unconstitutional.
Only because they need Congressional approval. It isn’t as if having tribunals themselves is the problem, just the way they must be approved beforehand. No frickin’ way I want Osama to get the OJ Simpson treatment if he is ever caught. Besides, we cannot have our intelligence agents taking the stand to answer questions about how they gathered the intelligence, and how they know it is reliable, in open court.
What I am against is the way Bush totally disregarded the UN.
Obviously the UN is a very effective organization. Look at how effective they are proving in Darfur. Reports are that the deaths are in the hundreds of thousands. There was absolutely no chance that the UN would have approved a war in Iraq, even though Iraq had violated UN resolutions on numerous occasions. There is a good chance that the UN will do nothing about Darfur so long as Bashir refuses to cooperate. The UN seems to be pretty much useless: they can only keep the peace with peacekeepers in those situations where warring parties would keep the peace without peacekeepers.
Guantanamo, secret CIA prisons and torture anyone?
Yes. I’d like some more, sir. Let us see here: 14 of the worst al-Qaeda members being held by the CIA and reportedly getting a little rough treatment. Gee…horrifying. We’ve clearly lost all moral ground to those who decapitate civilians and fly planes into buildings - not. Frankly, I favor exercising our military rights to their fullest: summary executions for all terrorists caught fighting out of standard uniform (which is pretty much all of them in a war zone). I also would favor a standardized process whereby non-citizens who are high ranking terrorists can be dealt with using torture, provided that torture isn’t a significant threat to the life of the terrorist and doesn’t not permanently maim him in any way. The process would require careful oversight, would only apply to significant terrorists likely to have useful information, and no intelligence gathered using such torture would be admissible in court unless the terrorists later volunteered that information in a non-coercive interrogation. (Furthermore, there would be limits to contact and cooperate between the party employing coercive methods and the party using only standard interrogation. The party conducting standard interrogation could provide reports to the party using coercive methods but not vice-versa. The group applying coercive methods would not be permitted to communicate with the other party in any way and thus not negatively impact the criminal defense of the terrorist.)
McCain’s absurd meme: “torture doesn’t work” is completely batshit (and, of course, is now being repeated as gospel truth by the liberal media). Of course people can lie under torture, but they can lie under any sort of interrogation. All information from a suspect must be vetted. It is undeniable that many people who wouldn’t ordinarily talk if merely questioned will do so under torture. Just ask the Mafia: a man will talk if you stick icepicks in his balls. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed allegedly broke down after about two minutes of waterboarding and starting providing the CIA with very useful intelligence. CIA personnel admired KSM, most of the others they interrogated didn’t even make it to 30 seconds. We’re supposed to pass up all of this valuable intelligence just to have the moral high ground?
McCain is an idiot. Between his insane immigration policy (”don’t call it an amnesty, call it a banana”) and his weak and inept approach to the War on Terror, he has blown any chance he ever had of winning a Republican nomination. Most of the Republican base really hates the guy at this point, including myself.
I feel some of Bush’s central policies in the war on terror have tarnished America’s image
What is all this crap about America’s image being tarnished? How does this tarnished image make any real difference? Are the French or the Sudanese or the Iranians or anybody else going to suddenly like us and cooperate with us where they wouldn’t previously if we don’t tarnish our image? Give me concrete examples as to how our “tarnished image” impacts the United States negatively.
The deaths are a result of our own violent culture and on the other hand the war’s mismanagement.
The deaths are a result of not having a strongman to torture and kill anybody who gets out of line. Muslims have reverted to their traditional behaviors: slaughtering each other. The United States greatly overestimated the potential civility of Muslims.
I dislike the hypocrisy of “spreading democracy”.
