[deedar]

Originally posted by theolein:
According to the BBC the Spanish Socialist Party has won the election. Up until the last week, the Conservatives were in the lead with quite a strong margin and the Socialists only starting to narrow that lead to within in three points before the bombing last week.

The bombings were initially blamed on ETA, the Basque seperatist group that has been carying on a campaign of terrorism for more than 30 years. The Conservative government initially seemd to be steering towards ETA, although it cannot be claimed that they tried to withhold any evidence. An attack by ETA would have benefitted them in that the populace sees the current government's anti-ETA campaign as good. An attack by Al Qaida would have negative effects because the vast majority of the Spanish populace (90%) were against the war in Iraq and would such an attack as a consequence thereof.

It seems, now that the Socialists have won, as if the attack did in fact have an effect on democracy by influencing the outcome of a national election.

Feel free to discuss, attack the Spanish, praise them or to just pick you noses.

Going against the wishes of such a significant proportion of the general population on such a major issue - going to war - is more than ample justification for throwing the government out! Power to the people!!!!

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Um, they elected a government to represent their beliefs. They can't cop a plea *now*

Yes, they can. That's the purpose of elections.

Did the attack play a roll in the voting? Of course. What do I think happened? Having voted conservative in the last couple of elections, the Spanish people were likely prepared to elect another conservative government, despite their objections to it's involvement in Iraq. Why? Probably because, beyond moral concerns, it's involvement didn't really impact them and they would rather a concervative government rather than a more socialist one.

Several bombs go off in Madrid and things change. Suddenly, this war that they didn't want comes home. They didn't want to be involved in an unjustifiable invasion of Iraq and now Spaniards are dead as a result of that involvement.

What should a voter do? Continue to put in power a government that insists on putting Spaniards into harms way for no justifiable reason? Or vote for another government that listens to it's electorate?

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
What is important, though, it to drain the swamp that gives the extremists traction. The swamp begins and ends with the governments of the Middle East, many of whom have flirted with terrorism as a way of distracting attention to their own inadequacies. In the long term the answer is better governments in the Middle East. But you aren't interested in that and would no doubt call it imperialism. Instead, you'd rather continue to treat those thugocracies as if they are legitimate governments and blame the west.

I'm interested in better governments. I don't think the Middle East has good governments anywhere including Israel. I just don't think we should be imposing your version of the good life on them and I certainly don't think we should be doing it by destroying their societies and killing them.

Isn't the whole problem here that we want to model them in our image? We think we're helping them by doing that and Al Qaeda finds support in people who reject our "help." Al Qaeda supporters believe, not unjustifiably, that Westerners are only interested in taking their resources.

You propose to solve the problem by sending our armies there to impose our system of civilisation on them. I don't think that's a workable solution.

[voodoo]

I didn't know Simey was Jewish.. makes sense though. Simon is a very Jewish name.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
I'm interested in better governments. I don't think the Middle East has good governments anywhere including Israel. I just don't think we should be imposing your version of the good life on them and I certainly don't think we should be doing it by destroying their societies and killing them.

Isn't the whole problem here that we want to model them in our image? We think we're helping them by doing that and Al Qaeda finds support in people who reject our "help." Al Qaeda supporters believe, not unjustifiably, that Westerners are only interested in taking their resources.

You propose to solve the problem by sending our armies there to impose our system of civilisation on them. I don't think that's a workable solution.

No, the whole probem is that one region alone in the world has created a toxic mixture of resentment, failure, and extreme violence -- propped up by a series of governments who have tried to deflect criticism by blaming the west.

You basically have two solutions. You either stop propping up those regimes and help the region toward the same transformations to democracy that somehow every other region of the world has embraced or at least made progress toward. Or you decide it is hopeless and that somehow poverty, misery, resentment, and hideous violence is somehow natural.

