And Spain goes left..

[Paul McKenna]

The Socialist party won today's election as voters protested against the ruling conservative party with their ballots. I have my own opinions regarding this but I'll relent!

[John Smith]

There are some reports that the new Spanish government will be closer to Castro than to Bush. For what it's worth, this is how democracy works, -- if the ruling party ignores the wishes of the 93% of the population, the party becomes the minority in the government.

[Michael Morris]

Originally posted by Eugene Kononov:
There are some reports that the new Spanish government will be closer to Castro than to Bush. For what it's worth, this is how democracy works, -- if the ruling party ignores the wishes of the 93% of the population, the party becomes the minority in the government.

Truer words never spoken. We may not like it but when leaders take risks to follow their conscience or convictions often they pay the price at the polls. The people of Spain will now see if a policy of appeasement will sheild them from further attacks. I suspect they are in for a surprize, but such is democracy, the people have spoken.

[Jason Menard]

One country faces a massive terror attack and its citizens respond with resolve. Another country faces a large terror attack and its citizens respond with retreat. You would think they would know something about the cost of appeasement over there.
I guess the terrorists have learned a very important lesson by all this. They have learned that the response by Western Europe to large scale attacks is likely to be appeasement and retreat, as opposed to resolve and action directed at the those responsible. They have learned that they can influence people over there to reject governments that stand up against the terrorists. I predict that the message sent by the Spanish electorate will be responsible for encouraging further attacks in Europe of even larger scale as the terrorists now know that they have little to fear and everything to gain, in much the same way that those who ordered our retreat from Somalia after very minor losses sent the message that our will is easily broken by merely giving us a bloody nose. That withdrawal in Somalia led to further American deaths, just as Spain's apparent withdrawal at the polls will likely lead to further European deaths.
But hey, that's democracy for you.

[Richard Hawkes]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
One country faces a massive terror attack and its citizens respond with resolve. Another country faces a large terror attack and its citizens respond with retreat. You would think they would know something about the cost of appeasement over there ...
But hey, that's democracy for you.
A huge "what/if", but anyway: lets suppose WTC attack didn't happen on 9/11. What if President Bush had launched a war on terror anyway (for whatever reasons), naming al-Qaida as a primary target. Lets suppose he still managed to lead an attack on Sadaam. Now lets suppose the WTC tragedy finally occured but alot later. Isn't it possible that the US public could punish Bush for the same reason they appear to 'going left' in Spain? Bush is popular now because he is leading his country in response to 9/11, yet if the public had believed Bush to be responsible (even in a small way) for bringing a 9/11 tragedy to America, the public might view him alot differently.
Liek I said a big "what/if", but I hope the point is clear. Voting usually brings out tendencies for self-preservation, regardless of how effective the solutions turn out to be.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Richard Hawkes:
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
[qb]A huge "what/if", but anyway: lets suppose WTC attack didn't happen on 9/11.

But it did. Sept 11 was a wakeup call not just to our country, but to other Western countries in the world who were not overtly affected, such as Spain to name but one. But no, they figure as long as they don't anger the islamic terrorists, that the terrorists will not turn their attentions towards them. These kind of things only happen to others, and it's invariably because of something the victims did wrong to anger the perpetrators. This attitude is akin to someone witnessing a crime but refusing to help the police because they don't want to "get involved", and more importantly because they are worried about their own skin, not whether or not the right thing is done.

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
But hey, that's democracy for you.

I object on the word "you".
BTW what is democracy for you, Jason ??

[stara szkapa]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
One country faces a massive terror attack and its citizens respond with resolve.

We will see how USA citizens will vote in the elections. The war was decided by USA government not the citizens. It didn't solve anything, just created more targets for terrorists besides USA. Countires that didn't support USA in IRAQ made the right decision.

[Jeroen Wenting]

I wouldn't be surprised if it were ETA trying to manipulate the elections by planting false evidence that it was Al Qaeda...
They got what they wanted this way, a government that's going to relax the crackdown against ETA that the previous government started and cost ETA a lot of people and support in the population.
Socialists have always given them (who are after all red bloodbrothers) a more or less free reign to do their thing as long as they stayed clear of the socialist party...

