That thread isn’t worthy of participating in for the same reasons.
Agreed.
Seconded.
However, it amazes me whenever I’ve traveled abroad that the Europeans I’ve spoken to seem to have a much easier time than most Americans I know in differentiating between a country’s foreign policy and the opinions of that country’s nationals (one drunken, slobbering, groping Spaniard in a Madrid bar in 1988 excepted, but then he was a jerk anyway). Why is that?
I will never understand why there is so much French-bashing in the U.S. Don’t the French have the right to their own informed, sincerely held political opinions, which support their own national interest, just as we Americans do? Same goes for the Spaniards, or anyone else for that matter.
This will no doubt be futile (again), but here goes…
My problem is your simplistic understanding of human motivations, and your wholly unsubstantiated assertion that the election result will, without a shred of doubt, lead to more terrorist activity.
I see. So a nation is nothing more than the sum of its election results. I get you now. I have no time for those who make rabid generalization about all Americans based on the result of elections, and i have just as little time for people who make the same mistake regarding other countries.
Your paragraph also implies that, even if the majority of Spaniards had wanted to elect the PSOE prior to the bombing, they should have turned around and voted for the PP just to say “fuck you” to Al Qaeda.
Again, your argument rests on the childishly simplistic premise that polls are a completely accurate indicator of election results. As so many people have pointed out, there are many, many reasons why the polls may have been unreflective of Spanish sentiment, and even more reasons why people might have changed their position in the days leading up to the election. Happens all the time, in many countries.
So, we now blame the Spanish because the United States refuses to live up to its obligations as a member of the United Nations? You’re getting more and more self-serving with every post. The fact is that Spain is willing to fulfill its role as a member of the international community in the fight against terrorism–the new prime minister-elect has made that very clear–and simply wants the UN to be in control in order for Spanish troops to remain in Iraq. What a bunch of capitulators!
So, again, you would ask that those who were going to vote for the Republican candidate change their vote simply in order to send a message to Al Qaeda–a message that, as the terrorist organization has made very clear, will be twisted to suit its own ends no matter what the result. Can you not see the futility of what you expect people to do?
Again, you provide not a scintilla of evidence that this will be the case and, as has been pointed out ad nauseum, there is no logical way for you even to prove your assertion in the future. Your whole position is nothing more than counterfactual speculation.
OK, slowly now so you understand.
My sentences do not contradict one another. I am saying that Al Qaeda might indeed use the results of the Spanish election to rally the recruits. But what i’m also saying is that the leaders of a fanatical organization like this will use anything they can to rally their recruits. If the PP had won, they would have attempted to use that as a rallying cry. If the PSOE won, they would have attempted to use that. The election result does not alter their level of fanaticism one bit.
Actually, i can think of nothing as likely to instill hatred in a Muslim fanatic than the idea of American troops killing Muslims in the Middle East. Osama bin Laden has made it very clear that America’s simple presence in Saudi Arabia is a major factor behind his terrorism. The idea of these infidels on holy Muslim land infuriates him, and probably even moreso when the Americans are actively waging war against Muslims.
:Sigh:
Nothing the Spaniards could have done would have made Al Qaeda any more or less fanatic, any more or less committed to its program of terrorism. The election result is irrelevant.
Maybe i didn’t word it well, but that was exactly the point i was making. I don’t condemn those other posters specifically because i believe that they may well be correct–i’m sure the bombing did have some affect on the outcome of the election.
The point i’ve been trying to make in this whole thread is not that the bombing had no effect. What i’ve been trying to do is point out how reductionist, simplistic, and offensive it is to accuse the Spaniards of cowardice, capitulation to terrrorism, negotiating with terrorists, and all the other ridiculous crap that’s been hurled around by the ignorati in this thread. I’m also trying to demonstrate that your cause-and-effect argument–the straightforward notion that the election result will inevitably lead to more terrorism–is both simplistic and, ultimately, unprovable.
Again, the key problem for you here is that you not only have to demonstrate that the election result is exactly what Al Qaeda wanted–something you haven’t been able to do–but you also have to somehow demonstrate that a different election result would lead to fewer terrorist attacks.
You ask: “If they acheive success by terrorist attacks, is it not logical to expect that even more will follow?” On the face of it, this seems like a logical question. But it hides a logical corollary, to wit: “If they don’t achieve success by terrrorist attacks, is it not logical to expect that more attacks will follow, in an attempt to achieve the success that eluded them earlier?”
Let’s take 9/11 as an example. In terms of killing people and causing mayhem, it was certainly a success from Al Qaeda’s point of view. But your definition of success encompasses not just the number of people killed, but the ongoing political and military results of a terrorist attack. In that respect, 9/11 was something of a failure for Al Qaeda. It resulted in the bombing of Afghanistan; it led to the capture or killing of many Al Qaeda operative, including some “big fish”; it has put Bin Laden on the run; it has destroyed Al Qaeda’s base of operations in Afghanistan, etc., etc. Has all of this caused Al Qaeda to give up? No. In fact, some terrorism experts argue that every defeat for their cause makes them stronger, and allows them to attract more recruits.
