Sorry to start yet another thread about the Madrid bombing; I didn’t want to hijack a separate discussion. I hope this hasn’t already been dealt with, but here goes.
Personally, I can’t see what’s wrong with the Spanish people’s decision to vote for the Socialist Party over the Popular Party. Obviously no one should cave in to terrorists, but there’s more to it than that in my opinion.
The Iraq war was always extremely unpopular in Spain. Several posters here have said that polls showed 90% of the Spanish people opposed the war, but PM Aznar supported it anyway. The bombing on the 11th appears to have been related to the government’s support of America.
So here’s what it comes down to for me: IF the government takes an unpopular action (which is definitely the case), and IF that action makes the country a target for terrorist reprisals (which certainly seems to be the case), what’s wrong with the people taking it out on that government by voting against them? As I said, it’s bad to cave in to terrorists. But that’s not how I see this; I think the terrorist threat has just made more people think that supporting America on Iraq was a bad idea in the first place. If a party jeopardizes the security of its people, I think that’s a fair reason to vote against them. And while a lot of people seem to worry that this will encourage terrorists - which would clearly be a very bad thing - frankly I don’t think these people need any encouragement. Does anybody believe that if the Popular Party had won yesterday, Al Qaeda would have given up and found something better to do? Would some of them have had the sudden revelation “Hmm, maybe terrorism is bad?”
I’m exaggerating of course, but as I said I doubt that encouragement is a real issue. These people want to kill, and regardless of the electoral result they were successful in that. It doesn’t make sense to vote one way - especially against your own preference - just because you think terrorists want you to.
How do you know it was thier Iraq involvment that led to the attacks? They are part of the Nato forces in Afghanistan & have also arrested a few dozen Al queda members since 9/11. Afghanistan surely must make Al queda more angry than Iraq. They lost a refuge & a place to train thier terrorists. Al Queda & Saddam weren’t buddy buddy. Do the people of Spain really think they were attacked solely about Iraq? Will they withdraw from Afghanistan as well?
CNN also has obtained a document posted on an Internet message board analysts believe is used by al Qaeda and its sympathizers that spells out the terrorist group’s plan to separate Spain from the U.S.-led coalition on Iraq.
[…]
“We think the Spanish government will not stand more than two blows, or three at the most, before it will be forced to withdraw because of the public pressure on it,” the al Qaeda document says.
I’m more than aware. I suppose, however, that Al Qaeda could set up shop in Iraq in time. They don’t want Western forces in ANY Middle Eastern nation.
Nobody’s said that, so I don’t think so. Whether you want to say this attack was fully due to Spain’s involvement in Iraq, partly due to it, or hardly at all, I don’t think I’m going out on a limb by saying it’s possible that Aznar’s very public support of Bush may have put Spain in Al Qaeda’s crosshairs. I certainly don’t think it would be too surprising for the Spanish people to come to that conclusion.
Nothing wrong with making a decison to move out. However many people suspect this actually was caving in. Would the socialist have won without this attack?
Nothing is wrong with the decision of the spanish people. Aznar ignored the people’s will and deserves what he got.
Caving in? Perhaps. But if you think that the Iraq war is wrong in the first place, which I do, then it’s not so much caving in than correcting a big mistake.
Considering that 77% of Voters in Spain went to the polls… and in the US numbers were way lower. I can easily say that Spanish election have much more legitimacy than the American one ever did.
Naturally ideally these high numbers shouldn’t have been stimulated by bombs… lets see how many americans bother to vote even when they consider themselves at “war”.
Dogface… I am quite tired of your simpleton mentality. Spain shouldn’t have been in Iraq (according to the will of their people) and therefore your American belligerance is totally irrelevant to this discussion. If Bush doesn’t want to bend over for logic and reason… Spaniards don’t have to bend over to useless military excercises.