[Joe King]

The thing we don't really know is how much the attacks effected the election (does anyone know election predictions from before the bombings?).
Another factor that went against Aznar seemed to be that he leaped to blame ETA before they were sure who it was - there were reports on the news that a lot of Spaniards were cross that he seemed to want to blame the bombings on ETA (which would help his election purposes) rather than Al-Q (which would not).
The situation with respect to the war on terror is very different in Spain to in the UK and USA. The UK lost many people in the towers and has always been a strong ally of the US - the UK was always going to be a target eventually (and probably will be), and was always going to help the US. A lot of Spanish, OTOH, probably felt that they would not have been targets if they had not joined in the war in Iraq (which many Spanish also felt was not to do with terrorism anyway).
Finally, this is democracy - if millions of people choose a particular government in a properly democratic way, who are we to say that they are wrong? What is right for one country is not right for another.

[Rosie Vogel]

As Joe pointed out, Aznar tried to make people believe the bombings were carried out by ETA even when there were already clues that it was in fact done by Al Quaida or a similar group. I am surprised his party still got as many votes as it did.
You know, when the September 11 attacks happened, my sympathy for the people of the US knew no bounds. And when they went to Afghanistan, I thought they were absolutely right.
Then they went to Iraq, and while I understand the objections of many people to this and find it worrying that the US apparently can ignore the United Nations if they feel like it, I also believe that if they hadn't gone to war, Saddam's torture chambers would still be in full swing.
What I am trying to say, I am not a typical European liberal who is against anything American just because it's American. But I must say I am starting to get sick of this American tendency to make Europeans look like a bunch of sissies if they don't blindly follow the US.
And so the terrorists are achieving one of the things they want I guess. The US and Western Europe, who have so much in common ideologically, start bickering amongst each other. Divide and conquer, as they say.

[John Dunn]

RV: I am not a typical European liberal who is against anything American just because it's American.
How will you feel about the French possibly taking bribes from Iraq at the same time they were asking the US not to go to war?

[Joe King]

Originally posted by John Dunn:
RV: I am not a typical European liberal who is against anything American just because it's American.
How will you feel about the French possibly taking bribes from Iraq at the same time they were asking the US not to go to war?

Personally I'll believe it when I see the evidence myself. If this was true, then France would have a lot of explaining to do...... but until I see proper evidence I'm not going to read too much into it, mainly because France didnt need a bribe that big, and they'd be pretty stupid to take one. It'd be interesting to see the results of an investigation into this - its a serious enough accusation that it does need to be investigated.

[John Dunn]

RKS: I object on the word "you". [as in That's democracy for YOU]
That's just a figure of speech here. Kind of like it rains on your lunch party after being sunny all morning and then gets nice after lunch again. Well someone might shrug their shoulder and say, "Well, that's weather for you..." Now they wouldn't be talking about YOU by any chance would they?

[Rosie Vogel]

Originally posted by John Dunn:
RV: I am not a typical European liberal who is against anything American just because it's American.
How will you feel about the French possibly taking bribes from Iraq at the same time they were asking the US not to go to war?

I don't know if this is true. I find it a bit hard to believe but that doesn't mean it can't be true, of course. I hope someone is able to dig up the truth. If it turned out to be true it would be disgraceful.

[Steve Wink]

I guess one things fair to say - after this unfortunate precedent, I would expect more Al Queda attacks just before elections. I don't know if the Spaniards voted the government out because they thought being involved in Iraq led to this bombing, or because the goverment tried to blame it on ETA but it will make the terrorists think they can change our governments.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by stara szkapa:
We will see how USA citizens will vote in the elections.

In the November 2002 elections, the Republicans fared extremely well over the Democrats.

The war was decided by USA government not the citizens.

Yet the citizens overwhelmingly supported it.

It didn't solve anything, just created more targets for terrorists besides USA.

Or so the appeasers and Saddam supporters would have us believe. I'm sure if you asked the Shia and Kurdish Iraqis though, they would have a different take on whether or not the war solved anything. As for not doing the right thing because of fear of terrorists... that's weak and pitiful.

Countires that didn't support USA in IRAQ made the right decision.

The right decision for whom? And more importantly, what were the motivations behind their decision to shirk their international duties?
[ March 15, 2004: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[Jeroen Wenting]

Originally posted by Rosie Vogel:

I don't know if this is true. I find it a bit hard to believe but that doesn't mean it can't be true, of course. I hope someone is able to dig up the truth. If it turned out to be true it would be disgraceful.

The French government and oil companies (which are government owned in at least part) had closed a deal on Iraqi oil at far below market prices shortly before the war started, deliveries to start the moment sanctions were lifted.
Of course that deal was illegal under the sanctions and became null and void the moment the Iraqi regime was removed.
Whether you call that bribes or underhanded dealings I don't care, it's unethical and typically French.

