Are the election results in Spain a victory for terrorists?

[Castlerock]

Are the election results in Spain a victory for terrorists?
Days before the election the ruling party is expected to win. Terrorists slaughter hundreds and the populace, angry at being made a target, vote the ruling party out. Where is the outrage at the murderers? Seems like a big win for the terrorists. Am I wrong?

[GrantDawg]

Am I wrong?

Nope.

[Maple Leafs]

I know nothing about Spanish politics. But I have to admit, that was my first thought when I read the results.

I'm sure someone with more knowledge can explain the results, but it's certainly confusing from the outside.

[Ben E Lou]

Maple--

Same here.

[Solecismic]

The terrorists are celebrating today. A huge victory. The exit polls in Spain indicate that people blame the bombing on government support of the war against terrorism rather than on the terrorists themselves. Couldn't be scripted any better for Al Qaeda - they're a player again.

I would have expected the Spanish to be angrier at the bombers, having suffered from ETA attacks for so long. But perhaps wimpiness is human nature these days, and another attack on America would have people here blaming the administration for going after bin Laden and friends after the 9/11 attack.

[clintl]

Did you watch news coverage of millions of Spaniards demonstrating and denouncing the terrorists? How can you possibly question whether the Spanish people are outraged at the terrorists? They may have retaliated against the ruling party at the ballot box for putting Spain, against popular will, in harm's way, but there is no doubt that they are just as angry at the terrorists as Americans were after 9/11.

[Ben E Lou]

But perhaps wimpiness is human nature these days, and another attack on America would have people here blaming the administration for going after bin Laden and friends after the 9/11 attack.And if our take on this is correct, the logical line of thinking (if these people ever use logic) would be that they'd go all-out to try something near our election.

FWIW, I'm very surprised that no one has strapped a bomb to themselves and gone into an American movie theater on a Friday night. I can't imagine that our intelligence is that good.

[sachmo71]

The new leader said that they would continue to fight terrorism, but that they would use different tactics than the former government did. Bringing their troops home from Iraq is a different matter in their minds. I don't think it can be said that they are throwing in the towel as of yet.

[cuervo72]

Seems to me that this is a major victory for the terrorists too, and would only encourage more of the same. They have to think that their tactics in bullying countries aligned with the US can work.

[Maple Leafs]

I can certainly see the viewpoint that Iraq and terrorism are different issues. I guess my problem with this is that the terrorists' goals seem very transparent. By targetting Spain three days before an election, they were clearly aiming to topple a government whose policies they disagreed with. And then the people went right along with it.

[AgPete]

Did Spain just enlarge the bullseye over Europe? What are you going to do if you're al Qaeda? Option 1: Attack the U.S. only to find more troops occupying Muslim countries or Option 2: Attack Europe and troops withdraw from Muslim countries.

[clintl]

So if your country is attacked by terrorists just before an election, you should always re-elect the ruling party? Is that what you all are saying?

[cthomer5000]

So if your country is attacked by terrorists just before an election, you should always re-elect the ruling party? Is that what you all are saying?
I don't think anyway is necessarily saying that. It just appears that the voters played right into the terrorists hands here.

[clintl]

I think some people are forgetting that the ruling party was perceived to be a little too eager to blame ETA and discount Al Qaeda at first, and the Spanish people, with some justification, were a little pissed off about the possibility that there was maybe a little CYA going on there on the ruling party's part because the elections were so close.

[Ryan S]

So if your country is attacked by terrorists just before an election, you should always re-elect the ruling party? Is that what you all are saying?
I don't think that is what people are saying at all.

From what I have heard, a few days ago it seemed certain that the ruling party would win. After the bombing they lost.

Regardless of whether it would have happened or not without the bombing, it does set a worrying precedent. After this result, I expect to see this kind of thing happen again.

[Maple Leafs]

I think some people are forgetting that the ruling party was perceived to be a little too eager to blame ETA and discount Al Qaeda at first, and the Spanish people, with some justification, were a little pissed off about the possibility that there was maybe a little CYA going on there on the ruling party's part because the elections were so close.As I read more about this, I'm seeing that theory quite a bit. If that's the case -- that the Spanish people feel that the government tried to score political points by blaming the ETA instead of really trying to get to the bottom of things -- then I think the results are a little more justified.

Still, I can't shake the idea that the terrorists are just thrilled by this news. The new PM says he'll fight terrorism. But what happens if the people responsible for the train bombings are caught and sentenced to life in prison, and the terrorists respond with another bomb? Will the people demand that the sentences be reduced? How far do you go towards placating terrorists in the name of peace?

[CamEdwards]

I think this was definitely a win for the terrorists, like it or not. I think, however, that this won't affect our elections.

The people in Spain feel (rightly or wrongly) that the terrorist acts were the result of Spain taking part in the war with Iraq. Americans don't have the luxury of that line of thinking. War was declared on us on 9-11-01. Therefore, any terrorist act against this country in the days or weeks before the war will only show Americans that the war is not over, and give President Bush a huge advantage (as voters by a 2-1 margin think Bush is tougher on terror than Kerry).

In other words, and I hate to put this in an inflammatory fashion, but the terrorists want John Kerry to win.* Deserved or not (and I think it is deserved), he has the reputation of not taking the war on terror all that seriously.

*Please believe me when I say that I'm not implying a vote for John Kerry equals a vote for terrorism or anything along those lines. You may believe John Kerry will fight the war on terror in a strong and decisive faction, but virtually every public opinion poll says the majority of the people feel otherwise.

[Solecismic]

I'm not Spanish, but I assumed ETA at first, too. Just as I'd assume Muslim extremists at first if there were another attack here.

I don't think the Populists meant to do anything other than promise a strong response. They certainly didn't try to cover up evidence that the ETA wasn't involved.

As we now see the extent of the attacks, we realize that ETA is simply too small and inexperienced to have pulled off that coordinated and deadly an attack.

[KevinNU7]

What were the polling results exactly?

[John Galt]

My problem with this analysis is that it dictates the answer by defining the question in a binary war metaphor. When the only alternatives are victory and defeat and there is a presumption that you can't win and lose, we have already created a zero-sum world where the terrorists must be vanquished. I think that perspective is near-sighted and precludes viable alternative perspectives.

Did the terrorists "win" by the Spanish attack? (Presuming they were attacking to get Spain out of Iraq) Probably.

Did the Spanish "lose" by the election results? That remains to be seen. It is quite possible that they "win" in the long run by ending their part in the war on terror.

I don't know what will happen in this particular case, but the win/lose, victory/defeat paradigms for viewing international relations are outdated and only serve to create "easy" solutions to "hard" problems.

[JAG]

"Asked if last week's attacks that killed 200 affected the election outcome, [Spanish PM-elect] Zapatero said if the actions of terrorists can affect elections, that is not a victory for them."

Huh?

[CamEdwards]

My problem with this analysis is that it dictates the answer by defining the question in a binary war metaphor. When the only alternatives are victory and defeat and there is a presumption that you can't win and lose, we have already created a zero-sum world where the terrorists must be vanquished. I think that perspective is near-sighted and precludes viable alternative perspectives.

Did the terrorists "win" by the Spanish attack? (Presuming they were attacking to get Spain out of Iraq) Probably.

Did the Spanish "lose" by the election results? That remains to be seen. It is quite possible that they "win" in the long run by ending their part in the war on terror.

I don't know what will happen in this particular case, but the win/lose, victory/defeat paradigms for viewing international relations are outdated and only serve to create "easy" solutions to "hard" problems.

May I counter your lawyerly post with a down to earth response of "horseshit"? :)

Perhaps all is not a varying shade of grey. Perhaps there really are people in this world that want to kill you simply because they see you as "the enemy". And perhaps these people will use whatever excuse necessary to try and justify blowing you to pieces.

Now, you can try and understand these people, and empathize with their plight, and strive towards a greater commonality between two disparate groups of people. In the end, however, you'll still be dead. To have a dialogue, both sides must be willing to come to the table. I've yet to see any indication that we're dealing with reasonable individuals who just happen to disagree with our philosophies and methods when it comes to foreign policy.

[Franklinnoble]

And I thought the French were gutless.

[NoMyths]

It's amazing how you can be so self-righteous, Cam, in just over two paragraphs, and yet completely miss the point of John's post. :)

He's not talking about how evil the terrorists are, nor whether they "want to kill you simply because they see you as 'the enemy'". He's talking about whether the election could benefit Spain in the long run by reducing/removing their role in a questionable war. Whether it will or not remains to be seen (as it must). But please don't fall back on jingoistic "they're evil, and so not fighting with everything we've got against them will hurt us" when it comes to the Iraq situation.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Are the election results in Spain a victory for terrorists?

Yes.

[Fritz]

I think it is a broadbrush mistake to confuse war with international relations.

[John Galt]

May I counter your lawyerly post with a down to earth response of "horseshit"? :)

Perhaps all is not a varying shade of grey. Perhaps there really are people in this world that want to kill you simply because they see you as "the enemy". And perhaps these people will use whatever excuse necessary to try and justify blowing you to pieces.

Now, you can try and understand these people, and empathize with their plight, and strive towards a greater commonality between two disparate groups of people. In the end, however, you'll still be dead. To have a dialogue, both sides must be willing to come to the table. I've yet to see any indication that we're dealing with reasonable individuals who just happen to disagree with our philosophies and methods when it comes to foreign policy.

This is where I think realist international politics goes awry. I'm not arguing that people who want to kill others exist. Nor am I arguing that everything is a shade of grey. What I'm arguing is that achieving victory doesn't always improve the situation and being defeated is sometimes better in the long run. And sometimes you can win and lose. We don't know if this is a win or a loss yet and won't very a great many years (and I'm not talking about the attack itself which is clearly a "loss"). I think the important thing here is to understand how we reached this ugly place in order to understand how we can get out of it. Simple winner-take-all analysis misses too many nuances and prevents us from ever understanding alternate perspectives.

And finally, the presumption of pure "evil" is just as deadly as the presumption of pure "good."

[Fritz]

It's amazing how you can be so self-righteous, Cam, in just over two paragraphs, and yet completely miss the point of John's post.

did you even wave at Cam's reaction as you shot by it?

[CamEdwards]

It's amazing how you can be so self-righteous, Cam, in just over two paragraphs, and yet completely miss the point of John's post. :)

He's not talking about how evil the terrorists are, nor whether they "want to kill you simply because they see you as 'the enemy'". He's talking about whether the election could benefit Spain in the long run by reducing/removing their role in a questionable war. Whether it will or not remains to be seen (as it must). But please don't fall back on jingoistic "they're evil, and so not fighting with everything we've got against them will hurt us" when it comes to the Iraq situation.

Well, since you said "please"...

No, seriously, will this stop terrorist attacks against Spain? Doubt it. As has been noted, what happens when it's time to sentence the five people already arrested? What happens when ETA sees that the populace can be ground down as long as the violence is spectacular enough?

I understand the vote. We are conditioned to want to survive. It's human nature to do what we can to avoid conflict. In this case, however, I think it's giving in to the terrorists.

BTW, my response was to JG's use of words like "binary war metaphor", "viable alternative perspectives", and "victory/defeat paradigms". He wasn't speaking of the war in Iraq, and neither was I. 'Kay?

[MIJB#19]

Give it a thought: maybe the Spanish want to get back to their own battle against ETA and have the USA fight their battle with Al-Qaeda?

It was my first thought too that this makes it 1-0 for the terrorists, but it is even worse knowing there is nothing clear about who did this terrorist attack (or did I miss the popping up of more video tapes?)
The politician that claimed the pulling of troops from Iraq makes it look like a victory for Al Qaeda, but we (as outsiders) know nothing about Spain.

Maybe "we" should wait discussing these things without asking our correspondents in Spain first, since we have at least three of those.

[NoMyths]

Well, since you said "please"...

No, seriously, will this stop terrorist attacks against Spain? Doubt it. As has been noted, what happens when it's time to sentence the five people already arrested? What happens when ETA sees that the populace can be ground down as long as the violence is spectacular enough?

I understand the vote. We are conditioned to want to survive. It's human nature to do what we can to avoid conflict. In this case, however, I think it's giving in to the terrorists.

BTW, my response was to JG's use of words like "binary war metaphor", "viable alternative perspectives", and "victory/defeat paradigms". He wasn't speaking of the war in Iraq, and neither was I. 'Kay?And I'll couch this in stating up front that I don't know what the effect of this election will have in terms of the larger 'war against terrorism'--I don't have the background on Spanish culture or politics that would enable me to come to any kind of reasonable conclusions about whether or not booting the former ruling party is a result of (or will help) terrorists.

That said, your gut feeling that you "doubt" it will help Spain is just a gut feeling. The outcome of the issue remains to be seen. What if the new party decides to be even more severe on treating terrorism/terrorists because of the bombing?

The reason I posted was to clarify the point John was trying to make, and not necessarily agree or disagree with it as it applies to this situation. Your post was trying to reframe what John was saying, and that sort of thing gets me feisty. :)

[Maple Leafs]

An interesting thought from Charles Kupchan, formerly President Clinton's director for European affairs on the National Security Council:

"One could hypothesize that it would be in the interest of a group like al-Qaida to carry out pre-election attacks to strengthen the political right, in order to escalate the conflict. Just as prior to an election in Israel, Hamas and other groups tend to blow up buses. They don't want the Labor party in Israel to win, because Labor would move forward with the peace track. They want to strengthen Likud, so that there's a stalemate -- and the war continues. "
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/03/13/madrid_bombing/print.html

Obviously the article was written before the election results, but it's an interesting theory: that Al Qaida was trying to ensure the government's re-election, and the move backfired.