Well, the big question is whether the ruling government loses without the “stimulation” of the bombings. Granted the Spanish population was against the war but seemed last week poised to put them back in power. According to an article I read this morning ( I will try & find the cite) the Morrocans arrested were part of the same cell as a man that has been in custody in connection to the 9/11 attacks. Spain has locked up dozens of Al queda since 9/11. Iraq was just an excuse becasue they knew it would play to the electorate & they were right. Aznars Govt was doing a good job on other major issues like the ETA, the economy. He took a huge risk supporting the US & lost. If the Socialist were way ahead leading up to the election we would not have much to talk about, But it appears that outside interference played a part (large or small is up for debate) in this election and that is worrisome.
Would they have lost without the stimulation of the bombings? Maybe not, although it’s my understanding that it was close enough that you can’t say that. However, anywhere in the world the electorate has very short memories; that’s why there’s always “goodies” before an election. I’d hazard a guess that Aznar hoped that people would “forget” about their government’s involvement in Iraq as they went to the polls. The bombing served to remind the people that the government had gone completely against their wishes in terms of Iraq. So, it’s not necessarily a case of “caving in”, “appeasement”, or whatever; it may simply be the case of past actions coming back to haunt a government.
I agree totally. I’d rather the spanish election had kicked out the PP without bombs 3 days before. The message wouldn’t have been as muddled. The problem is that internal politics, correctly, take precedence over foreign policy almost always. Bush for example is losing more due to economic hiccups rather than foolishness in Iraq.
The PP was bound to lose majority anyway it seems... so Aznars liason with Bush bad anyway. We never know also how much the USA baited Spain into joining the Iraq debacle. So in a way Bush also interfered in other countries' elections by bribing or inducing small countries to join the "coalition of the willing".
Given that, in another thread, you have revealed yourself to be a cheerleader for Al Qaeda, what you say here is extremely suspect.
It’s very simple: Al Qaeda bombs Spain and Spain does what Al Qaeda wants. Therefore, Al Qaeda will consider bombing in Europe to be an effective tactic.
Will Al Qaeda have as sophisticated an analysis, or will they decide “We killed lots of them just before their election and they became our willing servants.”? Which do you think would be more likely for Al Qaeda to decide?
AQ bombed the US and the US withdrew troops from Saudi Arabia, in accordance with Bin Laden’s pre-9/11 wishes. Is bombing the US an effective tactic or, like the US withdrawal, might Spain’s actions be only coincident with terrorist wishes?
Nice try, but the troops in Saudi Arabia were mostly Air Force responsible for patrolling the “No Fly” zone in Iraq. Those troops were removed when the Saddam was toppled & the no fly zone not needed, almost 2 years after 9/11.
Dogface, you are flogging a dead horse with your simplistic analysis. No, let’s not flatter it with the term “analysis” but rather cheap shot political point scoring ad infinitum in every thread you can find on this issue, ignoring any need to establish proximate cause and effect. Not once have you properly engaged with the counter-arguements that other factors had far more impact. Until you engage with the issues raised against you in debate you will convince nobody who does not already share your prejudices.
Now you come out and insult Rashak Mani, calling him a cheerleader for AQ!? Well insults from you, to the Spainish, to Europeans en mass, to pretty much anyone who expresses doubts about your sabre-rattling policy are becoming a badge of integrity and intellecual honesty.
As has been explained to you several times before, the Spanish electorate never supported their governments policies on Iraq so when it suddenly became ***the ** * key issue of the campaign, and when they were disgusted with it being dishonestly spun by their incumbent government, they voted in accord with those pre-existing views. It is their government going to War in the face of that opposition that was the dishonest thing to do - not the electorate expressing their democratic right to vote in accordance with their beliefs.
AQ action may well have highlighted Iraq as an election issue - but what can Spain have done about that? Once done the views on that issue were already established. That prior to the attack it was not a single issue (Iraq) election campaign can only be a source of criticism if you believe that the US election is to be fought on one issue, rather than the economy, jobs, trade and foreign policy all together.