When you can show me that your question is rooted in some sort of reality, we’ll have something to debate. Do you have an exit poll somewhere that shows that the reason Aznar lost is that they considered him culpable in the bombing of the trains? If not, there’s nothing here, other than your fact-free diatribe.
I don’t think there was existing evidence that Spaniards were felines, nor is the fact that they participate in democratic elections “further” evidence that they are felines.
I do think that several million people living in Spain may be more qualified to make a decision about what they want to do with their country better than you can having watched a report on what the election “means,” probably on Faux News.
Any post insulting an entire nation should be in the pit and/or locked. As worded, it is not a Great Debate. It’s a childish insult.
That was not simply in response to this bombing. The Spanish have been calling Aznar a murderer for Spanish participation in Iraq. See:thi for example:
Maybe RedFury might clarify but I believe that “murderer” might be in reference to participating in a war which resulted in Iraqi civilians being killed.
PS Condolences to RedFury and his countrymen.
Suuuure, more than quickly to drop that; just as soon as you drop the Spaniards are cowards and Europeans are pussies. :rolleyes:
One might also be mindful that many of us regard it as a focus of deep and sincere veneration.
Look, SlyFrog, have you ever heard of the phrase “I (we) told you so”? Because that’s precisely what happened in today’s elections.
Spain simply reminded Aznar that he was directly reponsible for getting us involved in an unjustifiable invasion for all the wrong reasons. That the fallout from said invasion brought about this catastrophe is not what most Spaniards considered a surprise, but rather a matter of ‘if’ and not ‘when’ – regardless of how stunned we were by the ‘when.’ And since we are on the record for saying so to the tune of ninety fuckin’ percent, why would anyone find it odd that we’re now saying “we told you so, you nitwit”?
Wich brings us somewhat back to the invasion itself. IOW, who, if not Aznar and his PP, is responsible for bringing Islamist extremist into our homes? Which, again, was exactly the warning they failed to heed prior to the fabricated-by-the-US, Iraq invasion.
So much for “making the world safer” tripe.
May want to have the following proverb translated if you don’t speak Spanish:
Cuando las barbas de tu vecino veas mojar, pon las tuyas a remojar.
Under different circumstances, I’d offer to do it myself but I’ll refer you back to your OP:
So there you are cowboy, go it alone.
I’d be remiss in my manners of I didn’t offer a sincere ‘gracias’ to all of you that have been so gracious in this time of national turmoil.
So thank you almost all.
We did our share, now it’s up to you. Send the cowboy back to the bushes.
It is with great morbid curiosity I await the White House “spin” on this.
Nitpick: The US assigned Rhee to run South Korea, while Vietnam got stuck with Diep.
Carry on.
Are you kidding me? People around here always welcome new posters - who have naturally got a low post count - with open arms. It’s when an OP like this rolls around by a poster with a low post count that naturally the “ability” gets questioned. Right now my assessment of your posts in this thread is that you like to put words into peoples mouth, misinterpretating their intentions and then getting all worked up over it. Future posts of yours may or may not dispel that notion.
It’s amazing that you still believe this pit material would be appropriate for discussion in GD.
Be that as it may, I’ll come back to your OP, before you complain about me not touching your great debate.
-
You wondered how a question could be a lie. If you really don’t understand it (it is still debateable whether that’s a matter of ability as you have asserted or whether this is your tactic to misunderstand what people are saying), I’ll clear it up from my perspective. Of course the question itself wasn’t the lie. What was referred to as a lie is your statement “punishment vote”. That is your interpretation and your interpretation alone: If you want to convince other people that this is a “punishment vote”, you better provide some proof.
As for the question: It would have been better, if the USA had acted unilaterally, as a coalition of the willing just polarizes the world stronger. If the USA had acted alone and would be rightfully called on breaking the rules alone, this would have been better, as the wedge this whole mess (referring to post 9/11 wars, incisions on personal freedom and Bush’s “If you’re not with us, you’re against us” claim.) drove between Europe wouldn’t be there. -
You ask how an opinion can be a lie? You yourself set this up as a GREAT DEBATE. If you want to show off your opinion, you should do this in “mpsims”, “imho” or “the pit”. Furthermore your opinion is again an inaccurate representation of what’s going on in Spain and as such either uninformed or a lie, imho ymmv. That depends on your intention. You claimed that it wasn’t a lie, so I have to reach another conclusion.
-
Like #2 this isn’t even a question, yet you call people on sticking to the OP and answering your questions. It seems that you presented your opinion and would like to hear other opinions on this. That is legitimate to do, but certainly GD is NOT the place for this.
