• Post Reply Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
programming forums Java Mobile Certification Databases Caching Books Engineering Micro Controllers OS Languages Paradigms IDEs Build Tools Frameworks Application Servers Open Source This Site Careers Other all forums
this forum made possible by our volunteer staff, including ...
Marshals:
  • Campbell Ritchie
  • Liutauras Vilda
  • Bear Bibeault
  • Paul Clapham
  • Jeanne Boyarsky
Sheriffs:
  • Junilu Lacar
  • Knute Snortum
  • Henry Wong
Saloon Keepers:
  • Ron McLeod
  • Tim Moores
  • Stephan van Hulst
  • Tim Holloway
  • Carey Brown
Bartenders:
  • Frits Walraven
  • Joe Ess
  • salvin francis

And Spain goes left..

 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 287
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by stara szkapa:
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.


You have a good point. 5 billion of anything is not valuable when you have just 1 of them.
Unless the "1" in question is your wife, your child, your friend, etc.
So maybe we could just say "life is cheap in the Middle East" and turn a blind eye to what is going on, but that doesn't change the fact that is somebody's son being tortured to death or somebody's daughter being raped. The figures for the death toll in Iraq was somewhere along the lines of 1.5 million under Saddam.
Aside from Democracy, I don't see "western ideals" being forced upon them. If you look at the advanced nations of the world, most of them are practicing some form of democracy. The big exception being China and I'm not sure how "democratic" Russia really is.
Yet none of these democracies function the same way as the other. Iraq will find it's own identity in time. However, does anyone really think a theocracy is a good idea at this point? A theocracy, regardless of which religion it might be, is always a bad idea.
I don't expect Iraq to become just like America, and from what I've read about it's Constitution it never will be. However, if Iraq cannot form a democratic government, if it must be ruled by a despot if it is to continue, what does that say about the Middle East? Is the region just a lost cause?
Ultimately I am confused by the hatred and violence that seems to never cease to pour from the Middle East. I have worked with a handful of Iranians in the past. They were all good, hard-working, intelligent people. One was a bit of a jokester, another was very quiet and reserved. They didn't seem any different than the other folks around me except for their geographic origin.
I don't think its acceptable to simply ignore what goes on there and hope we don't have another 9/11. We tried to ignore the attacks before and all it did was escalate the problem. We never truly tried pursuing Bin Laden until it was too late. Does anyone believe the attacks would have stopped there?
I also think the historical precendent for appeasement has shown that it has never worked, and it won't work now. Al Queda has already mentioned the sanctions in France, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if they become a target next. How many Europeans will have to die before they learn, yet again, appeasement doesn't work.
The funny thing is, I hope it works. I hope that somehow Spain is spared further attack. The sad thing is that I'm not that optimistic.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1376
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
but for Iraqis lives are not that valuable.
How interesting. My daughter-in-law is Iraqi, and she would disagree with you.
This is different culture, different mentality, different value system, and whatever USA do, IRAQ will never be compatible with "the free world".
No, religious fundamentalism will never be compatible with the free world. Any society that does not allow freedom of religion along with all other basic human rights cannot be free. Only time will tell whether the Iraqi people are ready for such freedom, but they would have never been able to achieve it under the Hussein regime.
It is amazing what people can do when given the chance.
Joe
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5093
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
http://nationalreview.com/europress/boyles200403150823.asp


The ultimate wisdom of allowing al Qaeda terrorism to determine national elections is still to be seen. But as the Socialists in Spain get "beyond the them and us, the good guys and the bad guys," and attempt to find the common ground they have with whomever killed 200 innocent citizens and wounded 1,400 others, that country's apology for supporting the war on terrorism will be heard with appreciation by al Qaeda � and ETA, the IRA, Hamas, and every other terrorist organization in the world.


Couldn't have said it better myself.
Score one for the terrorists, which will do nothing but encourage them to redouble their efforts to topple all legitimate governments and install their cronies instead.
I think UK elections are next? Maybe the IRA should blow up London Heathrow as "punishment" for the UK not giving in to them?
The ONLY thing that works against terrorists is never letting up the pressure in rooting them out and exterminating them.
Their demands should be completely ignored and never be allowed to be published.
Sadly socialist/communist movements either don't understand that or frequently are actually in support (either active or sometimes passive) of the terrorists (remember most if not all these terrorist groups have strong communist/anarchist ideologies, often hidden behind a veil of religious zeal).
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 225
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Paul McKenna:

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..


