Socialist claim victory in Spain

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz 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.

You may be right about why the vote the went the way it did. But if one steps into the shoes of al Qaeda, do you think they will agree with this kind of thinking? Will they agree that their attack had nothing to do with the shift in the Spanish electorate?

[Sava]

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

my idea is: saying "the terrorists win" because of the election is absolutely retarded...

that's the same dumb-assed Ann Coulter "yera traitor" mentality... it belongs in the Freerepublic forums with the rest of the right-wing ****.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Lying to Congress.

The problem with this is that Congress had full access to the same intelligence as did Bush and drew the same conclusions. Ditto Clinton before Bush. Ditto Britain, Spain, Italy and many other states.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


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?

1. spain is both a sovereign country and a democracy - if they want to elect someone cause they think he can stop the tides, they have every right to do so.

They also have every right to make a decision based on cost-benefit to Spain. It would behoove them to consider the impact of sending a message on that Cost-benefit. It may still be that the vote is desirable from the point of view of Spains cost benefit, yet harmful from the point of view of the rest of the world. How does expressing disappointment at the harm done to the rest of the world imply that Spain didnt have the right to do what it did?

2. Even France has said they would consider a NATO role in Iraq, if and when a sovereign Iraqi govt requests it. Germany has said they would not veto, though they would not send troops. I was asking if Spain would keep troops in those circumstance - i cant see Spain vetoing it in circumstances where France wouldnt.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Sure it influenced the people to vote a certain way.

Just like 9/11 will do this November.

When are the next elections in Britain?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
if one steps into the shoes of al Qaeda, do you think they will agree with this kind of thinking?

I refuse to base my vote for government based upon what terrorists think.

[GePap]

You know, first people say that AQ would target Europe anyway, since their aim is total world domination-now they will blame Spanish voters for electing the socialist and encourgaing more AQ attacks..so is that saying that AQ was not planning widespread attacks against Europe as it was becuase of their support for either Iraq or Afghanistan? And if AQ's aims were always to attack all freedom loving people's, why would a PP victory have done anything to lessen the vulnerability of all European countries?

Can't you guys get you claims straight?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap



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.

In fact the post war UNSC resolution gave some recognition to the Iraqi Governing Council. And the UN rep, Lakthar Brahimi has been working closely with the CPA on the political future of Iraq.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
The problem with this is that Congress had full access to the same intelligence as did Bush and drew the same conclusions.

Except that the data was manipulated to downplay the uncertainty that the CIA had, while ignoring many of the Agency's misgivings about the information that contradicted the Bush Admin's claims. Congress was deliberately given bogus information.

But hopefully Bush won't survive (politically) the election to be able to be impeached. Instead we can toss his ass in prison!

[GePap]

They also have every right to make a decision based on cost-benefit to Spain. It would behoove them to consider the impact of sending a message on that Cost-benefit. It may still be that the vote is desirable from the point of view of Spains cost benefit, yet harmful from the point of view of the rest of the world. How does expressing disappointment at the harm done to the rest of the world imply that Spain didnt have the right to do what it did?

Voters within any sovereign state have no responsibility towards the world-not voters in the US, not voters in Spain. That is one of the basic tennets of soverign nation-states that happen to be democracies. As for the contention this vote might harm the rest of the world- that is left to be seen: most liekly that can never be answered.

2. Even France has said they would consider a NATO role in Iraq, if and when a sovereign Iraqi govt requests it. Germany has said they would not veto, though they would not send troops. I was asking if Spain would keep troops in those circumstance - i cant see Spain vetoing it in circumstances where France wouldnt.

Then that answers your own question about the issue, does it not?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why am I not surpised that this thread turned into something about Bush .

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
In fact the post war UNSC resolution gave some recognition to the Iraqi Governing Council. And the UN rep, Lakthar Brahimi has been working closely with the CPA on the political future of Iraq.

June is also the hand-off date the US has set. So we will see what is done when control is handed over to Iraqis themselves.

