Spanish elections: Further evidence that Europeans are pussies?

[SlyFrog]

Note: quotes below are from several different previous posts, put together into this response to respond to all. Look back in the thread to see who said what.

The Spanish people, en masse, were strongly opposed to US policy regarding Iraq, and just as strongly opposed to being in a position of supporting that policy. Inconvenient to your premise, this opposition precedes the bombing by about a year or so.
Now, if they had been generally supportive of US policy before this incident, and cravenly caved at the first sign of trouble, you might have a case. They weren’t, and you don’t.

I have no idea what this has to do with the question. One of my questions is this; is it further proof that European’s (or at least Spaniards, but I’m willing to bet others) cannot be relied upon, and that the U.S. will need to act alone, that the Spanish people apparently believe that it’s government is actually at fault for the terrorist murder of its civilians, due to its willingness to assist with Iraq.

In other words accepting the premise as true that the Iraq attack was wrong - my government made a wrong policy choice to invade Iraq, terrorists murdered a hundred or so of my countrymen as a “warning” not to help the U.S. in any way (not just as a punishment for Iraq, but for helping the U.S.), and I will now march through the streets blaming my government for the civilian deaths.

In other words, we should not help the U.S., because the terrorists might want to hurt us. Rather than fight terrorism, we should instead keep a low profile and limit our policies to those acceptable to the terrorist, so that we do not get hurt by the terrorists too. Those who disagree are the actual murders of our civilians, not the terrorists who blew up the people.

I don’t understand why what 'luci wrote is so hard to grasp. All he’s saying is that, if it was AQ that did the deed, then the government that got Spain squarely into AQ’s sights, despite the fact that the majority of the population was opposed to supporting the US in its ‘war on terror’, the ‘blame’ would naturally fall on the Spanish government. How you guys are translating that into “the government blew up the trains” is totally beyond me.

The point is that it seems to be confusion over what is actually the cause of the death. Rather than stand up and say “More evidence that these bomb flinging freaks need to be wiped from the face of the earth,” Spanish people are saying, "We should just keep our heads down, that way they won’t bomb us. Those who have a different policy, of actually fighting terrorism, or supporting the U.S., are the one’s really responsible for killing the civilians (hence calling the Spanish leadership “murderers”).

Ahem… SlyFrog, maybe it is because you are new around here, but the evidence discussed before shows that Iraq was not part of the attacks to the continental US, The reality that Osama’s minions are present NOW in Iraq looks to me now like an unnecessary second front opened when we still needed to take care of the organizers of 9/11

This has nothing to do with the question. I think it is the point you thought I would raise, instead of the one I did. I did not say I was in favor of the war on Iraq, or that I thought Al-Qaeda had any connection with Iraq.

Europeans aren’t pussies… its american foreign policy made by assholes that went wrong. Take down Bush and then try again. The world would follow if the US would lead instead of bullying.

I have a suspicion that what Europeans are truly upset with is the thought that they themselves could be targetted. They are afraid. The hatred of Bush is actually the hatred of a policy that does not involve making weak responses, paying lip service to fighting terrorism but actually accepting the status quo and a certain amount of civilian death.

I have a feeling that Europeans are like abused children; they hope that by not making too much noise, they won’t get smacked around again. When another sibling stands up for himself and risks retribution, Europe plays the, “Just keep quiet so we don’t get beaten again,” and blames the sibling.

I’m just wondering why something the Spanish are doing, even if we accept the dubious premise that it’s a cowardly act, tars an entire continent with the label of “pussies”?

That’s a fair point, the title was exageration. I’ll be honest and admit that I’m willing to bet that most other Europeans would have the same gut reaction if it happened in their country though.

[casdave]

Sure we’re all pussies, all of Europe, yeah course we are!!

Europe, of course, is a smallish town, probably about 40 miles across, hell, you drive more than that just to get to your back garden gate.

Perhaps Spanish voters still have not been convinced yet of the reasons that the US provided for going to war, and yet they get to pay the price of those US intelligence failures.

Maybe if you had disagreed with your government, watched them step in tune to a song about a big lie from a large powerful nation that you don’t truly trust, well maybe you’d want to hold your leaders accountable now that the inevitable Al Qaeda reaction has killed so many of your countrymen.

We in the UK half expected some sort of incident even before these terrible events, now we are pretty near certain that it is not a case of if something happens, so much as when and of what magnitude.

Now accepting casualties is something we in Europe have learned over the past century, but its not the scale casualties that matters ultimately,what counts is what those people died for, and to most of us over here those people died because their country was led into war by a foreign power on flimsy and non existant evidence.

We don’t particulary want to die, but it makes it a whole lot more acceptable if the cause is just, and fighting and dying for US control over Iraqi oilfields simply does not fall under that remit.

[Hollbid]

@Avenger

Why would they have to have ‘interests’ in Iraq.

Don’t know Avenger - I didn’t make that statement (see above).

Al Quaida has released plenty of statements condemning the action in Iraq.

Why? On grounds of morality?

Aznar, against the wishes of the vast majority of his people, was highly visible in support of the action, thus increasing the likelihood of Spain being a target for future terrorist attacks, which have now occured.

What’s not to understand?

Which means what? That whenever there is an action that might put you on the wrong side of Al Queda that action should be avoided? Just what are you saying?

[Avenger]

Don’t know Avenger - I didn’t make that statement (see above).

No, really, you did!

Why? On grounds of morality?

No, on the grounds of it killing thousands of Muslims. Surely to God you don’t want a cite for Al Quaida not being in favour of the invasion of Iraq??

Which means what? That whenever there is an action that might put you on the wrong side of Al Queda that action should be avoided? Just what are you saying?

I’m saying that the Spanish people, in common I believe with the majority of the World thought that the action in Iraq was (a) wrong (b) ill-thought out © illegal and (d) would increase the likelihood of terror attacks rather than decrease it as Aznar, Bush and Blair claimed (some of the time when they weren’t peddling various other lies). Having seen themselves comprehensively proved correct on all points, the Spanish people have given Aznar the boot.

Now what are you saying? That we invaded Iraq to piss off Al Quaida. Even Rumsfeld hasn’t tried that one yet! That you think that we should be doing things to increase the likelihood of terror attacks?

[casdave]

Consent is what it is all about, and many people in Europe think their countires were taken to war without their consent, for the whim of a stupid US government that is incapable of telling the truth.

We hold out leaders to account and they will pay for their impudence, they did not have overwhelming support, many were vigorously against the war based upon the lies that have become self evident.

This is called democracy.

Governments must act with our consent, particularly when it comes to organised killing.

Unlike the US, most European nations have a long long history of dealing with terrorism, much longer than the US, but we were able to sustain that fight because it had the consent of the people.

The US has come to international terrorism within its own borders very late, indeed it has often been an exporter of terrorism and it comes a bit rich to find someone from over there telling us how to deal with this when what has happened has been largely a result of US foreign policy.

You have earned a certain amount of contempt from this quarter.

[Milum]

If, in fact, the Spanish people voted in fear of future attacks by the baby killers of
Al Queda, or, if they voted against their current government for incurring the wrath of Al Queda by supporting the Americans in the war against Islamic terrorism, then they are, in fact, effete cowards.

And if that is the case and if we agree that Spaniards are Europeans, then it can then be properly said that some Europeans are, in fact,…pussies.

[Tabby_Cat]

A question, then. What should the response have been to a terrorist attack on your country’s soil? I suppose the essential question is, should we negotiate with terrorists?

If terrorism can achieve the aim of cowing a populance… <insert cliche here>

Should the signal be sent that bombing the country of whichever govt is opposed to your aims (achieved by murder, no less) helps to get that govt out?

How long before no govt is willing to fight AQ, if AQ can just bomb their country and get them voted out of power?

(Note that I am not questioning the motives behind the war in Iraq, because the motivating factor behind the bombing seems to be “pissing of AQ”, and I assume that attempting to dismantle AQ would piss them off even more than having a war in Iraq.)