Well, I think now after their success in Spain, Al-Qeada are almost certain to try an attack in the UK during our elections. I'd hope that our election results couldn't be manipulated so easily, but you can't tell until several hundred of your people have been killed and maimed. Plus, Tony Blair may get voted out anyway, who knows? I suppose the difference between the UK and Spain is that the party most likely to replace Labour are the Conservatives, who historically have always been more hawkish.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 820
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:

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


He is not mistaken. In Europe the main argument for war was the WMD issue. The main reason why the governments in Spain, UK and Poland went to war was because of the percieved threat of WMD attacks on allies such as Turkey, Cyprus, Israel etc. In the UK the vote in parliament as to if we should go to war hung in the balance until the intelligence service declared that Iraq could put weopans into use in 45 mins. Now that this has been shown to be either unlikely or not true, there is a severe backlash. This is why there is a growing sentiment against the war in the previous pro-war countries - a lot of people feel that the main reason behind us agreeing to go to war has disapeared.
I personally agree that Iraq is a better place now, that Hussein was well worth removing, but we cannot talk about how great we are for helping the people of Iraq by removing him when we ignore other countries with similar leaders. In countries like Uzbekistan, North Korea, Zimbabwe, China are killing huge numbers of their own people, and we do nothing about it. If removing a cruel dictator was such a key factor in the war for the US, why are they not attacking these countries? To be honest the UK and the US are as bad as each other - the US says it wants to help get rid of dictators, but then only targets some of them that are politically good targets, and the UK just ignores all of them.
 
Joe King
Ranch Hand
Posts: 820
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jeroen Wenting:

Sadly socialist/communist movements either don't understand that or frequently are actually in support (either active or sometimes passive) of the terrorists


Do you have any evidence that socialist movements (as are most parties in Europe) *frequently* support terrorism? To say that socialists frequently support terrorism is a gross insult, especially to the socialists in spain. There have been times when capitalist countries have supported terrorism. If after 9/11 someone had said "well capitalists frequently support terrorism", it would have been a terrible thing to say.
One more time for those who still don't get it: sociliasm and communism are different. Yes some of the old communist states did support terrorism (as did some capitalist and democratic ones), but do not tar most socialists with the same brush.

(remember most if not all these terrorist groups have strong communist/anarchist ideologies, often hidden behind a veil of religious zeal).


AL-Qaeda are most certainly not communist (they supported the Taliban who faught against communist Russia) and the are definatly not anarchist - they'd love an authoritarian theocratic state.
[ March 16, 2004: Message edited by: Joe King ]
 
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1376
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
In Europe the main argument for war was the WMD issue. The main reason why the governments in Spain, UK and Poland went to war was because of the percieved threat of WMD attacks on allies such as Turkey, Cyprus, Israel etc.
Says you. And if that's what it took, then shame on you.
Joe
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 541
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Paul McKenna:

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..


And who will they elect instead? The Conservatives who also support the war? The war has no doubt done damage to Tony and his Cronnies, but hopefully he will get ejected without any terrorism. If there were an attack I doubt he would blame the IRA, making people think he's a liar and switch their votes.
 
Tim Baker
Ranch Hand
Posts: 541
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

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


Dobtful. When the IRA attack did we wipe out Ireland? The mindset of people in the UK and europe when they are attacked is not to go out and beat up random countries.
 
Tim Baker
Ranch Hand
Posts: 541
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
The UK government being Labour is a Socialist one.
The US aversion to socialism is probably the reason why so many of their citizens live in abject poverty.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 2823
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Tim Baker:
The UK government being Labour is a Socialist one.
The US aversion to socialism is probably the reason why so many of their citizens live in abject poverty.


Care to back that up with some facts?
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 2166
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Eugene Kononov:
There are some reports that the new Spanish government will be closer to Castro than to Bush.


