If it were up to the UN, Saddam would still be in power. As for the bombing, Al Qaida has shown the willingness to attack the West. Eventually it would have been Spains turn. The only way to prevent this is to put the terrorists out of business. The best way to do that is to kill them.
What is Kerry’s plan for opposing terror? So far, I haven’t heard one.
I would be facinated to hear you expound on the “authoritatrian political reasons” referenced above.
I tend to think AQ as more of an ideology than a group of ppl following the teachings of OBL. Take away popular support from them and they will disappear in a generation or two.
True, but that isn’t what I asked, or what anyone has said. Kindly disexclude the middle for once. The active word is “safer”.
Or invasions by Goa’uld mother ships with death rays, or anything else similar but imaginary. But we deal with the real world here, not neocon fantasies swallowed whole and regurgitated whole, like that list of yours. None of those things you’ve listed exists, even reasonably potentially, in the areas of the world where Bush has made attacked and thereby made us *less * safe. This attack in Spain underscores that uncomfortable fact, does it not?
Ashcroft, Ashcroft, Ashcroft.
But Sam, if I applauded the victory of a socialist party following a horrible economic depression, that does not mean I am grateful for the depression or wanted it to happen. (With some socialists it might mean exactly that, less said of them the better.) And remember, the Socialist Party did not cause the bombing. They were not even in a position to prevent it, being out of power at the time. If they had been in power – I hope they might have taken different courses of action in the two years since 9/11, which might have left Al-Qaeda (or whoever did the deed) with a bit less interest in Spain, but it’s impossible to know. I was just saying, “It’s an ill wind that blows no good,” which is just another way of saying, “Always look on the bright side of life.”
If you believe that you will believe anything.
This has been posted before but clearly is not getting through.
**Fact ** - 90% of the Spanish electorate opposed their governments involvement in the Iraqi adventure.
**Fact ** - some 46% despite that were prepared to vote for the government again.
**Inference ** - that the Spanish involvement in the Iraqi adventure was not that a big an issue in the election.
**Fact ** - terrorist attacks.
**Reported fact ** - Spanish perceive their Government appears to be trying to spin the facts to avoid any AQ connection and pin the blame on ETA at least until the election is out of the way.
**Fact ** - Incumbant govenment lose election
**Inference ** - that understandably it suddenly became a very import issue, the electorate vote accordingly basis on their pre-existing views on the right and wrongs of the War, informed by the cost having suddenly rocketed and their disgust at the governments attempt to spin.
And as for the Evil One:
Well see my response above to the other poster. We are not blinded by your logic just stupified by the flaws in it. It just shows you should not support Wars without the support of the people. If you do, without very good reason, you will always be open to being overturned when things go against you or the implications of your policies come home to roost. When you have the support of the majority of people they will put up with anything - as the mainland British electorate showed over the years of IRA/IRNA attacks (organisations, which I have to point out, were widely supported and financed by American citizens for many years with US government acceptance). I do not comment on the rights and wrongs of that will to fight the IRA, only the will to do so.
No. At least three. If you insist on two then I am with the terrorists rather than the US operating alone - as the US cannot win such a War then it will never end if I support them. In fact of course I am totally opposed to the terrorists, and obviously to their methods and tactics. I just feel their threat can be minimised with very different tactics that would cut their sources of support, good will and finance through removing the desire to give them any support good will or finance. The main action of the US is to actually support terrorism by adding to the reasons it exists. Hence I will always oppose the US in persisting in their current policy.
Unless any evidence suggests I am about to be proved wrong of course! None so far. All the other way…
I thought december was gone and buried. Yet here again we see the argument that if you vote for a liberal, the terrorists have already won.
That’s a despicable pseudo-Godwinizing debate tactic. Even worse are the conservatives here challenging leftists to disavow terrorism.
Of COURSE nobody on these boards, in this thread, is advocating bombing trains. Asking people to deny this is repugnant: you know that’s not what they’re saying.
Bush’ approach to combating terrorism isn’t the only one. Millions of people around the world realize this. Millions of people in Spain realize this.
Perhaps the majority of people in Spain realized that Bush’s approach is as ineffective as it is unethical, but they didn’t consider its inefficacy to be a major campaign issue, until it was brought horribly home to them last week.
Once they were faced with how ineffective Bush’s approach was, they decided it was time to go ahead and get their country out of the “coalition.”
I agree that terrorists might misinterpret the results of the leection to support what they’re doing. But hey, guess what? They’re madmen. When you let your actions be dictated by madmen, you’re not in control of the fight anymore. You don’t vote for a conservative because the madmen act like they don’t want you to do so.
Especially not when the madmen are desperately hoping for a war between the West and Islam, and the conservatives are giving them something they can pass off as just such a war, and the socialists are promising not to play that game with them any more.
Appeasement doesn’t enter into it. Plain pragmatic reality enters into it. The way the war on terror is being prosecuted is stupid, dishonest, and counterproductive. It’s time for a new strategy, one that unites the world community instead of dividing it.
Daniel
I think that’s an extreme way of putting it, but I think it is true that Europeans in general are extremely reluctant to participate in foreign adventures. This is understandable given the history to which Dogface alludes, but is regrettable, because the work of attempting to foster democracy, or at least bring about conditions in which the people may vote, then falls almost entirely on the USA. As a result, even if we act with the best of intentions, it still looks like political and cultural imperialism. To be brutally honest, I think Western democracy, as practiced in the United States, Europe, and a few developing countries, is a worthy political system, and better than fascism. I think it should be extended, or at least the people should have a say in the matter.