[Hollbid]

@Avenger

No, really, you did!

Oh no, I really didn’t Avenger, unless of course you’d rather spin than read what I posted.

No, on the grounds of it killing thousands of Muslims. Surely to God you don’t want a cite for Al Quaida not being in favour of the invasion of Iraq??

Why Avenger, Al Queda doesn’t kill Muslims, in cold blood and without compunction. Surely to god you don’t need a cite for that?

Now what are you saying? That we invaded Iraq to piss off Al Quaida. Even Rumsfeld hasn’t tried that one yet! That you think that we should be doing things to increase the likelihood of terror attacks?

No, none of that Avenger - and it’s beyond me to figure out how do you get any of that from my posts? I am saying that Al Queda is an organization that cares not a wit about your welfare or mine and in fact will simply kill you, your mother, your kids, and your dog if and when they decide it serves their purposes. I’m saying that some here appear to be looking out of the wrong end of the telescope when it comes to an organzation like Al Queda.

You appear right about one thing Avenger, the world is too small to run from any group like that.

[Rashak_Mani]

@Milum

If, in fact, the Spanish people voted in fear of future attacks by the baby killers of
Al Queda, or, if they voted against their current government for incurring the wrath of Al Queda by supporting the Americans in the war against Islamic terrorism, then they are, in fact, effete cowards.

Why should spaniards stick their neck out to help Bush and the US ? Are they cowards because they never wanted to be among the "willing" ?

[SlyFrog]

@Rashak Mani

Why should spaniards stick their neck out to help Bush and the US ? Are they cowards because they never wanted to be among the “willing” ?

They shouldn’t have to, but then they need to get the hell out of the way and stop whining when the U.S. takes action without them.

[Gorsnak]

So I presume the OP and those that agree with him think that Americans are pussies because they voted for Reagan over Carter in '80?

[furt]

@Avenger

Now what are you saying? That we invaded Iraq to piss off Al Quaida. Even Rumsfeld hasn’t tried that one yet!

In Iraq moreover we’re dealing not just with regime remnants but also with tens of thousands of criminals that were released from the jails by the regime before it fell, as well as terrorists and foreign fighters who have entered the country over the borders to try to oppose the Coalition. They pose a challenge to be sure but they also pose an opportunity because Coalition forces can deal with the terrorists now in Iraq instead of having to deal with those terrorists elsewhere, including the United States.

[Rashak_Mani]

@Tabby_Cat

How long before no govt is willing to fight AQ, if AQ can just bomb their country and get them voted out of power?

 IRA, ETA and other european terrorists after killing hundreds never got what they asked for. So europeans aren't prone to "negotiating" with terrorists. So if they didn't give in before its not a problem of having resolve for sure. They have endured terrorism before and without whining.

So the problem is not that AQ can bomb and get governments outvoted from power… the problem is that these governments engaged into something their people were never in favor. There was no resolve to be part of the “coalition of the willing” and invading at whim countries.

Then a few american assholes call "europeans" pussies while the europeans have been fighting terrorism way longer than sheltered americans and apparently with more sucess until AQ was given a propaganda boost by Bush. Its very easy to call other cowards when your country is stirring up hornet's nest everywhere and hiding behind xenophobic imigration barriers and trillions of dollars of military hardware.

 Aznar was in front of the polls because he was willing to engage strongly ETA. Spaniards don't accept ETA and have endured much. His party lost because he was foolhardy in engaging with anti-terrorism externally with Bush. So obviously once more the US isn't winning minds and hearts of Spaniards nor of Iraqis.

[Mehitabel]

I feel sorry for the Spaniards, especially the ones who genuinely felt before the blast that Aznar had made a mistake for which his party should pay, but they have now removed themselves from the world stage in a major way. They basically did exactly what Al Qaeda wanted–punished the man who sent troops against Saddam (after the Yanks did the actual invading, of course).

I will be interested to see what the Socialist policy is towards terrorism. Maybe they’re not the candy-asses we’re painting them as. Maybe they’ll take a different, understated role in fighting terrorism using their Muslim citizens as intelligence.