[Sharpieman]

The terrorists are celebrating today. A huge victory. The exit polls in Spain indicate that people blame the bombing on government support of the war against terrorism rather than on the terrorists themselves. Couldn't be scripted any better for Al Qaeda - they're a player again.

I would have expected the Spanish to be angrier at the bombers, having suffered from ETA attacks for so long. But perhaps wimpiness is human nature these days, and another attack on America would have people here blaming the administration for going after bin Laden and friends after the 9/11 attack.
Actually thats wrong. Spainards didn't blame the bombing on the support of the war on terrorism. They blamed it on the war against Iraq. Many Americans are misimformed about this particular aspect of the situation. The new Spainish Prime Minister isn't going to stop the war on terrorism. President Bush actually called up the new Spainish Prime Minister to congragulate him on his win and they talked about the need to continue the war on terrorism. However, the New Prime Minister is vowing to get the Spainish troops out of Iraq in July. With all this said, I agree that it may be a win for terrorists. Its also a loss for the Bush administration, they have one less ally in the war in Iraq.

[Samdari]

From what I have heard, a few days ago it seemed certain that the ruling party would win.

Are you sure about that. From what I understand, the Spanish govt. support of the war in Iraq was only favored by about 20% of the population, and the opposition parties were making it a huge issue in the election.

[Wolfpack]

I guess that would be the fundamental difference between American and European perspectives on the war. Many Americans view this as a war to be conducted wherever a terrorist threat does (Afghanistan) or may (Iraq) emerge. Since America suffered 3,000 lost on 9/11, the idea is to prosecute as vigorously as possible to stop a 9/11 from happening again, or at least reduce it to a (such as can be said) smaller event by stopping the enemy before they strike or even consider it a possibility. Europeans on the other hand don't view Iraq as part-and-parcel of the war, but (particularly in the vitrolic circles) rather the son settling scores for the father (or a variation thereof) and thus independent of a fight with Al-Qaeda.

Now, if it is proven that Al-Qaeda or an Al-Qaeda-supported group did the attack and did so because they know it would split Spain from the US efforts in Iraq, then how is what goes on in Iraq as such independent of the War on Terror? The argument could be made that no invasion of Iraq would have led to no bombings in Spain, since Iraq was, in the opinion of many, not aligned with Al-Qaeda. However, that is not the chain of events. If events in Iraq were not tied to the war before, then if this scenario is true, those events certainly are part of it now (saying that implies that Americans through a causality chain are at fault for the bombings...which to many, sounds just about right anyway).

(Hit the send button by accident....)

[CamEdwards]

I think the terrorists just got Wolfpack.

[Jets80]

Spain and France should become one country.

[BreizhManu]

Spain and France should become one country.

Many Spanish hate France for historical reasons (heard of Napoleon ?).

Anyway about being a win for the terrorists, maybe, about being a loss for the Aznar Government, that's for sure.

The votes against them were mainly because they lied about who made the bombings, it appears that they knew a few hours after the bombings that it hadn't been done by ETA and they hide that fact for political reasons only.

Had they say it was Al-Qaeda, they would probably have won the election (but not with the huge majority predicted).

[JonInMiddleGA]

Spain and France should become one country.
I'm glad to see I'm not the only person who had this thought cross their minds. Honestly, I've been fighting the temptation to draw the same parallel since I first saw this thread.

[Peregrine]

The terrorists are celebrating today. A huge victory. The exit polls in Spain indicate that people blame the bombing on government support of the war against terrorism rather than on the terrorists themselves. Couldn't be scripted any better for Al Qaeda - they're a player again.

Don't think I can agree with part of this. From everything I have read, people are blaming the bombing on the war on Iraq, which has little or nothing to do with the war on terror. The war in Iraq is what is unpopular in Spain (at times up to 90 percent of the population opposed it) and while the new PM there has promised to pull Spanish troops out of Iraq, he has also committed to continuing the war on terror.

[Maple Leafs]

Don't think I can agree with part of this. From everything I have read, people are blaming the bombing on the war on Iraq, which has little or nothing to do with the war on terror. True enough, except... well, how does a terrorist bombing end up having nothing to do with the war on terror? How can they possibly be unrelated?

[John Galt]

True enough, except... well, how does a terrorist bombing end up having nothing to do with the war on terror? How can they possibly be unrelated?

Just as the OK City bombing had nothing to do with this "war on terror." While Bush and Americans believe that the war on Iraq is part of the war on terror, Spain, at least sees a difference. That the end result of that war may have been a terrorist attack, doesn't mean that this has anything to do with the "war on terror." Wouldn't all other wars just end up being the "war on war?" ;)

[Wolfpack]

I have a hard time believing they "hid" Al-Qaeda's responsibility for political reasons, though it had been noted that the government would have benefitted more from ETA bearing responsibility. I'm guessing that it was everyone's first instinct that ETA was responsible because they had members busted with explosives recently. Granted my first instinct was that it wasn't ETA but Al-Qaeda or a linked group or a splinter of ETA since ETA doesn't do this sort of mass-casualty attack. But, that's me being an American and our experience with terrorism focuses on Al-Qaeda or a domestic nutjob (McVeigh) as culprits. Spaniards really have only known attacks by ETA. Did the government "want" it to be ETA? Perhaps, but I don't think they "hid" Al-Qaeda since it's been speculated and there was evidence of it being possible almost from the start of the affair that Al-Qaeda was perhaps involved. They never said it wasn't possible that Al-Qaeda or a similar terrorist group could be involved, they just believed ETA was probably the culprits. To say that Al-Qaeda really wasn't involved when it turned out that they were, that to my mind would have been "hiding" them and lying about it.

[ISiddiqui]

being a loss for the Aznar Government, that's for sure.

Well, for the government perhaps, but not for Aznar, he wasn't going for PM again :D.

--

As to the attack itself. From all I've read it seems many Spaniards were pissed that the government blamed the attacks on the Basques without any proof. It seemed like the government was trying to hush up the fact that it may have been Al Queda before the election. Many Spaniards felt the government was manipulating facts about the bombing for political gain. I'm sure that would make many Americans angry as well (think if Bush blamed militia members for a terrorist attack without any evidence, only to be revealed later it was AQ).

[Peregrine]

I have a hard time believing they "hid" Al-Qaeda's responsibility for political reasons, though it had been noted that the government would have benefitted more from ETA bearing responsibility. I'm guessing that it was everyone's first instinct that ETA was responsible because they had members busted with explosives recently

Good point Wolfpack. I think that it would have been a much safer line for the government to take to not blame anyone until more evidence was in, though. These investigations take time and moving to blame ETA immediately, even if made with good intentions, backfired and made it seem like there was some kind of cover-up going on. I don't make any judgements on whether there was one or not, this seems to me more of a decision made under pressure to blame someone, and it turning out to be wrong, than some intentional misleading of the public.

[sachmo71]

What I'm arguing is that achieving victory doesn't always improve the situation and being defeated is sometimes better in the long run. And sometimes you can win and lose. We don't know if this is a win or a loss yet and won't very a great many years..Simple winner-take-all analysis misses too many nuances and prevents us from ever understanding alternate perspectives.




Are you a Saints fan? :D

[Ryan S]

Are you sure about that. From what I understand, the Spanish govt. support of the war in Iraq was only favored by about 20% of the population, and the opposition parties were making it a huge issue in the election.
Looking back at older news stories, the government had a 3-5% lead.

[vtbub]

I think it sends the wrong message.

It's pretty clear, from what I read, that the Popular Party, was not "Popular". My understanding was that turnout was going to be relatively low anyway and the bombing sent a huge wave of Socialist voters to the polls that would have stayed home had this not occured. With a 90% opposition rate to the war, it's amazing the Popular Party survived.

Al-Qaeda has to be besides themselves in glee over this. They think they can now influence elections across the globe. It probably was not what Spanish voters intended, but Aznar and his government did some foolish things after the bombings in blaiming ETA after they steadfastly said they didn't do it, along with not being candid with the people on the state of the investigation. Hindsight being20/20, a twoo week delay in the election would have benefitted all sides as the investigation could have proceeded and if the Socialists won then so be it. If I'm Al-Qaeda, I'm looking at disrupting elections all over and scaring people into extreme left isolationist governments.

Don't think that because France, Germany, and Russia are immune because they were against the war in Iraq. All those countries had significant financial obligations with the old regime, and in due time will have them again with whatever the new Iraq regime looks like. We all need to focus on the grander scale of the War on Terror and away from the War on Iraq and finish the job, because we aren't any safer now then Thursday.

[clintl]

I think there are two messages here, one unintentional and very unfortunate message to the terrorists, which has been well articulated already, and one very intentional and very worthwhile message to world leaders:

If you are pursuing a policy that 90% of your people oppose, and something bad happens because of it, you are going to pay a big price.

[Crapshoot]

I think there are two messages here, one unintentional and very unfortunate message to the terrorists, which has been well articulated already, and one very intentional and very worthwhile message to world leaders:

If you are pursuing a policy that 90% of your people oppose, and something bad happens because of it, you are going to pay a big price.

Exactly. I supported the war when I thought their were WMD's, but when an entire populace opposes it and you press ahead nonetheless, and something happens that you have tried to correlate to it- expect to feel the backlash. I think its fairly ridiculous that people are viewing a pragmatic decision on a shaky war - the terrorists have not won- democracy is not a one way street. Spain undertook an action her people clearly opposed, and the government is being punished for what seems like the unintended consequences of it.

[SFL Cat]

I would say since the bombing specifically turned the tide in favor of the socialists -- pre-bombing projections indicated the incumbant government would remain in power -- then yes, the terrorists got what they wanted and basically made Spain bow to their wishes.

In addition, I've heard most pro al-Qaeda websites are trumpeting the election results as a victory...whether it is true or not, that is what the followers will believe. Wouldn't surprise me to see several more similar attacks in other European nations...even anti-war countries like France and Germany. After all, we're all infidels, and attacks on France and Germany doesn't automatically mean more troops will be coming after them.

[Galaril]

Many here in South Korea our very concerned that this country might be next with their elections coming in three weeks.The situation is very similar to Spain the conservative ruling party voted reluctantly to send troops but if things were to go bad many would blame them for the fallout.Also, the ploitical situation is not good here these days anyways so who knows.The security here is pretty good but is anyone safe now
adays?

[cartman]

There is a bit of precedent for this in European politics, that MIJB can personally attest to. A couple of years ago, when Pim Fortyun was the leader of a party in Holland, no one was giving his pary much of chance to win the election. He was assassinated shortly before the election, and his party won the election. This was attributed to sympathy votes for his party.

The political party ended up unravelling, and if I'm not mistaken, there was a new round of elections held due to party imploding. If the newly elected party isn't able to lead the country effectively, there is the likelihood of a new round of elections in the next 12-18 months. Parlimentary governments don't have an ironclad length of term like we are used to in the US.

[WussGawd]

Are you sure about that. From what I understand, the Spanish govt. support of the war in Iraq was only favored by about 20% of the population, and the opposition parties were making it a huge issue in the election.

Right. As with most of Europe, including Britain, the Spanish populace has been vehemently opposed (as in 80+% opposing) to the war in Iraq. Very hard to imagine any ruling party winning an election under these circumstances.

FWIW, I suspect that if somebody on either side of the aisle could muster a serious opposition to Blair in Britain, his days might be numbered for the same reason (though the discrediting of the BBC's report on Iraq intelligence probably did help him).

[MIJB#19]

There is a bit of precedent for this in European politics, that MIJB can personally attest to. A couple of years ago, when Pim Fortyun was the leader of a party in Holland, no one was giving his pary much of chance to win the election. He was assassinated shortly before the election, and his party won the election. This was attributed to sympathy votes for his party.

The political party ended up unravelling, and if I'm not mistaken, there was a new round of elections held due to party imploding. If the newly elected party isn't able to lead the country effectively, there is the likelihood of a new round of elections in the next 12-18 months. Parlimentary governments don't have an ironclad length of term like we are used to in the US.Fortuyn's LPF party got into a goverment with the CDA (Christians) and the VVD (Liberals) after getting about 15% in stead of 10% of the votes.How big the influence was, we never know. Especially as Fortuyn was winning votes per day nearing the election day. Plus, it was clear that he would only have gone into the Dutch national politics to become prime minister, nothing less...
Without Fortuyn as the dominant leader, his party broke up into three parts and within a few months and within 100 days the CDA-VVD-LPF goverment fell.
After new elections, the LPF party was punished for their incompetence, yet the CDA and VVD won again and basically continued with what they were doing.

To get to the point, the Fortuyn murder run through my mind too the past days, wondering how much sense people put into their vote, in stead of the emotion of the past days. But if (in both cases) the difference of votes turning around is 5%, I wonder if those people should have voted in the first place... Voting is not a game, you have to stand behind your decission and make it by thinking out all the pro's and con's, not by living by the day and let yourself be influenced by the kind of tv programs you watch or the news papers you read...

And one last thing:
Were are our Spanish correspondents when we need them?

[KeyserSoze]

Well, I´m here (i´m Spaniard). I understand the upset in some of you, fellows, but the main reasons of these elections are internals, and not by the fear of the bombs (we were receiving attacks of the terrorist long before you thought it was a problem).

The reasons.

1- More than 80% of the people was against the intervention in Irak. I do not judge the action itself, but a government have to serve the people, no bother them. The bombs itself create anger against PP, no fear. A lot of people understand the war like an intent of Aznar to make himself a name, and a lot of people is disgusted.

2- 8 years of government are long for any government. The PP government has been specially harsh in some matters and dull in resolving some internal problems. Before the elections, none of them has a great advantage, and the gap was closing

3- The main reason. The des(information). In Spain the public tv channels (and radio) are very important, and their actuation has been horrible. The popular members forced all the situation (media, institutional speeches, embassadors) to blame ETA, even the proofs that point AlQuaida. When the people knows it (internet and cellulars), there was a lot of Anger. We felt like the government was cheating us. And doing this the day before the elections is not a very smart move, when more than 25% of people haven’t decide to vote until these day.