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap
You know, first people say that AQ would target Europe anyway, since their aim is total world domination-now they will blame Spanish voters for electing the socialist and encourgaing more AQ attacks..so is that saying that AQ was not planning widespread attacks against Europe as it was becuase of their support for either Iraq or Afghanistan? And if AQ's aims were always to attack all freedom loving people's, why would a PP victory have done anything to lessen the vulnerability of all European countries?

Can't you guys get you claims straight?

GePap, what you have to agree on is that al Qaeda is not stupid. They are way ahead of the curve for the most part and are enormously effective in their tactics and stragegy. This enemy is the most sophisticated manipulator of public opinion since.... Well, name a terrorist organization that was more effective.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
You know, first people say that AQ would target Europe anyway, since their aim is total world domination-now they will blame Spanish voters for electing the socialist and encourgaing more AQ attacks..so is that saying that AQ was not planning widespread attacks against Europe as it was becuase of their support for either Iraq or Afghanistan? And if AQ's aims were always to attack all freedom loving people's, why would a PP victory have done anything to lessen the vulnerability of all European countries?

Can't you guys get you claims straight?

I dont know why AQ targeted Spain. Frankly there is still considerable disagreement, (right here on this board among other places) as to why AQ targeted the US on 9/11. It SEEMS that while AQ may have intended to target europe generally, they may have prioritized an attack on Spain, since to change the course of a European election would show the muslim world their continued strength, in a way that killing 200 frenchmen or Germans would not. Bonus points for ending Spanish participation in the Iraqi occupation, an occupation that is unpopular in the muslim world, at least outside Iran(the people, not the govt) Kuwait, and Iraq itself.

On the other hand its quite possible that Spain was targeted because it is more easily accesible from the muslim world. Or that the Spanish govt has been less competent than other European govts in internal policing (strikes me as quite possible - say what you will about France, their Interior Minister has been VERY aggressive about internal counter terror actions)

[Ned]

LoTM, come on. They announced they attacked Spain because of its support of Afghanistan and Iraq.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned
GePap, what you have to agree on is that al Qaeda is not stupid. They are way ahead of the curve for the most part and are enormously effective in their tactics and stragegy. This enemy is the most sophisticated manipulator of public opinion since.... Well, name a terrorist organization that was more effective.

If you get into this line of thinking, then why not say they used 9/11 to manipulate the US into greater involvement in the ME to strenghten themselves.....

Again, even if AQ is happy with the results, just becuase AQ is happy does not make them bad results. Its like saying you can't be happy for the end of facism cause communists are happy with that too.

The world is not black and white, and neither is any one person or group, no matter how close they might come to one of those two shades.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap

Quote:

They also have every right to make a decision based on cost-benefit to Spain. It would behoove them to consider the impact of sending a message on that Cost-benefit. It may still be that the vote is desirable from the point of view of Spains cost benefit, yet harmful from the point of view of the rest of the world. How does expressing disappointment at the harm done to the rest of the world imply that Spain didnt have the right to do what it did?

Voters within any sovereign state have no responsibility towards the world-not voters in the US, not voters in Spain. That is one of the basic tennets of soverign nation-states that happen to be democracies. As for the contention this vote might harm the rest of the world- that is left to be seen: most liekly that can never be answered.



Then that answers your own question about the issue, does it not?

1. I understand what soveriegnty is. States have the right to put their own interests first - whether its regard to supporting an occupation, voting for a green house gas treaty, or whatever else. It is MY right to note what they do, and to express disappointment.

2. No it does not answer my question, since my question was NOT "will spain veto NATO participation" but "will Spain keep its troops in Iraq if the the multinational force falls under NATO control but not UN control" The question of Spain vetoing NATO participation was raised by YOU, not by ME.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Except that the data was manipulated to downplay the uncertainty that the CIA had, while ignoring many of the Agency's misgivings about the information that contradicted the Bush Admin's claims. Congress was deliberately given bogus information.

But hopefully Bush won't survive (politically) the election to be able to be impeached. Instead we can toss his ass in prison!