I agree. I think wasting our time on trying to spread democracy in Islamic countries. On the other hand, the Muslims never stop whining when we ignore the fact that they live in oppressive regimes and we don’t do anything to change that. We are damned if we do and damned if we don’t. I say forget the welfare of Muslim societies and concentrate on protecting our own interests and containing Islam. We’ve intervened in Bosnia and Kosovo and Somalia, none of which are of any significance to the United States, and it hasn’t earned us any friends in the Ummah. Islam and democracy are probably incompatible anyway. But maybe I am just becoming cynical, lately.
Gee Tommy bad mood today or what??!
Whatever it is, believe me I appreciate the fact that you took the time to address the various points I brought up in my post.
I agree with what you said about the UN.
I disagree with some of the other stuff and I will give the rest some thought.
Peace
Ones like me???
What liberals who see Bush’s disgusting acts in Iraq and acknowledge that he doesn’t deserve a hug anymore than bin kalb?
Non hypocrites you mean?
“Ones like me???”
Dude read between the lines. By “ones like you” I meant super anti-Bush people. If ur still offended me apologize. We cool?
: )
Bec, your Dean’s World link is cool. It puts things in perspectives and has info I wasn’t aware of before.
Andreas, thanx for ur link too…
Tommy - dude, torture (as in application of physical pain to extract intel) is simply less effective than other methods (discomfort, confusion and drugs combined with psychological pressure, evaluation and questioning techniques). It’s a primitive method that might be useful in some very specific cases - field conditions and extreme time pressure, for instance.
Using torture nowadays is like using a bow and arrow. I mean, sure, it might do the job… but it’s much better to use a Tavor assault rile.
Dudette, if you don’t mind.
And yeah we’re cool;)
Gee Tommy bad mood today or what??!
Maybe a bad month, I don’t know.
Raccoon,
Tommy - dude, torture (as in application of physical pain to extract intel) is simply less effective than other methods (discomfort, confusion and drugs combined with psychological pressure, evaluation and questioning techniques). It’s a primitive method that might be useful in some very specific cases - field conditions and extreme time pressure, for instance.
You show me the interrogation technique that will get men talking in two minutes or less and I’ll show you a form of torture. Our forces aren’t even allowed to try and use “truth serums” on detainees (and I’ve heard these are not as useful or effective as many might think). “Discomfort” works best when it is very discomforting. You won’t find many things more discomforting than torture. Evaluation and questioning are no good if a suspect simply refuses to say anything; which is often the case. Waterboarding is a good technique that poses little risk of death or permanent injury when carried out by pros. Save the Geneva Convention bullshit for the real soldiers, not terrorists.
It seems like a morbid topic to pick up on, but as far as torture goes I suspect that the pure pain approach is not that effective. If the torture is used to disorient the prisoner that would be more effective. In order to disorient all that is needed is moderate pain over an extended period of time, like putting someone in a box where they can’t stand up or sit down and keeping it at 100 degrees for a few hours. Either way it should be combined with their known intelligence and when they catch the person in a lie into the box with them.
On a side note I don’t think the US was trying to protect its oil interests in invading Iraq, it might have been making the decision that Saddam could not be in charge when those petrol dollars started flooding back into Iraq, but it is not trying to steal oil as some other people not on this blog have suggested.
Thanks, Tommy, for that incisive response to Drima’s rant. I was just going to skip it myself, as this time Drima was all over the map like a Kommie Klutz Kid on speed. I didn’t have the desire to yet again respond to rhetorical arguments, especially when the counter-arguments are quite well-known, as you’ve shown.
I would add that the only reason the US continues to support certain dictatorships is simply because these countries are not as fractured as Iraq, which makes democracy easier to instill there. Iraq is really an ideal country where to start, as the Sunni-Shiite-Kurd divisions already suggest a checks-and-balances system on power.
Other than Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt, and a smattering of small Gulf states, I can’t think of any dictatorships that the US supports. The main problem with the four is the presence of the Muslim Brotherhood in the potential electorate, in different forms, though always Islamofascist. Given the fact that Islamofascists as seen in Iran are an avowed enemy of the US, it makes sense for the US to support any dictator who quells Islamofascists within their respective countries.