Personally. I had decided to vote PP, but the way they tried to cheat me, I voted in blank. I change my vote not the thursday, but the sunday morning. I usually get in these trains (if the attack would have been the tuesday, maybe I would been in the hospital.. or worse).

We have been fighting against terrorism since 1978. We have used the force, we have negociated. We tried to solve the problem without surrending, even when the rest of the world called them “freedom fighters”. The US has only help us when they saw the problem at home, France just a little before. None American has died in ETA attacks, while we have far above 250 deads (counting Atocha, Irak, and Afghanistan) in islamic-terrorist war.

We are determined to fight terrorism we have been for al my life, but just when our population supports the actions and, more important, when the population believes in this government. The PSOE leader, has said that will retire the force if the forces in Irak aren´t a UN mission, the 30 of june( the day that was suppose to be the change in power).

One last advice. Fighting terrorism by the force, without giving these people a better future, is a 5 years solution.

[fantastic flying froggies]

Nice post, KeyserSoze.

I hope our American fellow boardmembers now see things a little bit more from your point of view.

[Marc Vaughan]

Eloquently put KeyserSoze.

[Fritz]

From Strategypage.com


TERRORISM: March 11 and "The Arrangement"


March 15, 2004: The March 11th terrorist attack in Spain killed over 200 people and wounded another 1,400. This was the most violent terrorist attack in Spanish history. At first it was thought to be the work of Basque ETA separatists. ETA members had recently been captured with large quantities (half a ton of explosives in one case) of bomb making materials. The government has been pursuing ETA terrorists with particular vigor for the past eight years and ETA was thought to be desperate to show they were still viable.

But evidence collected from one backpack bomb that did not go off, a stolen van with blasting caps and a Islamic conservative audio tape, and eye witnesses, pointed to Islamic terrorists. The unexploded bomb yielded a cell phone (used to detonate the bombs) and a phone card that led to the arrest of five Moslems (three Moroccans and two Indians). ETA strenuously denied responsibility for the bombings, while al Qaeda said that they had done it.

Osama bin Laden has declared in the past that part of his jihad is to reverse the "Reconquista" which, in 1492, ended over six centuries of Islamic rule in southern Spain. The Reconquista led to all Moslems (and Jews) being expelled from the country. Spain was one of several European countries to be invaded and occupied by Moslem armies in the last thousand years. Moslem occupation didn't end in the Balkans until the early 20th century. The Balkan wars of the 1990s were partly caused by the aftereffects of centuries of Moslem occupation.

Spain has had a growing Moslem population in the last few decades, fueled by a growing Spanish economy, and the usual economic distress in Arab countries. Spain has 300,000 Moroccan residents, and over 600,000 Moslems. But most of these Moslems are recent arrivals. In 1985, there were only 30,000 Moslems in the country, and only recently were mosques allowed to be built. The last ones were destroyed over 500 years ago.

Many of the Moslems in Spain are illegal immigrants and high unemployment in Spain has made the Moslems unpopular because they compete for scarce jobs. But unemployment is higher in Moslems communities, and most of the Moslem migrants make little effort to integrate into Spanish culture. Thus there are many young men who find al Qaeda, and it's call for Islamic war against infidels (non-Moslems) attractive.

Since September 11, 2001, Spain has rounded up about two dozen suspected al Qaeda members. Like other European nations, Spain has been content to let the Moslem migrants keep alive their traditional customs (including suppressing women's rights and teaching children hatred of non-Moslems). European nations have long had an "understanding" with Islamic radicals. The Europeans would grant Islamic radicals in general, and their leaders (and their families in particular) sanctuary, as long as there was no terrorist violence in Europe. This arrangement has largely succeeded, if only because the Islamic radical leaders resident in Europe were, in effect, hostages. Start killing Europeans, and we ship you, your wives and kids back to the countries that want to try you for murder and rebellion.

But September 11, 2001 raised the ante. Attacking America meant that the Americans could call on Europe for assistance. Europeans feel a debt of gratitude to the Americans, who came to Europe's aid during two World Wars and the Cold War. And before that, the United States was a place where Europe could dump it's malcontents, rebels and surplus population.

As Europe cracked down on the Islamic radicals in it's midst, there was shock when the extent of local Islamic radicalism was revealed. But the Europeans were reluctant to push their investigations too far. There are over fifteen million Moslems in Europe and the Europeans were afraid of stirring them up. But many of these European Moslems were already radicalized. During the last two years, several Moslem radical groups in Italy and France were caught planning terrorist attacks, in violation of "the arrangement." While many Europeans began to demand that the Moslems either integrate into their new home cultures, or go back to their native lands, only the Netherlands has made this public policy. Most Europeans still believe that the Moslems should be allowed to live as they did in the nations they came from. This is one of the major differences between the United States and Europe. America sees itself as a great melting pot. Migrants retain much of their ancestral culture in America, but also adopt a commonly accepted American lifestyle. First generation migrants often have trouble with this, but the kids born in the United States don't. In Europe, Moslem migrants are encouraged to maintain their ancestral culture from generation to generation. This is ironic with the Moslem migrants, as the major reason they migrated to was to get away from a culture that opposed progress, economic freedom and democracy. Europeans are generally oblivious of this contradiction, although this is changing. After the March 11th bombings, the rate of change will increase.

But meanwhile, many Spaniards still demand that Spain back off from its support for the American war on terror. Spanish opposition to participation in the Iraq operations was particularly intense. It was felt that this would just stir up the Islamic radicals and make Spain a target. But the investigation of the bombings will probably turn up extensive Islamic radical activity in Spain before 2003. Restraint will be a hard sell when it becomes clear that the enemy has no restraint and sees withdrawal from Iraq as weakness and an invitation to more terrorist attacks. National elections in Spain yesterday saw the ruling party lose 30 percent of its pre-March 11 support. People were angry over the March 11 attacks and many believed the government, and it's support of the Iraq invasion, was at fault. But the new government has vowed to fight terrorism.

How do you negotiate with terrorists who see themselves as on a mission from God? How do you negotiate with a movement whose goal is the destruction of your culture, and your conversion to Islam, or else? Many innocent Spaniards died on March 11th, but so did "the arrangement." But many Europeans will continue to support some kind of "arrangement," without even admitting that "the arrangement" exists.

[sachmo71]

Thanks, Keyser. I did have one question, though.


One last advice. Fighting terrorism by the force, without giving these people a better future, is a 5 years solution.


I'm not sure that I understand what you are saying here. Are you saying that using force against terrorists will not work, and that we should instead focus our efforts on improving the infrastructure of countries where the terrorists come from through aid and the like? Am I understanding your correctly?

[JonInMiddleGA]

How do you negotiate with a movement whose goal is the destruction of your culture...
With your knee in their chest and your knife at their throat.

[Maple Leafs]

I guess the problem I have with that line of thinking is that, for some of these terrorists, the very definition of "better future" includes a lot of dead Westerners.

It's nice to project our needs and wants onto everyone else and assume they just want better education, open trade, etc. But in a lot of cases (not all, but a lot) those priorities are very small for them in comparison to, say, smiting their enemies.

[cartman]

Thanks, Keyser. I did have one question, though.



I'm not sure that I understand what you are saying here. Are you saying that using force against terrorists will not work, and that we should instead focus our efforts on improving the infrastructure of countries where the terrorists come from through aid and the like? Am I understanding your correctly?


What I got from his statement is that force alone won't solve the problem. So you blast Al-Qaeda to smithereens with our firepower. That doesn't solve the root problem that gave rise to the radical groups in the first place. Another group spouting the same beliefs is gonna rise up in it's place to give some glimmer of hope to the destitute and downtrodden.

I put it this way after 9/11. There are around 1 billion Muslims in the world. If even 0.0005% believe in the tenets of Al-Qaeda and other radical groups, that leaves 500,000 potential terrorists out there. To them, it is better dying through a violent act to make a statement than to die after suffering a lifetime of poverty. So the threat of our superior firepower isn't much of a deterrent to them. There has to be some sort of solution to the issue that gives these people more hope to improve their current situation than the short term satisfaction they get from their violent acts. What that solution is, I don't have a clue.

[Fritz]

What I got from his statement is that force alone won't solve the problem. So you blast Al-Qaeda to smithereens with our firepower. That doesn't solve the root problem that gave rise to the radical groups in the first place. Another group spouting the same beliefs is gonna rise up in it's place to give some glimmer of hope to the destitute and downtrodden.

I put it this way after 9/11. There are around 1 billion Muslims in the world. If even 0.0005% believe in the tenets of Al-Qaeda and other radical groups, that leaves 500,000 potential terrorists out there. To them, it is better dying through a violent act to make a statement than to die after suffering a lifetime of poverty. So the threat of our superior firepower isn't much of a deterrent to them. There has to be some sort of solution to the issue that gives these people more hope to improve their current situation than the short term satisfaction they get from their violent acts. What that solution is, I don't have a clue.

Here we have the dangerous assumption that poverty and improving their life is the motivating factor.

[Marc Vaughan]

Here we have the dangerous assumption that poverty and improving their life is the motivating factor.

I don't think that anyone here assumes that the sole motivation of the terrorists involved is this - however their recruitment relies upon their being a bedrock of desperate individuals who are willing to sacrifice their lives for a 'cause', if you improve the standard of living for a country then it is less likely that their will find it so easy to recruit people into their organisations (and also less likely to find sympathisers amongst their general populace).

IMHO this is one of the reasons that western terrorist organisations such as the IRA/ETA etc. tend not to use suicide bombers etc., people in western countries have a higher standard of living and so are more reluctant to sacrifice themselves as they have more to lose ...

[Maple Leafs]

Poverty is a factor. But a bigger factor is the culture these kids grow up in. They're taught from a young age that it's heroic to die for a cause (much like American kids, by the way), and that one noble cause is the destruction of the Western infidels. So these kids grow up hating America and its allies, and that hate grows when they look around see Uncle Sam occupying countries and dictating policies and basically interfering in their lives.

So the question is, how do you change something as fundamental as the type of education that kids receive, and yet not be seen as interfering in their culture? You can swoop in and change their schools and hand out food and build strip malls, but then they point and say "See, America is destroying our culture and replacing it with their own!" But if you leave things the way they are, you allow the conditions that breed terrorism to continue.

No easy answers here...

[KeyserSoze]

Thanks, Keyser. I did have one question, though.



I'm not sure that I understand what you are saying here. Are you saying that using force against terrorists will not work, and that we should instead focus our efforts on improving the infrastructure of countries where the terrorists come from through aid and the like? Am I understanding your correctly?

I dont wanna make discusion it´s just my point of view. Probably is wrong.Ok lets go.

The terrorist groups are always supported by a big mass of people. In Euskadi there are from 100.000 to 200.000 people supporting the ideals of ETA. Another terrorist group in Spain (The GRAPO) is out of business for lacking support.
Do you think AlQaida is just the terrorist? There are a lot of people supporting them. You can kill all the terrorist, but there will be some people in this group that will take their place.

Look at Israel. They have a long bloody war. Are they safer? The only way out is an agreement or the mutual genocide.

I dont know the solution. You have to fight the terrorists, of course, but you have to correct the main causes (if there are) of their rage.

Look at WWI an WWII. In the First the allies make an harsh peace to the common people. In the second the allies punish the nazi chiefs (maybe japanese too?), but make easier the life of the rest.

I think that the iraqui people has a good group of laws, an economical security, and a sense of being a free country, a few of them will be in the mood to support killers. But if they are poor and think they are dominated, well a lot of them, will replace AlQaida.

I repeat myself. Its my opinion. If you no agree it because you are probably right



I ve read Maple Leafs post. I think you are very right. But if we helped them is less probable to see how they attack you. It´s very difficult I agree. I dont know the right way, but just punish them its not the way I think

[cartman]

Here we have the dangerous assumption that poverty and improving their life is the motivating factor.

That is very true that those are not a motivating factor for Al-Qaeda, but those situations allow for the easier fomenting of support for their causes. Why aren't there widespread Christian terrorist groups? Because for most Christians their standard of life is relatively comfortable. The IRA has lost a lot of popular support as the Irish economy has improved greatly over the past 10 years. They are still active, and probably will be until some resolution comes regarding Northern Ireland, but it is the hardcore IRA that are still active.

I'd look at it like this: Alcohol consumption doesn't make you have sex, it just improves the situation for it to occur. Poverty doesn't make someone a terrorist, but is improves the reception of the message of the radical groups.

[Fritz]

My reply was in direct response to the thread I quoted. I don't presume to know the full extent of cartman's thoughts, but he did link terrorism to poverty.

If you want to say the poverty can contribute to terrorism, I will go along. If you want to make that a primary cause, then I can only agree in some cases.

[Fritz]

Why aren't there widespread Christian terrorist groups? Because for most Christians their standard of life is relatively comfortable.

1.) definition
2.) access to other means of political power
3.) differening goals among various peoples

----------

Terrorism is most often about political power. To kid yourself into anything else is a mistake.

[sachmo71]

I dont wanna make discusion it´s just my point of view. Probably is wrong.Ok lets go.

The terrorist groups are always supported by a big mass of people. In Euskadi there are from 100.000 to 200.000 people supporting the ideals of ETA. Another terrorist group in Spain (The GRAPO) is out of business for lacking support.
Do you think AlQaida is just the terrorist? There are a lot of people supporting them. You can kill all the terrorist, but there will be some people in this group that will take their place.

Look at Israel. They have a long bloody war. Are they safer? The only way out is an agreement or the mutual genocide.