That's one of those exagerations which seems typical for people living on american east coast.
PSOE already governed Spain between 1983 (or so) and 1993 (or so). For a western european socialdemocratic party they followed quite conservative politics. Javier Solana (ex-nato General Secretary) is from PSOE.
PSOE is very, very diferent animal from Castro (who is rat with beard).
Partido Popular did make a big mistake in not disclosing all information to spanish public. Lots of spanish people interpreted this as an arogant attitude. For a medium aged democracy (since 1974) which were governed by arogant dictator Franco between 1936/9 - 1975 this might be comprehensible, though I stay with my "by-no-means-vote-should-not-be-influenced-by-terrorists" point.
Axel
 
Joe King
Ranch Hand
Posts: 820
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
In Europe the main argument for war was the WMD issue. The main reason why the governments in Spain, UK and Poland went to war was because of the percieved threat of WMD attacks on allies such as Turkey, Cyprus, Israel etc.
Says you. And if that's what it took, then shame on you.
Joe


Get of your moral high horse for a moment. It may have been shameful for Europe that a country having an evil dictator wasn't enough to pursuade Europe to attack it, but America is no different. If having an evil dictator was a reason for the country to be invaded by America, then they would also have attacked North Korea, Uzbekestan and Zimbabwe. There are plenty of other dictators in the world just as bad as Saddam Hussein, and they are not being invaded. This implies that for America, just like for many European countries, evil dictatorship is not enough of a reason for attacking a country. If I should be ashamed because Europe didn't want to get rid of the dictator in charge of Iraq, why are you not ashamed of America not wanting to get rid of the dictator of N Korea?
Basically it seems like we're all as bad as eachother
[ March 16, 2004: Message edited by: Joe King ]
 
Jeroen Wenting
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5093
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Axel Janssen:

Partido Popular did make a big mistake in not disclosing all information to spanish public. Lots of spanish people interpreted this as an arogant attitude. For a medium aged democracy (since 1974) which were governed by arogant dictator Franco between 1936/9 - 1975 this might be comprehensible, though I stay with my "by-no-means-vote-should-not-be-influenced-by-terrorists" point.
Axel


In other words you say that terrorism should be a legitimate means to get people to vote for one party or the other?
Nice thought... Don't like someone's political ideas, blow him up...
The Spanish government didn't want to inflame the people against the Arab minorites which was likely the real reason they didn't field unsubstantiated (and possibly planted) evidence.
ETA involvement is a natural reaction in Spain, as ETA is a very active terrorist movement there with several bombings a year (albeit mostly smaller scales and aimed at government or tourist targets rather than Spanish civillians, but terrorists don't need parliament approval to change their tactics and up to now ETA tactics never worked except to turn the country atainst them).
 
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by stara szkapa:
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.


I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to say, but it's clear that there is an information gap there regarding the Iraq war. We have excellent relations with the Kurds, who we have been protecting since 1991, and we have cordial-to-good relations with the Iraqi Shia. The people who are attacking us over there are Sunni Baathists and foreign terrorists. The Kurds and Iraqi Shia are not shooting at coalition forces.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 73
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
To back up your light bringing point Joe King, Joe PLuta, please tell me why are the Americans backing up the Saudi regime? Oh wait, it s not an evil dictatorship, just a dictator ship. Didnt osama comre from there? Hmmm, no probably not, let s attack another country that is likely to be against America, poor, oil filled and especially incapable of retaliating with what you claimed and claimed and RE CLAIMED AGAIN TILL OUR EUROPEAN EARS( or democrat ears) WERE damaged was teh real reason. Did we forget to mention here US intervention in South America? Didn t they back up DICTATORSHIPS? So please, stop playing the saint and the I M RIGHT THOU LIETH IN THE DEEPEST EVILNESS not to have backed up a war that had no purpose. (no wmd's, no threat, no terrorsim in Irak). Do you think the war killed more innocent people than Sadam? And last, tell me then why didn t everything finish in Gulf war 1? Tell me? Under US influence we let Sadam in power( sorry not US influence, BUSH influence).
[ March 16, 2004: Message edited by: Daniel Curtmil Atrei ]
 
Axel Janssen
Ranch Hand
Posts: 2166
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jeroen Wenting:

In other words you say that terrorism should be a legitimate means to get people to vote for one party or the other?
Nice thought... Don't like someone's political ideas, blow him up...