How, then, can you argue that the result of the Spanish election will make any real difference one way or the other to the level of terrorism in the world? The Spanish were damned if they did, damned if they didn’t, because Al Qaeda is interested only in its own agenda.
If that makes you feel better, fine. It doesn’t help your credibility.
There, see, that wasn’t so hard was it?
This may surprise you, but people on this message board can accept that you might feel sympathy for the Spanish people, yet still disagree with their voting decisions. The problem was that, unlike during the 9/11 threads a few years ago, none of you Spanish-bashers in this thread made even the slightest attempt to empathize with that nation’s pain and sorrow before jumping in with size 12s.
The fact that the contention of cowardice has been abandoned does not mean that it wasn’t made. Check the thread title, dipshit. Starving Artist says he’s mad about the Spanish response; well, other people are mad at the use of such a term, and others like “capitulators.”
Actually, if you look at my posts, and those of others in this tread, you’ll see that we are perfectly “willing to entertain” the possibility that the bombings did affect the election outcome. I have stated on more than one occasion that i do believe there was some connection. What we oppose is:
a) the idea that any effect was an indicator of cowardice, capitulation to terrorism, negotiating with terrorists, etc., on the part of Spaniards (all phrases used by Muad’Dib, Starving Artist, et al., in the course of this thread)
b) the simplistic cause-effect argument, i.e., the PSOE won simply because of the bombings
c) rampant speculation presented as indisputable fact, to wit, the idea that the election result will lead to more terrorism, and the corollary that a different election result would have been a setback for terrorism
Presumably, that would have to be a thread in which you were not participating.
I think i’m pretty much done with this thread. The only reassuring thing about it is that there are so many people who are unwilling to draw simplistic conclusions and condemn a whole nation on the basis of a single election that may or may not have gone a different way in the absence of an awful act of violence.
I don’t buy the premise. Based on personal experience, the accounts of others and postings on this board, Europeans are as likely as Americans to harbor and express ill-feelings toward nationals of another country based on the policies of that country.
Or put another way, Americans are as likely as citizens of any nation to treat foreign nationals with civility, in spite of whatever objections they might have to what the leaders of those nations do.
I’m sorry to confirm, talking the other day to a Texan acquaintance who is resident in Dublin, that he experiences geniune anti-Americanism on an almost daily basis. That Americans didn’t experience the same attitudes during Clinton’s terms of office does not excuse the prejudice.
I would replace frustrating with depressing.
That’s why I said “the Europeans I’ve spoken to” and “most Americans I know.” No, that’s not exactly a valid statistical sample, but then I never said it was. Just my general impression, from some significant chunks of time spent living abroad; do with that what you will.
(Although it was pretty amusing to be 19 years old, living in Spain, and be blamed for Ronald Reagan’s foreign policy decisions regarding placement and manpower at U.S. military bases abroad, especially when I sure as hell hadn’t voted for him.)
I agree with jjimm. My previous post didn’t mean to imply that the “stupid ugly Dutchman” or “stupid ugly Irishman” doesn’t exist: they do. Ignorance is a global epidemic, I’m afraid. There’s tons of possible reasons why Americans have the stereotype attached to them more firmly than most Europeans, but to me that’s a debate for another day. I just felt it necessary to point out that at least the SDMB populace seems to be made up of intelligent people, on either side of the pond. And no, “intelligent” doesn’t have to equal “agrees with Coldfire”. But it sure as HELL doesn’t equal “here’s my dumbass opinion about a nation I know fuck-all about, based on a 25 second FOX news clip, which in turn was composed by people who know fuck-all about the world beyond Capitol Hill”.
And luckily, the majority of Dopers don’t fall for that trap, the OP notwithstanding.
Man, it’s both. I know an American journalist in Brazil who’s been there thirty years. He says he’s never seen anything like the kind of anti-Americanism both in Brazil and in South America more generally. And to be a Democrat and have to deal with the whole “a vote for Kerry is a vote for Bin Laden” mentality on a regular basis is enough to give me an aneurism. The whole political climate here is positively poisonous. By the way, U.S. Congressman Tom Cole (R-OK) actually said that about Kerry. But he at least had the decency to deny comparing voting for Kerry to voting for Hitler. Sorry for the hijack.
“If George Bush loses the election, Osama bin Laden wins the election.”
Go back a little further, and you would see the like (or worse). From this site:
“During his second term as vice president, Nixon was involved in two major foreign policy confrontations. In May 1958, he traveled to South America to attend the inauguration of the president of Argentina and to make goodwill visits to seven other countries. The problems began at the University of San Marcos in Lima, Peru, where anti-American young people threw stones and even spit on Nixon and his entourage. Nixon admitted that he “felt the excitement of battle” at the university, where he kicked a protester, and someone in the crowd commented, “el gringo tiene cojones” (“the yankee has balls”*). A much more serious and even life-threatening attack occurred in Caracas, Venezuela, where mobs beat his limousine with rocks, pipes, and clubs, injuring two occupants with spraying glass.”