I've met many Middle Easterners. I do not think that democracy is imposing our way on them. They deserve, and want, freedom too. And when they get it, terrorists will lose their allure. But you also have to destroy the allure created by these attacks. You aren't going to win anything by showing democracy to be weak and incapable of defending itself against this kind of brutality.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by voodoo:
I didn't know Simey was Jewish.. makes sense though. Simon is a very Jewish name.

What are you babbling on about?

[voodoo]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
What are you babbling on about?

You're *not* Jewish??

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by voodoo:
You're *not* Jewish??

I bet you wonder why Americans so often suspect Europeans of anti-Semitism.

[deedar]

Originally posted by funkboy:
Would President Bush have been voted out, and the Senate/House been turned over to Democrats, if we had an election on September 13th, 2001?

If 90% of the public was against actions that he had taken prior to 9/11 that were felt to have invited the attack, I would be willing to guess that, yes, he would have been voted out and that the Congress may very well have been turned over to the Democrats.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I bet you wonder why Americans so often suspect Europeans of anti-Semitism.

Yep, I do. How did you know

[voodoo]

"Democracy is still alive in Europe - start sweating Tony. It's your turn next.
Paul, UK"

[funkboy]

Originally posted by voodoo:
No idea..

My thoughts exactly

Originally posted by Logic:
Americans don't like to change presidents in the midst of a war. So probably not.

There was no war in 2001. We hadn't gone anywhere at the time. The entire war thing was begun by Sept. 11.
Spain, like us three years ago, has not sent troops anywhere yet, correct? They are pre-war, not mid-war.

Originally posted by deedar:
If 90% of the public was against actions that he had taken prior to 9/11 that were felt to have invited the attack, I would be willing to guess that, yes, he would have been voted out and that the Congress may very well have been turned over to the Democrats.

All right then, very interesting.
So it really wasn't the terrorists, but rather it would have happened with or without the attack, correct?
That is, if the large majority (~90%?!) were against his decisions.

Could I have a link to the previous Spain government's actions that actually invited the attack? I would be interested in knowing what they were.

Interesting, and quick, responses - thanks!

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
You basically have two solutions. You either stop propping up those regimes and help the region toward the same transformations to democracy that somehow every other region of the world has embraced or at least made progress toward. Or you decide it is hopeless and that somehow poverty, misery, resentment, and hideous violence is somehow natural.

If you're advocating dropping support for corrupt regimes I'm all for that. I don't see how war should be integral to our Middle Eastern policies though.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
If you're advocating dropping support for corrupt regimes I'm all for that. I don't see how war should be integral to our Middle Eastern policies though.

It isn't necessarily central. But the willingness to use force is integral. The Middle East isn't once place. Some of the regimes are more supported than others. Saudi Arabia is not Syria, Libya isn't Egypt. In some cases, regime change, or at least regime behavior change might be effected by gradually removing support, or by supporting opposition. But Iraq wasn't one of those places. And since it was Exhibit A of defiance of international norms and had been for 12 years, it was the place to start. But nobody has suggested that the use of force is the strategy. It's just a tool that ought not be lightly ruled out.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by Troll:
If you're advocating dropping support for corrupt regimes I'm all for that. I don't see how war should be integral to our Middle Eastern policies though.

Sure. Sure. 12 years of nothing but dropping support for Saddam by the World. Well, the world minus Russia, Germany, and France. If everyone drops support in the first place, maybe the regime would change, but allas that was not the case here. Saddam got along well during the 12 years of attempted support of the UN resolution.

War is not integral to our ME policies, it was a last resort. 12 YEARS of failure. Knock-Knock. Who's there? Your brain, and I brought some friends. Logical thought, Your heart, and oh, here is courage, falling behind as usual.

Y'all crack me up with your word-smithing sometimes, but this is just plain and funny.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by funkboy:
All right then, very interesting.
So it really wasn't the terrorists, but rather it would have happened with or without the attack, correct?

Probably incorrect.

It was a question of priorities. (This has been covered in this or the other thread already.) Aznar was running a pretty steady economy, and the priority on that was higher than on his participation in a war that nobody wanted. Until it hit people that a good economy means precisely **** when you're at war.