I dont know the solution. You have to fight the terrorists, of course, but you have to correct the main causes (if there are) of their rage.

Look at WWI an WWII. In the First the allies make an harsh peace to the common people. In the second the allies punish the nazi chiefs (maybe japanese too?), but make easier the life of the rest.

I think that the iraqui people has a good group of laws, an economical security, and a sense of being a free country, a few of them will be in the mood to support killers. But if they are poor and think they are dominated, well a lot of them, will replace AlQaida.

I repeat myself. Its my opinion. If you no agree it because you are probably right



I ve read Maple Leafs post. I think you are very right. But if we helped them is less probable to see how they attack you. It´s very difficult I agree. I dont know the right way, but just punish them its not the way I think


Thanks for your response. By the way, I don't think you are wrong at all. I just wanted to be sure I understood your opinion.

[Maple Leafs]

Here's one view of the election results, in a historical context, from Salon.com (a very left wing publication, for whatever that's worth). I know next to nothing about Spanish history so I'll leave it to our Spanish members to comment on how accurate this description is.

Rebirth of a nation
In the aftermath of the Madrid bombings, the election in Spain changed the European dynamic in the war on terror.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Norman Birnbaum



March 16, 2004 | The shattering defeat of the conservative Spanish government by the Socialist Party, with its promise to withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq and end Spanish support for the Bush doctrine, was a striking sequel to the terrible act of terror that struck Madrid. What happened at the polls on Sunday in Spain, however, can only be understood by retracing a half-century of Spanish history.

Generalissimo Francisco Franco, victor in the 1936-39 Spanish Civil War (with a great deal of help from his allies Hitler and Mussolini), was a survivor. He abandoned his German and Italian friends as the fortunes of war turned against them, and he lived on as head of an authoritarian regime until his death in 1975. His regime was near collapse in 1959, but was saved by cash and support from the Eisenhower administration. The generalissimo may have garroted and jailed the opposition, clubbed strikers and kept women in medieval legal bondage, but he was, after all, reliably anticommunist. He offered the U.S. airports and ports to defend the Christian West.

By the time Franco died, Spain had dramatically changed. For its younger citizens, Che Guevara and Robert F. Kennedy were heroes. The young women who earlier were confined to convent schools went to universities in miniskirts. The aging dictator was seen as an unlovable patriarch whose time had come and gone. The church, meanwhile, was led by the great Vatican II cardinal, Tarracon. After one of Franco's speeches about increases in prosperity the cardinal said, "Spain has produced more of everything except justice." I asked a Spanish friend what it was like in 1975 as Franco lay dying. He said, "All you need to know is that in the entire country, there was not a bottle of champagne to be had in the stores."

The transition to parliamentary democracy was remarkably quick. The younger and middle-aged elites of the old regime recognized that Spain could not be deemed European unless and until it cast off fascism. In February of 1981, the irreducible fascists in the army seized Parliament and attempted a coup. After initial hesitation, the king put himself at the head of the nation and ordered the generals back to their armories. The coup was denounced at once by the European governments. (English Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was especially firm.) The U.S. secretary of state, Alexander Haig, said that it was an internal Spanish matter on which he would not comment. U.S. forces in Spain had been confined to their bases that day, before the seizure of Parliament. Many Spaniards wondered on which side the U.S. had been so neutral.

Democratization continued. Many exiles had returned, and Spanish culture marvelously came to life (think of the films of Pedro Almodóvar and the novels of Manuel Vazquez Montalbán). The country achieved in a decade what took the Western Europeans a generation. They learned to live on the edge of the modern age. In 1982, the great party of the Spanish Republic, the Socialists, won the election under Felipe Gonzalez. The Socialists instituted a Spanish welfare state like the other European countries, but their main achievement was to consolidate the cultural Europeanization and democratic ethos that make Spain a vital modern nation. There were plenty of problems: A segment of the Basque movement that had been so active against Franco demanded total independence, and used terror. The Socialists employed repellent methods against them, death squads, which eventually came to light to undermine the Socialists' moral credentials. There was, too, corruption among Socialist officials, and a series of very public scandals. It is to Spain's credit that the scandals were public, but they certainly dampened the exaltation of the first decade of freedom.

In 1996, Jose Maria Aznar became prime minister as head of the Popular Party. The party was, as most modern parties are, a coalition. It included older elements distinctly nostalgic for the black-and-white (mostly black) days of Franco, liberal Christian Democrats and followers of Opus Dei (the half-secret conservative Catholic movement), high finance, entrepreneurs and technocrats. Its voters were drawn from the vastly enlarged urban middle class. Educated thanks to the Socialist expansion of higher education, their aging parents taken care of by the new social security system, they forsook the party that had made their prosperity possible. The Popular Party was very much in the tradition of the Spanish right; it insisted on a centralized Spain, sought to limit the federalism written into the constitution, and refused any negotiation at all with the Basque movement. Indeed, it treated the moderate Basque Party as no better than the independence movement -- and so undercut the chance for a peaceful compromise. Economically, the Popular Party launched a speculative boom visible in ever more housing construction at ever higher prices -- and a stock market surge.

The Socialists in 2000 warned that the government's failure to make long-term social investments -- in education, health services and research -- would cost Spain dearly. They were right, but their own project floundered. Their internal conflicts, serial changes in the leadership, and inability to find a suitable successor for Gonzalez led to a loss of energy and support among the unions, the young and the educated. Their electorate gradually receded to the groups most in need of social protection: the elderly and the poor. The continuing support of the critical intelligentsia hardly made up for losses in the larger cities.

Aznar won again, and with an absolute majority, which went to his head. He became increasingly contemptuous of the opposition, of his critics in the media, and of civil society. When in 2002 the oil tanker Prestige foundered off the Atlantic Coast in a gigantic ecological disaster, the government refused to accept responsibility for its incompetent management. Aznar's policies in education (a return to obligatory religious instruction, at the limits of constitutional legality), immigration (grudging where not xenophobic), and the economy (systematic deregulation) moved from liberal Christian democracy toward a fundamentalism of the right. He shocked many Spanish sensibilities by using L'Escorial, Phillip the Second's monument to himself, to stage the wedding of his daughter (complete with his friend, the Italian prime minister and conservative vulgarian Silvio Berlusconi in striped pants and a visibly pained royal family as guests.) Spain is a country of old social distinctions with a sense that these ancient inhibitions have outlived their usefulness. Many in the public thought they detected in their prime minister the soul of a parvenu.

Certainly there was something frenetic about Aznar's enlistment of Spain in the "war on terror" and the invasion of Iraq. He had a major role in obtaining the signatures of Tony Blair and Berlusconi for the letter of loyalty to the U.S. drafted by an obliging CIA agent -- a letter that enraged French Prime Minister Chirac and German Chancellor Schroeder and marked a large success for the Bush White House. Europe had been split.

Aznar refused parliamentary debates on the veracity of the claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, denounced his critics as disloyal to the West and to Spain. His U.N. ambassador and his foreign minister read from a Bush script with dogmatic certainty. When on Feb. 15 last year over a million citizens took to Madrid's streets to join the worldwide protest, there was one episode of violence. As the police encircled the protagonists, they were instructed by the Interior Ministry to let them go -- they were, obviously, provocateurs. Aznar's visits to the Bush ranch and the White House, his speech before the Congress (or rather, before congressional staff), meanwhile increased his sense of self-importance. Aznar believed that he had made Spain, through the Bush connection, a major world power. The fact is, he separated his nation from its erstwhile European allies and evoked the suspicions of the Latin American nations. He also threw away, with astonishing casualness, Spain's legacy of close relations with the Muslim nations.

Aznar is, clearly, not devoid of a political sixth sense. Something told him not to run again, and he turned over the party to the more conciliatory figure of Mariano Rajoy. But the arrogance of Aznar and some of his ministers disfigured the campaign. The state TV channel was about as objective as Fox News: The journalists working there made their discontent known.

The Socialist campaign was doggedly consistent. Party leader Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero stuck to three themes. Spanish troops would be withdrawn from Iraq and the nation returned to a European foreign policy with a renewal of its close ties to France and Germany. Eleven percent unemployment and underinvestment in the future would be attacked by a comprehensive program of social investment. An open style of governance would be his method of conducting public business. Zapatero was intelligent, conciliatory and focused.

Like many others, I wondered if he had the necessary aggression to be a leader. Zapatero, the youngest member of Parliament when elected at age 26, was the protégé of Felipe Gonzalez. Clearly, the old master knew what he had. Zapatero dismayed many of his own partisans and the entire left when he said he would not claim the prime ministership if he did not attain more votes than the government's candidate.

By the middle of last week, the game seemed over. The polls suggested that the government would lose its absolute majority, but still win the election (the figures gave it around 41 percent and the Socialists 36 or 37 percent). Aznar, too, knew what he had when he named the gentlemanly Rajoy his successor: He was distinctly less threatening and irritating than Aznar himself. The Socialists (I talked with a number of persons who will now be ministers) were resigning themselves to another four years of opposition. The government's left and liberal critics in the media were hopeful that Rajoy would change the atmosphere, which they found detestable under Aznar. His hints and his own turns of phrase even led to hope that he would deemphasize the Bush alliance and move again toward Europe.

Then the catastrophe intervened, early in the morning of Thursday, March 11. Commuter trains filled with ordinary persons -- those who, in fact, had no cars with which to drive to work, namely immigrants, workers and students -- were blown up. As Madrid fell into chaos, the government announced that the culprits were the Basque separatist group ETA. Aznar himself telephoned the major newspapers to insist that the government knew this for a fact -- twice he called El Pais, the nation's most prestigious paper and one rather critical of him. The foreign minister instructed the ambassadors to tell foreign governments that this was what the government knew.

However, a vigilant citizen near one of the stations from which the trains had come noticed a van parked by men who were wearing ski masks on a mild March day. It was in the van that the police found detonators as well as a Quranic tape. A telephone in a backpack that contained unexploded bombs provided more clues. As millions took to the streets to protest on Friday, the intelligence agencies were already closing in on Islamist suspects. The government repeated the ETA story -- despite an ETA denial. The public officials involved spoke to Cadena Ser, the radio station owned by the El Pais group. Cadena Ser broke the story, evoking a great deal of abuse from the official media and the sobriquet "wretched" ("miserables") from the interior minister. The minister spent much of Friday and all of Saturday repudiating his earlier pronouncements.

Saturday, the day before the election, is by law a day of reflection -- without campaigning of any kind. Mobilizing by cellular phone, thousands gathered in front of the Popular Party's offices. The first hundreds who came were told by the police to leave and were asked for their identity cards. The crowd grew and the police formed a cordon around the building and did nothing. The crowd's slogans were clear: "We will not vote until we know the truth" and, more to the point, "Your war, our deaths." This was the taunt directed at both Aznar and Rajoy when they voted in Madrid the next morning. There were demonstrations of the same kind in front of the PP's offices in every major city. In the election, participation was 8 percent greater than four years ago. The additional voters were first-time voters and former Socialist voters who had abstained in recent elections or had moved to the Popular Party.

In the final tally, the Socialists increased their share of the vote from 34 percent in 2000 to 42 percent in 2004; the Popular Party decreased from 44 to 37. The Socialists gained 39 seats, and are 12 short of an absolute majority; the Popular Party lost 35. The Socialists actually gained 3 million votes, the Popular Party lost 700,000. Zapatero has the authority of the largest vote total ever recorded in democratic Spain.

Clearly, the Popular Party rightly feared that attention to an Islamist attack would remind the public of its responsibility for war on the side of the United States. Its subsequent attempts at deception were politically suicidal -- the work of leaders in the grip of panic. It enraged many in the public, recalled the government's arrogance in the recent past, and offended a populace that had good reason in familial memory to take democracy seriously. The distrust of the Popular Party, heightened by its response to the bombing, also reminded the citizens of their other grievances, economic and social. Zapatero's straightforwardness, originally depicted as boring, now became attractive.

Zapatero will be dependent upon votes from the smaller formations for his parliamentary majorities, but there is little doubt that he will obtain these. In his first press conference, he declared that the Spanish troops would indeed leave Iraq unless the provisional authority was replaced by a U.N. authority and Iraqi self-rule. He declared that Spanish foreign policy will now have three central points. One is to be a revival of the European connection, strengthening of the European Union and the European social model. The second is Spain's special relationship to Latin America, where the president of Argentina has already expressed his delight at the Socialist victory. The third is the United Nations as a framework for relations between the developed and impoverished worlds. (Presumably, Spain's U.N. ambassador, who was on Fox TV on Sunday evening pronouncing the election a triumph for terrorism, will be moving on. I rather like the old gentleman: He reminds me in dress and manner of an oblivious actor successfully playing the part of an official of the Franco regime, who hasn't been told Franco has died.)

The obstacles in the Socialists' path are many. The presumed responsibility of the Islamists for the attack may increase tensions, which are already considerable, between the Spanish population and the large numbers of Muslims living legally and illegally in Spain. Zapatero's break with the "coalition of the willing" is sure to excite Bush's retaliation, direct and indirect, open and covert. Nevertheless, Zapatero has had the courage to proclaim the break. At his press conference, he remarked that Blair and Bush were wrong about Iraq and he invited them to engage in self-criticism. His courage and determination align him with France and Germany and leave Berlusconi, already in serious difficulty on many fronts, exposed to still more domestic criticism.

George W. Bush, Condoleezza Rice and their servants in the American media have shown a curious view of democracy, never ceasing to praise the "courage" of foreign leaders who obey not their own electorates but the White House. Perhaps this display of Spanish independence will contribute to the education of the American public, which has been told to believe that other nations are to be taken seriously only when they are appendages of Bush's policies. In his campaign, Zapatero openly expressed the belief that the world would be better off with a President Kerry in office. Clearly, U.S. interference in the affairs of other nations has now generated the sort of reciprocity that Americans will have to learn to live with.