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by John Dunn:

Thanks John.
But still I feel that tone of the sentenace was belittling.
.. I might be wrong as always I am
[ March 15, 2004: Message edited by: R K Singh ]

[Don Stadler]

Originally posted by Richard Hawkes:
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
[qb]One country faces a massive terror attack and its citizens respond with resolve. Another country faces a large terror attack and its citizens respond with retreat. You would think they would know something about the cost of appeasement over there ...
But hey, that's democracy for you.
A huge "what/if", but anyway: lets suppose WTC attack didn't happen on 9/11. What if President Bush had launched a war on terror anyway (for whatever reasons), naming al-Qaida as a primary target.
[/QB]

Actually Richard is correct though not in the sense that I believe he intended. Aznar led an enormous and largely successful anti-terrorist campaign. Not against Al-Qaida but against ETA. ETA hasn't provided t5he same degree of provocation to the Spanish authorities as Al-Qaida has to the US, but otherwise the responses are parallel. Except that the Spanish public found their attack on ETA palatable and the US response to terrorism hard to stomache.
Aznar was consistent on terrorism and his economic policies were popular and successful. He and his party were punished for the bombing. We may disagree but as Eugene wrote, that is democracy.

[Don Stadler]

Originally posted by Jeroen Wenting:

The French government and oil companies (which are government owned in at least part) had closed a deal on Iraqi oil at far below market prices shortly before the war started, deliveries to start the moment sanctions were lifted.
Of course that deal was illegal under the sanctions and became null and void the moment the Iraqi regime was removed.
Whether you call that bribes or underhanded dealings I don't care, it's unethical and typically French.

Not to mention the more overt bribes given to some French (including a close associate of Chirac's.
Before banging on the French too much perhaps we ought not to forget that France was the country of Zola, Hugo, and DeGaulle as well as the country of Chirac and D'Estaing. The country which fought the battle of Verdun as well as what happened last spring.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by R K Singh:
But still I feel that tone of the sentenace was belittling.

Really? Who was I replying to in my message? Who would "you" refer to? John, who I believe is a native English speaker, answered you correctly.

.. I might be wrong as always I am

In this case that would be correct.
Here are some links using this common phrase in their writing. Who exactly are they belittling?
That's baseball for you.
That's showbiz for you.
that's kids for you.
That's politics for you.

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

I take my words back.
Thanks for correcting me again

[Joe Pluta]

The country which fought the battle of Verdun as well as what happened last spring.
But are they really the same country?
Joe

[Phil Chuang]

Originally posted by Rosie Vogel:
Then they went to Iraq, and while I understand the objections of many people to this and find it worrying that the US apparently can ignore the United Nations if they feel like it, I also believe that if they hadn't gone to war, Saddam's torture chambers would still be in full swing.

Heck, it wasn't the case of the US ignoring the United Nations - it was the case of the United Nations ignoring the United Nations. Apparently the UN on its own was not particularly inclined to inforce its own laws and regulations. And if you're going to worry about the US, you should also worry about Australia, UK, Denmark, Poland, Japan, Spain (tho not any more), etc etc. I find it amazing that people keep using the "uni" prefix when there's an obvious plurality invovled

[Jason Menard]

An interesting article...
Spanish democracy

[Tim Baker]

Originally posted by Jeroen Wenting:

The French government and oil companies (which are government owned in at least part) had closed a deal on Iraqi oil at far below market prices shortly before the war started, deliveries to start the moment sanctions were lifted.
Of course that deal was illegal under the sanctions and became null and void the moment the Iraqi regime was removed.
Whether you call that bribes or underhanded dealings I don't care, it's unethical and typically French.

Didn't france also send a lot of Mirage Fighter Jets the way of iraq that have yet to be paid for? I hope iraq didn't get them under a hire purchase, because I suspect there are not to many of them left.

[Tim Baker]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

The right decision for whom? And more importantly, what were the motivations behind their decision to shirk their international duties?
[ March 15, 2004: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

As pro the war as I am, I don't think it is anyones 'duty' to invade another country. The governments of respective countries have a duty to their own citizens only. Now I don't think anyone still seriously believes Iraq was at the time of invasion a threat to any citizens of Spain, the UK etc

[Tim Baker]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
One country faces a massive terror attack and its citizens respond with resolve. Another country faces a large terror attack and its citizens respond with retreat. You would think they would know something about the cost of appeasement over there.
I guess the terrorists have learned a very important lesson by all this. They have learned that the response by Western Europe to large scale attacks is likely to be appeasement and retreat, as opposed to resolve and action directed at the those responsible. They have learned that they can influence people over there to reject governments that stand up against the terrorists. I predict that the message sent by the Spanish electorate will be responsible for encouraging further attacks in Europe of even larger scale as the terrorists now know that they have little to fear and everything to gain, in much the same way that those who ordered our retreat from Somalia after very minor losses sent the message that our will is easily broken by merely giving us a bloody nose. That withdrawal in Somalia led to further American deaths, just as Spain's apparent withdrawal at the polls will likely lead to further European deaths.
But hey, that's democracy for you.

