Spanish elections: Further evidence that Europeans are pussies?

Great Debates
101

France and the UK did not lift a finger when Hitler invaded and annexed Austria. It was believed that permitting him to do this would “appease” him–he’d be satisfied. Then he demanded Czechoslovakian territory. France and the UK decided that allowing him to take whatever territory within Czechoslovakia that he wanted would “appease” him. He would be satisfied with the concession and not demand more.

Appeasement only leads to more demands. Caving in to one bombing will lead to more bombing. Al Qaeda now knows for certain that they can get European countries to do whatever they want. They’re not like Americans, who actually get angry if attacked. Europeans roll over and appease.

102

The initial stages of German annexion were tolerated, but as a result France and the UK gave Hitler an ultimatum and said that they would declare war, if Germany would attack Poland. This is certainly not a policy of appeasement.

Besides, ultimately they declared war on Germany, whereas the USA did not. So in WWII times, the one nation that followed a policy of appeasement, even when UK and France were already at war with Germany, was the USA. So, I’d be very careful to accuse Europeans of appeasing.

103

What an absolutely idiotic claim. What SPECIFIC demands did Germany make that the USA but not France and the UK gave in to?

Give SPECIFICS of this appeasement? Let me guess–you consider Belgium to have appeased Germany, too, since Belgium didn’t declare war on Germany but was instead invaded and conquered as a violated neutral.

104

Rather than just repeat your previous, why not address some of the counter-arguments put up against your position. After all is that not debate? Maybe ***America getting angry ** * is not proving the masterful foreign policy strategy once thought by some?

Maybe they could try getting smart instead.

You are still not addressing the alternative theory, which I see some merit in, that is was rather the attempted deception of the incubant government that “it could only be ETA” that backfired. This would suggest properly fuctioning democracies do not like being misled or lied to by their governments.

Now, that might be making Tony Blair shake in his boots but I doubt it. And extrapolating one Spanish election result to the contention that Al Qaeda now knows for certain that they can get European countries to do whatever they want is simply intellectually lazy. On what evidence do you rely upon?

105

Eh? That’s a matter of scope: Germany pretty much rolled over France, so of course pursuing a diplomatic solution at first is better than to attack a foe that is your equal or even superior. STILL France and the UK declared war on Germany back then while the USA remained neutral.

When faced with equal threats (cold war soviet Union) the USA is wise enough to follow diplomacy as well (those damn appeasers! They should have started a nuclear war instead, maybe?).

The US government is smart enough to pick their battles, I’ll give you that. But don’t kid yourself into believing that stomping some backwater desert nation without provocation is a sign of bravery or resolve against terrorism. Ironically enough Saddam tried to appease the USA by following the demands like allowing weapons inspectors back into the country, yet it didn’t help because Bush attacked anyway. That lends weight to your assertion that appeasement only leads to more demands.

However, your conclusion is wrong: Europeans have proven time and time again that they fight even when the odds are against them.

As for terrorists: Newsflash, even if the vote in Spain had turned out otherwise, the terrorists wouldn’t have stopped bombing. What does that say about the election then?

106

I thought that is your idea of appeasement: If you don’t immediately attack other nations for their transgression, then you’re appeaser. What exactly do you mean by appeasement then?

107

So why is Bush appeasing Al Qaeda by withdrawing 5,000 troops from Saudi Arabia? According to your screwy logic, since US withdrawal from Saudi Arabia is one of Al Qaeda’a primary goals, and Bush has indeed withdrawn troops, it is proof that Bush is appeasing Al Qaeda and giving in to terrorists. By your logic, the mere fact that the actions of one party (regardless of other reasons) coincide with the goals of another party equates to appeasement. This over-simplistic and fallacious logic that falls apart under rigorous examination, and lends no support to a conclusion that Spain rolled over for anybody.

108

My take on it is this: there are certain facts that have to be stated first

  1. The bombings were obviously timed to affect the outcome of the election
  2. The bombings DID affect the outcome from a PP victory to a PSOE victory
  3. 90 percent of Spaniards were opposed to the Iraq war.

