Socialist claim victory in Spain

[Sava]

Originally posted by The diplomat




You have not even heard my opinion on the subject yet. How do you know that I am not well-read in international politics? I happen to know a few things about international politics. I took an advanced course in international politics when in college, and I have read several books on the subject.

just my usual standard counter-troll

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ugh... I don't like what the Spanish (new) PM is saying. Fact is, you can be against the war, but pulling out now will mostly likely hurt the IRAQIs more than the US! The US will look at everyone leaving, say screw this (at least some candidate will) and we'll pull out way before time, say we got Saddam, so we won and that's that.

I wish both sides would put politics aside and not screw over a whole country because dick-waivers on both sides of the Atlantic would rather seem 'right' than actually help out.

[Sava]

Imran

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

But more important is that the bombing APPEARS to be the proximate cause of the PSOE victory - if the PSOE had led in the polls prior, or if there was convincing evidence that the shift was due to incompetent handling of the bombing aftermath by the govt, id be more comfortable saying it was not an "AQ victory"

So what? Should the people of Spain have voted differently, simply not to 'give the appearance" of an AQ victory? Even if they changed their minds due to the AQ attack, as I have said ealier, this was more than a valid action, since that attack showed the PP failed to keep them safe from an AQ attack-why re-elect a government that failed in the basic need to keep them safe?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


So what? Should the people of Spain have voted differently, simply not to 'give the appearance" of an AQ victory? Even if they changed their minds due to the AQ attack, as I have said ealier, this was more than a valid action, since that attack showed the PP failed to keep them safe from an AQ attack-why re-elect a government that failed in the basic need to keep them safe?

They had no reason to think that a bombing was impossible before Saturday. Did the govt say that such a bombing was impossible?

[chequita guevara]

You can't fight terrorism with a chocolate duck!

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


They had no reason to think that a bombing was impossible before Saturday. Did the govt say that such a bombing was impossible?

What does impossibility have to do with it?

we are talking 10 simultanous blasts-that takes quite a lot of time and effort to set up and execute. It was more than 2 years after 9/11, and yet the PP government did not find out about the plot. Would any gov. have done better? No idea, pure speculation. But you failed to answer the question- if the PP government failed to keep the people safe from AQ-and its involvement in a highly unpopular war having had no positive effect vs that threat, why should the people vote for PP again? Simply to deny the preception of a victory for AQ? That is supposed to be the sole notion in thier mind when going to the polls?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
I can sympathize with the Spanish people's displeasure at being involved in a war in Iraq inititated under false pretenses. Frankly I'd like to see Geo. Bush impeached after we get our troops out, which I hope will be this year. OTOH I have no quarrel with the legitimate war on OBL's organization. By knuckling in to pressure from al-Qaeda Spain may be inviting outright extortion. Will the socialists be able to resist? Probably, but what will OBL's men do if their demands are thwarted next time?

Impeached?

IMPEACHED?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
You can't fight terrorism with a chocolate duck!

But you can eat a chocolate duck! Mmmmm... chocolate...

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned


Impeached?

IMPEACHED?

IMPEACHED?


Yes, I think that is what he said.

[Whaleboy]

Sure it influenced the people to vote a certain way.

Just like 9/11 will do this November.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by GePap


Even if they changed their minds due to the AQ attack, as I have said ealier, this was more than a valid action

I know that this partial quote is out of context, but thinking along these lines endangers everyone.



Imran, spot on analysis.


Sava, contribute an idea please and not just counter-ideas


*PLATO recedes back into the shadows*

[GePap]

Originally posted by PLATO


I know that this partial quote is out of context, but thinking along these lines endangers everyone.

Nope, only those that fail in their jobs, or are intelectually dishonest or wrong.

The Aznar government could not keep Spaniards safe from AQ- why should the Spanish people put them in power again? Now the socialist get their chance. If they succeed were Aznar and the PP failed, then they should be re-elected. If they fail, let the voters throw them out of power.