Of course, we could readily add “here’s my pronouncement on the perfidy of America, based on the latest flimsy U.S.-bashing tabloid-style revelation from the Guardian”.
I am uneasy making generalizations about what Americans think, never mind attributing national characteristics to residents of nations where I have not lived.
*Of course, a right cross would’ve been more manly. :rolleyes:
Replace “The Guardian” with “The Sun”, and I completely agree. 
Great comment in the Daily News today.
Someone asked when GW is going to go tell Spain how much safer the world is now that SH is out of commission.
I was in DC on 9/11/2001 and I have plenty of friends around the world who dislike America’s policies abroad but not one of them felt the urge to call me at that moment to tell me about anything but their sympathy, condolences and support.
As if having to endure assholes on this board wasn’t enough, a guy I know in Washington DC felt the irrepressible urge to call me on the phone and let me know personally that the Spanish were such cowards for voting the way they did. :rolleyes: I told him several times I thought we’d better change the subject but he had to insist. “I’m just telling you the truth.” I was expecting him to say “Nyah, nyah” next. I knew he was an asshole long before this but this drop filled the bucket and I told him to never call me again. What an asshole.
sorry to hear that, may he get the clap.
The Spanish people, through the protest march and the voting booth, have forced the United States into a seat at the negotiation table. They have publicly opposed the United States, and forced its policymakers to bend. If history is to be our guide, this sounds like they’ve got balls of steel. I think any reasonable person here would admit the “coward’s path” would have been to stay lockstep with the US.
(Personally, if I were forced to make the choice, I’d rather run Pamplona with my trousers around my ankles than anger the United States of America. But that’s just me, using logic again.)
One last thing that probably hasn’t been mentioned here: back in October, 2003, Mr. Aznar held a donor conference in Madrid, where $33 billion in reconstruction aid was pledged to Iraq.
In the words of Iraqi Governing Council member Mouwaffek al-Rubaie, the purpose of this conference was “to build a new Japan in the Middle East.”
Perhaps the bombings are a little more complex than our American Media would have us believe. To me, it sounds like Madrid was retribution against collaborators, a brotherhood of villains who plan to turn the Cradle of Civilization into a strip mall.
[hijack]
Heh. Wonder what he would have made of John Prescott, then (although Prescott, typically, led with his left).
[/hijack]
This from todays’s The Age newspaper, leaving aside all of the sensible arguments about the inaccuracy of polls.
The poll wasn’t conducted in Spain, but the Spanish election results might indicate that the Spaniards were of similar opinion, which would make their vote for the Socialists, a vote against terrorism.
The thing I have trouble understanding, from those who believe that the Spanish “capitulated to terrorism” is the idea that you can get a majority of people to draw one conclusion from an ambiguous event, however tragic, and having drawn that conclusion decide to act upon it. How does that work?
Blowing people up is an evil thing to do, but in terms of strategy, unless you’re willing to back it up with a policy directive, is sort of the psychopath’s version of trying to buy something in a big shop in the dark using only hand gestures.
If I had been a Spanish voter how could I have decided what Al Quaida wanted? Did it want me to vote for the Socialists because they are less supportive of George Bush and might withdraw the troops from Iraq? But maybe the fact that the Socialist party is less interested in being in Iraq and more interested in going after terrorists means that AL wants me to vote for the incumbent Government? Maybe AQ wants me to vote for the incumbents because as long as the infidels are in the Iraq their recruitment program will continue to tick over nicely.
How the hell would I decide what Al Quaida might want?
If you believe that AL are master strategists and knew that the Spanish election was close and decided that a bombing would tip the result their way, then you also need to believe that they’re not quite strategic enough to make their wishes clear. I mean really, they could use cell phones to trigger bombs but can’t send a few emails outlining their policy direction, just to make cowardly capitulation a bit easier?
On the other hand, you could believe that they’re fundamentalist crackpots and blow things up because it seems like a good idea; because they already had people in Spain; because they could get explosives easily, because the Islamic emirate in Spain lost power to the Christians 600 years ago, because they don’t give a flying fuck about the Spanish troops in Iraq but resent the Spanish helping oust them in Afghanistan, or because of some reason which makes sense only if you’re a fundamentalist, Muslim terrorist and has nothing to do with the Spanish election.
In the end the Spanish did the only rational and democratic thing and voted in line with the issues that mattered to them, even if one of those issues was opposition to the Iraq war. None of us have any real idea of what AQ’s real motives were, and voting in accord with what you think might possibly be against the wishes of a terrorist group puts you into tinfoil hat territory I reckon.
Well said.
/pad
Yes, because appeasement works so well with terrorist monsters. Jesus, don,t you young punks ever read any history. Giving the bully what he wants DOES NOT WORK. The only thing terrorists understand is strength.
I’m so fucking sick of you Europeans telling us how we ought to be defending ourselves, and how we should always ask your opinion before we do anything. Face it, you Spanish, French, Germans are are groveling, spittle-licking pussies.