I am very sure you are right, Che. This explanation completely explains the Clinton administration's conclusions to the same effect. Ditto Britain, etc., etc., etc. Bush manipulated all of them, even while governor of Texas.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

2. No it does not answer my question, since my question was NOT "will spain veto NATO participation" but "will Spain keep its troops in Iraq if the the multinational force falls under NATO control but not UN control" The question of Spain vetoing NATO participation was raised by YOU, not by ME.

If Spain voted to allow NATO to take a more active role, than vote in and of itself would be valuable. Whether they would contribute token forces-well, you get there when you get there.

[Ned]

GePap, if you think that al Qaeda is right, well of course you are pleased with the results in Spain. I assume you will also be pleased when al Qaeda attacks the United States just before our elections in order to defeat Bush and elect Kerry.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ned
LoTM, come on. They announced they attacked Spain because of its support of Afghanistan and Iraq.

I dont necessarily believe everything Al Qaeeda says.

They will announce as reasons whatever they think likely to win them support in the muslim world, regardless of what their true motivation is.

Aside from which, at this point we dont know if the people who gave the orders for the bombing are the same people as those who released the video.

We're making alot of assumptions here about who and what Al qaeeda is. There is a leadership, includuing Ayamn Zawahiri, and OBL (IF he is alive) moving in the Afghan-Pakistan border area. There is another group of leaders includin Said Al adel and Saad Bin laden in Iran. These leadership groups communicate with underground cells and with aboveground PR "fronts" via various surreptitious means. Apparently some of both the cells and the fronts act on their own from time to time. Given all that I would suggest some degress of skepticism about what any given"announcement" actually represents.

[Ned]

I checked Kerry's major speech today on "terrorism." His only reference to Spain was to call for increased security for US railways.

There is no mention of the socialist victory or their annouced goal of withdrawing from Iraq.

I assume though, that Kerry will say that this is a good thing as it shows that if he were president the Spanish would not pull out.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned
GePap, if you think that al Qaeda is right, well of course you are pleased with the results in Spain. I assume you will also be pleased when al Qaeda attacks the United States just before our elections in order to defeat Bush and elect Kerry.

I am sure with people like you in the electorate that would not be true Neddy. Be sure that the Nedaverse sadly covers more people than just you.

BUt I appriciate the troll. Keep up the comedy Neddy

[Alfonso]

Originally posted by paiktis22
Congratulations to the socialists and to the people of Spain

Thanks in name of the PSOE, paiktis22.

[Q Classic]

i don't know if anybody's mentioned this?

http://news.google.com/news?num=30&h...fnewsId%3d1207

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap


I am sure with people like you in the electorate that would not be true Neddy. Be sure that the Nedaverse sadly covers more people than just you.

BUt I appriciate the troll. Keep up the comedy Neddy

Trolling aside, al Qaeda must really be encouraged that it can influence elections. I now fully expect a major attack just before the elections.

[Q Classic]

seems like it. ah, well.

so how many troops are we talking about leaving? <3k, but...?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned


Trolling aside, al Qaeda must really be encouraged that it can influence elections. I now fully expect a major attack just before the elections.

And if AQ succeeds, what does this say about the state of Homeland security under Bush?

[Q Classic]

i don't know if it would lead to a kerry victory.

if anything, it would probably keep things just as contentious as they were, with bush pointing a finger at kerry and saying that with him in power, you're going to get more of this, while kerry will point at bush and say that with him in power, you're going to get more of this.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
That's what happened. People were set to re-elect the PP

This is the fallacy you conservatoves are convinced of. If anything, Spain has shown us yesterday evening that their polls are usually inaccurate: the opinion polls conducted on election day didn't give us a clear picture (two polls believed the PP won, one poll believed the PSOE won), and we could have no definitive answer of the winner at 20:00.
So, how can you assert "the people were set to reelect the PP"? Based on the oh-so-trustworthy polls that show a tiny difference one week ago?

The attacks (or more accurately, the lies about them) may have tilted the balance. But we're not even sure of that. The assertion that the PP was bound to win is pure BAM, or pure bullshit if you prefer.