Back to Spain. William Faulkner remarked that in his native South the past wasn't over: "In fact, it isn't even past." Spain, too, is a society with an enormous amount of historical memory. The Popular Party is not a gang of fascists. However, its hypernationalist ideology, its authoritarianism, and its self-righteous lying were nonetheless unpleasant reminders of the past. People were reminded that Aznar's grandfather had a very successful career under Franco. Zapatero's was an officer in the Republican army, executed after being taken prisoner. When the crowds gathered in Madrid on Friday, there were two main chants. One was "Spain, united, will never be defeated." The other was, "The people, united, will never be defeated." The two Spains of 1936 seem still to be there.

Zapatero has said that he wants to be prime minister for all, and in a gracious concession speech, Rajoy promised to work with him in the national interest. Perhaps it has taken the impact of terror to open this as a possibility. But the election has already changed Spain and the dynamic in Europe, and given Americans reason to reflect on their possibilities.


- - - - - - - - - - - -

About the writer
Norman Birnbaum is professor emeritus at the Georgetown University Law Center. His most recent book, "After Progress, American Social Reform and European Socialism in The Twentieth Century," is an Oxford University Press paperback. He has just returned from Spain.

[ISiddiqui]

a very left wing publication, for whatever that's worth

You didn't have to include the disclaimer... just reading the article is enough ;).

[KeyserSoze]

Well, it´s a lefty document, but it´s very accurate in the big lines. It´s fine if you read it with a critic spirit

[Icy]

Another Spanish here, i totally agree with KeyserSoze and also identify with him. I has been another PP supporter during the last 8 years, or better said during the last 7 years. Their economic politic has been good, they boosted our economy to put us at the head of the growing economic powers in Europe, also they reduced the unemployment. However, latelly this economic boost is going agains us, as the Popular party failed on the long term social politics. The problem was that as the banks loans were so cheap, and everybody saw a good economic future, everybody (who could) started to buy new homes, new cars, luxury items, etc that boosted even more the economy but also raised the prices a lot, making now almost impossible for the average young guy to buy his first house. This is a big complain versus Aznar goberment, they worked hard to boost the economy, but as allways happends, the rich are more rich now and the poors more poor, this helps a lot to the growment of the left supporters. Also as KeyserSoze pointed, they have controled mostly of the media and played with the people opinion. In the other hand, the socialists control "el Pais" newspaper and the "Cadena SER" radio station, that are the bigger media companies here (both owned by same group). During all this 8 years and moslty during the last year they have been pushing really hard versus the Aznar goberment and decissions, specially versus the USA support and the IRAK war.

All this factors made the PP to lose part of their supporters, their problem is that in Spain, as that left wing article posted above said, the people here is still afraid of the right wing, as some of their leaders, like "Fraga" were also leaders at Franco dictatorship. The Popular Party is a partnership of all the right parties, some of them moderated but also some of them radical fascists. Aznar managed really well to keep the fascists controlled, claiming that the PP was a center party, but after they got the absolut power at 2000 elections, the turn to the right was more pronounced, this convined with the new ambition from Aznar to become more known around the world is that have made them to lose lots of moderate right wing supporters, including me.

Last sunday, as KeyserSoze, i vouched in blank, i can't support later PP politics, but i also don't like the socialists leaded by Zapatero as i don't think that they are capable of keeping Spain growing on today's world politic and economy scenario. Socialists probably will improve the solical politics left appart from the Populars, but they won't have the big support from the bussinesmen, banks etc as Populars had, and sadly, today's scenario is mostly about economy. Without a strong economy you don't have money to improve your social politics. You must remmeber that in Spain mostly of Schools, universities, hospitals, etc are paid by the goberment, so we need to generate a good amount of income throught taxes, and the bussines is what generates mostly of that taxes income.

After explaning you a bit more the thoughts from a Popular supporter like myself, mybe you will underestand a bit more why us, the moderate right wing supporters punished Aznar past Sunday, that was one of the keys of their defeat.

The other causes that made the socialists to win has been well explained by KeyserSoze. About the polls being wrong, they couldn't count that after the bombing, we beat a record of participation on the elections, with 2 new millions of participants.(Spain has 40 millions of habitants so it's a good %). Mostly this new participants vouched to the socialists to punish Aznar, that leaded us to the war in IRAK against the 80% of Spanish, and also after the bombing lied us about the authors, tried to control the media etc.

As you could see, i don't think this related to Spanish being cowards or not having nuts like some pointed, but i also agree that Zapatero should have waited a bit before anouncing that we will retire from IRAK, as this is not toally true, we will retire in July if the UN doesn't lead the forces in IRAK. So it's not that we are running fast to home afraid of terrorists but that we don't support the ocupation of a country in the name of a supossed "war on terrorism" that hiddes orther interests. We have a war vs terrorism here too and only France supports us a bit as they suffer from ETA terrorism too, i haven't ever seen any USA goberment to help us to fight against ETA.

Mybe too much written at my post, just wanted to show you what the moderate Aznar supporters think. Also remember that are the guys in the center who decide who wins the elections at any country, there are a few radicals at both sides, but the majority is in the middle and heads to one side of the other depending on a lot of factors. The politics that forget this, as Aznar did, are the ones who lose. Too much power to just one party is never a good thing, politics tend to boost their egos with the power and forget why are them at the power chair.

[yabanci]

Good info, Icy. Your report is more informative that 90% of the media reports.

[KeyserSoze]

Well I have lied you! I dont vote in blank. There´s a party called " Partido del Mutuo Apoyo Romantico" "Mutual Romantic Support Party". I can´t ressist it!


I vote them ;) .

Seriously I agree totally with Icy.

Off topic. In Spain we have so curious parties like this. Did in your country have these kind of groups?

[JonInMiddleGA]

In Spain we have so curious parties like this. Did in your country have these kind of groups?
In the US, there are occasionally groups like this that exist but they very rarely can meet the requirements for being placed on the ballot in many (or even any) states.

Typically, they are not intended as candidates anyway, their "candidacy" is either done as a joke or as a publicity campaign.

[fantastic flying froggies]

Off topic. In Spain we have so curious parties like this. Did in your country have these kind of groups?
I know in the UK they also have the 'Monster Raving Loony Party', which has been running in elections for decades...Typical british non-sense... :)

Check out their website at
http://www.omrlp.com/

[Maple Leafs]

In Canada, we had (maybe still have) a federal Rhino Party. Their platforms included paving the St. Lawrence River and creating an Olympic Male Synchronized Swimming Team.

[Dutch]

For what it's worth, I remember seeing the polling figures.

Before the blast, Aznar was leading like 60-40 and after the blast he was losing 60-40. If I remember correctly.

That is a huge victory both morally and strategically for those who choose to use terror as an effective weapon.

[clintl]

For what it's worth, I remember seeing the polling figures.

Before the blast, Aznar was leading like 60-40 and after the blast he was losing 60-40. If I remember correctly.

That is a huge victory both morally and strategically for those who choose to use terror as an effective weapon.

You're not remembering correctly. The difference was something like 3-5 points. PP was probably going to win, it was close, and they were going to lose seats.

[Dutch]

Okay.

As I said, "That is a huge victory both morally and strategically for those who choose to use terror as an effective weapon."

Before the attacks, polls had given the governing party a lead of 3-5 percentage points.

With 99 percent of the votes counted, Zapatero's Spanish Socialist Workers Party soared from 125 seats to 164 in the outgoing 350-seat legislature. The ruling Popular Party fell from 183 to 148.
From an AP writer, cannot verify this source.

[clintl]

Okay.

As I said, "That is a huge victory both morally and strategically for those who choose to use terror as an effective weapon."




While I have been defending the Spanish voters throughout this thread, because I think that their reaction was completely understandable during the circumstances, I agree that this is an unfortunate aspect of the matter, and the world is less safe right now because of it. However, I think the terrorists, with the threats they have made against France and Germany since the attacks in Spain, have already thrown away the strategic victory. By threatening the countries who didn't back the Iraq War, they are going to unite the world against them more than ever. The strategy and tactics the West uses might be different, but long-term I think this will ultimately heal some of the divisions that occurred over Iraq. Short-term, there are obviously going to be some serious problems, and working them out is probably not going to be a pretty process.

[Maple Leafs]

... they are going to unite the world against them more than ever.
The world will never unite around a common cause for any significant length of time if the United States is a driving force behind that cause.

Discuss.

[Fritz]

The world will never unite around a common cause for any significant length of time


if you stopped here you would havea good point

[rkmsuf]

The world will never unite around a common cause for any significant length of time if the United States is a driving force behind that cause.

Discuss.

Canada needs to get behind the Strange Brew II movement for it to have any chance of being made...

[Maple Leafs]

Canada needs to get behind the Strange Brew II movement for it to have any chance of being made...Sorry, the hockey playoffs start soon. We'll be busy for the next few months.

[rkmsuf]

Damn you puckheads...Rick Moranis isn't getting any younger...or funnier...

[clintl]

The world will never unite around a common cause for any significant length of time if the United States is a driving force behind that cause.

Discuss.

Not true. I think it depends on how the US approaches the problem. If the US does it in a collaborative, consensus-building way, then it can happen. If the US continues to insist that everyone has to follow its lead, and there's no room for other opinions, then it's not going to work for long.

[The Afoci]

Not true. I think it depends on how the US approaches the problem. If the US does it in a collaborative, consensus-building way, then it can happen. If the US continues to insist that everyone has to follow its lead, and there's no room for other opinions, then it's not going to work for long.

Yeah, then the whole world will join hands and sing together.

The whole world will never, ever agree on something of value for very long. It is bound to be screwing someone in the world over, so obviously they will be against it.

[Maple Leafs]

I posted a lefty view, so here's a view from the right. Waaayyy to the right.

MAR. 15, 2004: A WIN FOR TERROR
By David Frum

Terrorism has won a mighty victory in Spain. The culprits who detonated those bombs of murder on 3/11 intended to use murder to alter the course of Spanish democracy – and they have succeeded.

In the months since the attacks on the World Trade Center, we have all heard – and ourselves often repeated – much brave talk about how terror cannot prevail, how justice must inevitably win through, etc. etc. etc.

The news from Spain suggests how very wrong those hopes were.

People are not always strong. Sometimes they indulge false hopes that by lying low, truckling, appeasing, they can avoid danger and strife. Sometimes they convince themselves that if only they give the Cyclops what he wants, they will be eaten last. And this is what seems to have happened in Spain.

Unlike the 9/11 attacks in the United States – which were intended as acts of propaganda to influence the Arab and Muslim world – the 3/11 attacks against Spain were acts of propaganda aimed at the local market. And again unlike 9/11, this time the terrorists succeeded brilliantly. They helped to defeat a government committed to joining the war against them – and helped elect a government whose leading members not so quietly dream of a separate accommodation.

From a human point of view, the carnage of 3/11 is a tragedy without purpose or meaning. But from a political point of view, 3/11 was aimed at a result – and it achieved it. The new socialist government of Spain will be a far less willing ally of the United States. Indeed, this attack against Spain may well succeed in pre-emptively knocking Spain out of the war in the way that Pearl Harbor was intended – but failed – to knock out the United States in 1941.

Lesson: terrorism can work. Prediction: therefore expect more of it. Expect more terrorism aimed at the United Kingdom, against Australia, against Poland, and – ultimately – against the United States. For the terrorists must now wonder: If murder can influence elections in Spain – why not in the United States?

In the United States, the terrorists have to make a very fine calculation: Which would hurt President Bush, their supereme enemy, more – to attack or not to attack?

Those who know American politics well would probably answer: choice number two. The more time goes by without a terrorist attack, the less President Bush benefits from his prestige as a war leader – and the more the national conversation turns to new subjects on which President Bush holds less of an advantage. On the other hand, the terrorists may be less sophisticated. They may hope to defeat their enemy George W. Bush in the same way that they defeated their enemy Jose Aznar. In which case – brace yourselves.

[Bubba Wheels]

How to deal with terrorists: Sean Connery in the Untouchables "For everyone of yours they put in the hospital, you put two of theirs in the grave."

To Spain: Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Socialism is such a great way of life that Russia ditched it for capitalism and China gets farther and farther away from it every day in the name of capitalism. Spain should be proud of themselves for not only showing the yellow flag to terrorists but also aligning with France and American college campuses as the only other places on earth that are still promoting Marxism (oh yeah, don't forget Cuba!)

One last point: France despite its opposition to all U.S. actions against terrorism is being highlighted for terrorist actions by the same groups you would think would be cutting France some slack for them showing the yellow flag. So Spain, you might have really stepped in it in more ways than one, showing the yellow flag may still get you a terrorist 'kick-in-the-teeth' and you can't run to the U.S. for help.

[Dutch]

Waaayyy to the right.

Could you quantify this remark? Especially since it was the only thing of note in the post that was yours? Thanks in advance.

[Leonidas]

The world will never unite around a common cause for any significant length of time if the United States is a driving force behind that cause.

Discuss.

Name one global cause or initiative in the last 70 years that did not include the United States as a driving force or participant? Name one successful, international-scale humanitarian relief effort in that same timeframe that did not include the US as a significant player? How many successful, international relief missions have Russia, China, Spain, France, and Iran spearheaded without US support in that timeframe?

The perception in many places is the US is the bad guy, but the reality is the US continues to put more food in mouths and more money in the pockets of the lesser privileged around the world than any other country by a very, very large margin. Even Iran of all places took our aid during their recent earthquake.

So folks around the world can make all the negative statements they like to further your own personal biases and agendas, but they still know where to go when the crap hits the fan.