No. I did say today and even on sunday that I don't like that and I think its dangerous to let terrorism influence votes.

Before spanish get new scape goat for every plain evil, I am looking for an explanation for this strange voting behaviour.
And there is a point, that the people currently react a bit sensitive to non open information policy regarding those terror issues.
I mean, to protect moros magrebis (or how its called)?
Does not convince me. Aznar didn't tell anything because he feared to loose otherwise. Spanish voters who attributed Aznars politics responsability in this terrorist act did a mistake, but Aznar, too, in not informing people in a proper way.
Axel
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5390
1
Spring Java
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Joe King:

This implies that for America, just like for many European countries, evil dictatorship is not enough of a reason for attacking a country.
If I should be ashamed because Europe didn't want to get rid of the dictator in charge of Iraq, why are you not ashamed of America not wanting to get rid of the dictator of N Korea?
Basically it seems like we're all as bad as eachother


NO, you might be bad but I am not.
Dont you know that Iraq-war was part of war-on-terror. Let there be other dictators in the world. US does not have taken a contract to build dictator free world.
It attcked Iraq for one and only one reason. Iraq was threat to US because it had links with terrorist. If you want I can give some links also. Though its a different story that powell's pics in UN conference were not showing anywhere WMD, but still US knew it that Iraq had WMD... sorry Iraq had links with terrorist and Iraq was also being ruled by dictator. Dictator killed millions of his own people so dont you think US should have interfere to save Iraqies life .... sorry .. that dictator also had links with terrorists. Even I have seen a pic of dictator with powell.. .... sorry US have some pics of Saddam with terrorists or some proof, which normal people/countries cant see.
So dont you ever think that Iraq-war was for to remove a dictator.. even US has some friends where there is military rule..
It was a war-on-terror. Period.
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Joe King:
If having an evil dictator was a reason for the country to be invaded by America, then they would also have attacked North Korea, Uzbekestan and Zimbabwe. There are plenty of other dictators in the world just as bad as Saddam Hussein, and they are not being invaded. This implies that for America, just like for many European countries, evil dictatorship is not enough of a reason for attacking a country.


This is a faulty argument. With the exception of North Korea, we have not been at war and now possess an active cease fire agreement with any of the other countries. With Iraq we did, and they violated the terms of the cease fire. These other countries did not have UNSC resolutions in place against them. Iraq did, and they violated these resolutions. These other nations were not surrounded by US forces who were forced to try to enforce the sanctions and cease fire. Regarding Iraq, there were large amounts of US forces in the region, at US taxpayer expense, who looked to be there for at least another decade, as Hussein gave no indication of any changes in his policies (quite the opposite actually). Iraq violated the terms of the cease fire, Iraq was in violation of UNSC resolutions, Iraq was not cooperating with the arms inspectors (which in itself was a violation of UNSC resolutions), Iraq was funding and facilitating international terrorism and Iraq attempted the assassination of one of our Presidents. Just because the French and their partners in crime refused to live up to their responsibilities, didn't mean we were going to. This is why Iraq was attacked while the others weren't.
We would probably go and take out North Korea, but we and our allies aren't currently willing to pay the price of one million dead South Koreans, which would very likely be the result (depedning on the DPRK's continued actions though, we can't guarantee that they won't don something necessitating an armed conflict). To try and pretend that if one form of action is taken in one situation that it is suitable to be applied in another situation is naive at best. We attacked Iraq because the pre-existing conditions were right for it, and there didn't appear to be any resolution to the Iraq situation without the removal of Hussein. Those same conditions do not exist in the other countries you mention, so therefore the only logical conclusion that can be drawn is that for the time being at least, other forms of pressure must be brought against these dictators short of war.
"Evil dictatorship" is enough reason to take strong actions against a country. Whether those strong actions escalate to war or not depends on each individual situation. In Iraq, the situation that took place from 1991 to 2003 (including the 9/11/01 attacks) made it inevitable that the pressure applied against Hussein must ultimately escalate to armed conflict. The fact that he was an evil dictator the likes of which is rarely seen in the world should have been enough reason in and of itself for nations to band together for his removal. It wasn't the only reason we went in, however that would have been sufficient excuse for me.
[ March 16, 2004: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
 