[Arrian]

Sava, contribute an idea please and not just counter-ideas

He can't. Because, after all, if Sava were to start spouting serious posts, the terrorists BUSH WOULD HAVE WON!

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


What does impossibility have to do with it?

we are talking 10 simultanous blasts-that takes quite a lot of time and effort to set up and execute. It was more than 2 years after 9/11, and yet the PP government did not find out about the plot. Would any gov. have done better? No idea, pure speculation. But you failed to answer the question- if the PP government failed to keep the people safe from AQ-and its involvement in a highly unpopular war having had no positive effect vs that threat, why should the people vote for PP again? Simply to deny the preception of a victory for AQ? That is supposed to be the sole notion in thier mind when going to the polls?

so youre saying its the bombing had an impact not so much wrt Iraq, but wrt to govt failure at policing, intell, etc and that Iraq was only important in that context. Hmm, interesting. Any Spaniards care to confirm this?

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


so youre saying its the bombing had an impact not so much wrt Iraq, but wrt to govt failure at policing, intell, etc and that Iraq was only important in that context. Hmm, interesting. Any Spaniards care to confirm this?

I said no such thing. Even if the people believe it was their token involvement in Iraq that got them into trouble, they had every right to, having seen that the negative consequences of involvement now outweighted the positives, for them to change course. Again, I find it absurd to say that the sole idea in a voter's mid when deciding what tehir government will be for the coming 4 years should be avoinding giving the wrong impression to outsiders...screw that.

Now, you keep saying what Spain's position would be in NATO took over-well, for that to happen, given that all decisions have to be unanimous, by definition Spain would have to agree to make it so, no?

[Solly]

Whaleboy

"Sure it influenced the people to vote a certain way.

Just like 9/11 will do this November."

The Spanish are being criticised (by many) for their appeasement of the terrorists. If Bush is re-elected, his election would be a defeat for the terrorists and a continued counter to the terrorist threat.

[Shi Huangdi]

WRT Turkey:

Turkey is a bad comparison here. For one, much of the middle east has a certain degree of antipathy towards Turkey because of Turkey's past domination of the region. Turkey has also not been the most democratic of states, has a large military influence on the government and a history of coups. Turkey has also undergone several policies loathsome to the Arab world, most notably an alliance with Israel. Turkey is also militantly secular in it's orientation with it's Kemalism. Iraq, if a democracy on the other hand, would probably be significantly more friendly towards Islam then Turkey(which wouldn't be hard to do)

"The logic against the election of the socialist this time was the same logic those rightwingers in 1986 saw when planting those bombs- "anytime a terrorist attack happens, vote for the right!".

I guess DanS and DD and others agree with that fundamental logic that claimed those 86 Italian lives a decade and a half ago."

This isn't a left-right issue, it depends on the particular government's orientation on the issues itself. For instance, I would not advise a British voter who wants to see a strong stance against terrorism vote against the leftist Labour government.

"At the bottom of your post remains the fundamnetally flawed premise that the war in Iraq is crucial to fighting AQ. That has yet to be argued with any success, so any assumptions made with that as an underlying assumption are faulty."

That's a BAM you just made. Re-read my above post: While it can certainly be argued that removing Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the War on Terror, that same claim can not be made with the attempt to rebuild after Iraq afterwards. With foreign Jihadist fighters in Iraq attempting to destabilize the country, it is absurd to claim otherwise.

"
The sooner you get it into your head that there is no western alliance the better..."

I see. So the US went abroad and fought to deliver Europe from the Nazis, and then entered into the NATO alliance and put its own soldiers and seucrity on the line and made a commitment to defend Western Europe if it was attacekd; but then as soon the external threat the West faces focuses itself on the USA, the western alliance does not exist?

Convenient.

