Okay, I am a new poster here. I have been a lurker for a while and until now I have not seen anything making me feel like I needed to make my say. As a previso to this post I am not: American
A crazy redneck, closed minded, rightwing nutter
A nazi sympathiser
A troll (if you still think I am a troll after reading my
post please DNFTT or bump it to let it die)
Now I am a member of the young liberals in Australia. They are consequently a conservative party that generally sit towards the lefter side of right wing politics. Please don’t let my political afiliations affect your views on this post though, it is just a little back information to try and help you understand some of my comments.
Well here it is. I think that the Spanish made a grave mistake in withdrawing their troops from Iraq. I do believe that it will serve as encouragement to terorists that killing is a suitable and effective way to get what they want.
At the start of the chest beating process leading up to the invasion of Iraq last year I was in favour of the war. I was definately in favour of the war 4 weeks into it. Now I am not so sure it was justified, but (and this is a very big but), it still happened. We acted and now we have to follow through. If we desert Iraq now it will be another totalitarian regime opressing its citizens.
By Spain pulling out its troops they have effectively sent the message terrorism is right and just.
And I will also say as an epilogue to my post, ban me if you find this to be innappropriate. I do not believe that it is but if it is not in the interest of this board than please let me know and I will go elsewhere.
You’re way too nervous. Which of the board rules is it that you’re afraid you have broken to the point where you’d be emergency banned without a warning?
This shouldn’t be in MPSIMS. Probably better suited for Great Debates.
That said, I agree with you. The reaction to terrorism should be harsh retribution against the terrorists if possible, and indifference in all other cases. If we give the terrorists what they want, terrorism will never stop.
Welcome to the board, Legend of Tenshi! It’s good to have you. You aren’t alone in your beliefs. This thread should interest you. And this thread might be of some use.
I for one agree with you, but there are many sides to a story of course. Regardless of the peoples’ intentions, terrorists will think of this as proof that they can use their tactics to affect government policy.
Why, exactly, didn’t you put this in the half-dozen threads which are already open on the subject?
Why can’t you get it through your head that Iraq is not Afghanistan and that the war in Iraq has nothing to do with terror?
How does a Spanish withdrawal from Iraq constitute an abandonment of the Iraqi people? There are still several hundred thousand American and British troops on the ground (among others) and it isn’t as if the loss of a couple thousand Spanish troops is going to lead to (greater) chaos and mayhem.
What evidence, if any, can you supply to support the folowing statement: “If we desert Iraq now it will be another totalitarian regime opressing its citizens.”
Ban you? Don’t be so silly. It is for the edification of people like you that this forum exists. You may be wrong, but if the tone of your post is a good guide to your character, you can (and will) learn.
I’m not familiar with Aussie politics, and god knows Americans have turned the English language on its ear, but why is the conservative group you’re a member of named “the young liberals”?
Except that they haven’t. What the new Spanish government plans to do is withdraw troops from Iraq on June 30th. This happens to be the date set by the US for the transfer of power to the Iraqi government. This withdrawal is to occur only if a UN-sanctioned transfer of power does not take place.
Maybe some terrorists see this position as some sort of victory. However, the PSOE said that was their plan since way before the attacks. Are you arguing that the PSOE should have changed its mind following the tragedy?
Rubbish. Terrorists will continue on their rabid murderous ways regardless of what Spain does. To argue that removing Spanish troops from Iraq emboldens terrorists is to implicitly argue that the presence of Spanish troops in Iraq somehow lowers the threat of terror in the world. Both are false propositions. Terrorists only need opportunity to commit further atrocities; they don’t rely on political signals sent by minor military powers before deciding to murder innocents.
Incidentally, what is the link between al-Qaida terrorism and Iraq?
Literally a non sequitur–it does not follow.
Just a friendly heads-up, by the way: uncapitalised usage of “young liberals” may be confusing to many Americans unfamiliar with what Liberal-with-a-big-L means in Australia. Wouldn’t want to mistaken for a left-winger would we?
The Liberal Party in Australia are the conservatives (John Howard is the leader). They formed up in 1944, out of a group of parties opposed to the Labour party, and called themselves “Liberal” after 19th century parties of the same name (one was here in NZ) that believed in progressive enterprise and social equality.