R K Singh
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5390
1
Spring Java
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
We attacked Iraq because the pre-existing conditions were right for it,


What made US think that "Evil dictator" would not attack on the ghettos of Kurds and Shias like he had already done??
I think that question never popup while removing Hussien's regime ??
I think I must stop this ranting.
 
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1376
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Get of your moral high horse for a moment.
It's not that high, and if you'd just climb up here with me, the world would be a better place.
Joe
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 199
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
And Spain goes left..
Not to worry too much about it. The collective nature of citizens in democracy is like a pendulum. The higher the amplitude, the faster the velocity in the reverse direction. And that opposite pull starts right from the day it reaches the peak. Those events in between just add more energy to make it a perpetual harmonic motion.
Wait of a couple more terms and Spain will be "right" back
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by stara szkapa:
And I'm sure Shia and Kurdish Iraqis will shoot USA helicopters just for fun.


Well this is certainly timely. What exactly do the Iraqis think...
Survey finds hope in occupied Iraq
National Survey of Iraq February 2004 (pdf)
 
Tim Baker
Ranch Hand
Posts: 541
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Paul Stevens:

Care to back that up with some facts?


Sure, the US has the highest proportion of people living in poverty in the developed world. Second place is Ireland.
If you want proof that it's aversion to socialism then you may note that i said Probably.
 
Dani Atrei
Ranch Hand
Posts: 73
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Oh so now i m taught new words. Thank you for your formidable input in this matter Zeitgist, now my turn. These words might seem hard and non-monosyllabic, but are complex enough to be able to understand the situation at hand ( sorry if i m too cynical, just love it). Ignorance, propaganda refering to faux news, stupidity, decision. If you mix these words into a whole sentence you can have this output: ignorance and stupidity can lead us to wrong decisions. Go attack everyone who has oil whith false excuses and knowing there is no connection with al qaeda or at least no proof serious enough not to laugh at openly. Oh you might take pictures of Syria and find they have soccer fiels, then they MUST be planning an attack against a soccer field in Europe!!! I'd like you to say Spaniards are cowards in front of me, you probably wouldn't, i'd smash your arguments with impecable retoric. The problem with your saying is taht you act BEFORE you think, like one might write before thinking except taht with Irak there are much graver implications. I do not put in question your honesty and your willingness to make the world better, you look eager to help. I have no problem with those people thinking that invading Irak could make it a better place, and some of my friends did and we never insulted each other, we just think it wouldn t and that is the reason why we didn t support the war, and for the moment it seems we re right.
But on what concerns your statement that spanish people are cowards, you obviously are completely ignorant on this matter, mis informed by faux news caugh caugh haha haha channel. You might have not spent time enought in Spain to have been able to judge Spanish people, yet you stand by your insult. To say what you just said is a complete generalisation which is 1 false, 2 disgusting and as all generalisation, no base to which you can stand. We have lived trhough dictatorship, of terror and governement, and every time we ahve protested, everytime we have moved towards the achievement of our antiterrorist goal: to annihilate terrorism. All the time closer and always (except once really) in the smart way, the least violence possible against innocent people, the least racism as possible. You might not know it, but Pinochet, a criminal from chile who killed I don t know how many people, his own people was put into power by US GOVERNEMENT (not the people) help. And he was arrested by us, Spain and given back to chile who failed to judge him adequatly. People in spain protest openly about terrorism, risking their lives, they go in millions in the streets to say to the world they will fight terrorism they will protest, and you in America, where you reside I suppose, because we go out of Irak which had no connections with al Qaeda, you dare accuse us of inaction? Time to think whether you did the right action. In the mean time, stop spitting on 40 million of spaniards who are against terrorism and on 40 millions of Spaniard who think terrorism is better fought not were it is or rather was inexistant, in Irak. And in the mean time, find better arguments than saying that spanish people are cowards and French are against America such as, should spain leave so early?
Daniel
 
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Daniel, maybe this will make you feel better: Juan Cole's last piece
Did al-Qaeda Win the Spanish Elections?
 