The actions of one country really have nothing to do with the rest of europe. Now spain probably had more in common with france and germany in terms of the populist opinion, and had those two countries supported the war then yes they may now be considered liable to such a persuasion as the spaniards. However there aren't many other countries in that position. The popular opinion in the UK is totally different. Yes there are anti-war protests etc, but noone would even dare mention pulling out right now. There is also no politcal party in opposition that would pull our troups out. The lib dems say they wouldn't have taken us into the war, but they don't advocate pulling out, and they aren't anywhere near taking power. I resent the implication that the european citizens are more likely to give way in the face of adversity. Of course citizen moods and trends are influenced by such things, but no more in europe than anywhere else. The american public are just as affected by body bag syndrome as the rest of us.
There are lessons to be learned from this by everyone, probably the main lesson should be, in the face of a large scale terrorist attack, suspend any immediate elections.

[Paul McKenna]

I resent the implication that the european citizens are more likely to give way in the face of adversity. Of course citizen moods and trends are influenced by such things, but no more in europe than anywhere else.

God forbdid! But lets suppose a scenario where UK is attacked before the elections.. and by Al Qaeda, what do you think will happen? I'll wager Tony Blair will be blamed for it and be ejected..

[Joe Pluta]

Now I don't think anyone still seriously believes Iraq was at the time of invasion a threat to any citizens of Spain, the UK etc
Hussein was a clear and present danger to the stability of the free world. He showed a willingness to use WMD, and I absolutely believe he was funding terrorists. As such, he was both indirectly and directly a threat.
How do you figure he wasn't a threat to citizens of Spain? Where do you think people like Al-Qaeda get the money to blow up trains? Where do you think they train for this sort of operation? In countries run by terrorist-friendly regimes such as Iraq, Libya and Syria.
Joe

[Mapraputa Is]

JK: The thing we don't really know is how much the attacks effected the election (does anyone know election predictions from before the bombings?)
Aznar's decision to support the US-led war was extremely unpopular -- 91% of population was against it. Why would you expect a country to vote for a leader who ignored opinion of 9/10 of his people? You can say that he might be historically right in ignoring such opinion, but apparently the population didn't think so.

The most recently published opinion poll on attitudes to war, by the state's own official pollsters, showed 91% opposition. Recent polls of voting intention show that, over two months, the People's party has gone from running neck-and-neck with the anti-war socialists to trailing them by six points. A clear majority of people now expect the socialists to win next year's election.
Aznar faces 91% opposition to war

[Joe Pluta]

But lets suppose a scenario where UK is attacked before the elections.
I think the great people of the United Kingdom would, as they have over and over throughout the centuries, rise up as a nation to annihilate any threat to their sovereign state. My guess is that the UK would ask for and receive coalition support for a massive retaliatory action, and that there would be a reckoning the likes of which hasn't been seen for fifty years. And my guess is that the Blair government would probably gain political credence from a decisive action.
Just one man's opinion.
Joe

[Dani Atrei]

I told myself i'd never come back to this forum, but seeing as BOTH my countries (France And Spain) are targeted (and I feel unjustly sometimes), I weel respond swiftly.
1)

Eleison Zeitgeist said: LEt's keep the bombing coming (a la Spain). Bush will get re-elected. Who cares if 1300 spanish soldiers leave. The terrorist can intimidate western europe as much as they want; w. europe can shriek and cry (bunch of cowards). The Only groups of people the terrorist should really worry about are the AMericans.