I hope so. Otherwise one of the world’s great democracies (not that they’ve been one for long) has let the terrorists win today. It’s not about Bush, it’s about standing up against fear.

[rjung]

Does anyone have anything resembling a cite to support the assertion that the vote against Aznar was, in fact, done out of “cowardice”? A survey of Spain’s voters, perhaps?

If not, pehaps the simplest explaination was that the people of Spain were already pissed off at Aznar et al, and last week’s bombings was simply the straw that broke the camel’s back.

[Rashak_Mani]

@SlyFrog

They shouldn’t have to, but then they need to get the hell out of the way and stop whining when the U.S. takes action without them.

So your either against USA or against AQ ? Letting the US roll over international laws and become a mighty dictator is no option either. I would have prefered that everyone had sticked their necks out together and therefore not give AQ easy single targets.

AQ and Bush might not care about civilian casualties... but AQ sure knows when to attack. Shock and Awe Bin Laden style. The same can't be said about the USA.

[SlyFrog]

@Rashak Mani

IRA, ETA and other european terrorists after killing hundreds never got what they asked for. So europeans aren’t prone to “negotiating” with terrorists. So if they didn’t give in before its not a problem of having resolve for sure. They have endured terrorism before and without whining.

Yeah, the IRA definitely didn’t get what it wanted.

So the problem is not that AQ can bomb and get governments outvoted from power… the problem is that these governments engaged into something their people were never in favor. There was no resolve to be part of the “coalition of the willing” and invading at whim countries.

Right, it wasn’t the bombings, it was that the people were not in favor, which is why Aznar was behind in the polls prior to the bombings. Oh wait, he was leading.

Then a few american assholes call “europeans” pussies while the europeans have been fighting terrorism way longer than sheltered americans and apparently with more sucess until AQ was given a propaganda boost by Bush. Its very easy to call other cowards when your country is stirring up hornet’s nest everywhere and hiding behind xenophobic imigration barriers and trillions of dollars of military hardware.

Yep, Europeans have definitely done a sweet job in fighting terrorism. Thank god it’s gone now.

[SlyFrog]

@rjung

Does anyone have anything resembling a cite to support the assertion that the vote against Aznar was, in fact, done out of “cowardice”? A survey of Spain’s voters, perhaps?

Drop the cite game, it only works against neophytes. If you need me to cite to the numerous stories of Spaniards screaming at Aznar and calling him a “murderer,” I can do so, or you can load up msnbc.com, the New York times, or numerous other current event media. The original post did not make the claim that every last vote against Aznar was due to “cowardice,” but it is a nice strawman.

[Tabby_Cat]

@SlyFrog

Yep, Europeans have definitely done a sweet job in fighting terrorism. Thank god it’s gone now.

Interestingly enough, are there any examples of Europe fighting a war (Isreal style, perhaps?) against terrorism, as opposed to giving in? I can think of several counter examples, though. IRA, Fenian uprising, WWII…

WRT the ETA, http://www.ict.org.il/spotlight/det.cfm?id=358 says that

However, the majority of the Basque population is not really in favor of full independence, and ETA thus represents only a small minority of Basques. The organization’s base membership is believed to be relatively small–possibly no more than 20 hard core activists.

Perhaps Spain never gave in to ETA demands because they were too small a group, unlike the IRA, which had real power. One wonders how Spain manages to keep fighting with a small group of 20 for what, 6 years? And not manage to kill or capture them? Sheesh.

[Rashak_Mani]

@SlyFrog

Right, it wasn’t the bombings, it was that the people were not in favor, which is why Aznar was behind in the polls prior to the bombings. Oh wait, he was leading.

If your going to respond to my posts… do make sure you respond to them completely. I did point out that Aznar was leading because he was strongly engaging ETA and other factors. Its easy to disregard what your country does abroad until something horrible hits back… at least the spaniards understood the message well… whilst americans only lashed back blindly.

As for terrorism it will never go away… but it can be kept low. Europe did set the stage for Arabic terrorism… but the US keeps putting the fuel and the fire.