Dani Atrei
Ranch Hand
Posts: 73
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Yes it does, thank you, it is very interesting.
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Daniel, maybe this will make you feel better: Juan Cole's last piece
Did al-Qaeda Win the Spanish Elections?


Since you posted this article Map, does that mean you agree with it? I'm not sure how anyone can possibly argue that the outcome of the election was not a victory for terrorists, and by extension I'm not sure how anyone can argue that the result will not be further terrorist attacks (most likely in Europe) now that they believe they have a winning strategy.
The fact is that just prior to the blasts, Aznar's party was leading in the polls and expected to win. After the blasts, his party was ousted. It's almost impossible not to make a case for cause and effect.
So no matter how people may try to spin the outcome of the elections, the cold hard truth is that terrorists can't help but view it as a victory. Their actions brought down a Western government. The Spanish have played exactly into the terrorist's hands, and in doing so, have surely encouraged the terrorists to go and kill more Europeans. Whether or not the reaction at the polls was capitulation to the will of the terrorists, and there are plenty who believe it was, the important thing is that it is viewed as a capitulation to the terrorists.
Most of us don't care for an instant who runs Spain. The issue that should be of concern to the rest of the world (Europe in particular) isn't who is running Spain, but the message that the Spanish just sent the terrorists, which is that it is open season on citizens of countries who do anything to try and stop them.
If Spain's 1300 troops leave Iraq it won't have much if any impact on the US, but a couple of interesting points need to be made if this is indeed what they end up doing. First, the new government claims their primary goal now is to fight terrorism. Since these terrorists are operating very heavily out of Iraq now, regardless of whether or not you believe they were prior to the war, then tucking tail and running from Iraq certainly isn't doing much to actually fight these terrorists. Don't the Iraqi people deserve to be protected from terrorists as well, specifically since Spain already made that commitment to them, or is this only reserved for the Spanish? If you want to fight international terrorism, you need to be where the terrorists are. But I suspect what the new government really means is that they want to fight terrorism only within the relative safety of their own borders.
Secondly, Spain's forces operate in an area run by the Polish, which includes several other nations making relatively small (but important) force contributions. I believe Spain makes up about 10% of the combat forces in this area. By Spain withdrawing its troops from this sector, it is directly making the situation more hazardous for the other countries she is supposedly allied with, who will either have to now operate with fewer forces, or pick up the slack from Spain's departure. I don't suppose Spain is actually concerned with her allies well being, not to mention the Iraqi's well being, to be willing to abandon them at the drop of a hat like that.
So what it comes down to is that whether or not it was Spain's intent to capitulate to the terrorists and hand them a victory, this is precisely what they have done. They are next preparing to abandon their "allies", abandon the Iraqi people, and retreat from the actual front of the war on international terrorism. Is there anyone who honestly views these actions as "brave"?
[ March 16, 2004: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 115
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Daniel Curtmil Atrei:
Oh so now i m taught new words. Thank you for your formidable input in this matter Zeitgist, now my turn. These words might seem hard and non-monosyllabic, but are complex enough to be able to understand the situation at hand ( sorry if i m too cynical, just love it). Ignorance, propaganda refering to faux news, stupidity, decision. If you mix these words into a whole sentence you can have this output: ignorance and stupidity can lead us to wrong decisions. Go attack everyone who has oil whith false excuses and knowing there is no connection with al qaeda or at least no proof serious enough not to laugh at openly. Oh you might take pictures of Syria and find they have soccer fiels, then they MUST be planning an attack against a soccer field in Europe!!! I'd like you to say Spaniards are cowards in front of me, you probably wouldn't, i'd smash your arguments with impecable retoric. The problem with your saying is taht you act BEFORE you think, like one might write before thinking except taht with Irak there are much graver implications. I do not put in question your honesty and your willingness to make the world better, you look eager to help. I have no problem with those people thinking that invading Irak could make it a better place, and some of my friends did and we never insulted each other, we just think it wouldn t and that is the reason why we didn t support the war, and for the moment it seems we re right.
But on what concerns your statement that spanish people are cowards, you obviously are completely ignorant on this matter, mis informed by faux news caugh caugh haha haha channel. You might have not spent time enought in Spain to have been able to judge Spanish people, yet you stand by your insult. To say what you just said is a complete generalisation which is 1 false, 2 disgusting and as all generalisation, no base to which you can stand. We have lived trhough dictatorship, of terror and governement, and every time we ahve protested, everytime we have moved towards the achievement of our antiterrorist goal: to annihilate terrorism. All the time closer and always (except once really) in the smart way, the least violence possible against innocent people, the least racism as possible. You might not know it, but Pinochet, a criminal from chile who killed I don t know how many people, his own people was put into power by US GOVERNEMENT (not the people) help. And he was arrested by us, Spain and given back to chile who failed to judge him adequatly. People in spain protest openly about terrorism, risking their lives, they go in millions in the streets to say to the world they will fight terrorism they will protest, and you in America, where you reside I suppose, because we go out of Irak which had no connections with al Qaeda, you dare accuse us of inaction? Time to think whether you did the right action. In the mean time, stop spitting on 40 million of spaniards who are against terrorism and on 40 millions of Spaniard who think terrorism is better fought not were it is or rather was inexistant, in Irak. And in the mean time, find better arguments than saying that spanish people are cowards and French are against America such as, should spain leave so early?
Daniel



Peace, peace, Mercutio, peace :-)
Obviously, I must of stuck a nerve. Even though I was only able to finish the first few lines of your diatribe, lets call it a day and agree to disagree.
-Eleison
 
Dani Atrei
Ranch Hand
Posts: 73
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Haha, no problem bro, no problem. Liked your answer a lot! Peace man
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1309
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Come on, let's give Spain a break. Their election was held only two days after the bombing. The whole nation (in fact, the whole world) was and still is in shock and in mourning.
Try to think the way Americans felt two days after September 11, 2001.
Also think how many percentage of people are for the Iraq war and how many percentage of people are against the Iraq war within the U.S.
 
Bhau Mhatre
Ranch Hand
Posts: 199
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Come on, let's give Spain a break. Their election was held only two days after the bombing. The whole nation (in fact, the whole world) was and still is in shock and in mourning.
Exactly. The Election Commissioner of Spain, or whatever the equivalent of it they have there, could have given the Spaniards a break. He could have postponed the elections for say two weeks for things to settle down and let people get out of shock. Not sure how much that would have changed the results though, but atleast that would have given people some time to cope up with the tragedy.
Seems like the election was more important and was conducted in a hurry.
 
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1376
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Map: Juan Cole's last piece
Ah yes, Map's new favorite source - terror apologist and "divine revelationist", Juan Cole, the man who talks to the Bab in his dreams. And who thinks he is MUCH, MUCH smarter than you. See some quotes:
http://www.campus-watch.org/quotes.php
Here's what I don't get:
I keep hearing that Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism, but no sooner was Madrid attacked by Al-Qaeda, suddenly we hear that Spain would have never been hit if it hadn't got involved in Iraq!
Is Al-Qaeda now defending Iraq out of the goodness of its heart? Or is it because it wants its long-time supporters back?
Joe
 
Bhau Mhatre
Ranch Hand
Posts: 199
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
Here's what I don't get:
I keep hearing that Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism, but no sooner was Madrid attacked by Al-Qaeda, suddenly we hear that Spain would have never been hit if it hadn't got involved in Iraq!
Is Al-Qaeda now defending Iraq out of the goodness of its heart? Or is it because it wants its long-time supporters back?
Joe


Al-Queda probably wouldn't care if Spain assasinated Saddam. But what they do care is Spain's allignment with US. For them, "against-Saddam" is different from being "with-US". See the difference? Al-queda's immediate aim doesn't seem to destroy all the western countries. There main aim seems to make it harder for US to have any presence in the middle-east or influence over Palestinian reagon. And for this, they want to terrorize every nation that sides with US in the hope that people will elect governments that do not support US.
So Al-Qaeda is neither defending Iraq out of the goodness of its heart nor is it because it wants its long-time supporters back? They want to single out US first from its allies.
I could be wrong. But it seems as simple as that.
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
This guy is saying essentially what I said in my previous post, only much more eloquantly.

