We’re hiding behind our military hardware?
Hmm…I’ve never before looked at people with guns as hiding behind them. Interesting concept.
Erm, forgive me if I misunderstand you, but supporting something / implicitly allowing something to happen, only to turn tail if you get smacked… ermm…
Pussy?
I have very mixed feelings about this. On one hand I think that Aznar was wrong to go against 90% of his population in supporting the war. I know part of true leadership is that a leader doesn’t always follow the polls and do what’s popular and politically expedient; but insteads tries to use the ‘bully pulpit’ of high office to convince the public of the need for a change of views. Aznar had a year to convince the Spaniards that an alliance with the United States was necessary and the Spanish public was just not convinced.
I have said all along that these so-called “willing” coalition partnerships will eventually cost the United States dearly, because the populations of these countries feel dragged along by us. Our relationships with Germany and even France seem to be on the mend - but we can expect years of antipathy from Spain, Italy, and maybe the UK and Australia.
On the other hand, I find it disturbing that an election was potentially swayed by terrorists. I am very much afraid that other countries will be targeted, including those that supported the overthrow of the Taliban - and are assisting in the reconstruction of Iraq. And what next? Will we soon see tapes by Al-Qaida saying to various European countries “cut relations with Israel or you’ll get bombed”? I think tensions toward Muslims will also just get worse.
I hope to see that the new Spanish government prosecutes and forcefully retaliates against those responsible in a way that leaves no doubt that their nation, or any European nation, was blackmailed into changing governments - and that this election means that Spain’s people instead took a new course in their fight against terrorism - which dates before 9-11 or even Al-Qaida.
Aznar’s party was way, way ahead before 3/11; that does not mean cowardice, but it seems pretty apparent that the bombing changed everyone’s mind.
If you didn’t have so many weapons you would have to engage with other countries properly and you wouldn’t be so militant about fighting terrorism. I call that hiding. The “guns” are a barrier.
Spaniards were not supporting Aznars position on Iraq. They were more worried about internal politics until the trains blew up. So they didn’t turn tail since they never were headed that way. (voters perspective)
Perhaps, but Aznar was “winning by a landslide” before, so if there was any opposition, it wasn’t that significant to begin with. Again, if getting smacked causes you to change your mind, I’d call that pussy. Or, if you prefer, “willing to accomodate arm twisting”.
I guess the important part is what happens afterwards, if Spain will continue to support “the war on terrorism”. It’s quite sad, though, that Iraq was chosen as a battleground… The situation would be clearer had the coalition pissed off AQ on a more legitimate war. In addition to being generally more useful, of course.
What will Kerry do?
I’m a little curious about this assertion that the IRA has been given in to. Last I checked Northern Ireland was still part of the UK, which seems evidence against such an assertion. Now there are several people on this board who are far more intimately knowledgeable about the troubles in Northern Ireland, but to my outsider’s view it’s always seemed like the lurching, halting, but still progressing steps towards peace there have been precisely the way to fight terrorism - address whatever legitimate grievances exist that give rise to illegitimate responses. How else one would successfully go about fighting terrorism I’ve no idea, since in the absence of addressing the root problem one will never run out of terrorists to fight, and hence never “win”.
According to the report posted at Yahoo earlier today, the Socialists were at 37 percent prior to the bombings and won the election with 43 percent. 6 percent of the Spanish voting public changed their minds. That’s hardly a massive shift, and I would go so far as to say that some people seem to be reading more into this election than is really there.
Yes! They understood the message and capitulated to it! I wonder how many more innocent people are going to be killed in terrorist attacks due to the encouraging results of their use in Spain.
I learned in junior high school that there are bullies in the world, people who are just plain mean, and trying to appease them or stay under their radar only encourages, and results in, more aggression. The only way to deal with them effectively is to stand up to them (what you call lashing out).
I get so tired of this type of U.S. bashing! Those who accuse the U.S. of imperialism or dictatorship are ignoring history. Unlike almost all of the countries who are currently being held up to us as sterling examples of civilized restraint, i.e. Europeans, we have never conquered any country with the aim of seizing its land or resources, we have never installed a colonial government anywhere, and when attacked by countries we ultimately defeated, we not only did not take over these countries but helped them to rebuild. We also helped our allies rebuild; some of whom (are you listening, France) subsequently told us to stuff their war debt, they weren’t gonna pay.
This country has spent more of its resources and and more of its own people’s lives trying to ensure that as much of the world as possible can live in freedom than any other country in the world, not to mention the billions of dollars in assistance we provide on such a routine basis that it’s hardly even discussed anymore. And while our largesse is sometimes in our own self-interest, it is often in the interest also of promoting freedom and a better life for the recipients of it.
[hijack]
There is NI, and there is Ireland. Sovereign.
Also, NI has it’s own Executive.
[/hijack]
That is an assumption on the motivation of the Spanish people. It is only natural and right to demand from the government to reveal who is behind the attacks. And it is also perfectly ok to vote for the other guy, if it strikes the fancy of the population. I don’t quite get how the democratic process makes people cowards or unreliable.
Bolding mine.
Eh, this is nothing but a ‘democratic’ expression of the old appeasment mentality that Europe is no stranger to. Sort of pathetic, especially when you consider that electing socialists is going to damage Spain in more ways than one.
[QUOTE=Starving Artist]
I get so tired of this type of U.S. bashing! Those who accuse the U.S. of imperialism or dictatorship are ignoring history. Unlike almost all of the countries who are currently being held up to us as sterling examples of civilized restraint, i.e. Europeans, we have never conquered any country with the aim of seizing its land or resources, we have never installed a colonial government anywhere…QUOTE]
Um what was the Philippines then?
Look, I am mostly with you here, we never had a regime as brutal as the Belgian Congo, French Algeria, or German Namibia … plus we had plenty of land on this continent to not need overseas colonies. I would say that most of the nasty things Europe (mainly France) accuses America of are done by them to some degree too. If Nuclear testing in the South Pacific and blowing the Rainbow Warrior up isn’t unilateralist, then what is?
Also, what is the Spanish Socialist’s stand on Iraq as of now. Are they going to pull out Spanish personel in Iraq?
I saw this bully analogy before... and it seems quite clearly that becoming the new Bully is hardly the way to solve another Bully ! Seen from the Arabic perspective AQ is standing up to the US bully and Spain was his sidekick.
Like Tabby said… it was unfortunate that Iraq was chosen as the playing field when it wasn’t relevant to terrorism. (or not enough to warrant any invasion).
Something the “pussy” screamers seem to forget is that the Spaniards were against Bush and against Iraq. They were never in favor and even after their troops were deployed they were heavily against it. If you step away from something you never supported how can you be a pussy ? When you call people pussy aren’t you playing the Bully ?
Brutus, could you please explain how your cite demonstrates ‘cowardice’? Seems to show anger, to me.
And allowing yourself to be dragged into a fight that is not yours in order to please the current superpower is totally different from appeasement?
Can you enlighten me as to how it is the U.S. is viewed as a bully in the eyes of the Arabic world? (I’m serious here. Other than the fact that we’re keeping Israel from being demolished, what else?)
I would point out that I never called anyone a pussy. However, since you asked, I would say that walking up to someone minding their own business and calling them a pussy would be playing the bully. Critisizing someone for capitulating to a bully’s attack, or threat thereof, would not be the same thing.
Strong, courageous people respond to attacks with strength, not capitulation. I would think that having an outside entity (AQ) killing and maiming its own citizens, in an attempt to bring about governmental change not created internally by Spain’s own populace, would inspire outrage and a determination not to let outsiders bullly them into doing what they – the outside entity – wants them to do. But that isn’t what happened. Only outrage at the government that put them in AQ’s crosshairs.
I won’t use the term “pussies,” mainly because it only creates a deflection from the main issue, but it certainly isn’t a very courageous response, and it’s likely to result in even more terrorist attacks because it’s giving the terrorists a positive result to the use of their tactics…tactics borne of powerlessless and an inability to take on their opponents face-to-face.
Why should they be determined ? Is it so clear than Spaniards should be supporting the invasion of Iraq ? (Since its nothing to do with fighting terrorism).
I agree that ideally people shouldn't let in to terrorists... but then they never supported Aznar's actions in Iraq. AQ got what they wanted. That is sad of course, but supporting Aznar as a means of defying AQ would just mean supporting the Iraq invasion. Voters made their opinion heard this time. They would rather cede to terrorists than to Bush...To hijack my own OP for a minute, I have always had this very same question. How can people anywhere in the world look at the U.S. as the “Great Satan,” or worse than Al Qaeda? If U.S. Christian fundamentalists, for example, let alone our government, were to use Al Qaeda’s methods with access to U.S. technology, the Middle East would be a sea of glass. We have nuclear weapons. We don’t use them. Does anyone think that the Middle Eastern fundamentalists, let alone terrorists, would hold back with the weapons they have available in any way?
It is simply illogical to me. I cannot imagine how I could live in the Middle East, understand the weaponry and power the U.S. has, and truly think that the U.S. has it in for me or “wants to take my oil.” If the U.S. wanted to take Middle Eastern oil, it could simply wait 50 years until the radioactivity from the nuclear strikes cool off and drill through the glass. Of course it would not have to go nuclear; it could easily level entire cities through conventional weapons alone. Yet it does not. Strange that the “Great Satan” who engages in a “crusade against the muslim people” chooses not to actually use its weapons, even when it has an overwhelming advantage. If the Christian crusader Bush were really the equivalent of Bin Laden, Mecca and the top five list of Islamic holy cities (save maybe Jerusalem would not exist anymore. Yet this has not happened.
Incidentally, I am aware that the “pussies” topic header is incendiary. It’s the sizzle that sells the steak. Throw in another word (craven, cowardly, appeasers, etc.) if it offends you; I have to put asses in the seats somehow.