[TheMosco]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/23/in...partner=GOOGLE

"In Afghanistan there was, in fact, a terrorist origin, and sending the troops was in legitimate defense of the United States, whereas in Iraq that wasn't the case," said the high-ranking party official, who declined to speak for attribution because it is "a matter that needs to be taken up after the new administration is sworn in."

[macvillage.net]

Good for them. Why should *they* have to waste the time/money/lives? They weren't the government who created this stupid mess.

IMHO this should be debited from funds to build the George W. Bush library (after we take back what we can from Haliburton).

It was his war, he should pay for it. Afganistan we share, since that has the earmarkings of being a real one.

Will the US military fund my business ventures on the taxpayers dime?

It pisses me off, that people need to die, and we have to waste money for Bush's personal wallet. If using a public office for financial benefit of yourself, or personal connections isn't abuse of office... what is?

[Developer]

Overall there has always been widespread support for going to Afghanistan.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Developer:
Overall there has always been widespread support for going to Afghanistan.

Indeed, no question.

But Iraq?

[Developer]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
But Iraq?

Iraq not. But you must see the difference. Afghanistan is done to counter terrorism. That's an agreeable objective for everyone. Iraq was done for "New American Century". That's an American thing soley.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Developer:
Iraq not. But you must see the difference. Afghanistan is done to counter terrorism. That's an agreeable objective for everyone. Iraq was done for "New American Century". That's an American thing soley.

We are in complete agreement (and shared by most of the world except a small percentage of US citizens).

[clt2]

How is the "Spain is appeasing terrorists" crowd going to spin this one?

[Zimphire]

AHaha i remember all the crap Bush got for going there.

WE WERE INVADERS!!

THEY WEREN'T TERRORISTS.

But now, everyone thinks it ok!

I love it.

[mo]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
AHaha i remember all the crap Bush got for going there.

WE WERE INVADERS!!

THEY WEREN'T TERRORISTS.

But now, everyone thinks it ok!

I love it.

Not indicative of reality in any way, but if it makes you feel better, by all means. Please create this particular "straw man" argument. (A term you oddly hyphenated in an earlier post.) It fits your M.O. perfectly.

I was all for going into Afghanistan. I wanted it the evening of 9/11/01. I wanted it before, when they were blowing up Buddhas. I wanted them to make Kabul visible from outer space. The administration showed very good restraint in not acting rashly. Almost nobody in the U.S. said the thing you're claiming they said. We were all really pissed off. You could've talked me into invading Tunisia.

You live for this message board. Sad that you "love" the thing you've imagined. Awaiting your sudden change of subject and claim of "projecting."

[Zimphire]

mo, YOU may have been. But others in here were not.

They attacked Bush for attacking it. Saying there was no terrorists there. That Bush was just being a war monger.

[clt2]

Who were "they"?

[mo]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
mo, YOU may have been. But others in here were not.

They attacked Bush for attacking it. Saying there was no terrorists there. That Bush was just being a war monger.

You must separate the war in Afghanistan from the argument about Iraq. I can't be more adamant about it. The Taliban government sheltered people who planned the deaths of people we know -- one person I knew. They were awful before 9/11, but their intransigence afterward made clear that they would support more of the same. There was approval for attacking Afghanistan among wide strata of the American public -- including people who are now, and have been, questioning the war in Iraq.

I hated the fact that we were walking into the graveyard of Asia, which Afghanistan is, and having to work with Pakistan, but glad that we were taking out the wretched Taliban, quite possibly the most objectionable government of modern times. It's much more complicated than a pro-Bush anti-Bush thing. It transcends who happens to be president at the time. It's no great source of pride or happiness, but it is important to put the issue past the nonsense of red states and blue states.

[Troll]

I think one of the major differences between the Bush Administration's approach and practically everyone else's is that they see Palestine, Iraq and Al Qaeda essentially as the same problem with essentially the same solution. This is why we see Rumsfeld saying things like, "Saddam supported terrorism by paying the families of Palestinian terrorists. We invaded Iraq to deal with the vulnerabilities in our security that terrorism represents and that 9/11 revealed." I don't think he's ever said exactly that, but that is the kind of rhetoric you get from him and others in the Administration. Linking all three issues together at least by implication. Europe separates those three out and has different solutions to each one.