"Iraq was too far. In fact the most damaging thing is that by allowing ourselves to be distracted, many pacifists worldwide will try and stop any action either in Iraq where we are stuck AND against AQ..."

We made an assesment that Iraq was a threat to our security and invaded there. Whether that was right is irrelevant now, we are in Iraq and we have to deal with it, and the fact is that there is now a new front opened vs. AQ/the Jihadist movement in Iraq.

[GePap]

nice non double post.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by The diplomat
How do you know that I am not well-read in international politics?

To be perfectly honest, you don't seem to be particularly well-read in anything. Your opinions are typically based on the most ill-infomred, right-wing drivel being spewed on the talk waves. Even Ned is more well-read than you. And I say that with deepest respect for you both.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
This isn't a left-right issue, it depends on the particular government's orientation on the issues itself. For instance, I would not advise a British voter who wants to see a strong stance against terrorism vote against the leftist Labour government.

The only thing that maks the socialist "weak on terrorism" is their iraq stance, so:

That's a BAM you just made. Re-read my above post: While it can certainly be argued that removing Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the War on Terror, that same claim can not be made with the attempt to rebuild after Iraq afterwards. With foreign Jihadist fighters in Iraq attempting to destabilize the country, it is absurd to claim otherwise.

NOw the question posed by the socialist is will an occupation without any UN mandate be legitimate-and can an illegitimate occupation succeed? After all, what the Spanish government has said is that come June, if there has been no UN mandate given they will leave the mission.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Obviously the Aznar govt thought that it WOULD achieve the aims, in the long run.

I don't think it did. I think it was trying to curry favor with the U.S.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Sava, contribute an idea please and not just counter-ideas

Hey, he agreed with me, so toss off

[Ned]

I scanned this entire thread and never saw anyone really address the issues from the point of view of al Qaeda. What do you think they are thinking now and what does this portend for Europe in the future? Is the following wrong in any way?

1. They attacked Spain immediately before elections.

2. They announce that the attack is in response to Spain's involvement in Iraq.

3. They socialist party says that they were attacked because of their involvement in Iraq. They promise to withdraw.

4. The favored PP is defeated in favor of the socialist.

5. Al Qaeda can only view their attack as successful. There is no other reasonable interpretation from al Qaeda's point of view.

6. Al Qaeda can claim victory and call for further attacks in Europe to influence elections citing the results in Spain.

7. The most likely targets are governments that have troops in either Iraq or Afghanistan.

8. The bombings will continue so long as they continue to have an effect and will only stop when Europe is totally withdrawn from the war on terror.

[chequita guevara]

I wonder what Vegas puts the odds of Iraqi democracy at?

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap



IMPEACHED?


Yes, I think that is what he said.

Well, GePap, it is interesting to note that Bush operated under Congressional authorization in everything he did in Afghanistan and Iraq, while Bill Clinton never asked Congress for authority to do anything he did with our troops during his administration.

And, yet, people seriously call for the impeachment of Bush? On what grounds?

[chequita guevara]

Ned, our government is first and foremost, resposible to its own people. The current Spanish government baldly lied to coverup the results of its extremely unpopular support of Bush's illegal war. It failed the Spanish people an should be replaced.

The Socialists have no obligation to uphold the policies of a lying government against the will of the Spanish people. Regardless of what AQ wants, democracy demands that Spain pull-out. It would be almost as stupid for Spain to remain in Iraq as it was for the Russians to stay in WWI after there was an anti-war revolution. If you capaign on pulling out and you take power, you damn well better pull out.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I wonder what Vegas puts the odds of Iraqi democracy at?

Has Kerry now congratulated the new Spanish prime minister on his "wise" decision to withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq. If he did, I would say Iraq's chances of success are near zero.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
And, yet, people seriously call for the impeachment of Bush? On what grounds?

Lying to Congress.

[Sava]

And, yet, people seriously call for the impeachment of Bush? On what grounds?

sex with an INTERN!