I find this to be one of the most hilarious and preposterous thing (to remain EXTREMELY polite) I have ever heard in my lifetime. It shows the total lack of subtelty and reveals the wounding ignorance of history. May I have to remind anyone here that the 2 countries and really all europe have suffered tremendously trhought the 20 th century? May I have to remind taht France, Spain and others European countries have a stationary IMPORTANT force in Afganishtan? Do I have to remind taht USA tolerated and armed the talibans for and oilpipe to be built? May I have to remind you taht USA had to ask, nay nicely ask for French inteligence services' help for spying and commando mission in Afghanistan? Should I remind the public here that the first Irak war ended BECAUSE Bush father had made an demagogical(as always) promise of ending the war before a certain time? Should I even ask why such thing was done? Do people know that the Iraqui resistance called upon by Bush father was left to be CRUSHED because the war suddenly stopped? All these children and farmers and non soldiers ( truly you cannot say they had soldiers for the exception of Saddam's elite troop), that the death of these innocent people would have happened? Is taht being coward? I think not, you couldn t count the number of wars we ve been to with you fingers, and we learned taht it s something worth avoiding as much as possible.
2)Something that seems not understood by any people except Europeans is that socialism is not communism (old socialist prime minister privatised more than any right wing leader in France). So please do not say that the Spanish government is closer to Castro than to Bush, the only thing this statement gets you to is closer to nowhere than anywhere. Castro is in his little communist non progressist old dead regime and looks like he s gonna stay there.
3)I do not think Aznar's government purposedly wanted to make the Spanish people believe that it was ETA, they just completely failed ont what way to communicate. How can a police investigation be carried and at the same time the political leaders start telling about every single detail of the invetigation. They take time and the former spanish interior minister gave out communiiqu�s I don t know how many times.
4)Joe Pluta, you say that Sadam was a clear and present danger. Now that the coalition governments ahve been in Irak, tell me please where is all the evidence on WMD's? What a (not so) hilarious concept to invent. Let's scare people so we attack, this is my summary of Bush's foreign policy. Can you tell me why the missiles that could be deployed in 45 minuts did not strike London or Washington? After all, Sadam was a clear and present danger. Hmm, I just invented another undergraduate theory about the chimical plants: they didn t exist. That way, no one can prove that they ever did! And so they must have because as you can t prove that they never did, they might have and they don t anymore!
5) PP was said to win the elections before the terrorist attacks. The way I figure this is that, questioning Aznar's sincerity or not, the spaniards as most Europeans were agaisnt the war and seeing death and attacks such as those really got them ( I am so polite today). Why would they pay because of something that didn t want? But rest asure, when spanish people are mad, they'll stay mad and Al Qaeda will still be persecuted by the Spanish governments.
6) Which brings me to my most controversial aprty of my post: the Principal Of Division Between Europeans And Americans (USA not canada). Europeans DID NOT support the war because there was no whatsoEVER proof of Al Qaeda involvement in Irak, they never trusted Bush and they saw that more harm would come of making a war than not. Let's not recall how the vietnam war and Cuban war excuses were found. Whatever the answer and I do have teh pretension to possess it, this is a good summary of European vision. Now to call us cowards is, as I can consider it an insult to me, my family, my parents and my fellow Europeans friends. Europe has suffered throughout every century, we have known more wars than surely any or as many as any other continent. The memory of pain and war is still there and this has incredibly changed our mindsets. Also, after the French experience in Algeria (and in general European) in their colonies, we know how hard it is to maintain peacekeeping and to make it look as we re not invading but we trhew bombs at you for your own good. The message is very hard to pass.
7) Joe King, good summary.
8)

Jason Menard said: But no, they figure as long as they don't anger the islamic terrorists, that the terrorists will not turn their attentions towards them. These kind of things only happen to others, and it's invariably because of something the victims did wrong to anger the perpetrators. This attitude is akin to someone witnessing a crime but refusing to help the police because they don't want to "get involved",

. Sorry mate, I don t much agree, I don t think ONE SINGLE second that Spanish people will ever forget, forgive, undermine the horror, not cooperate, not do anything to catch and trial any of the aggressors, the group, the groups and ANY terrorist who has the pretention to do any harm to democracy. You re statement, althought sound, doesn t reflect what I think. I see the governement as a change, a new air. The other one was getting a bit tired. It might come back later, they did good things in the economy and were consistent and strong, but Irak cause their downfall. However, the Spanish people we'll not sit down arms folded and see events happen without having our say. We just believe that Irak had no connection with Al Qaeda.
9) I already here this: "Then tell us why, you who sounds so angry why Al Qaeda made a statement on Irak and that because of Spain's involement on Irak you were attacked?" Well, can you reason with such people? Can anything they say be logical? These people are fanatics, whether they want the downfall of our democracies, end Western involvment in Middle East or whatever, they will want to harm us in any way they can, and harm our friends, this will not be tolerated. They believe they have a right in Irak, in it s future, that it s there's. For the moment they only go hand by hand with death, not future.
I have forgotten some comments taht offended me or didnt agree, but for pity's sake I am tired. I surely have sounded angry, arrognat on this message, let me say I wish then to apologise and to assure you I accept any divergence of opinions (I have a friend in favor of the war). I just couldn t stomach the French bashing and the things said about Spain I found false. There is a lot of misunderstanding between Europe and USA (especially France). There will always be, but in our disagreement, we find ourselves to be each other's best pal. For anti French feelings, there s always been always will be and ditto, especially when I think about the suspicion the French have about the anglos Saxons. I didn t not re read what I wrote, so if it s found to be very insulting (which was not my intention, whether we agree or not (seems like we disagree )). Have fun quoting me, I won t have time to answer I am sorry. However, I stand for all I said. Hasta luego (bye- just in case i get another warning message)).
[ March 15, 2004: Message edited by: Daniel Curtmil Atrei ]
[ March 15, 2004: Message edited by: Daniel Curtmil Atrei ]