Originally posted by funkboy:
That is, if the large majority (~90%?!) were against his decisions.

Could I have a link to the previous Spain government's actions that actually invited the attack? I would be interested in knowing what they were.

It was, quite simply, the participation in the Coalition of the Warring.

-s*

[rambo47]

Originally posted by Powerbook:
[B]Surely in no time it will motivate bimbo47 and his kind to a new sort of surrender-"jokes", like "Spain said surrender teheheh", non?

PB.

Um, no Powerdork. Surrender jokes are reserved strictly for the French. And then mostly to get a rise out of morons like yourself.

[vmarks]

Quoting Dennis Miller:

"Got to hand it to the Spainiards. Who'd have thought they'd find a way to let the Socialists and the Terrorists win at the same time?!"

[itai195]

Originally posted by funkboy:
Would President Bush have been voted out, and the Senate/House been turned over to Democrats, if we had an election on September 13th, 2001?

I don't remember dubya winning an election in the first place

I don't think that's a relevant question because, frankly, 9/11 was a wake up call to Americans. Kurt Vonnegut would be proud -- we finally realized that the rest of the world does not love us. So 9/11 was something of a mulligan for the administration, but if another attack were to take place on US soil before November 2, what then? Would our reaction differ very much from Spain's?

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by itai195:
I don't remember dubya winning an election in the first place

I don't think that's a relevant question because, frankly, 9/11 was a wake up call to Americans. Kurt Vonnegut would be proud -- we finally realized that the rest of the world does not love us. So 9/11 was something of a mulligan for the administration, but if another attack were to take place on US soil before November 2, what then? Would our reaction differ very much from Spain's?

He won. He's in the Whitehouse and Al "I invented the internet" Gore is not.
No. America would not react the same as Spain.
We don't measure ourselves based on the oppinion of the "World".

[itai195]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
He won. He's in the Whitehouse and Al "I invented the internet" Gore is not.
No. America would not react the same as Spain.
We don't measure ourselves based on the oppinion of the "World".

You're right, we don't. Until 9/11 we just assumed everyone loved Americans and we were surprised whenever we saw glimpses of the truth. But that doesn't mean we couldn't react in the same way. My point wasn't whether anyone measures themselves based on the opinion of the 'world.' I wouldn't say that's why Spanish voters made the choice they made.

[daimoni]

.

[theolein]

So after having just read through this thread, which seemd to do the usual reprisal of fighting over the same points without anyone agreeing on anything-is that a surprise here?- I thought I should perhaps place the points made in a list to see where we are.

1. Quite a few Americans seem to think that the Spanish voted out of cowardice i.e. fear of more attacks.

2. Most of the rest here think that the Spanish voted out the PP because the PP tried very heavily to blame ETA straight after the attacks despite the attack itself having all the hallmarks of Al Qaida. i.e. They think that the PP was trying to cover its butt before the elections.

3. Quite a few Americans seem to think that invading countries in the middle east will in some nebulous way help them in the War on Terorism�.

4. Some other Americans and most of the rest of the world think that large scale military action is almost useless at best in fighting terrorism at best and makes it worse at worst.

5. Spain new PM has said he will withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq unless the UN takes charge. In this there have already been amused and ironic comments of welcoming Spain back to Old Europe in the European press.

6. 90% of the Spanish population were against the war.

7. The PP was in the front running before the election mainly because of their handling of the economy, not because of the war in Iraq (This point for fizzle).

8. Some Americans continually make the point, with pride that America� is not influenced by what the world thinks.

9. Some others make the point that Spain is also not influenced by what America� thinks.


Edit: Here is an NYTimes story (login: macnn password : macnn) with much more detail on the PP's misleading of not only the Spanish people by claiming it was ETA, but also its own embassies and even the UNSC, some of whom are now righteously pissed off.