Spanish Flee
 
Paul Stevens
Ranch Hand
Posts: 2823
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Tim Baker:

Sure, the US has the highest proportion of people living in poverty in the developed world. Second place is Ireland.
If you want proof that it's aversion to socialism then you may note that i said Probably.


Your words were abject poverty and you have proven nothing. According to who and what standards.
I say the world is flat. I can post it again as proof.
 
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Since you posted this article Map, does that mean you agree with it?
I am not sure how much I agree with it, just thought his argumenst are similar to what Daniel is saying, and you *need* somebody like-minded when you think the whole world is going crazy.
The fact is that just prior to the blasts, Aznar's party was leading in the polls and expected to win. After the blasts, his party was ousted. It's almost impossible not to make a case for cause and effect.
Once again, the people did not want this war. It's probably not a big surprise that they are more critical and less optimistic about its results. The question is: the Spain went to the war, did it make Spain more secure? After what happened, people might think that it's time to find different ways for ensuring security and that the ruling party isn't the best one for this task. I don't know of course, what people really think, just base my speculations on this quote:

The suspicions of many Spaniards that the ruling centre-right Popular Party was not revealing all it knew about the bombings which killed 200 people and wounded 1,500 and helped sweep the government out of office.
Reuters


and on what Daniel posted in this forum. And on my own recollections about how the public in Russia reacted to the first terracts. I don't think anybody thought that we should run for the cover ASAP, sit there quietly and suck the paw. Right the opposite. It’s just that people could have their own ideas about what to do, and these ideas can be different from those of American administration.
If Spain's 1300 troops leave Iraq it won't have much if any impact on the US, but a couple of interesting points need to be made if this is indeed what they end up doing. First, the new government claims their primary goal now is to fight terrorism. Since these terrorists are operating very heavily out of Iraq now, regardless of whether or not you believe they were prior to the war, then tucking tail and running from Iraq certainly isn't doing much to actually fight these terrorists.
Assuming that *all* what Spain is going to do is to bring its troops, back, yes. How true is this assumption?
Don't the Iraqi people deserve to be protected from terrorists as well, specifically since Spain already made that commitment to them, or is this only reserved for the Spanish? If you want to fight international terrorism, you need to be where the terrorists are.
Well, you just said that "these terrorists are operating very heavily out of Iraq now", so I am confused.
"the Iraqi people deserve to be protected from terrorists as well" - why is it a duty of Spanish people to protect the Iraqi people from terrorists? Aren't Iraqi people capable of this themselves? Can it be that 1300 Spaniards in Iraq create more problems than they solve?
[ March 16, 2004: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Once again, the people did not want this war. It's probably not a big surprise that they are more critical and less optimistic about its results. The question is: the Spain went to the war, did it make Spain more secure? After what happened, people might think that it's time to find different ways for ensuring security and that the ruling party isn't the best one for this task.
Yet until the blasts in Madrid, they were ready to re-elect Aznar's party.
why is it a duty of Spanish people to protect the Iraqi people from terrorists?
The Spanish signed on to the coalition. They made a commitment to the Iraqi people. They need to have the moral fortitude to see it through.
Aren't Iraqi people capable of this themselves?
Not without help.
Can it be that 1300 Spaniards in Iraq create more problems than they solve?
Certainly not for the Iraqis. Maybe you didn't read the survey I posted previously in this thread?
[ March 16, 2004: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
 
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
JM: Maybe you didn't read the survey I posted previously in this thread?
In fact, I downloaded it the day before you posted a link! We are probably reading he same sources. Must be Juan Cole's Blog.
The poll is interesting, I'll start another thread. This one is for Spain bashing.
 
Who among you feels worthy enough to be my best friend? Test 1 is to read this tiny ad:
Java file APIs (DOC, XLS, PDF, and many more)
https://products.aspose.com/total/java
  • Post Reply Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
Boost this thread!