A number of stories on this bombing were featured in the daily news roundup from the Information Clearing house. You can subscribe to their daily newsletter by going to [http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/](WEB SITE: [url) ]Link
Videotape Claims Al-Qaeda Behind Madrid Bombings:
Spain’s government announced it received a videotape claiming to be from al-Qaeda that said the terrorist group was behind the Madrid bombings http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000085&sid=aXFI_r0vEd_g&refer=europe
===
Norwegian researchers find possible al-Qaida link in Madrid attack :
Norwegian researchers have found documents that could link the al-Qaida network to terror bombings that killed 200 people in Madrid, Spain. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/03/13/international0654EST0467.DTL
===
‘Bush’s failed war on terror comes to Spain’:
THE chilling pictures from Madrid tell us one stark and terrible truth. President Bush’s War against Terror in Iraq has become an Age of Terror - where the innocent Madrid or London train commuter is just as much at risk as the battlefield soldier. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/content_objectid=14047196_method=full_siteid=50143_headline=-THE-CHILLING-NEW-EVIL-IN-OUR-MIDST-name_page.html
===
Bombings have effects on Spanish elections:
Protesters shouted “murderer” at the ruling party candidate as he cast his ballot. http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/2448844
===
Al-Qaida Claim for Thursday’s Terror Bombings Overshadow Spanish Election:
The Madrid bombs were in retaliation for Spain’s cooperation with what he called “the Bush criminals” and their actions in Afghanistan and Iraq. He threatened more such attacks. http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=65F906C5-B9BF-4516-924541BB21D6722B
===
Spanish embassies were ordered to blame ETA:
Is government leader Aznar ordering a one-sided investigation because of Sunday’s elections? According to [Spanish newspaper] El Pais the Spanish cabinet is set on putting responsibility for the attacks of 11 March with ETA. Spain’s embassies have been chosen to spread the ETA theory. http://informationclearinghouse.info/article5849.htm
===
Spain Announces Five Arrests in Bombings:
Spain’s interior minister Saturday announced the arrest of five suspects in the Madrid bombings, including three Moroccans. . The other two suspects had Indian passports, a ministry spokesman said. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/spain_bombings_arrests
And so this thread goes the way of so many others, with mutual imcomprehension across the pond. I have not seen many non-US supporters of the OP.
BTW SlyFrog I have yet to understand what ***exactly * ** is wrong with the argument you cite below…
Simplistic but pretty accurate, apart from the lack of reference to other lying leaders.
Oh and from a non-European anti-terrorist perspective if people think the IRA have got what they wanted from the Good Friday Agreement they really do not know what they are talking about. Whoever it was who cited that NI have their own Executive as supportive evidence of same, well the same applies. It is currently suspended. By the unilateral decision of the UK government.
Now if you want to look at the text book method of successfully fighting and defeating terrorism how about checking out the Malayan Emergency?
http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2003/may/01/opinion/20030501opi5.html
an effort in which my great-Uncle gave his life.
Did appeasement prevent the second world war? Did appeasement stop any and all of Hitler’s ambitions, satisfying him with what he got therefrom? Al Qaeda will not stop at this. They will keep killing. Now they know that they can get everything they want simply by killing people in Europe. Spain has proven that to them.
And invading Iraq helps defeat Al Qaeda how…? Furthermore, do you really think they give a shit about whether the socialists are in government or not?
Dogface - I think you are totally wrong. You simply cannot compare AG with any nation state which can be defeated conventionally. The US is losing the War because it is losing the War politically - which is where it will be won and lost.
You can kill as many terrorists, and unseat as many hostile states as you wish that may or may not have some link with terrorism and you will be not one inch nearer victory. Look at Israel for heavens sake!
Until you truely understand yourself and your enemy and identify, understand and engage with the real issues that are driving them to do what they are they you are wasting your time, and making the world a far more dangerous place meanwhile. As the Spanish have just found out…
To react as you wish, redoubling your efforts in the wrong direction, you are actually helping create a geopolitical environment that is ***exactly * ** what AQ wish for.
You just don’t get it do you?
Hey I’m against appeasement too… and Aznar was a Bush appeaser. Down with the Appeasers ! Iraq was not about terrorism. Spaniards didn’t help AQ… they stepped away from global US heavy handed smokescreen.
Lets fight Terrorism not Iraq.
Lets fight the reasons for Terrorism not just kill terrorists.
Lets take down Bush and get Kerry to lead a truly universal fight against Al Qaeda.
Lets have a US government that cares about economics and diplomacy too.
What appeasement? AFAIK France and the UK declared war on Germany when it invaded Poland.
That aside, what does world war II have to do with terrorism today?
To the OP again:
Certainly terrorism must be fought, but the methods are open for debate: Attacking democratic nations for holding a democratic election and insinuating that they are catering to terrorists with that is something I find highly debateable.
On a similar note I started to develop a dislike for George W. Bush because of the actions he took and people told me “to get over it” as he was elected. Tough luck. That’s the case here: Sometimes you don’t get what you wish for in a democracy, tough luck, get over it.
Actually, in the OP text I see only one actual question, the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs being merely expressions of opinions.
Well, the strict answer to this, granting the premise, is if the US Government really wants what it wants to get done, and also done when it wants and how it wants, no questions asked, no objections raised, then damn patootin’ YES. “Ya want something done, do it yourself.” Allies are not vassals, they reserve the right to say how far they’ll go along with us or when they’ve had enough. If we want other countries on our side, then we have to accommodate them, and accept that when something we do no longer suits their interest, there is no obligation on their part to continue supporting it. I don’t see what’s so goshdurn offensive about this notion. I’d rather have allies who I know are with us only up to X point but who are honestly committed to support us to X point, and then handle Y and Z myself, than expect to drag them kicking and screaming to Y and Z because “it’s the right thing”.
Which however has jack to do with the offensively phrased thread-title conclusion.
Red Fury, vaya a usted nuestro apoyo y solidaridad en estos momentos.
Shouldn’t there be some kind of axiom (like Godwin) made regarding statements invoking the US liberating France during WWII? I’m getting so incredibly tired of having that dragged into every debate.
As for the OP, he’s quite a little pony, ain’t he? Constantly refusing to answer direct questions, twisting around his own words, changing the rules. It’s smack in the middle of March but I’m getting flashbacks to the last month of the year. There is a word for this type of people.
Sorry to correct you... but France and UK let Hitler get Austria, Czechslovakia and the Sudetenland. They let him rearm without much protest. They did practice appeasement.
Now what does that have to do with terrorism ? Nothing... Bushites just love to associate that term with people who are not willing to invade and bomb recklessly.