[Maple Leafs]

The perception in many places is the US is the bad guy, but the reality is the US continues to put more food in mouths and more money in the pockets of the lesser privileged around the world than any other country by a very, very large margin. Absolutely true. But so often, it's the perception that shapes the reality. Regardless of all the good the US may do, if the world has decided that the US is going to shoulder the blame for all the world's problems it will be very difficult to build any sort of consensus.

I think my comment has been misinterpreted as a shot at the US. It's not. I just feel that at this point in history, the US could declare that the sky was blue and many around the world would take to the streets to call it green.

Could you quantify this remark? Especially since it was the only thing of note in the post that was yours? Thanks in advance.Are you familiar with David Frum and his work? If so, the remark wouldn't need qualification. Frum has made his career as a right-wing commentator, first in Canada (he's the son of a famous and respected Canadian journalist) and now in Washington. His recent book was a virtual fan letter to George Bush. With apologies to Anne Coulter, Frum may be the most unashamedly conservative commentator in US politics today. That doesn't necessarily make his wrong, but if you don't think that he's solidly right wing then you're using a different political spectrum than the rest of us.

[Buddy Grant]

....the Spanish people, with some justification, were a little pissed off about the possibility that there was maybe a little CYA going on there on the ruling party's part because the elections were so close.
The misinformation attempts seemed so painfully obvious, a day and a half of Spanish (and US) government ETA blame and Al Qaeda denial at the same time as members of ETA were desparately denying anything to do with it and Al Qaeda were taking credit. As soon as the no longer deniable news came out that it was Al Qaeda Spanish people were understandibly furious about being lied to. In some parts of the world lies will get goverments in trouble.

[Dutch]

So he's like Michael Moore, but a right wing guy? I wouldn't pay him much heed, then. But I didn't see what was written as being "right-wing". Unless you put a "right-wing" guy behind the words.

But if Michael Moore were to suggest that terrorism won a battle today, I'd agree with him.

What was the terrorist's mission objective in killing all those people? If not anarchy, surely ousting the current governent was a joyous goal of theirs? Am I wrong?

[Maple Leafs]

So he's like Michael Moore, but a right wing guy?Not quite Michael Moore. Maybe a better comparison would be Al Franken, without the sense of humor.

Frum is a good writer, and you can certainly give him credit for not being afraid to voice an unpopular opinion. But I believe that it's important to consider the source when you read an opinion piece, so I flagged it here (just like I did with the left-wing Salon article I posted earlier).

[Buccaneer]

Then why didn't you qualify your lefty view post as wayyyyy to the left? Lefties are just as much (if not more so, imo) more extremists in their views than righties.

[Maple Leafs]

Then why didn't you qualify your lefty view post as wayyyyy to the left? Lefties are just as much (if not more so, imo) more extremists in their views than righties.Well, I did call it "very left wing". However, I don't know Norman Birnbaum's work as well as I do Frum's, so I didn't feel like it would be fair to go quite as far.

[Buddy Grant]

Lefties are just as much (if not more so, imo) more extremists in their views than righties. Tough to argue with that:).


The world will never unite around a common cause for any significant length of time if the United States is a driving force behind that cause.
Easy to argue with that. The current US government has gone out of it's way to alienate most of the world that was in mourning together with the US after 9/11. It was the 'with us or against' arrogance that pushed these same people away gradually as most of the world worked for peace, and the Cheney/Wolfowitz/Rumsfield group worked for war. The backlash began with gross inaccuracies from a President and his staff in an effort to sell a war. A US media with no balls, terrified of getting on right wing shit lists, complied by assuming reports from the White House were factual, while media in other countries asked the tough questions. The world might never unite around a common cause for any significant length of time, but it has nothing to do with whether the US is behind that cause.

[Buccaneer]

these same people away gradually as most of the world worked for peaceThat's called appeasement. See: Chamberlain, late 1930s. It's funny that most of the world rejoiced the fall of Saddam whereas "peace" would not have accomplished that. Also, see: Lincoln in 1861 in how he sold the war to the Union. The hidden agenda was slavery and the destruction of the Southern economy and culture (as pushed hard by the Radical Republicans and the abolitionists) but no way he could have sold the war on those terms to his fragile coalition and to the Northern people.

[clintl]

Appeasement? The situation in Iraq in 2003 had no similarity to that of Germany in 1938. Iraq was a beaten down country with a devastated economy, decaying weaponry, and a central government did not even have control over large parts of the country. The world would have been no less safe than it is today if the US had agreed to let inspectors continue their work. In fact, I think there a strong case that can be made that it's a less safe world now. It certainly opened the floodgates for Al Qaeda to move into Iraq.

You might have been able to make that comparison in 1991, at the time of the Gulf War, but the world (in fact, most of the Arab world) supported that, and Iraq had not been a serious threat since then.

The big problem is that throughout all the lies, deception, and overall used car salesmanship employed by this administration, they lost sight over who the real threat to us is.

[Dutch]

Appeasement? The situation in Iraq in 2003 had no similarity to that of Germany in 1938. Iraq was a beaten down country with a devastated economy, decaying weaponry, and a central government did not even have control over large parts of the country. The world would have been no less safe than it is today if the US had agreed to let inspectors continue their work. In fact, I think there a strong case that can be made that it's a less safe world now. It certainly opened the floodgates for Al Qaeda to move into Iraq.

You might have been able to make that comparison in 1991, at the time of the Gulf War, but the world (in fact, most of the Arab world) supported that, and Iraq had not been a serious threat since then.

You could probably make a good case of how Post WWI Germany evolved into Pre WWII Germany(devastated economy, decaying weaponry, very weak central government) and 20 years later a very angry German who didn't like how his country was treated decided to disobey the League of Nations "resolutions" and it's "cease-fire agreement". You could also argue that had Chamberlain done something about it "pre-emptiviely", war would have happened, many people would have died, and Chamberlain would be the villain to the Marxists...but he would have been able to wage war on his terms rather than on Hitlers. And on a timetable suitable to the eventual allies versus a fully armed and dangerous axis timetable.

Of course, the beauty to the leftist argument is that you don't have proof until the war on their terms, is over.

[rdo]

The perception in many places is the US is the bad guy, but the reality is the US continues to put more food in mouths and more money in the pockets of the lesser privileged around the world than any other country by a very, very large margin. Even Iran of all places took our aid during their recent earthquake.

So folks around the world can make all the negative statements they like to further your own personal biases and agendas, but they still know where to go when the crap hits the fan.

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/43/26/1894401.xls

USA is the lowest donator relative to GNI of any of the 22 countries mentioned (35% lower than the 2nd lowest). And only in 2001-02 have they passed Japan as the biggest donator in dollar terms, most likely only because of the Asian economic collapse. So whilst America does hand out a large amount of foreign don't think that it's what keeping the earth rotating.



Edit (spelling)

[KeyserSoze]

How to deal with terrorists: Sean Connery in the Untouchables "For everyone of yours they put in the hospital, you put two of theirs in the grave."

To Spain: Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Socialism is such a great way of life that Russia ditched it for capitalism and China gets farther and farther away from it every day in the name of capitalism. Spain should be proud of themselves for not only showing the yellow flag to terrorists but also aligning with France and American college campuses as the only other places on earth that are still promoting Marxism (oh yeah, don't forget Cuba!)

One last point: France despite its opposition to all U.S. actions against terrorism is being highlighted for terrorist actions by the same groups you would think would be cutting France some slack for them showing the yellow flag. So Spain, you might have really stepped in it in more ways than one, showing the yellow flag may still get you a terrorist 'kick-in-the-teeth' and you can't run to the U.S. for help.

Well...

1- The Socialist in Europe are "socialdemocrats". You know, Blair, Schroeder... are socialist. In economical terms there´s no much diference between socialdemocrats and "democratic cristians" or "populars". Maybe you have to read more about european political parties to understand it....

2- We have been fighting againt terrorism for more than 20 years, inside the national and international laws. US for 2 years. We have lost more than 250 in "your" war against islamic terrorism. The american citizens lost against against ETA is zero. We have jailed a lot of islamic terrorist, while none of the groups that support ETA in some states like Iowa is in jail... . Maybe you have to read more about history to understand it.
For other side, the french has helped us unvaluable last 10 years against ETA (Before that.... well)

3- I understand that US government has a view of how to fight terrorism. But it doesnt mean that has to be the only one. The approach "If you are not with me you are wrong" is hilarious, at least between sovereing states. Personally and it´s a point of view, there has been two states "conquered" and the AlQaida menace is as strong as 9/11.

Good quote. But I prefer "EYE for EYE will all of us make BLIND" "

And I repeat myself. The PSOE victory is more near the misinformation that PP give us than the terrorist attack. As Buddy Grant says, we can live with 200 dead more, but we cannot live with lies

[Icy]

Again i totally agree with KeyserSoze, before talking about something and even more when you're going to blame it, you need to learn something about it at least.
In Europe we don't have only fascists like Hitler or comunist like Stalin. We have tons of parties, from extreme right wing to extreme left wing but all the steps in the middle. The big parties in mostly of countries are just really moderate right wing (like Spanish old goberment Popular Party) or really moderate left wing (like Spanish new goberment Socialist Party). Both are more towards the center than towards the wings. It's like if you say that the Republicans are fascists and the Democrats are comunists, things are not as simple, black or white. So you don't need to start the new cold war, the extreme communism that failed everwhere in the world is not taking over europe.
And about running to ask USA for help against terrorism, as KeyserSoze again wrote, USA hasn't ever helped us versus ETA, while we have a good amount of valerous Spanish guys that have died for you so think again on it and about who is in debt.

I usually don't pay a lot of atention to haters at boards, but i'm starting to get tired of brainwashed Americans that don't know even where is Spain but talk about our politics or about our dead guys like if they knew it all, they were the heroes and world savers while we all are cowards (at another forum after a lot of discussion, one of the haters wrote that Spain is located near Venezuela). Please first learn history and politics, then blame, else you just show how ignorant you are and you are who give a bad name to educated Americans and all the hate against you worldwide. Luckily this is just a minority and mostly of people here is really well educated and show knowledge and respect. I really enjoy talking here about anything including politics, this is one of the more open minded boards where i write and i really like it.

[fantastic flying froggies]

What they both just said.

[JAG]

Spainards,

Thanks for your comments. It's great to hear from people where all this madness has happened to get a better understanding of Spain's background and a feel for what's really happening in the country and not just hear it from the media.

In regards to your comments about the US not helping Spain against ETA...well, first I'll admit that I'm fairly ignorant about the whole matter. Has Spain directly asked the US for help? Has the US not provided any help at all (including counter-terrorist training, intelligence-sharing, other less direct aid)? Other than those sources of aid, the US could provide more direct aid like troops, but I doubt most of Spain would be happy with US troops operating on Spanish soil even to dismantle ETA (but I could be wrong).

Other than that, I would say that the US hasn't done much to help against ETA because it's not as high a priority as other terrorist organizations which are more widespread and/or damaging as Al Quaida is (not to be insulting at all, just as a fact). You can hardly fault the US for spending more effort fighting a terrorist group which kill 2500+ in the US in one attack alone and 100's of others around the world than ETA which to my knowledge has not killed a single US citizen. My guess is ETA is actually fairly low on the US's priority list because they don't act outside of Spain, because they are probably not seeking weapons of mass destruction, and because they haven't been as active or destructive as other terrorist organizations.

Once again though, I don't mean to be dismissive as to what ETA has done in Spain. I had a Sevillian girlfriend for over a year and I realize how seriously people in much of Spain loathe ETA. I personally would love to see ETA put out of action, along with all terrorist organizations in the world. I just don't think the US sees them as as much a threat to its interests as other organizations. As KeyserSoze is fond of saying (besides "The greatest trick the devil played was convincing the world he didn't exist" :) ), it's just my opinion.

One problem I have is that Spain has aided the US in jailing some purported Al Quaida members and has sent troops to Iraq, but I haven't seen where the US has directly done much to help Spain. The US may have, but if so, it hasn't been well-publicized here. Bush has made a huge mistake in setting back foreign relations with many of the US's allies.

[Icy]

JAG you're right about the causes of USA not helping us, of course ETA is a minor problem for you or even unknown. Also we don't know if USA is helping the Spanish goberment with CIA reports or anything as that can't be made public. Of course we don't want to put troops in the Basque Country and make it a second UK/IRA army conflict. We just use the anti-terrorist police and intelligence services to fight against ETA.
If we started to talk about USA not helping us, is because some guys started to call us cowards because we retire from IRAK, but all you must have in mind that 80% of Spanish ppl didn't want the war as we don't see the ties betwen IRAK and muslims terrorist and we saw that war more like an economy fact and the attempt to control the petrol production. Also all the lies about massive attack weapons don't help a lot to believe on Bush, Blair or Aznar (and i have vouvhed Aznar twice, but not last time). If the massive attack weapons was the real reason, then North Korea should be the first objetive, but they don't have petrol and they have a good army ;)

Also the most important point not talked enought, we will only retire troops in July, when the elections in IRAK should take place, if the UN doesn't support the ocupation, but this doesn't means that we are retiring our troops just after we have been bombed. If after July there are elections in IRAK as supposed to be, then all us USA, English and Spanish will retire from IRAK and the UN forces will take the job (of course the UN troops are formed by us too but the meaning is not the same). In the other hand i agree that the new Spanish goberment should have waited a bit more to anounce that we retire, so it would have avoid all this trouble.

[Galaril]

Tough to argue with that:).


Easy to argue with that. The current US government has gone out of it's way to alienate most of the world that was in mourning together with the US after 9/11. It was the 'with us or against' arrogance that pushed these same people away gradually as most of the world worked for peace, and the Cheney/Wolfowitz/Rumsfield group worked for war. The backlash began with gross inaccuracies from a President and his staff in an effort to sell a war. A US media with no balls, terrified of getting on right wing shit lists, complied by assuming reports from the White House were factual, while media in other countries asked the tough questions. The world might never unite around a common cause for any significant length of time, but it has nothing to do with whether the US is behind that cause.