[Michael Morris]

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
But lets suppose a scenario where UK is attacked before the elections.
I think the great people of the United Kingdom would, as they have over and over throughout the centuries, rise up as a nation to annihilate any threat to their sovereign state. My guess is that the UK would ask for and receive coalition support for a massive retaliatory action, and that there would be a reckoning the likes of which hasn't been seen for fifty years. And my guess is that the Blair government would probably gain political credence from a decisive action.
Just one man's opinion.
Joe

That sounds right to me. I see a sort of role reversal for the US here from the lead up to WWII in the '30s. The US was damned reluctant to get involved with that "European" war. We find ourselves on the other side of that fence now, not that some leaders have not taken great political risk in support of the war on terror like Blair and Aznar, but most of our European allies would rather turn a blind eye to all of this and hope that speaking out against "The Great Satan" will deter terrorists from using their homeland as a testing ground for a first nuclear weapon.

[Joe Pluta]

Joe Pluta, you say that Sadam was a clear and present danger. Now that the coalition governments ahve been in Irak, tell me please where is all the evidence on WMD's?
We don't need to find more WMD; he already used them on his own people.
You also seem to be stuck on the mistaken belief that WMD were the primary reason to end Hussein's regime. The real issue is the fact that the man has no regard for human life. He killed millions of his own people to further his political agenda. That made him a rogue tyrant, and a clear and present danger to the stability of the free world. And until all the nations of the free world stand together to put an end to all regimes that murder innocent civilians, either through government action or through state-sponsored terrorism, then atrocities like the one in Madrid will continue to occur.
The man killed his own people en masse, and yet there are people who still insist we had no right to stop him. I find that argument indefensible, and those who continue in the line of appeasement will reap what they sow. There will be more Madrids until the terrorists realize that such actions will not be tolerated. Unfortunately, this is not the message they got from the election in Spain, and I fear it will ultimately lead to more death.
Joe

[stara szkapa]

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
[b]Hussein was a clear and present danger to the stability of the free world. He showed a willingness to use WMD, and I absolutely believe he was funding terrorists. As such, he was both indirectly and directly a threat.

Maybe, but the free world would prefer USA to mind its own business. And now we feel safer and we have more stability?

[Joe Pluta]

Maybe, but the free world would prefer USA to mind its own business.
Only those that would buy their own peace at the price of Iraqi lives. I do not consider those people citizens in good faith of the free world.
It's sad that the lessons of the Munich Conference are forgotten.
Those of you who think that terrorism will subside if you do nothing, I can only give you the words of Neville Chamberlain: "Go home and get a nice quiet sleep." Because the awakening will be rude and horrific.
Joe
[ March 15, 2004: Message edited by: Joe Pluta ]

[stara szkapa]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
I'm sure if you asked the Shia and Kurdish Iraqis though, they would have a different take on whether or not the war solved anything. As for not doing the right thing because of fear of terrorists... that's weak and pitiful.

And I'm sure Shia and Kurdish Iraqis will shoot USA helicopters just for fun.
If you want to intimidate Arabs, compete on "fear" with them, you are insane.

[stara szkapa]

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
Only those that would buy their own peace at the price of Iraqi lives. I do not consider those people citizens in good faith of the free world.

This argument is appealing in western culture, but for Iraqis lives are not that valuable. This is different culture, different mentality, different value system, and whatever USA do, IRAQ will never be compatible with "the free world". Forcing on Iraq values of western culture is arrogant and ignorant. Iraq had many "civilized" occupants in history and every one ultimately was kicked out and not appreciated.