So, if I follow the mainstream American thought and logic here, it seem that the Spanish, who are cowards, don't like to be mislead. Does that mean that the brave Americans like to be mislead?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
He won. He's in the Whitehouse and Al "I invented the internet" Gore is not.
No. America would not react the same as Spain.
We don't measure ourselves based on the oppinion of the "World".

Is that why

10. The US is now scrambling to formulate a UN resolution that would possibly keep Spanish troops in Iraq?

http://www.tagesschau.de/aktuell/mel...1_REF1,00.html

The fear being that if Spain leaves, others will follow?

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Is that why

10. The US is now scrambling to formulate a UN resolution that would possibly keep Spanish troops in Iraq?

http://www.tagesschau.de/aktuell/mel...1_REF1,00.html

The fear being that if Spain leaves, others will follow?

Yeah, the Marshall Islands and Palau are now thinking of pulling out - it's a disaster!

[voodoo]

Originally posted by daimoni:
What are you babbling on about?

And no, I'm not Jewish either.

I don't recall asking you, hippie.

[fizzlemynizzle]

is it in anyone's best interest to see Iraq fall back to the way it used to be?

spain should stay. i don't agree with the UN compelling them to stay, but they should stay of their own volition. Leaving now is helping along Iraq's regression back to what it was when Saddam ruled, or even worse it could end up looking like Afghanistan did under the Taliban. And the risk of genocide runs high if the sunnis, shiites and kurds are left in an anarchistic vacuum because everyone's dropped their support.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by fizzlemynizzle:
is it in anyone's best interest to see Iraq fall back to the way it used to be?

spain should stay. i don't agree with the UN compelling them to stay, but they should stay of their own volition. Leaving now is helping along Iraq's regression back to what it was when Saddam ruled, or even worse it could end up looking like Afghanistan did under the Taliban. And the risk of genocide runs high if the sunnis, shiites and kurds are left in an anarchistic vacuum because everyone's dropped their support.

Spain's staying would do nothing to help - unless the whole thing was put under UN control, as, oh-so-suddenly, the US is proposing.

It's almost like you didn't see all of this coming a year and a half ago, even though people have been telling you over and over again.

What were you, blinded by Bush's propaganda or something?

-s*

[fizzlemynizzle]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Spain's staying would do nothing to help - unless the whole thing was put under UN control, as, oh-so-suddenly, the US is proposing.

It's almost like you didn't see all of this coming a year and a half ago, even though people have been telling you over and over again.

What were you, blinded by Bush's propaganda or something?

-s*

how do you know their leaving doesn't hurt anything? are you privvy to their deployments and missions? back that claim up.

and you didn't answer my first question.

as far as UN control, frankly i don't care who's in charge as long as iraq doesn't end up abandoned or neglected like afghanistan currently is.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by fizzlemynizzle:
as long as iraq doesn't end up abandoned or neglected like afghanistan currently is.

WHAT!!?

You REALLY need to start reading the news, you ignorant twit.

I do wonder what our soldiers are dying in Afghanistan for if you goddamn hick Bushies don't even take note of their existence - oh yeah, right. The UN is there for the Afghanis, not the Americans.

No wonder you don't notice.

Arse.

-s*

[Spliffdaddy]

The UN?

what's that?

[theolein]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
WHAT!!?

You REALLY need to start reading the news, you ignorant twit.

I do wonder what our soldiers are dying in Afghanistan for if you goddamn hick Bushies don't even take note of their existence - oh yeah, right. The UN is there for the Afghanis, not the Americans.

No wonder you don't notice.

Arse.

-s*

Hey! Ruhig da, Brauner!

[theolein]

Originally posted by fizzlemynizzle:
how do you know their leaving doesn't hurt anything? are you privvy to their deployments and missions? back that claim up.

and you didn't answer my first question.

as far as UN control, frankly i don't care who's in charge as long as iraq doesn't end up abandoned or neglected like afghanistan currently is.

For what it's worth, I agree with you on this point, but I am still doubtful as to whether the methods currently employed in Iraq will make a difference once the Americans leave or whether it will fall into a civial war in any case.