I couldn't agree more.I have lived here in Korea for nearly a decade and the people here have really gone anti-american since after 9/11.There always is some anti-americanism around here especially among the leftist/communist groups but I am now seeing those who were on "our side" a few years ago going against us. It is very sad actual when some friends of mine don't want there kids around mine anymore due to the fact they are half american.

[Icy]

It is very sad actual when some friends of mine don't want there kids around mine anymore due to the fact they are half american.

This is indeed really sad, something like this happends in Spain where Basques in general are hated by Spanish from the other regions because ETA terrorist, when of course not even a quarter of the Basques support them or really care abut the independence.

[JAG]

JAG you're right about the causes of USA not helping us, of course ETA is a minor problem for you or even unknown. Also we don't know if USA is helping the Spanish goberment with CIA reports or anything as that can't be made public. Of course we don't want to put troops in the Basque Country and make it a second UK/IRA army conflict. We just use the anti-terrorist police and intelligence services to fight against ETA.
If we started to talk about USA not helping us, is because some guys started to call us cowards because we retire from IRAK, but all you must have in mind that 80% of Spanish ppl didn't want the war as we don't see the ties betwen IRAK and muslims terrorist and we saw that war more like an economy fact and the attempt to control the petrol production. Also all the lies about massive attack weapons don't help a lot to believe on Bush, Blair or Aznar (and i have vouvhed Aznar twice, but not last time). If the massive attack weapons was the real reason, then North Korea should be the first objetive, but they don't have petrol and they have a good army ;)

Also the most important point not talked enought, we will only retire troops in July, when the elections in IRAK should take place, if the UN doesn't support the ocupation, but this doesn't means that we are retiring our troops just after we have been bombed. If after July there are elections in IRAK as supposed to be, then all us USA, English and Spanish will retire from IRAK and the UN forces will take the job (of course the UN troops are formed by us too but the meaning is not the same). In the other hand i agree that the new Spanish goberment should have waited a bit more to anounce that we retire, so it would have avoid all this trouble.

I found it remarkable that Aznar would go against the wishes of 80-90% of the population in the first place...I can only wonder what Bush must have promised Spain for its help. The North Korea point is a good one on the surface, especially because they have admitted to having nuclear bombs while Iraq made no such assumption. However, it's precisely because of that and their proximity to our allies like Japan and South Korea that Bush cannot act in such a direct manner, even if he would like to. My guess is Bush is just trying to wait them out and let their poor economy ruin themselves, but he is in my opinion wrongfully ignoring options that would put more pressure on them. Finally, I agree that it was a bit premature for Zapatero to esentially exclaim loudly that they would pull out of Iraq as it was in accordance with the terrorists' wishes, but again it's only if the UN does not take over the occupation. There's also no indication that his government will be any less effective in fighting terrorism than Aznar's was, but at this point it would seem likely that coorperation with the US will be diminished.

[Maple Leafs]

I found it remarkable that Aznar would go against the wishes of 80-90% of the population in the first place...Just curious... did 80/90% oppose the war effort at the time the decision was made, or did that number only appear after people decided that in hindsight it was a bad idea?

[JAG]

I believe that figure was at the beginning of the war, but I haven't looked for links to back that up. I'm not sure what the percentages have been throughout the past year or so.

[fantastic flying froggies]

The figure was indeed pretty high, right even before the war started. Incidently, it was pretty much the same also in the UK, the US other main European ally.

The main issue for Europeans was the US were acting "illegally", by that I mean outside of UN scope. Notice how Icy said that if there was a UN mandate, Spain would likey still send troops in Irak.

I believe that France would have sent troops as well, if there had been a UN mandate for that. (of course, France diplomats did everything they could in the UN to prevent such a mandate, but that is another story...)

[clintl]

You could probably make a good case of how Post WWI Germany evolved into Pre WWII Germany(devastated economy, decaying weaponry, very weak central government) and 20 years later a very angry German who didn't like how his country was treated decided to disobey the League of Nations "resolutions" and it's "cease-fire agreement". You could also argue that had Chamberlain done something about it "pre-emptiviely", war would have happened, many people would have died, and Chamberlain would be the villain to the Marxists...but he would have been able to wage war on his terms rather than on Hitlers. And on a timetable suitable to the eventual allies versus a fully armed and dangerous axis timetable.

Of course, the beauty to the leftist argument is that you don't have proof until the war on their terms, is over.

Iraq 2003 and Germany 1920, I will agree, that's a much closer comparison. However, Germany had two things in the 1920s and early 1930s that Iraq didn't - competitive elections that allowed someone like Hitler to gain power by exploiting the feelings of national humiliation, and an industrial base that, though damaged, ranked with the best in the world.

As far as proof - do the supporters have any? So far, every argument they made for going to war prior to the war has been thoroughly discredited by what has been found inside Iraq after the war. I would submit to you that the fact that within Iraq's sovereign borders, the Kurds were able to establish and maintain a basically autonomous government in northern no-fly zone, is very strong evidence that Iraq was years, if not decades, away from being a real threat to anyone. Furthermore, there was no country on the planet whose moves were being monitored with as much scrutiny.

Appeasement would have been lifting the sanctions before Iraq proved it was clean. I don't see how you can call waiting for inspections to be completed "appeasement", especially when that was the will of the UN. The simple fact is that the Bush Administration made up its mind that it was going to fight this war even before inspections started, regardless of international law and procedures, and it was only because Colin Powell was able to win the argument over Rumsfeld that the US bothered with the UN process in the first place.

[Dutch]

Iraq 2003 and Germany 1920, I will agree, that's a much closer comparison. However, Germany had two things in the 1920s and early 1930s that Iraq didn't - competitive elections that allowed someone like Hitler to gain power by exploiting the feelings of national humiliation, and an industrial base that, though damaged, ranked with the best in the world.

Well, there are no good analogies. But this one is pretty damned close. Competative elections? Not needed to inspire SS or Baath Party rhetoric/propaganda. When Saddam Hussein were to die, who was going to take over? The youthful, energetic, passionate, thug Uday or Qusay. Just what the Baath Party needed.

As far as proof - do the supporters have any? So far, every argument they made for going to war prior to the war has been thoroughly discredited by what has been found inside Iraq after the war. I would submit to you that the fact that within Iraq's sovereign borders, the Kurds were able to establish and maintain a basically autonomous government in northern no-fly zone, is very strong evidence that Iraq was years, if not decades, away from being a real threat to anyone. Furthermore, there was no country on the planet whose moves were being monitored with as much scrutiny.

The proof was in the pudding, sort of speak. Iraq avoided international law for 12 years. The wait had to end on allowing lawlessness to prevail. David Kay more than reported the "grave and gathering" danger in post-Iraq that most non-politicals understood in pre-invasion times.

Appeasement would have been lifting the sanctions before Iraq proved it was clean. I don't see how you can call waiting for inspections to be completed "appeasement", especially when that was the will of the UN. The simple fact is that the Bush Administration made up its mind that it was going to fight this war even before inspections started, regardless of international law and procedures, and it was only because Colin Powell was able to win the argument over Rumsfeld that the US bothered with the UN process in the first place.

We forget the forces were at work to lift the sanctions on Iraq. Germany, France, Russia, and China were all putting pressure on the US/UK/Aus's to stop the embargo. France had big oil contracts on hold, and Russia had huge Oil for Weapons contracts ready for implementation.

We can argue how people felt all we want. Go ahead. But the bottom line remains the same. The Bush Administration and the US/UK/Aus took the German/French/Russian/Chineese insistance to go to the UN seriously enough to go to the UN and plead the case. France and Germany both said that nothing would change that fact that one of them would veto any such suggestion by the USA to use force. Why then, did they insist that the US/UK/Aus go to the UN? It was a waste of time, and politics as usual.

In the end, politics as usual, endless debating, and lack of direction and leadership reaks of pre-WWII diplomacy in Europe.

The analogy is no mirror, but it's sound.

[clintl]

Well, there are no good analogies. But this one is pretty damned close. Competative elections? Not needed to inspire SS or Baath Party rhetoric/propaganda. When Saddam Hussein were to die, who was going to take over? The youthful, energetic, passionate, thug Uday or Qusay. Just what the Baath Party needed.

There's no disagreement that Saddam and his sons were evil leaders, but the difference you are ignoring is that competitive elections legitimized among the German people Hitler and his agenda in the beginning. He had popular support that the Husseins never had. Furthermore, Iraq had the capability to be the dominant regional power, but never would have had the resources to be a dominant world power, like Germany was. The scale of the danger from Saddam was not even remotely close to the menace Germany presented.

The proof was in the pudding, sort of speak. Iraq avoided international law for 12 years. The wait had to end on allowing lawlessness to prevail. David Kay more than reported the "grave and gathering" danger in post-Iraq that most non-politicals understood in pre-invasion times.

Yes, the proof is in the pudding, and the pudding says that Iraq has not had any WMDs for many years. Essentially, they were mostly in compliance except for record keeping and inspections. As far as what Kay meant by that remark, it seems to me that he has never been very specific, and I've interpreted it as an admission that the Administration was wrong, combined with a reluctance to admit that what the Administration did was wrong. Kay still seems to be a Bush loyalist.

We forget the forces were at work to lift the sanctions on Iraq. Germany, France, Russia, and China were all putting pressure on the US/UK/Aus's to stop the embargo. France had big oil contracts on hold, and Russia had huge Oil for Weapons contracts ready for implementation.

Yes, that's true that a lot of people wanted the sanctions lifted. There was no chance of that without US and UK support, though, since both also have veto power in the UN Security Council, and it just wasn't going to happen without full compliance. No war was needed to ensure that.

We can argue how people felt all we want. Go ahead. But the bottom line remains the same. The Bush Administration and the US/UK/Aus took the German/French/Russian/Chineese insistance to go to the UN seriously enough to go to the UN and plead the case. France and Germany both said that nothing would change that fact that one of them would veto any such suggestion by the USA to use force. Why then, did they insist that the US/UK/Aus go to the UN? It was a waste of time, and politics as usual.

In the end, politics as usual, endless debating, and lack of direction and leadership reaks of pre-WWII diplomacy in Europe.

The analogy is no mirror, but it's sound.

Disagreements, debate, and negotiation are part of the process, not politics as usual, and there's a reason why this process is preferred over unilateral pre-emptive attacks on other nations.

[Desnudo]

And I repeat myself. The PSOE victory is more near the misinformation that PP give us than the terrorist attack. As Buddy Grant says, we can live with 200 dead more, but we cannot live with lies

I feel what actually happened is that people jumped to conclusions before the evidence was in to make an informed judgement. Then the media fans the flames. As opposed to out and out lying. The same thing happened in the Oklahoma City bombing where people were actually actively looking for Arabs based on sketches supplied by "witnesses." It only came out a week or so after the fact that it was a white guy.

[Bubba Wheels]

I feel what actually happened is that people jumped to conclusions before the evidence was in to make an informed judgement. Then the media fans the flames. As opposed to out and out lying. The same thing happened in the Oklahoma City bombing where people were actually actively looking for Arabs based on sketches supplied by "witnesses." It only came out a week or so after the fact that it was a white guy.

Well, turns out there may actually be a Mid-East connection to the Oklahoma Bombings that certain agencies are working overtime to keep hidden. The mysterious 'stranger' seen with McViegh at the truck rental looks amazingly like Jose Padilla, now in Jail awaiting trial/release as an Al Quedda operative trying to build and detenote a 'dirty bomb' in the U.S.

And witnesses swear under oath that they saw a mid-eastern looking individual walking briskly away from the Federal Building with a stop-watch the day before the explosion. One female reporter (don't have her name but its obtainable) has identified this individual as another Al Quedda operative and says she has other links between this plot and Al Quedda. And Jim Nichols, McViegh's accompliss soon to go on trial is married to a Fillapino woman from an area in that country that has known Muslim terrorist groups operating. Nichols had taken many unexplained trips to the Phillipines (spelling?) before and up to the time of the bombing.

So the comforting boogeyman of right-wing hate group(s) responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing for liberals may actually be more fiction than fact. Of course, that won't change minds of those who need to believe in right-wing hate groups being more dangerous than Al-Queda type terrorists, witness the badguys in Tom Clancy's books morphing from Arabs into modern-day white-man Nazis...right, those Nazi's are like everReadys, they just keep on coming :rolleyes:

[Desnudo]

Well, turns out there may actually be a Mid-East connection to the Oklahoma Bombings that certain agencies are working overtime to keep hidden. The mysterious 'stranger' seen with McViegh at the truck rental looks amazingly like Jose Padilla, now in Jail awaiting trial/release as an Al Quedda operative trying to build and detenote a 'dirty bomb' in the U.S.

And witnesses swear under oath that they saw a mid-eastern looking individual walking briskly away from the Federal Building with a stop-watch the day before the explosion. One female reporter (don't have her name but its obtainable) has identified this individual as another Al Quedda operative and says she has other links between this plot and Al Quedda. And Jim Nichols, McViegh's accompliss soon to go on trial is married to a Fillapino woman from an area in that country that has known Muslim terrorist groups operating. Nichols had taken many unexplained trips to the Phillipines (spelling?) before and up to the time of the bombing.

So the comforting boogeyman of right-wing hate group(s) responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing for liberals may actually be more fiction than fact. Of course, that won't change minds of those who need to believe in right-wing hate groups being more dangerous than Al-Queda type terrorists, witness the badguys in Tom Clancy's books morphing from Arabs into modern-day white-man Nazis...right, those Nazi's are like everReadys, they just keep on coming :rolleyes:

I heard Jose Padilla was the second shooter on the grassy knoll but it was covered up by the Warren Commission.