As we hand over the government to the Iraqis, it’s obvious that the country is still going to be quite unstable, and the presence of foreign troops will still be necessary. I sincerely hope that not all those troops will be American, but rather that the other democratic nations of the world, as far as they’re able, will help.
And this has what to do with the war on terror? He would be in power, without WMDs, in a country swarming with UN inspectors. He is a bad guy, no doubt about that, but lots of Iraqis (and Americans) would be alive today if that had happened.
Plus, we could have kept our intelligence resources in Afghanistan, and maybe put more pressure on Pakistan, and perhaps have flushed out bin Laden. And we would be at the forefront of a united world, as united as it was after 9/11.
There are two good ways of dealing with terrorists - kill them and keep them from multiplying. The former is necessary, but the latter is far more efficient.
I can see where Dogface is going with this. By claiming a vote for the Socialist party in Spain is a vote for alQ, the next step is that a vote against Bush is a vote for terrorism. Of course he has no evidence at all that the Socialist are appeasers.
I have heard that the new prime minister has promised to pull their troops ASAP.
Maybe we should pull our troops out of the Middle East too.
Oh no, we can’t! The Baathists will try to recapture power in Iraq, the Afghani conservatives will lock up and beat their women again, and I don’t think Trinidad and Tobago can prevent that from happening all by their lonesome…
I didn’t know that. Europeans protested overthrowing the Taliban?!? We’re talking murderous religious extremism here. Fascism, really. And we were wrong to put them down? Democracy is fine for the protestors, but they don’t care much about anyone else having to live under fascist bullies, do they?
must remember I’m in GD…must remember I’m in GD…must remember I’m in GD…
Ummm? Last I checked Bush was elected President of the United States with out the “War on Terror”.
How so? Do you mean that an invasion would never have occurred?
The UN sounded like the mother in the market who continues to warn little Johnny that if he does something ‘one more time’. Regardless of WMDs being found it was time to attack Iraq or tear up all of the UN resolutions against Iraq. At last count I believe (no cite just memory) that there were 47 different UN resolution calling for Iraq to prove it had disarmed. None were ever fully enforced nor followed. Sadam was able to turn inspectors away at different sites and even deny access to areas that the inspectors wanted to look into. I believe that in Sadam’s eyes the UN was a toothless dog. He would never have fully complied. Proof? In the ten years following GW I he never did fully comply.
Someone asked how AQ won in the Spanish election. I would suggest that if Spain does pull out of Iraq as the terrorist demanded, then that is a clear victory for AQ and all other terrorist groups. Submitting can only lead to more attacks. Cite
I understand the Spanish desire to withdraw from Iraq. I would submit that now is not the right time. It tells terrorist that if you hurt us we will give you what you want.
After 9/11 the US launched a major offensive against terrorists and we have not been hit since. NO! I do not believe we are safe. But I believe that we are safer because of our attacks on the terrorists.
Bert: “Why do you have a banana in your ear?”
Ernie: “To keep away the tigers.”
Bert: “But there aren’t any tigers on Sesame Street.”
Ernie: “You see? It’s working!”
Please don’t misunderstand I do believe that we will be attacked again. However we have shown that there will retribution for an attack against us. And we most certianly have disrutped AQ’s plans and made them harder to execute. That is the best that you can do against terrorists. Unless you can ID them all and are willing to kill every last one.
I do not believe that these terrorists will simply leave us alone if we give them any one thing, as Spain’s new leader seems prepared to believe.
The problem here is swallowing the propaganda that both Afghanistan and Iraq were wars against the terrorists that hit America, many did notice that only the former was, and still continue to sacrifice for the cause:
http://smh.com.au/articles/2003/05/26/1053801346325.html
And oh, the French came close to capturing Osama recently, and German troops and Canadians are also in Afghanistan, one can find evidence of some protests in Europe for intervening in Afghanistan. However, the consensus remains that the war on terror must continue, since -wouldn’t you know- many citizens of those countries also died in 9/11, what they did not see, was any connection the war on terror had to do with Iraq.
And Zapatero, the new leader of Spain, is on record of supporting the efforts of Spain in Afghanistan, it just so happens that He an the majority of the Spanish people saw the war in Iraq as a detour to the real deal that was to combat Al-qeida and the people protecting them.
Right now, the effort to get Osama has been put in focus once again, the time and resources that were diverted to the virtually unrelated Iraqi effort, is making the Iraq war more foolish that ever.
Like another fellow posted in another board:
http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2003_archives/000836.html
What is sad is that the so called “liberal media” is not telling much of the background of the Spanish vote, After seeing the Spanish news, I get the impression that the big reason the ruling party lost, was the insulting attempt to misguide the people into blaming ETA right away. It is like I said before: Having a leader that goes first for what his ideology dictates is nuts, it is better to have one that will interpret intelligence reports with less bias.
Exactly right, Dorkness.
Once you decide to play that game, you’ve lost. Imagine a terrorist attack on the U.S. just before the November elections.
“The terrorists must really want to get Bush out of office. I guess I can’t vote for Kerry, or they will have won. But wait! They must know I’ll think that, and thus they really want me to vote for Bush. I can’t do that–it’s what they want! But wait again. If they know that I know that they want me to vote for Bush, then they also know that I’ll vote for Kerry. So I can’t vote for Kerry. Or Bush, because then the terrorists might win. I guess I’d better stay home. Unless that’s what the terrorists want…”