I personally don't really think that the UN is going to make any difference.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by theolein:
Hey! Ruhig da, Brauner!

Muss ich mich jetzt �ber vermeintliche politische Anspielungen aufregen?

's gut. Ich setz mich wieder hin.

-s*

[roger_ramjet]

James Lileks said it best: "At least Spain knows what�s expected of them now. If they remove the Socialists from power some day, they can expect a few bombs here and there to remind them of their place. "

[fizzlemynizzle]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
WHAT!!?

You REALLY need to start reading the news, you ignorant twit.

I do wonder what our soldiers are dying in Afghanistan for if you goddamn hick Bushies don't even take note of their existence - oh yeah, right. The UN is there for the Afghanis, not the Americans.

No wonder you don't notice.

Arse.

-s*

Do you have anything to contribute other than "hick Bushies" type ad hominem? I thought there were -some- rules on in this forum..

This gentleman would disagree with you on the state of affairs in Afghanistan. I've seen this documentary a few times now and his frustration in raising funds/support for Afghanistan is evident despite his best efforts to remain diplomatic.

Of course what would I know, I'm just a "goddamn hick Bushie ignorant twit" that couldn't possibly be as well-informed as you.

How's it taste?

[theolein]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Muss ich mich jetzt �ber vermeintliche politische Anspielungen aufregen?

's gut. Ich setz mich wieder hin.

-s*

Geh'n wa draussen? Willste k�mpfen? Isch bin gr�sser als du, kolleg, konkret!

[voodoo]

Was ist los Jungen?! (Klar theolein ist fast f�nfzich aber Spheric ist nicht �lter als ich oder?)

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
WHAT!!?

You REALLY need to start reading the news, you ignorant twit.

I do wonder what our soldiers are dying in Afghanistan for if you goddamn hick Bushies don't even take note of their existence - oh yeah, right. The UN is there for the Afghanis, not the Americans...

One well-placed bomb and you'll be gone too.

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
One well-placed bomb and you'll be gone too.

That's the spirit!

[voodoo]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
One well-placed bomb and you'll be gone too.

Is that a threat? (just wondering? -- not very Roger Ramjet-y)

[theolein]

Originally posted by fizzlemynizzle:
Do you have anything to contribute other than "hick Bushies" type ad hominem? I thought there were -some- rules on in this forum..

This gentleman would disagree with you on the state of affairs in Afghanistan. I've seen this documentary a few times now and his frustration in raising funds/support for Afghanistan is evident despite his best efforts to remain diplomatic.

Of course what would I know, I'm just a "goddamn hick Bushie ignorant twit" that couldn't possibly be as well-informed as you.

How's it taste?

Before you two go at one another's throats, I think I should just say that I think there was a misunderstanding there. I think Spheric meant that Afghanistan gets quite a lot of support from Western Europe (Nato actually) which it does, but that you meant it doesn't get 1/10th the attention that Iraq gets, both financially and in the media, which is true.

I think that things in this thread, as per usual, I might add, have gooten into their usual sad rut of insult and counter-insult. I know that what got me pissed off was the insinuation that the Spanish are cowards, whereas the general impression seems to be that they were above all very angry with the now ex-government for trying to mislead them after the bombing by insisting it was ETA before anything was known, and above that trying to hang on to that insinuation after it started to look like Al Qaida was responsible.

I know very few nations that react by immediate surrender when attacked. Most nations react with hurt national pride. Spain is one of the more hot-headed countries in Europe, and I can't, for the life of me, imagine them, for instance giving in to demands by a terrorist group when they haven't done so to another terrorist group, ETA, for more than 30 years.

I think the casual insults made here by some, i.e. that Spaniards are cowards and that the French surrender without a fight or that the Germans are still closet Nazis, reflect a worldview that is intensely US-centric, and that is part and parcel of the problem.

