Rune, we already did this debate once and I am not going to do it again. I am looking forward to seeing Spanish troops leave Iraq though. I will get immense satisfaction from that and I just hope the new prime minister does not let any arm twisting get in the way.
Nope, loaded question, so I decline to answer. My argument is and remains that the Spanish can and should vote for whomever they feel best represents their interests; that voting the conservatives back in purely on the basis of a single terrorist act would be just much a concession to terrorism as voting in the Socialists.
Once again, and I don’t really expect an reponse here, I have yet to see any evidence that the most recent demands would not have been made if the Aznar government were still in power.
If you didn’t know the saying about Danegeld, all you need do is a bit of googling or by all means ask. (I found the quote a little bit amusing since I’m Danish, is all.)
Now I know how you hate the Iraqi war, but really this has little to do with the that – and everything to do with rational response to terrorist attacks and threats. I find it unfortunate, but perhaps not wrong should any coalition partner decide to withdraw their support. I find it wrong in the extreme should any decide to withdraw as direct result from terrorist attacks or threats.
Well they’re there now - but perhaps you do not consider Iraq invaded but liberated ( 
)? Again, it’s not about Iraq. However, while Spain may not have provided actual troops for the initial invasion, she was right there beside American and Britain in the UN on the summit etc. And we’ve already been down the road of arm-twisting before. The claim is patently ridiculous. And it could be argued that if Iraq had nothing to do with the fight against terror before, the recent events in Spain has made it all about fight against terror. The terrorists think so; the first bombed because of Spain’s involvement, the new threats are about Iraqi withdrawal, etc. A large number of voters seemed to think so, as they (by own admission) voted such. Etc.
I think you’re blinding yourself by your hate for the Iraq war and for Bush. And when you insinuate some underhanded agreements between the USA and Spain I must say, you have crossed the line into crazy conspiracy theories territory. Further I find your belief that a country with parliamentary democracy is free to renegade on commitments and agreements if a majority of the population (and how would we ever know without voting – certainly not polls) is so in favour is troublesome to say the least. In such a world all international cooperation would be neigh impossible.
But perhaps you’d answer a theoretical question. If you accept the premise that many Spanish voters were swayed by a wish to avoid terror by voting for a party that promised to agree to some of their terms – would you consider that unwise?
Actually, yes I believe terrorists are bad and should be exterminated if possible (though of course not necessarily from the middle east) You on the other hand seem to believe ALL terrorists have legitimate demands, that can be solved in peaceful manners if we just try to understand their grievances and perhaps give them some of what they want. Perhaps this is a matter of totally different world outlooks, but I think that often the terrorists have no legitimate claims, nothing we can negotiate with and no middle ground to meet on – not to mention their methods are completely damnable.
How the heck could you consider that a loaded question. Do you believe or do you not that terrorists on principle should be negotiated with? And of course I can not provide proof since that would require a timemachine and access to parallel universe. However I can, as I have tried, make arguments for it and try to asses its likelihood.
You’ve proved yourself adept at ignoring my points, so I suppose this should fall upon deaf ears.
What makes dealing with a terrorist group any different than dealing with a nation? You seem to be keen on taking the terrorists at their pronounced, literal word. However, in practice, international politics is a balance of threats, actions, and concessions. You need to talk big. You need to overstate your point, so that either side can compromise and not look like they are giving in.
When the Soviet Union and the United States were at each others’ throats, they played an intricate game of bluffs, rhetoric, threats, tests, and terrorism. Had either side taken a literal approach to the conflict, the world would have entered nuclear war shortly. Instead, they showed each other their power in indirect ways.
That doesn’t mean that there weren’t far right wing nutcases who didn’t advocate a pre-emptive strike at the Soviets, or took every Soviet bluff and threat as a declaration of war. Thank the gods, those people never gained complete control of the government.
However, these Cold Warriors now dominate us- only there is no Soviet Union. They have a new target, though - Muslims. The rhetoric being spewed today is exactly the same rhetoric spewed against the Soviets, and the hardliners are winning.
Now, when you see an election that happens to have a terrorist attack near it, the hardliners (and I’m including you in this group) leap into the air and kick and scream that the election was caused by the terrorist attack - a rather poor attempt at causation. They ignore the fact that the political climate was leaning pro-Socialist in the first place, that the people were overwhelmingly in favor of not continuing the war, and that the Socialist party had been saying they would withdraw for years - but somehow, all three of those points were somehow magically attributed directly to the terrorist attack.
The terrorists, of course, saw this kneejerk and blind reaction, and knew they hit a soft spot. This is their propaganda. They can use the same rhetoric to say, “Look, we can affect elections!” They followed up with outrageous demands that can’t be met, created to cater to the situation, despite being planned long beforehand. Of course, everyone buys into this hook, line, and sinker because it fits their kneejerk reaction.
I think it is safe to say that when faced with an act of terror in any level, going in with guns blazing is a poor way to respond. Police forces around the world don’t approach hostage situations with airstrikes. Believe it or not, Muslims are real people with political agendas, pushed to an extreme by the situation.
America COULD have kept the large international support it had from 9/11, but instead decided to go the route of the fool. Now, we are almost universally distrusted, and the few allies we’ve been able to bully into following us are peeling off like flies.
Terrorism is not a new threat. It is a very old one. It happens around the world, and has for a very long time.
Saying that Spain “collapsed to terrorism” and is following a “policy of appeasement” is an absurd way to look at the world through black and white filters. It takes willful ignorance of the larger situation and reduces complex events to a simplistic cause-effect correlation.
This is just so true. I haet it when Americans say terrorism is a new threat which has to be dealt with differently. That’s BS. There was a lot if Islamic terrorism in Europe in the 70s and it subsided in the 80s, probably in part because Europe did not start a Crusade like the USA is doing now. Europe has been dealing with terrorism a long time but i guess that does not count for GW who thinks the only thing that counts is America.
An the “new demands” by Spanish terrorists is just laughable. The police were ramming the door down, the terrorists were about to blow themselves up and as a last threat they said “get out of Iraq or else”. So who is going to take that as anything but a bluff of a guy about to die? This is patently ridiculous. The notion that this threat means anything whatsoeeve is plain silly.
Spanish premier: Bring me a terrorist so I can appease him!
Spanish Police chief: Well the last one we found we had to pick up with handiwipes so I don’t think appeasing will do him any good.
Just a short comment.
The “new threats” are those issued by the Egyptian branch of Al.Qaeda in Cairo.
I’m European and remember vividly, though I was but a wee lad, Rote Armé Fraction in Germany, posters in most public places and the weighted down atmosphere. I remember also the bombing campaigns in London, people afraid to use the tube and the frightened, nearly panicky, faces one time when a suitcase without owner was found in a McDonalds I was in.
What has America or GW to do with a discussion on Spain’s response to terror; again you’re letting your hatreds cloud your mind.
Does this mean that I’m, like, officially invisible? Cool. I always wanted to be invisible.
What does the situation have to do with Bush and America? Everything, since it is Bush’s policy that was being pressed in Spain, and it is Bush’s policy that you are pushing for. If Bush’s policy is foolish, it follows that your policy is foolish.
But since I’m invisible, I’ll just say garbledeegookfarglenuggin. It would have the same effect on this “debate”
Yeah, but I bet you don’t remember the UK or Germany saying "let’s go invade some piss-poor Muslim country and beat the crap out of them just for giggles. That’ll teach them. No, the response was more focused, measure and rational.
Started the Iraqi war on the false pretense that it was related to fighting terrorism. You know, the war and occupation Spain does not support.
As far as Spain not standing by its committments that is crap and was already debunked in previous threads. Spain has committed to be there until June 30 and has no further committment. See how easy?
Now the USA was committed to transferring poer by June 30 and we already know what will happen on June 30 will be a farce where little or no power is transferred and the USA will continue to be in effective control of Iraq. So who is not keeping it’s word here?
Zagadka
I haven’t responded to your posts because, frankly, there hasn’t been much to respond to untill now (and I have some difficulty spelling your name). You’ve been all over the map (literally) and don’t seem to get the fact that pointing out hot places around the globe doesn’t amount to a case for anything unless you have convincing arguments that things would have been substantial better had there been negoitiations and concessions made to terrorists.