[Dutch]

ClintL,

It is obvious that our opinions will never merge and go in the same direction.

Much like the USA vs. Iraq situation. All the Diplomacy in the world was gain not one bit of ground in 12 years. There is no rationale to deal fairly at all with Saddam Hussein, yet Bush and Clinton tried. Bush Sr. pleaded and then acted. Saddam Hussein had multiple opportunities to remove himself from power or give the U.N. th cooperation they needed.

[clintl]

ClintL,

It is obvious that our opinions will never merge and go in the same direction.

Much like the USA vs. Iraq situation. All the Diplomacy in the world was gain not one bit of ground in 12 years. There is no rationale to deal fairly at all with Saddam Hussein, yet Bush and Clinton tried. Bush Sr. pleaded and then acted. Saddam Hussein had multiple opportunities to remove himself from power or give the U.N. th cooperation they needed.

Not one bit of ground gained? That's hardly accurate. The WMDs were gone, and that was what the primary goal was. The part he didn't cooperate on was proving it, but to me, that was maybe 10% of the problem at most. 90% of what was supposed to be accomplished with the sanctions over those 12 years was, in fact, accomplished.

[ISiddiqui]

Lefties are just as much (if not more so, imo) more extremists in their views than righties.

Throughout history or today? In history, I'd VERY much disagree with you.

[yabanci]

All the Diplomacy in the world was gain not one bit of ground in 12 years.

Another ridiculous overstatement.

[Easy Mac]

How to deal with terrorists: Sean Connery in the Untouchables "For everyone of yours they put in the hospital, you put two of theirs in the grave."

To Spain: Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Socialism is such a great way of life that Russia ditched it for capitalism and China gets farther and farther away from it every day in the name of capitalism. Spain should be proud of themselves for not only showing the yellow flag to terrorists but also aligning with France and American college campuses as the only other places on earth that are still promoting Marxism (oh yeah, don't forget Cuba!)

One last point: France despite its opposition to all U.S. actions against terrorism is being highlighted for terrorist actions by the same groups you would think would be cutting France some slack for them showing the yellow flag. So Spain, you might have really stepped in it in more ways than one, showing the yellow flag may still get you a terrorist 'kick-in-the-teeth' and you can't run to the U.S. for help.
1) Nice quote... it always amazes me how people who claim to be Christian can advocate the killing of anyone. It must be the true Christianity that actual believers are unfamiliar with.

2) Come visit a college campus when you gain the intelligence... its as far away from Marxism as any place I've been... besides a Southern Baptist church.

3) France actually sent troops to Afghanistan after 9/11 and arrested numerous people with terrorist connections, so obviously they've done everything they can to oppose the war on terror. Or maybe they actually opposed a war they didn't feel there was a need for... novel idea.

[Dutch]

Not one bit of ground gained? That's hardly accurate. The WMDs were gone, and that was what the primary goal was. The part he didn't cooperate on was proving it, but to me, that was maybe 10% of the problem at most. 90% of what was supposed to be accomplished with the sanctions over those 12 years was, in fact, accomplished.

The only thing that has been suggested so far by the non-politicals was that Saddam Hussein was even more dangerous that previously thought. And there is certainly no proof that WMD were not in Saddam's possession. If he did in fact get rid of them, that's not anybody's fault but his own for not cooperating with the UN.

[Leonidas]

Absolutely true. But so often, it's the perception that shapes the reality. Regardless of all the good the US may do, if the world has decided that the US is going to shoulder the blame for all the world's problems it will be very difficult to build any sort of consensus.

I think my comment has been misinterpreted as a shot at the US. It's not. I just feel that at this point in history, the US could declare that the sky was blue and many around the world would take to the streets to call it green.



You make excellent points, which is why this is so damn frustrating. My boss (a fairly high ranking military officer) and I were talking about this very issue just the other day. We briefed him on some similiar issues and he popped up out of nowhere about how the US is really doing a poor job on the world stage in information operations. I'm pretty well plugged in to various sources of information and it just sucks seeing people get the whole picture all wrong (strictly IMO I must add), even in our own country. Every now and then I pop off like I did last night on the web boards to relieve a little stress, but for the most part I hold back because I believe freedom of speech is especially precious and the opinions of those I disagree with are no less valuable than mine. I had the feeling you were somewhat playing devil's advocate, but you made a very valid point. Right or wrong, the way the world is perceiving these issues are very damaging to US interests.

[Buccaneer]

Throughout history or today? In history, I'd VERY much disagree with you.
Today, obviously. As we had talked about before, the political, cultural and societal landscape has changed drastically in the last 2 or 3 generations.

[Bubba Wheels]

1) Nice quote... it always amazes me how people who claim to be Christian can advocate the killing of anyone. It must be the true Christianity that actual believers are unfamiliar with.

2) Come visit a college campus when you gain the intelligence... its as far away from Marxism as any place I've been... besides a Southern Baptist church.

3) France actually sent troops to Afghanistan after 9/11 and arrested numerous people with terrorist connections, so obviously they've done everything they can to oppose the war on terror. Or maybe they actually opposed a war they didn't feel there was a need for... novel idea.

1. Its always the ignorant ones who claim to be Bible experts without reading it that never understand the difference between justified killing (like the death penalty) vs. murder (like abortion).

2. Son, I have attended Law School, and you need an undergrad degree to do that. Wayne State showed me much, as my primary professor in Political Science never made any secret of him being a committed democratic party activist. He did teach me one important thing, though. He said when you go into the voting booth and split your ticket you always hurt your long-term goals regardless of the man you vote for. He is right. But when I pull the GOP lever and get in and out in 5 minutes while others think their ticket-splitting is saving the world, unlike my professor I vote for the right party. ;)

3. France has opposed the war in Iraq because they, like Russia, are dirty as sin. More and more evidence comes out everyday that France cut sweetheart deals with Saddam at the expense of everyone and anyone that lived in Iraq (one report that ages-old tribe was virtually wiped-out by Saddam when French oil techs said they would not work a certain area unless that occurred.) And the source for that is yesterday's (3/18/04) C-Span :eek:

[sachmo71]

I didn't know that the bible distinguished between good kills and bad kills! If it does, then why does everyone have such a problem with Muslim extremist groups?

[sachmo71]

2. Son, I have attended Law School, and you need an undergrad degree to do that. Wayne State showed me much, as my primary professor in Political Science never made any secret of him being a committed democratic party activist. He did teach me one important thing, though. He said when you go into the voting booth and split your ticket you always hurt your long-term goals regardless of the man you vote for. He is right. But when I pull the GOP lever and get in and out in 5 minutes while others think their ticket-splitting is saving the world, unlike my professor I vote for the right party. ;)




Why is voting for the best man bad for one's long-term goals?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Why is voting for the best man bad for one's long-term goals?
I'll hazard a guess at that question -- since the two parties seem to have different long-term goals (other than "the destruction of the other party"), split-tickets seem destined to produce either:
a)going around in circles
b) gridlock

[sachmo71]

Oh, I did forget the vote along party lines even if you don't agree thing. Maybe we need more parties.

[Dutch]

Actually, we don't need more parties, we just need a good one to counter the Republican party. :)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Actually, we don't need more parties, we just need a good one to counter the Republican party. :)
I wouldn't disagree with you on that point, but it's gonna be tough to do ... they've already got the majority of the good positions staked out http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/smilies/wink.gif

[KeyserSoze]

Just curious... did 80/90% oppose the war effort at the time the decision was made, or did that number only appear after people decided that in hindsight it was a bad idea?

This numbers were at the time the decision was made. The populars loose the "local" elections in the 2003 (but they dont lose a lot of power).
The opposition plus the way they tried to guide the media after the attack (I dont say they lied, but they tried to guide the truth) is the main point of they defeat, with a 8 year government, that always erodes a party.

[Bubba Wheels]

Personally, I think once we've cleaned up the Al-Quedda/Iraq mess we should think about adopting Isolationism again as a good, sound defense against continuing to play World's policeman. As long as the rest of the world thinks we will do it they will continue to sit back, let us do all the work and b*tch, moan and complain about how we do it.

Plus, nobody has yet given me a good answer as to why we should not become isolationist once again. One radio talk show host I called (the second bananna on the Rotella Midnight Trucking Show) actually quoted a line from a comic-book movie to answer why we should not "with great power comes great responsibility" I mean, Pleassssssssssssse!!!! Are we really justifiying overextending ourselves and the lives of our soldiers based on what Peter Parker's uncle says?

[Easy Mac]

We were Isolationists when we were hit with the first greatest terrorist attack in our history (Pearl Harbor). We were on our way to being isolationists again when we were hit with the greatest terrorist attack in our history (9/11)...

[Bubba Wheels]

We were Isolationists when we were hit with the first greatest terrorist attack in our history (Pearl Harbor). We were on our way to being isolationists again when we were hit with the greatest terrorist attack in our history (9/11)...

If some country like China (who could use the room) decides to invade Canada, I would say, 'Have fun, just don't bother us." Seriously/

[sachmo71]

problem solved. Thank God for the ignore list!

[ISiddiqui]

Today, obviously. As we had talked about before, the political, cultural and societal landscape has changed drastically in the last 2 or 3 generations.

Even today, I think you are wrong. Christian wacko fundamentalists, racial supremecists are just as extremists as our left-wing anarchist & Marxist friends. In fact, I'd say they were moreso than a lot of Marxists I've known.

[clintl]

I agree with you, ISiddiqui. There has been a significant rightward shift politically over the last 20 years, and the right wing extremist elements have become by far the more active and dangerous.

[Maple Leafs]

If some country like China (who could use the room) decides to invade Canada, I would say, 'Have fun, just don't bother us." SeriouslyReally? You wouldn't want the US involved in a war being fought with your largest trading partner, who shares your largest border?

Interesting.

[Ryan S]

Incidently, it was pretty much the same also in the UK, the US other main European ally.
Wildly inaccurate.

The latest poll figures show that<!--StartFragment --><!--StartFragment --> 48% of British people support the war in Iraq. This figure was higher before the war, and much higher during the war.

[Bubba Wheels]

Really? You wouldn't want the US involved in a war being fought with your largest trading partner, who shares your largest border?

Interesting.

Sorry, but I got a big problem with Canada EXPECTING us to carry their defensive load for them. The ENTIRE number of Canada's armed forces is LESS than the New York City Police Department! And the attitude that Canadians have about somehow being physically weak in terms of defense makes you morally superior to the big, bad evil United States is just incredible!
No, far as I'm concerned let China have you and we will just trade with them. You really don't have to worry about it though, the big, bad boogeyman Bush from the Evil U.S. just renewed our defense commitment to Canada so you can continue with your bad attitudes about us and spending your defense money on more failed socialist Government programs since your protected by the U.S. taxpayer.

[ISiddiqui]

Sorry, but I got a big problem with Canada EXPECTING us to carry their defensive load for them.

And yet, it'd be utterly foolish for the US to let China knock around Canada. Firstly it shows the US as weak, because China just infered in our 'sphere' (as antiquated as that notion may be) and we decided not to do anything. I mean, if we let China knock around Canada without lifting a finger, what happens when China thinks: "it's invading time" because it knows the US won't do jack.

And besides, Canada is one of our best friends. It would be great if we turned our back on them. The rest of our allies would feel soooo much better at that :rolleyes:.

[Ryan S]

Bubba, I have a feeling that if you continue down this road you are going to end up on everybody's ignore list. (If you have not been added already)

[Bubba Wheels]

Bubba, I have a feeling that if you continue down this road you are going to end up on everybody's ignore list. (If you have not been added already)

What's really funny is the one's who feel the need to advertise that I am on their ignore list. Like its a big, important deal that everyone know and give a care about it. If that's how someone feels, fine, do it go about your business.
Remind me someday to tell you how much sleep I'm going to lose over it. ;)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Bubba, I have a feeling that if you continue down this road you are going to end up on everybody's ignore list. (If you have not been added already)
I'd have to disagree with you on that one.

He ain't the most p.c. fella I've run across, but ultimately he makes a lot more sense than a decent percentage of the forum AFAIC.

[yabanci]

One radio talk show host I called (the second bananna on the Rotella Midnight Trucking Show) actually quoted a line from a comic-book movie....

Anyone who brags about calling the second banana on a midight trucking show should not be on anyone's ignore list. Bubba also is the guy that warned us of the viral plague Bush is going to unleash on humanity in a few months, so think hard before you ignore him.

[Bubba Wheels]

Anyone who brags about calling the second banana on a midight trucking show should not be on anyone's ignore list. Bubba also is the guy that warned us of the viral plague Bush is going to unleash on humanity in a few months, so think hard before you ignore him.

Speaking of which, David Booth made another appearance on Coast to Coast the other night. Billed as his 'last' appearance it was to have been all about Booth's meeting with Sister Lucia (97yr old last surviving member of the Fatima group) and what had transpired. According to Booth, the meeting took 5 minutes and he could not report what was said between him and the sister as it was 'personal in nature."

To which George Noorey then replied 'well then what the heck are you doing here? If we wanted a rehash of last month's program we would have just run last month's program again!" Interview was over half-way thru the show! Noorey said he had a problem with a guy setting up an interview about a meeting he had with Sister Lucia and then not talking about it, but wanting to sell more tapes and books! So Booth's crediblility may be in question, even though remember his original dreams about the DC-10 in 1979 WERE documented by airport authorities BEFORE the event (2 months, to be exact.)

Noorey did go on to say that Booth was right about one thing, that would be his last public appearance! (At least on coast to coast!) Funny stuff! Glad I caught it. :eek: