Group pitting of 17 Dopers who think Spaniards are cowards

[Tabby_Cat]

@sailor

So “If obtaining advantage for your country is not an overwhelming principle to be held in utmost regard, I don’t know what is” and Spanish voters felt it was in their interest to vote the way they did, then what is the problem again?

The fact that a bombing changed their vote. That they would be a target for increased terrorist activity was a given after Spain supported the war. As I have said, they either supported the war, or, disregarded the risk, or considered the risk and accepted it. The fact that there actually WAS a terrorist attack should not have changed their decision - they should have already made up their minds about whether the war in Iraq was good for them, or not.

Simply, the government did not change. Therefore, the people’s convictions did. If you change your convictions because of violence…

Let me give an illustration. If the bomb had gone off AFTER the elections, which the incumbents won (as expected), would the elections be said to have been wrongly decided?

@sailor

Further if a country changes their stance based on military threats they are “weak-willed” cowards. Ok. What word would you use for a country which changes their stance based on, say, economic threats? Because I find it even less acceptable to renounce your principles on the basis of economic threats which are, after all, not as compelling as military threats. So if a country expressed reluctance to help the USA and then agreed to do it when threatened with economic sanctions or offered economic benefits what would you call them? Whores? If the word for someone who changes their principles under the threat of force is “coward” what is the word for the one who sells his soul for money? Because it has to be worse than “coward” and I cannot think of it.

For example. Suppose just for a minute that the American government, in order to protect some American workers, had imposed some import duties on some products like say, oh, um, steel. Suppose some foreign countries threaten some economic sanctions unless those tariffs are lifted. Should the US government stick to its principles? Or is it okay to get rid of the duties if the cost of keeping them is higher than the benefit?

If you consider the use of economic coercion illegitimate political expression on the scale of setting off a bomb in the middle of a city, then certainly, people are guilty of whatever derisive term you wish to use. Either that, or you equate the bombing to a legitimate political expression on the level of tarrifs.

In addition, your remark that capitulating to economic sanctions is equivalent to the bombing is slightly off in terms of magnitude. Spain certainly has many millions of people. 200, or even a thousand is not such a significant amount in that regard. If a country were to impose an economic sanction of that percentage of your export profits, and you capitulated, would you consider yourself a coward? Another point of magnitude is brought up below.

@sailor

BTW, there is NO proof yet that anyone in Spain changed their vote but that’s OK. I am still willing to defend their right to change it and not be called cowards.

I suppose that the American people could be called cowards too if at any point in any war they would change their minds and decide the casualties are not worth the gains? As long as there is one single American alive the only thing to do is fight on? Any American who changes his mind about the war based on the number of casualties is a coward? Suppose the casualty rate in Iraq starts increasing. 200, 300, 500 dead every month. Any one who questions the wisdom of continuing the fight is a coward? A traitor?

If indeed you were to change your minds and not follow through based on deaths that were on the table, and lives that you knowingly risked, then certainly, I would say that you were weak-willed. Am I right to say that it is akin to not following your convictions, or changing your mind due to physical violence? Is that not the very definition of cowardice? Are the ideals no longer worth fighting for when death looms? If so, then perhaps they they were not worth fighting for in the beginning, and you merely did not realise the risk. In this case, however, they knew the risk. Surely they had to know that they would be an increased target for terrorist activity.
As for fighting to the last man, I quote myself.

“If countries do not wish to cooperate or endorse the war, then more power to them. If they change their mind because of a bomb that kills 200, then certainly, they are weak-willed. If they change their minds when faced with total annihilation, then they are pragmatic.”

[Tabby_Cat]

@World Eater

WE DON’T KNOW WHO WOULD HAVE WON, GOT THAT?

You simply cannot extrapolate who would have won from some entrance polls, they are not 100% accurate.

Why do I feel like I’m dealing with some insane temporal paradox here?

Indeed, it is so. But it is evidence, at least, that they would have won. If we discount that, neither you or I have any evidence as to who would win. As such, I believe it to be at least convincing evidence that they would have won. If you have any evidence as to the contrary, please feel free to give a link.

My breath, it is bated.

[Sofa_King]

Jesus, don’t any of you read http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/ ???

Some of you are to be forgiven, I suppose, because this version of the story hasn’t yet got a lot of traction in the English-speaking press, but according to Josh Marshall the fact that the Aznar government deliberately withheld public information which would have shown that the attacks most likely did not come from ETA was already known to Spaniards 24 hours before the election. Aznar’s boys were trying to keep that under the rug until after the election, and they got busted doing it.

And you know what the Spanish people went and did? They walked straight to the polls and threw the dishonest sonsabitches out.

So yeah, al Qaeda does have the ability to effect political change in the countries it targets–when the people in power in those countries seek to deceive their own people for political gain.

I hope we Americans act in a similar fashion come November.

[Tabby_Cat]

@Sofa King

Jesus, don’t any of you read http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/ ???

Some of you are to be forgiven, I suppose, because this version of the story hasn’t yet got a lot of traction in the English-speaking press, but according to Josh Marshall the fact that the Aznar government deliberately withheld public information which would have shown that the attacks most likely did not come from ETA was already known to Spaniards 24 hours before the election. Aznar’s boys were trying to keep that under the rug until after the election, and they got busted doing it.

And you know what the Spanish people went and did? They walked straight to the polls and threw the dishonest sonsabitches out.

So yeah, al Qaeda does have the ability to effect political change in the countries it targets–when the people in power in those countries seek to deceive their own people for political gain.

I hope we Americans act in a similar fashion come November.

If this is true, my premise is flawed, and my argument is no longer valid. In any case, it is hardly a matter to be rejoiced at, or regret. If it is so, then I am mistaken by the facts. As a matter for logical debate, then, there is nothing more to be said.

[Larry_Mudd]

@Tabby_Cat

I was referring to the polls before the elections. Where the incumbent was winning. I do not kid.

With as little as a 3% margin, which is significantly smaller than the expected margin for error. Support for the PP had been in steady decline in the year leading up to the election, largely because of their decision to support the war on Iraq, but also due to a number of other concerns. Polls have consistently shown the PSOE gaining on the PP. It is entirely possible, the way things have been going, that the PSOE would have been elected in the absence of any explosions. A straw poll that predicts a marginal win for one party is far from a guarantee.

It still doesn’t follow that the relatively tiny changes in predicted voting patterns represent people bowing to pressure from terrorists.

The Basque Nationalist Party, for example, took less seats than the polls predicted they would. Could this be because some people who had intended to vote for them took the government at their word when they insisted that ETA was responsible, and worrying that voting for them might be seen as “giving the terrorists what they wanted,” instead voted for the next best thing? (Of course, the Basque National Party opposes the ETA, and it would be foolish to suggest that a vote for them is a vote for terrorists simply because they have some coincident interests – but I seem to recall hearing some similar arguments, somewhere…) I’m not saying this is what happened, but it’s as reasonable an interpretation of the results as saying that the bombs made people change their mind about staying in Iraq.

You might also interpret it this way: Many people have been disillusioned with the PSOE because the last time they were in power, there was a scandal in which public funds were used to organize illegal anti-terrorist hit-squads. Maybe the PSOE got some additional votes from people who, in light of the horrific attacks, decided that maybe extralegal activities which result in terrorists being quietly executed away from the public eye such a terrible idea, after all. Again, there’s no reasonable argument to support this interpretation, but it is still every bit as valid as the favoured “They voted to give in to terrorist demands” hypothesis.

Personally, I think it’s more reasonable to guess that anyone who decided to withold votes from the Popular Party after the bombings were responding to their handling of the situation, (which was at best inept, and at worst deceptive and self-serving,) rather than the attacks in-and-of-themselves.

[KidCharlemagne]

@Coldfire

Furthermore, I could take your penultimate post apart again, but it’s obviously useless. This is how it started out:I repeated what was clear to anyone with a brain: that “lyrical words about Spain” obviously didn’t refer to the entire post, but to the OP’s description of Spain.

There’s no point in making things more complicated than they are. You misinterpreted my words. This may have been unintentional, but for God’s sake, how many explanations do you need?

And I would have dropped it had you not been consistently stubborn in refusing to answer the question posed in post 121 (which you never did answer). Your unwillingness to do so smacks (not proves) of a desire to avoid criticizing someone on your side of the argument for the sake of solidarity rather than truth. That’s why I rearranged my comment into a specific question (which you danced around). I didn’t expect that from you.

If it’s The Ryan-esque semantics debates you fancy, I suggest you start looking for another opponent. I’m not interested, and you’re certainly not worth the time.

Your kidding right? Who was the one who debated the semantics (incorrectly) of tu quoque? As for not being worth the time: Well, that’s a shame, because the whole reason I continued this argument was because I thought you were worth the time. Don’t understand how disagreeing with you makes me unworthy. I thought i made reasonable arguments and was relatively civil to boot.

I’m done. Feel free to take the last word. It’s gotta stop somewhere.

[mhendo]

Sofa King, you’re banging your head against a brick wall there, my friend.

The sort of morons calling the Spaniards cowards are also apparently the sort who only want to know enough about Spain’s internal politics to confirm their own narrow worldview.

It has been made abundantly clear, in every thread addressing the issue of the Spanish election, that Aznar’s attempt to blame ETA in the face of strong contradictory evidence really pissed off a lot of Spanish voters.

From the Toronto Star:

The government insisted the attacks were the work of the Basque terrorist group ETA. It denounced any suggestion that Islamic terrorists were involved, with Interior Minister Angel Acebes going so far as to describe such a possibility as “intoxication.”

It was not until late Saturday night, hours before the polls opened, that news of the arrest of possible Al Qaeda affiliates became public. Spaniards sensed they were being played, especially because the leading opposition party, the Socialists, were being portrayed as soft on the ETA. At the ballot box, many voters voiced their anger that a national tragedy was being exploited for political ends.

And the Atlanta Journal-Constitution notes Kofi Annan making a similar point:

Secretary-General Kofi Annan said Tuesday that Spain’s initial insistence that Basque terrorists were behind last week’s Madrid train bombings was a factor in Sunday’s upset election victory by the Socialists.

<snip>

“I think the events in Spain need to be looked at very critically,” Annan told reporters.

He cited “many factors” in the election: “One was the question of who did it, and whether the public felt they got a full, clear picture from the government of what was going on. There was a question of the large number of the population having been opposed to the war, being reminded of the war by the claims made by the terrorists who committed the attack.”

Even that pillar of the liberal establishment (:rolleyes: ), The Washington Times, is reporting on the issue:

German television ARD reported yesterday that Spanish authorities misled German officials into believing that ETA was responsible for the Madrid bombings.

It said Spanish investigators initially told Germany's federal criminal bureau BKA that the explosive used in the bombings was Titadyn, which the ETA has often employed in the past, and later said it was Goma 2 Eco dynamite, an explosive they claimed had also been used by ETA. 

Only Monday, a day after Spain's conservative government surprisingly lost the general election, did Spanish officials say that the Goma 2 explosive was not of any type previously used by ETA. 

German Interior Minister Otto Schily said the information from Spanish authorities reached Berlin "with some delay." 

"We obviously would have preferred to have been informed about certain details at an earlier stage than was the case," he said Sunday. 

Mr. Aznar has been pilloried for trying to pressure the media into blaming the Basque separatists rather than suspecting Islamic extremists linked to al Qaeda.

Now, none of this proves decisively that the Aznar government’s obfuscation was the only reason for the PSOE victory, but i certainly provides at least one counterpoint to the one-trick-ponies who keep suggesting that the Spanish people were just caving in to terrorism.

@Tabby_Cat

Indeed, it is so. But it is evidence, at least, that they would have won. If we discount that, neither you or I have any evidence as to who would win. As such, I believe it to be at least convincing evidence that they would have won. If you have any evidence as to the contrary, please feel free to give a link.

What this particular one-trick-pony fails to realize is that, if you put up a hypothetical alternative (e.g., without the bombing, the PP would have won the election), it is up to you to prove it correct, and not up to others to prove it false.

And, as has been pointed out so many times, your hypothesis is literally unprovable, because we have no foolproof indication of who would have won the election in the absence of the terrorist attack. All we have is some suggestive figures that indicate that the PP was ahead by a figure that was barely (if at all) outside of the poll’s own margin for error.

And, as the quotes above demonstrate, even if the attacks led to a PSOE victory, it might not be for the reasons that the one-trick-ponies assume.

[furt]

@The Gaspode

Please understand, I didn’t pit seventeen people for their agreement with the OPs, I did it because they all voiced an opinion, in smaller or larger degrees, that the Spanish caved in to terrorists or helped AQ get an advantage/recognition/whatever.

But surely you can see that there is a huge difference between saying “AQ will see this as a victory,” or even “it is a victory for AQ” – which is what many of those 17 said --and saying “the Spanish are cowards?”

If people were pissed at the way Aznar handled it, that’s a fair reason to vote them out, and it would have been a mistake to vote for the PP because “Bin Laden doesn’t want us to and we have to defy him.”

As a thought experiment: some said after 9/11 that AQ really wanted the US to attack them in Afghanistan. Let’s assume that was the case; should the US have then done nothing because counterattacking was a “victory” for AQ and the US was playing into their hands? Of course not. The US had to do what they thought was in their interest. The point is, you can’t let them dictate to you either way.

It is entirely possible to believe the Spanish did what they thought was best for Spain, honestly and without cowardice, and think that the vote will encourage AQ, who will claim it as a victory; and in fact that is approximately what several of those 17 did say. By lumping them in with the OP, who ascribed motives to the voters, where they did not, you blur a vital distinction.

@Sofa King

Jesus, don’t any of you read http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/ ???

Don’t you realize how lame this sounds? It sounds like a conservative being shocked that someone doesn’t read and agree with FOX. “But Rush Limbaugh said it! Don’t you people listen?”

[SlyFrog]

I hope we Americans act in a similar fashion come November.

It’s fascinating how this statement always seems to go hand-in-hand with those who believe changing the vote in connection with the bombing is acceptable. I wonder what it says about the use of logical analysis versus argument based on political background?

Now, none of this proves decisively that the Aznar government’s obfuscation was the only reason for the PSOE victory, but i certainly provides at least one counterpoint to the one-trick-ponies who keep suggesting that the Spanish people were just caving in to terrorism.

And the Spaniards wandering the streets screaming and calling Aznar a murderer serve as a nice counterpoint to those who believe the main reason for vote changes was because Aznar wasn’t straight-forward about who had done the killing.

[Coldfire]

@KidCharlemagne

And I would have dropped it had you not been consistently stubborn in refusing to answer the question posed in post 121 (which you never did answer). Your unwillingness to do so smacks (not proves) of a desire to avoid criticizing someone on your side of the argument for the sake of solidarity rather than truth. That’s why I rearranged my comment into a specific question (which you danced around). I didn’t expect that from you.

You’re assuming I didn’t comment because The Gaspode happens to be on my side of the argument. Did it never occur to you that I simply don’t KNOW whether his 17 names are all worthy of the criticism voiced in the OP? Do you think I have all SDMB posts relating to last weeks tragedy in Madrid memorised? TG pitted people based on 3 or 4 threads, of which I glossed over one or perhaps two. I voiced no opinion because I simply do not know whether the OP is accurate. If the pittees disagree, they are free to state their case. No rules were broken by the OP in my estimation.

It’s that simple. The fact that you read partiality into my motivations says very little about me, and a lot about you.

I’m done. Feel free to take the last word. It’s gotta stop somewhere.

As you wish.

[World_Eater]

Sigh.

@Tabby_Cat

The fact that a bombing changed their vote.

THIS IS NOT A FACT, HOW STUPID ARE YOU?!?!? You can say possibly changed their vote, or, in my opinion the bombing changed their votes, but not “THE FACT”.

That they would be a target for increased terrorist activity was a given after Spain supported the war.

Almost all of Spain was AGAINST the war. Spain did not support the war, AZNAR went against the will of the people, and in doing so endangered them more, as you admit above. Don’t you think that’s kind of fucked up?

As I have said, they either supported the war, or, disregarded the risk, or considered the risk and accepted it.

AZNAR supported the war because he had a huge fucking carrot waved in his face. He disregarded the risk, or considered the carrot orangey enough to except.

The fact that there actually WAS a terrorist attack should not have changed their decision - they should have already made up their minds about whether the war in Iraq was good for them, or not.

They HAD made up their mind, and then watched their government ignore their wishes. Getting blown the hell up was a reminder that being in Iraq = bad, something they already believed.

Simply, the government did not change. Therefore, the people’s convictions did.

The government did change, and they are now headed in a new direction. The government has the obligation to reduce the risk of terroism to the people. They can do this in a multitude of ways.

1. Have a respectful foregin poilicy that doesn’t piss people off
2. Respect the needs and opinions of their global neighbors
3. Get the hell out of Iraq
4. Use those freed up resources to make a bigger push after AQ
5. Buy the terrorists ice cream.

If any of the above save lives, why would anyone be against them?

Let me give an illustration. If the bomb had gone off AFTER the elections, which the incumbents won (as expected), would the elections be said to have been wrongly decided?

This doesn’t even make any sense.

In addition, your remark that capitulating to economic sanctions is equivalent to the bombing is slightly off in terms of magnitude. Spain certainly has many millions of people. 200, or even a thousand is not such a significant amount in that regard.

Why don’t you go over to that trains station and tell this to the masses mourning over there. So the 9/11 wasn’t a big deal either, because after all the US has 300 million or so citizens, 3,000 is a drop in the bucket. :rolleyes:

Am I right to say that it is akin to not following your convictions, or changing your mind due to physical violence? Is that not the very definition of cowardice?

I grew up on some very rough streets in Brooklyn, let me tell you this. Many of the tough guys I know are dead. These are guys that no matter what the situation was, they were inflexible. Perhaps in the movies when staring down the barrel of a gun, you can tell the guy “fuck you biotch”, but IRL this usually gets you killed. We conduct foreign policy in this manner, and like the thug, we too, will all be dead.

Are the ideals no longer worth fighting for when death looms? If so, then perhaps they they were not worth fighting for in the beginning, and you merely did not realise the risk.

What are all these ideals you’re talking about? These motherfuckers just want to sit on the beach, raise children without getting blown up, or walk to the market and back in one piece. If pulling out of Iraq will help achieve this, then good for them. This isn’t a black and white conflict, there are many shades of grey here.

In this case, however, they knew the risk. Surely they had to know that they would be an increased target for terrorist activity.

“They” being AZNAR. The same “they” that was just voted out, because they took steps (going to Iraq) that…

a) the people didn’t want
b) that put them at increased risk

Stop saying the people of Spain wanted this or wanted that, it was the government doing all these things. They simply ignored the people.

[Tabby_Cat]

@mhendo

What this particular one-trick-pony fails to realize is that, if you put up a hypothetical alternative (e.g., without the bombing, the PP would have won the election), it is up to you to prove it correct, and not up to others to prove it false.

Perhaps I am mistaken, but I would have thought that the hypothetical alternative was proven (or at least suggested) by the polling results. In addition, the situation was that of what the vote would have looked like before the bombing (and not the actual result), in which case, the PSOE losing would be the hypothetical alternative, and not the PP, based on the poll information.

I can accept the fact that the poll might have been wrong, in that the results were within the margins of error. In that case, my arguments are merely conjecture. But not more than the conjecture than that the PP would have been out anyway, even if there had not been a bomb.

There have been other justifications for other explainations, and this is my justification for my opinion. Please feel free to debate it, if you will. I have not argued that other explainations are impossible, or that my explaination is what happened, with certainty, I have simply justified my opinion. As such, it would be incorrect to term me as a “one-trick pony” (This usage is somewhat puzzling, though).

Should the facts change (and it seems that I have been mistaken about the extent of the coverup by the PP), it is still open to me to change my mind. In that regard, I resent the implication that I have come to my conclusion through bigotry and not reasoned thought. If the fact situation, or my justification, is proven wrong, I glady change my mind, as with the new information that I have recently been made aware of.

If it is still felt that my reasoned (perhaps misinformed) opinion is worth pitting, please feel free to continue to do so.

[World_Eater]

It makes far more sense logically that there were a variety of factors at play during the election, any of which could have had an effect on the outcome. Hell we could fabricate realities in which Aznar was bolstered by the bombing!

You cannot prove a negative, which you’re asking us to do.

[Sofa_King]

I really hope I’m not banging my head against a brick wall, mhendo. I have to admit that I’m a little bit concerned when I see otherwise cogent and informed Members starting to lose their shit over this.

But hey, it’s not as if I didn’t lose my shit completely when those fuckers flew over my apartment on their way to blowing up the Pentagon. And like I said, this part of the story has been slow to percolate through the press. I only caught the first hard news on it yesterday.

I also need to point out that my statement about the pissed-offedness of the Spanish public relies upon almost as much speculation as does the allegations of cowardice.

I happen to think that the people who created their nation by driving out the Moors would be less likely to timidly shrink from Islamic terrorism than they would be inspired by outrage to punish the leaders who would attempt to conceal that terrorism.

There’s no real reason not to think both motivations played a role. But I won’t be surprised at all if this new government comes straight out and says, “let’s keep our eyes on the fucking ball, get out of Iraq, and go straight for the bastards who actually did this to us.”

[mascaroni]

@World Eater

AZNAR supported the war because he had a huge fucking carrot waved in his face…

Ironically, the carrot was increased international opposition of ETA…
(I have no cite for this, googling ‘Aznar’ and ‘ETA’ produces rather more results than I have the time to trawl through…)

[sailor]

@Tabby_Cat

If you consider the use of economic coercion illegitimate political expression on the scale of setting off a bomb in the middle of a city, then certainly, people are guilty of whatever derisive term you wish to use. Either that, or you equate the bombing to a legitimate political expression on the level of tarrifs.

My goodness, i do not know if you are just ignoring my question because you don’t understand it or what. I will try again. :sigh:

If Spain had changed their stance because Al Qaeda had offered them money would that be okay with you? If not, why not? Why is it ok to change your mind when the USA offers you money but not when Al Qaeda offers you money?

If the people of Iraq accept terms imposed by the USA because the USA has killed so many already and could kill more, would you call the people of Iraq cowards?

If the people of Israel would change their stance and seek peace with the Palestinians because they get tired of the killings, would you call them cowards?

If the Palestinians get tired of the killings and seek peace with Israel, would you call them cowards?

[Tabby_Cat]

@World Eater

Sigh.

THIS IS NOT A FACT, HOW STUPID ARE YOU?!?!? You can say possibly changed their vote, or, in my opinion the bombing changed their votes, but not “THE FACT”.

I am most apologetic for getting your panties in a twist. Possibly.

@World Eater

Almost all of Spain was AGAINST the war. Spain did not support the war, AZNAR went against the will of the people, and in doing so endangered them more, as you admit above. Don’t you think that’s kind of fucked up?

AZNAR supported the war because he had a huge fucking carrot waved in his face. He disregarded the risk, or considered the carrot orangey enough to except.

They HAD made up their mind, and then watched their government ignore their wishes. Getting blown the hell up was a reminder that being in Iraq = bad, something they already believed.

I based my statements on the people supporting the government because of the likelihood that the PP would be re-elected. If they were willing to re-elect him, then they neccessarily supported his actions. Possibly.

@World Eater

This doesn’t even make any sense.

You are saying that the people wanted the PP out, and thus voted them out. This is what happened after the bombing, yes?

My argument was that (as the poll suggested) the PP would possibly be re-elected if there had not been a bombing. If after the re-election, the bombing occured, would the re-election of the PP have been a mistake?

I say this because it is obvious that the bombing shifted the vote of the people (even conceeding that the poll was close), thus implying that the PP should not be in power after the bombing, and should have been before.

Doesn’t this strike you as odd, that a government is elected not because of their policies?

@World Eater

Why don’t you go over to that trains station and tell this to the masses mourning over there. So the 9/11 wasn’t a big deal either, because after all the US has 300 million or so citizens, 3,000 is a drop in the bucket. :rolleyes:

Indeed. 9/11 was a drop in the bucket. Why did the Americans change their policies, then? As I have given, there are 3 reasons to implement a policy.

Realising the risk, but ignoring it
Not realising the risk
Taking the risk

Americans did not realise the risk at all, and that was why OBL et al were ignored. When 9/11 made them realise the risk, the policies were changed.

Spain is differentiated from 9/11 by the fact that they should have realised the risk of supporting the USA in the war, and that it would increase their risk of being targetted by AQ. They knowingly took the risk (justification by them possibly allowing the re-election of PP), and for them to change their vote because of the actualisation of that risk is being weak-willed, IMO.

@World Eater

I grew up on some very rough streets in Brooklyn, let me tell you this. Many of the tough guys I know are dead. These are guys that no matter what the situation was, they were inflexible. Perhaps in the movies when staring down the barrel of a gun, you can tell the guy “fuck you biotch”, but IRL this usually gets you killed. We conduct foreign policy in this manner, and like the thug, we too, will all be dead.

Then that is the argument you must make to the Spanish people, or to the people that voted Bush, and will vote Bush again. If you think that Bush is not the way, then vote against him. Don’t let actualisation of a known risk (for example, a WMD launched from Iraq) change your mind.

@World Eater

What are all these ideals you’re talking about? These motherfuckers just want to sit on the beach, raise children without getting blown up, or walk to the market and back in one piece. If pulling out of Iraq will help achieve this, then good for them. This isn’t a black and white conflict, there are many shades of grey here.

I’m talking about what you believe is the right government for your country. If they wanted to pull out of Iraq, and believed that that was the right way to go about doing things, why did they want to vote PP in the polls? More importantly, why did the AQ bomb suddenly make them think that they needed to change their minds?

@World Eater

“They” being AZNAR. The same “they” that was just voted out,

As I have said, I based my opinion on the fact that the people of Spain, before the bombing, were possibly willing to re-elect PP.

[mhendo]

@SlyFrog

And the Spaniards wandering the streets screaming and calling Aznar a murderer serve as a nice counterpoint to those who believe the main reason for vote changes was because Aznar wasn’t straight-forward about who had done the killing.

The problem for you, however, is that you are the one claiming that people changed their vote out of fear. You have no way of knowing who those individuals “wandering the streets screaming and calling Aznar a murderer” were going to vote for before the bombing. They may well have been hardline PSOE supporters, whose votes were in no way changed by the bombing. Or they may even have been supporters of the almost 100 other parties that ran candidates in the electiion, ranging from old fashioned falangist and fascist parties, to old fashioned communist and socialist parties, to single-issue groups like the Cannabis party.

Remember, i never claimed that dissatisfaction with Aznar’s lack of straightforwardness was the only reason for shifting votes. I never even said it was the main one. All i said was that this provides at least one counterexample for all the morons who are calling the Spanish cowards and appeasers as a result of the election. You continue to insist that you know what was going through the heads of Spanish voters on Sunday; i continue to insist that you can barely keep track of what’s going through your own head.
To Tabby_Cat:

I’m sorry that i didn’t see your response to Sofa King before my last post. I wouldn’t have been so harsh on you if i had. At least you are able to incorporate new evidence into your analysis, which is more than i can say for some on this board.

I still think, however, that your most recent response to World Eater demostrates an incredibly overblown sense of how accurate polls are as a predictor of election results, and a continued sense of self-importance that leads you to believe that you know what was going through the minds of Spaniards when they cast their ballots.

I’ll just add, one last time, that i’m not arguing that the bombings had no effect on people’s votes; i believe that they probably did. I just don’t think that we should not draw simplistic conclusions based on what may or may not have been going through the voters’ heads, and based on who may or may not have won the election in the absence of an attack.

I believe that it’s also possible for people, in good faith, to argue that the result of the Spanish election might encourage Al Qaeda to further acts of terrorism. But Al Qaeda was always going to commit further acts of terrorism anyway, and i think that accusing the Spaniards of negotiating with terrorists, or calling them appeasers, for simply choosing which party to vote for in a national election is not only offensive, but intellectually counterproductive.

Sofa King:

Well, if Tabby_Cat’s response is any indication, you aren’t banging your head against a brick wall. But i think you give some people a little too much credit regarding the story of Aznar’s deception.

Presumably, anyone participating in this thread (and the others on this issue) is closely interested in the result of the Spanish election, and should be making some sort of effort to be well informed on the issue.

Presumably, such people are also aware of Google and other search engines.

Typing “spain election” into Google any time over the past three days has resulted in hundreds of stories, many of which dealt with the Aznar government’s attempts to blame ETA, and the effect this had on some Spaniards’ voting intentiions. These stories were all in English. Readers of Spanish could have found even more material on the websites of El Mundo, El Pais, and other Spanish-language newspapers.

The possible significance of Aznar’s blaming of ETA to the election result has not exactly been a secret. Makes you wonder why so many people refuse to incorporate it into their analysis.

[Tabby_Cat]

@sailor

My goodness, i do not know if you are just ignoring my question because you don’t understand it or what. I will try again. :sigh:

If Spain had changed their stance because Al Qaeda had offered them money would that be okay with you? If not, why not? Why is it ok to change your mind when the USA offers you money but not when Al Qaeda offers you money?

I have to say that I have no love for buying of loyalty, but it seems that through the ages, even down to the interpersonal level, it seems to be common enough.

In this case, however, it is not the relations between AQ or the PP being in question, but rather of some people of Spain changing their votes, based not on governmental policies, but on external influence. The people would have voted (or possibly might have voted) for PP, knowing that they were taking USA money, before the bomb.

Thus, perhaps it would be better to say that they are cowards for bowing to external pressure, rather than following the democratic process and voting for what they thought was best. By saying this, I am also saying that it was a given that there was a risk that AQ would target them, and that that risk was known.

Perhaps a better analogy would be that of the USA broadcasting a message to the Spanish people, telling them to vote PP, and the USA would give them $200 each. In that situation, would you call them “whores” for caving?

@sailor

If the people of Iraq accept terms imposed by the USA because the USA has killed so many already and could kill more, would you call the people of Iraq cowards?

If the people of Israel would change their stance and seek peace with the Palestinians because they get tired of the killings, would you call them cowards?

If the Palestinians get tired of the killings and seek peace with Israel, would you call them cowards?

If they quit because they are tired of the risk, then they are simply voting to eliminate the risk. They are not voting due to the killings, but rather, they are voting as to the risk of the killings.

It is differentiated from Spain in the sense that the people were otherwise content to continue with the risk, but for the actualisation of that risk (bomb).

[Tabby_Cat]

With this, I withdraw from the thread and others on this issue of Spain. I have no dog in this fight, not being from either the USA or Spain, but I simply put forward my views to perhaps help other people understand why some people might rationally think that the Spanish people caved to external pressure, or as the more inflammatory term put it, “pussies”.

However, the point is moot, if there is evidence that newspapers ran stories about how the PP played the situation for political benifit. In that case, I would be inclined to believe that they voted the PP out on that basis. Indeed, I would do the same. With that, I withdraw all comments I have made prior, unless logical debate is desired, in which case my remarks have served as debate, but not longer opinion.