Now, the reason I’ve included the little (“of the Al-Qaeda kind”) multiply times is because I make a distinction between terrorist organisation that can be negotiated with, that operate from basically a rational foundation (IRA, ETA) and others which I consider impossible to ever strike a deal with and which I think operate from distinctly irrational grounds (Al-Qaeda, Hamas). The difference between the latter kind of organisation and Soviet is that you could strike a deal with Russians and expect it to be kept, Soviet too were ruled with rational means, etc. The Russians wouldn’t nuke New York because they though it was God’s will and they’d be transported straight to their 72 virgins. There will never be any deal with Al-Qaeda. There is no middle ground with someone who’s trying for nothing less than your total annihilation and believe he has God on his side. Meanwhile, trying to reach out and find compromises will strengthen their resolve and prolong the conflict – in the end costing more lives.
I’m not claiming Spain in any way deserves what is coming, or that it’s as simple as A=>B=>C, just that there are certain elements that are helpful to our common wellbeing and future – and some which are not. Appeasing terrorists, or seeming to, is defiantly of the last category. Nor am I an avid Bush supported, he’s your president not mine – you can have whomever you want as long as you’re not unduly influenced by terrorist threats (and as long as it’s not Kerry). Probably the closest I can come is saying he’s, to stay in the cold war rhetorics, “my bastard”. I wouldn’t worry too much about your international image. Political goodwill is there to be used, and in any case Europe and the world isn’t going anywhere without America – we have a common future.
There is actually a party in Denmark (the reformed communists) that favour something along the lines which you seem to want. They think we should have send police officers after Bin Laden in Afghanistan.
Spain wasn’t arm-wrestled nor did Aznar press Bush’s policy. He had his own separate reasons to join the coalition – some of which he was very successful with (strengthening the transatlantic alliance, forging a new power alliance within the EU – a thing I found very interesting, probably he also believe in the war on its own grounds. Of course, now the Socialists are dropping everything – so it’s back to square one).
As an aside, you might want to look up some sites detailing the inglorious few years of de-facto Chechnya independence. I think you’d find frequent mention of such things as total anarchy, religious fanaticism, streamlined abduction business, drugs and weapons smuggling, invasion of neighbouring Dagestan for the purpose of spreading their version of religious Taliban like rule, etc.
Well Roté Arme was German, and I do believe that the measures they took would make your Homeland Security Acts or whatever seem like something out of the anarchist manifesto.
What Spain is officially committed to is one thing. As far as I’m concerned, any country in the coalition that was in on the war is committed to stay till the end.
Wow. Let me get this straight. The deal was that the Spanish government, against the will of the Spanish people, agreed to stay in Iraq until June 30 when Iraqi sovereignty would be restored. And you propose that (a) the USA is under no obligation to honor its pacts if it does not suit them and (b) Spain is obligated even to what it did not sign if it is in the interests of the USA. Wow. I have difficulty believing someone would think like this. The readers can judge for themselves.
Wow. You’re so obsessed with the Iraq war and GWB that you’ll use any and all threads you get within ten mile of to expound your views again and again and again.
Yes, I believe a democratic country is bound by the obligation made by any government, whether those obligations were entered into with or without the good will of the people (and how would you ever know without an election). That is basis of all international commitments.
Yes I believe the obligations by all the nations (and that include Denmark) that undertook to invade Iraq include making sure they leave it in a stable condition, and not in a state of anarchy or embroiled in civil war. I find it more than a little disgusting that you apparently favour a withdrawal come hell or high tide. Now please direct me to where I said your A or B?
Since this is about Spain “caving in to terrorists” by leaving Iraq and since you started this thread I don’t know what the fuck you are talking about. If you don’t want to talk about it then don’t open the thread on that topic.
Fine, but in this case (like others I can think of) it is the USA who is not honoring its committments and Spain is. So I take it your criticism is for the USA?
Spain did not “invade” iraq. Spain said it would supply troops until the USA transferred sovereignty on June 30. The fact that the USA is not keeping its part of the bargain is not Spain’s problem.
And I find it disgusting that Spanish troops are participating in the massacre of Iraqis with whom we have no quarrel and who just want the troops out of their country as is their right. I fihnd it disgusting that Spanish troops are assisting in the illegal and immoral occupation of Iraq and assisting in the plunder. Disgusting.
So you agree the USA should get out of Iraq by June 30 then? You will decry their lying if they don’t? You also condemn every other instance where the USA has not abided by the treaties it signed? Yes? Because if you do then we are in agreement. So, do you or don’t you?
Aw! For fucks sake Sailor. Open your own thread if you want to discuss the Iraq war for the yet another gazillion time. This thread is about Spain’s response to terrorist attacks!
Your responses show such an obsession and so little understanding or willingness to ever contemplate looking at the subjects from another angle, I hardly see the point in replying to them anymore, you’re never going to move an inch – but here goes again…
- You state that a democratic country is not obliged to follow its prior commitments when they were made against the will of the people which you have a magic tap into.
- I disagree, saying all democratic countries have an obligation to fulfil the commitments of prior governments regardless of what someone claim the majority might or might not have believed at the time.
Now you either agree or disagree with 2). No need to try to make it sound like I said something I didn’t.
There was no June 30 at the Azores summit. There were no June 30, on all the occasions Aznar talked for war in the UN and EU. And there were no June 30 when Aznar first send the troops to Iraq. Spain was part of the invasion because she was one of the major proponents of it in the UN and the EU. Spain is part of the invasion because it has troops in the country. Your posts are so eaten by your personal obsessions that you seem to believe two wrongs will make one right. I find it pathetic and disgusting that you, regardless that you think the invasion was very wrong, don’t see that both America and Spain now have an obligation to the Iraqi people to not leave them in a hopeless situation created by the invasion.
What massacre is that. As far as I know Spanish troops have not killed a single person while staying in Iraq.
And what has this got to do with the subject of the thread? Go open your own Iraq war / American suck thread – it’s not like we haven’t had any of them before.
Well that is just peachy. You open a thread which assumes Spain is caving in to terrorists by withdrawing from Iraq and we are not allowed to question your premise? Since then does the board work like that? Is that part of the pay as you go thing? You cannot question the premise of the thread? Spain withdrawing from iraq is not caving in to terrorism, it is the right and just and moral thing to do.
No, I have not stated that. Please cite. In fact, the neocons were the ones saying Iraq was not obligated to keep its treaty obligations and I differred. I have not said anything about whether Spain is obligated or not since Spain IS keeping its obligations.
Good, so instances of the USA not doing this are relevant to the discussion, are they not? Or are we restricted in that also?
I find it pathetic and disgusting that Spanish soldiers are killing Iraqis and helping the USA in a criminal plunder and occupation of Iraq and I believe the right thing to do is for Spanish troops to get ot on June 30 as per the previous agreement.
You need to read the news then. They have fired on Iraqis killing many and have suffered casualties too. A Salvadoran soldier serving with the Spanish was killed and a Spanish soldier is wounded and in very serious state. The Iraqi people are rebelling against the occupation and it is clear they want the foreign troops out of there. It is their right and the Spanish troops should get out. If the US wants the loot, let them supply the dead. Spain has suffered 11 dead already and that is way too many. What is much worse in my view is that Spanish troops are killing Iraqis who just want the troops out. That is immoral. Spain has no quarrel with the Iraqi people and should not be there.
Here’s how: you are assuming that Spanish vote = negotiating with terrorists. I am unconvinced that this is so. Anyway, this is not a referendum on whether or not I believe terrorists should ever be negotiated with. It is irrelevant, IMO, because, for one thing Spain has not in fact negotiated with terrorists in this case.
You know what Sailor. I was going to reply yet another time, but I’m outta here. Your obsessive posting on GWB and the Iraqi war has just worn me down. And you seem to have great trouble understanding a simple topic. “Terrorism and rational response to that. And whether what Spain did was in any way giving in to terrorists“ Whether the Iraq war is just or unjust, moral or immoral is not part of that, and has already been discussed to death a thousand times by everybody but you. I have asked you several times to stay on topic – but you just keep going on and on and on.
No. I’ve already stated the case (which actually was as much about appearance). If you remain unconvinced that’s fine. I just tacked on the question as a way to get beyond the actualities and question it on the theoretical level. It was a hypothetical question (“would it ever be wise to negotiate with or give in to demands by terrorists or of the Al-Qaeda kind”) and you could swap Spain for Greenland for all that matters.
Rune, I just do not accept your premise. That’s all.
That will save us both a lot of time and it will save you from questions about why the USA has not abided by many treaties it has signed and similar, uncomfortable, “off-topic” questions.
It’s fine that you do not accept my premise - I have stated the case and if you remain unconvinced I feel no great need to convince the world.
They’re hardly uncomfortable for me, since I’m not American and have little ball in that game (you on the other hand is, and am responsibly for your country). But if you can show me how American breach of international treaties has anything to do with response to terror attacks and specifically Spain’s response to same and not yet another tirade against war in Iraq, by all means let fly.