So fiscally and socially liberal… and yet the OP’s opinion sounds right out of a social conservative’s mouth. Have the Aussie parties flip-flopped the way the American parties have? (ie. the party of the right has become the party of the left, and vice versa)
I can’t speak for the Australians, but here, our Liberal Party from the turn of the 20th century muddled on a bit until they were ousted by Labour in the 1930s. The Liberals joined other conservative factions to form our National Party which are right of centre. I guess the original Liberals in our two countries were simply “liberal” because they were more free-thinking than the other crew around, who were even more right-wing.
I agree, it is rather odd. It took me some working out as to why a conservative party in Australia is called Liberal (definitely not the case in Britain, say).
What is worse… too keep sponsoring Bush’s military agenda or “endorse” the effectiveness of AQ bombing ? I think sponsoring Bush by far. You can change the US president… but you can’t change AQ by playing “tough”.
The Spanish people (90% of them) opposed sending troops to Iraq in the first place. The Socialist Party favored withdrawing them throughout this electoral cycle. Nobody changed their politics due to the attacks. The results of the election may have been altered, but suggesting that it’s just caving to the terrorists ignores the facts.
In another thread, I argued that the withdrawal being “what the terrorists want” is a coincidence, in the same way that the US withdrawal from Saudi Arabia just happened to coincide with what Al Qaeda demanded before 9/11.
The bomb highlighted the issue of Iraq, the ruling party’s policy on which was highly unpopular before the bombing. Keeping the AQ link secret and pushing the ETA angle disgusted the electorate even more.
(Incidentally, note that if it had have been ETA, and the ruling party had got more votes because of this, nobody here would be complaining about how a terrorist act had affected an election.)
Welcome to the Boards, Legend of Tenshi. Cocktail?
I disagree with much of your post, but
is something I can happily endorse. I never liked the idea of invading Iraq, but it’s done. Whatever else happens now it would seem a pretty bad idea to abandon the place now. And I do see that being suggested at the campus where I work in Melbourne. The place is a mess now and even if the UN were to give it their best shot it’s not going to be great. But for everybody to withdraw now would certainly be a bad idea. I don’t think that’s what the new Spanish government want though.
As for the question of the Liberal Party, no Australian politics has never “switched” in the way that US political parties are perceived to have. The Liberals have always been (since their formation out of the ashes of the United Australia Party post WWII) the party of the centre right. But what that means has changed from time to time. The party has always been a broad church, with some prominant social liberals (eg Alan Missen), some old style UK tory economic interventionists and genuine free marketeers (the “dries”). Prior to the current government, the party’s last significant national leader (Hewson) was rather non-interventionist economically and rather progressive socially compared to centre right parties around the world.
The current PM (Howard) is easily the most socially conservative leader the party has ever had and is extremely interventionist economically. The influence of social liberals has almost been extinguished in the federal party and you can’t help but wonder whether the dries were ever fair dinkum. The Young Liberals vary: some branches are still quite classical liberal (small government, socially progressive), some are pretty reactionary. If (as seems fairly likely) the current government falls in an election this year, a battle for the party is on the cards: the current treasurer (Costello) would take the party away from economic interventionism and towards progressive social policy. There is a fair bit of pent-up demand in the party for this kind of thing.
Jeeze, Really, is that the Deep End System for newbies?
Back to the OP: While AQ may not be able to accurately claim to be responsible for the results of the Spanish election, they, like all politicians, will claim credit for anything “positive” that happens while saving any mention of other factors for when they have to explain their failures. They will use this as a recruiting tool among the poorly informed, though there will also be a backlash from competitors who make the same (false) conclusion because it supports their worldview and who will also convert some poorly informed fence sitters. It’s common to connect causes and effects that may only be coincidental.
I have to agree with dropzone. I am not sure that Spain’s plans prior to the bombings will make a lot of difference. To someone uninformed about the intricacies of Spanish policy (that is, nearly everyone), it looks like this:
Bombs go off, killing hundreds.
Election results in Socialist victory.
News announces that Spain plans to pull out of Iraq.
Therefore: “Terrorists got Spain to change its mind. Bombings work. Great! More bombings on the way! Germany next!”
Now, I agree that those first three events do not necessarily have much to do with each other, and I sympathize with the Spanish people’s feelings here. But it sure looks like a terrorist victory to a lot of people, and that’s what I’m afraid of.
