In the sense that other countries came to our aid after 9/11, including, for example, France and Iran.

I think the word you should use is worthless.

Nobody said it was 100% accurate. However, with bogus info, you can check into it. With no info, you have no info. Nobody is saying that we abandon all other methods and rely on torture alone. OTOH, why should we divest ourselves of one source of information? Use your long range accurate stuff but lets not forget trying to get it this way too. Multiple approach.

Assuming that is true that they were forced to say things, sure it is not a good thing. That, assuming it was true, is a case of getting the prisoner to sign a confession for your purposes. Torture, in this case, is for extracting information.

And can you tell me why these countries are not rushing to say Darfur? Maybe there is nothing there for them. IOW, they cannot benefit from their acts of generosity. Like I said, it is a staged act, plan and simple. Reason people put up a show? To collect money from the cinema patrons. In that case, we were looked on as having something to give later on so why not? If we had nothing, were nothing, we could be blown up to hell and back and they still would not risk their lives for us.

Wrong. At least in France, they still have parades & honor American WWII liberators. They don't get anything out of that. Nor did they get anything out of being on our side post Sept.11th



A non-answer. You don't know that accuracy and speed are mutually exclusive when interrogating prisoners. Unless you have seen some study you failed to cite. You can't know whether obtaining information through waterboarding was necessary.

Was that its only purpose?

Those are good questions, but I think you overstate the case. We had countries come to our aid after 9/11 who backed away after W treated them like crap. I suspect that they were also repelled by what they heard about our tactics. So, whether they were acting out of greed at the beginning doesn't really matter. Because of W, other countries decided that they didn't want to be associated with us.

They don't get anything out of it but the fact is the DID which explains the parades and what not. I am not thankful that you paid me for doing work for you. And we have St Patrick's Day parade too. All meaningless things, as far as I am concerned. My wife has a couple of friends that come to mind. One is very prompt with her "Thank you for ......" and all that. The other one hardly acknowledges my wife's help. I prefer the latter. Why? Because in the fist case, the girl doesn't seem to repay the favors. When you ask her to do something for you, it is practically impossible unless it just happens to be on her way. The latter will be there to help you when you have an issue. As my old boss used to say "Words only go so far.".

What did they really do that was extraordinary? They were probably worried that they too will be next so they best get on the bandwagon and cover their bases. Simple human nature.

They don't have to be. When I buy stuff in my business, I have a preferred supplier and a not so preferred supplier that I keep around. Once in a while, I put an order with him so that I keep him "alive", so to speak. Should the preferred supplier have issues, I have a backup. Why should I limit myself to that once source?

Take France and Germany. They had huge contracts with the Batth Party, IOW Saddam. No Saddam, no Baath party and no contracts. Russia was owed big bucks by the Baath Party. Again, No Saddam, no Baath party and no money. Bottom line is these allies, who are NOT our BFF didn't see the advantage in it for them. When the main fighting was over, did you see what happened? They cam back asking for contracts and were griping that others were given preferential treatment over them. Like I said, Pavlov's dog. Bell rings, dog drools. Bell doesn't ring, dog doesn't drool. When there are goodies to hand out, they will be back. If they don't see an advantage to them, they will leave.

I think this entire thread is becoming an "alternative interrogation method."

Every day reading the new posts on this thread is becoming torture. Especially for that poor dead horse that we've been relentlessly beating on.

Why? It isn't his bag and it makes him look good for uncovering things. Why would he do such a thing? Sure he would look generous but I think he gets more mileage out of it by harping on it especially in 2012.

Unlike a "captive audience" that we would be discussing, you are not a captive audience and therefore your participation in the torture is by choice.

True that. I must be a masochist. I have let up somewhat on my posting on this thread, however.

There are a plethora of peoplee who will punish you for a fee. In my case, I don't have to pay for it. There are way too many who will do it for nothing.

Which is one of many reasons W made a foolish choice when he invaded in 2003. If he had allowed the inspection process to play out (and no, I don't want to debate that again ;)), he could have put the French and Russians in a tough spot if they continued to oppose removing Saddam by force. From a PR standpoint, W bailed out France and Russia.

If he was smart enough, he'd have made sure that they found something via some black ops. Unfortunately, he was too confident that he would find something that he would consider a back up plan.

You and I both know that in reality, they would have opposed it till today if W hadn't gone in. So yes, from a PR standpoint, we screwed up but then again, I don't think anyone ever accused W of being tactful. In fact, blunt instrument is being too kind. Still, I'd rather have him than Slick Willy simply because I know he can't blow smoke up my butt as easily as Bill could. He'd do it and get busted. Bill would do it, get busted and could spin his way out of it. As the 48th rule of acquisition goes: The bigger the smile, the sharper the knife.