The US does have a good track record of transitioning dictator/allies to democracy: South Korea comes to mind, as well as Spain and Chile, among others.
Tommy - uhm. Interrogation experts disagree with you. Mark’s got it pretty much spot on: a severely mentally weakened subject is more likely to reveal correct and relevant information than a mentally broken subject. And torture has a very real chance of temporarily breaking the mind of the subject.
Discomfort (sleep deprivation, physically discomfortable positions, loud noise, mildly humiliating/threatening treatment) over a relatively prolonged period of time is extremely effective. It is best done when personally tailored after a psychological evaluation (for some people humiliation would work; for others, constant fear; for others yet constant insults to their intelligence would work).
Under torture it’s very difficult to tell whether the person is lying or not, and there is always the chance that the mind will trick the subject into believing something that is not true. As I said, it is occasionally worthwhile if you need the information yesterday or have no access to the right facilities.
Read up on it, there are some very interesting articles availiable (I didn’t find them online) on various interrogation techniques.
Torture should not be ruled out, as it saves lives. We have direct proof of that on the recent bust of the Muslim terror ring in Britain, who were planning to kill some 2000-3000 people by downing 10 planes. The plot unraveled when one of their members spilled the beans under torture in Pakistan.
But torture must be used wisely, and judiciously. A warrant system needs to be set up, if it already doesn’t exist. As we know, secret warrant systems do work: they’ve been very effective in bringing down Mafia kingpins in the US, while satisfying due process requirements laid out in the Constitution.
I feel some of Bush’s central policies in the war on terror have tarnished America’s image
What is all this crap about America’s image being tarnished? How does this tarnished image make any real difference? Are the French or the Sudanese or the Iranians or anybody else going to suddenly like us and cooperate with us where they wouldn’t previously if we don’t tarnish our image? Give me concrete examples as to how our “tarnished image” impacts the United States negatively.
Tommy, not that I disagree with everything you said, but I’ll tackle this part. You may not see it now, but let’s say, for example, that a Power decided to take on the US (read - China.). What are the chances that said Power would find international support in opposing the US? What were the chances of that same thing happening in 2000?
p.s. Drima, I told you that you would come out a Centrist…
“Tommy - uhm. Interrogation experts disagree with you.”
Show me the interrogation experts who have actually been provided the opportunity to engage in torture to test its effectiveness. These so-called “experts” are just (over)hyping their own techniques. They don’t have any science or even comparative experience to back them up. If I wanted to know if you had a sister and what her name was and you refused to tell me, I think you’d change your mind if I stuck icepicks in your balls. Yes, I think would….
Torture works. Just ask the Mafia.
drew.catt
You mean like what are the odds France would have helped us in a war back in 2000 versus what are the odds they would do it now?
I would venture to guess 0% in both cases.
Tommy - I am not talking about some nebulous experts. I am talking about friends of mine from Shin Beit and certain units in Military Intelligence (not sure if you’ve ever heard of 504?).
But well, NM that
Don’t worry everyone. ScrappleFace says a solution is in the works that should satisfy everyone.
http://www.scrappleface.com/?p=2334
Watch it Drima! Raccoon is trying to recruit you! It always starts with “I have a friend who is studying the same thing and is an analyst for the IDF” Smooth Raccoony, buyt lay off the kid and go recruit elsewhere!
Hello Drima,
I’m a bit late to this topic but felt the need to support you.
I am from NY (Suffolk County on Long Island but grew up in Queens/Brooklyn) and think you are doing a tremendous service by presenting not only a moderate view but a well reasoned and honest one.
Even when I disagree with you I don’t “truly” disagree. The world needs more people like you.
PS- Your pic as a child reminds me uncannily of my nephew. The little creep already beats me at just about every game and he aint even 6. My evil side wants to challenge him to a game of chess. Can’t wait to pull an en passant and do a victory dance.
Sean
Leave a Comment