I don't think the Bush Administration is being disingenuous and there is an argument for saying that Al Qaeda's dissatisfaction with the world is tied into the Palestinian question (although that seems a dove argument rather than a hawk one) and into Gulf War I. I just think that the Bushies like simple solutions. That much is evident in their rhetoric - "good vs. evil," "with us or against us," "dead or alive." They have a simple solution to these three problems being invade Iraq, kill some terrorists in the process, create a state that shows Arabs that our way of life is cool and the other states will become democracies too and deny terrorists harbour. I think they prefer this solution to the kinds of complicated solutions to Palestine or Iraq that Europe and countries elsewhere in the world have grappled with.

Myself, I prefer to see these three things as distinct problems.

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by Troll:
Myself, I prefer to see these three things as distinct problems.

same here. and i would also add that i see the "motivation" for each terrorist organization different as well. simply to say that "they're running solely on hatred and jelousy, and that "we" (as in "we" the western corporate political superstructure) have absolutely nothing to do with it, is not only very ignorant, but ultemately very dangerous as well).

anybody who thinks that "all terrorism" can be effectively delt with by "brut force" and invasion, is simply wrong. in some cases this might be an appropriate reaction, in others it's just the worst possible thing you could do (like the invasion of iraq).

all terrorists aren't the same, just like not all westerners (least of all probably all americans) are the same. trying to undertstand how they "work" and what "motivates" them isn't appeasement *duh* (what a stupid fu<king argument is that anyway), but it's an ESSENTIAL part of combating, and ultimately, minimizing the danger steming from "terrorism".

what the hamas or al aqsa is doing in israel, can't really be compared to al qaida (other than "both groups are comprised of more or less radical muslim extrimists), and in NO WAY can be compared to the actions of the former saddam regime.

and in all this we must never forget the alterior motives behind what the bushwhacker gang and SS sharon are doing. though on one side there certainly is a legitimate claim to "self defense" (even if it entails blowing an old man out of his wheelchair from an apache helicopter), the other side of the coin most certainly is an imperialistic, econofascist neonazicon agenda, hell bent on gettin' their hands on some more of "them oilfields".

[Nicko]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
... the imperialistic, econofascist neonazicon agenda, hell bent on gettin' their hands on some more of "them oilfields".

Add a 'yee-hawww' at the end of that and it could be bushcheney's inc. new campain slogan.

[Troll]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
anybody who thinks that "all terrorism" can be effectively delt with by "brut force" ... is simply wrong.

Yes, in my experience sending them a case of Moët & Chandon only prevents attacks until the brut runs out!

[SimeyTheLimey]

According to the article, they only have 125 soldiers in Afghanistan at present. If they would like to increase that number -- say, to one that is meaningful -- then that would be great.

It's also positive that the incoming PM says he wants to send the message that Spain doesn't believe in appeasement. I'll take that as an admission that his earlier position does indeed run the risk of looking like appeasement. Unfortunately with appeasement, it doesn't much matter what message the sender intended to send. All that matters is what message the receiver receives. I fear it is already too late.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
According to the article, they only have 125 soldiers in Afghanistan at present. If they would like to increase that number -- say, to one that is meaningful -- then that would be great.

They could use the 1000+ that will be withdrawn from Iraq

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Unfortunately with appeasement, it doesn't much matter what message the sender intended to send. All that matters is what message the receiver receives. I fear it is already too late.

i agree, they shouldn't have supported the invasion of iraq in the first place.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
i agree, they shouldn't have supported the invasion of iraq in the first place.

Either you are suggesting that Spain appeased the United States, or you don't know what appeasement means.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by voodoo:
They could use the 1000+ that will be withdrawn from Iraq

They could. And that would free up 1000 Americans to go to Iraq. Or we could start talking about meaningful numbers -- on the order of brigades and divisions, not companies and short battalions.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Either you are suggesting that Spain appeased the United States, or you don't know what appeasement means.

I think he was knows full well what appeasement means. Appeasing the USA.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
They could. And that would free up 1000 Americans to go to Iraq. Or we could start talking about meaningful numbers -- on the order of brigades and divisions, not companies and short battalions.

Ach so mein lieber Simey!

Don't give up hope yet, freeing up Spanish troops in Iraq relieves Spain from 2 battlefronts so the Afghani front has all potential to become better coordinated and effective on Spain's behalf.



Iraq is a waste of time and resources.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Iraq is a waste of time and resources.

Well, they aren't your resources, so what do you care?

Wait, what am I saying? You just said you don't care about Iraqis. Carry on.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Well, they aren't your resources, so what do you care?

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
And that would free up 1000 Americans to go to Iraq.

And expose Bush to the criticism that he's focussing on his ambitions in Iraq at the expense of the War on Terror.

[Note: this point is not intended to be partisan]