I find it amazing that so many Americans have forgotten already, how much support the US got after 11 September 2001. The so called French cowards were part of the military force that bombed Afghanistan. That's right, the French air force took part in the aerial campaign and there are soldiers from Germany, France, Denmark, Turkey and other Nato nations, apart from the US ensuring the peace in Afghanistan today.

And that was only 3 years ago, not half a century. So if they not cowards then, why were they in the case of Iraq?

The simple matter of the fact is that most of those nations simply did not see Iraq as being part of the problem of terrorism, as it was a secular state that was a declared enemy of Al Qaida. Neither was anyone so absolutely convinced about the WMDs that Bush and Blair kept on talking about. Iraq did not attack the US or any Nato country. That is why the opposition to that war was so great. Most people saw the war as an unprovoked aggression and the claim that came later that it was for humanitarian reasons not being in line with US reluctance to act in other countries where there were also bad abuses of human rights.

The way it seems to be in the US (at least after reading comments like these on this thread) is that the US takes it for granted that other nations will do its bidding, no matter what. It also seems, given the fact that so many Americans seemd to believe that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11, that Americans have difficulty with any level of political complexity, which is why people like Alan (Spliffdaddy) will make childish comments on how 3 words should be enough to explain any political situation.

Now, I know that this isn't true as such. I've met a good number of Americans who are interested in the world beyond their borders and who appreciate the fact that life is not a white or black issue.

I just wish it were more prevalent.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Is that a threat?

Not a threat - FACT. The terrorists have already proven they can push the UN around. One bomb and they were gone from Baghdad. This week Al Qaeda showed they're Spain's puppetmaster...

[theolein]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
James Lileks said it best: "At least Spain knows what�s expected of them now. If they remove the Socialists from power some day, they can expect a few bombs here and there to remind them of their place. "

You mean like the Iraqis? If they remove the Americans from power they can expect a few bombs to remind them of their place? Something like that?

I don't know if you've ever heard of Dale Carnegie, but I can guarantee you that insulting people is not the way to make friends.....

or ALLIES.

More Spaniards were out in the streets opposing the war in Iraq than any other nation on earth, yet their government ignored them and went to support an unprovoked war based on lies, hype and bad intelligence. You called the Spaniards allies and loyal friends for that, even though there was no support for it amongst the populace, and now you call them cowards. Mmmmm, now where have I seen that before? Oh, yes, when the Afghan mujahedin was busy shooting Soviet aircraft out of the sky with American Stinger missiles, they were brave freedom fighters, and when they were flying aircraft into American buildings they were cowardly terrorists.

[Sven G]

... A "funny" thing is also that Spain is quite often called a "young" democracy - and, yet, they seem to care much more about democratic values than supposedly more "mature" democratic countries! (Of course, the term "democracy" is also itself rather controversial - but that's another matter.)

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by theolein:
... Oh, yes, when the Afghan mujahedin was busy shooting Soviet aircraft out of the sky with American Stinger missiles, they were brave freedom fighters, and when they were flying aircraft into American buildings they were cowardly terrorists.

You honestly don't know the difference between those two actions, do you? And, btw, the people who flew those planes into our buildings weren't Afghani.

[Troll]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
You honestly don't know the difference between those two actions, do you? And, btw, the people who flew those planes into our buildings weren't Afghani.

Theolein didn't say they were. Read what he said carefully.

[Keiretsu]

Originally posted by fizzlemynizzle:
It's a tragedy when fear becomes the main driver in an election. People who changed their votes because they were afraid re-electing the current administration would lead to more terrorism are cowards.

It's a tragedy when people that do not run any risk of being sent to war call a whole nation cowards. Clean up your own private mess first!

[voodoo]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
This week Al Qaeda showed they're Spain's puppetmaster...

Not really. You have got it all wrong.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Not really. You have got it all wrong.

No I haven't.

Bombs 'to split Spain from allies'

Tuesday, March 16, 2004 Posted: 1357 GMT (2157 HKT)

MADRID, Spain (CNN) -- A document published months before national elections reveals al Qaeda planned to separate Spain from its allies by carrying out terror attacks...