Here are some other points that I believe to be true:

  1. The Iraq war is unique in that it stirs up AQ hatred while offering no real gains in the war against terror in stabalizing Iraq. Honestly we all knew that Saddam had no AQ ties before. AQ is defenitley in Iraq now. We have very little to gain, personally, by winning the war in Iraq. Even more so for spaniards

  2. The PP thought if the terror attacks were caused by ETA then it would have been more advantageous for them. The PP continued to say that ETA was responsible although we now know that it is almost certainly AQ.
    Okay I am a little upset about the outcome of the election. I didn’t really like Aznar too much, and I didn’t really think that Spain ought to be fighting in Iraq (nor did I think the US should, but thats different). But it was obviously transparent, even more so than Blair, IMHO.

It is sad that the attack was obviously designed to change the election outcome and it succeeded. However, what were the options at the end? The Spaniards could choose between a lying PP who said that ETA was responsible and showed no signs of taking responsibilty stating that it could be because of their actions that it occured. They showed no signs of contemplating their previous actions and their affect on terrorism. The PSOE was against the war, and would have probably withdrawn the troops from Iraq anyway. Certainly sooner than the PP would have.

Most of the Spaniards I talk to don’t even know themselves what to think about it. But if I had a chance to vote in Spain I probably would have voted for PSOE as well, because they seemed to be the only ones who weren’t in denial of what happened and what caused it.

So in my opinion, the Spaniards didn’t vote for withdrawal in Iraq, so much as they voted for a sober assesment of why they were attacked and what they should do about it. The truth? Al Queda attacked Spain because they participated in the Iraq war, and they wanted to show that they could influence the outcome of elections. So in essence AQ won? Not exactly.

The question is, what is the logic behind their reasoning?

The truth is that it is a very complicated issue and nobody totally understands what they plan on doing in the future. The demonstrations on Saturday weren’t against the Governments participation in Iraq but against the government’s coverup trying to blame ETA.

It is very scary, however. Zapatero mentions all the right reasons for pulling out of Iraq and didn’t say that its because of the terrorists. He does say that he wants to have a government that will govern for all Spaniards, not just those that voted for him. He is implicitly stating that he would never take Spain to war with 90 percent of the country against him. I suppose what they Spanish have chosen is to have a leader that won’t get them into anything so stupid in the future. I don’t think that they believe that pulling out of Iraq will solve any future problems of terrorism. But I think that a vote for the PSOE was taken as a vote not to take matters of Foreign Relations lightly without accepting the consequences (like terrorist attacks)

But calling Spaniards pussies because they let a terrorist attack convince them to pull out of Iraq? Thats only assuming that fighting in Iraq is actually doing anything to prevent terrorism, which it most likely isn’t. Although its sad to see the Spaniards playing into the terrorists hands, what is the alternative? Doubling efforts in Iraq to prevent another terror attack in Madrid would be the height of stupidity. I will hold my judgement on the Spaniards until we see what happens.

The truth is that its bad enough that there was a terrorist attack before the election. Zapatero needs to come clean with the public and state the obvious. “We were against Iraq, and that’s probably why we were attacked, we are withdrawing from Iraq.” He makes part of the connection (You voted me in to get us out of Iraq) but he lets the connection between the Iraq war and the bombings stay implicit.

My advice to Zapatero and all Spaniards would be to have a serious rethinking about the problem of terrorism and what can be done to fight it. Obviously I think that the people who need this the most are Americans. Obviously fighting a war in Iraq isn’t going to help it at all, but maybe they can start a dialogue that failed states need to be dealt with somehow. Not as in militarily FFS, but as in diplomatically. There needs to be more of a global mandate to get rid of all of the things that breed terrorism. Its not invading these countries, but should probably be something else.

Well this is just my impression.

109

Now I do not know about the USA appeasing - my knowledge suggests not, although their record of trading with facist regimes, and indeed facist rebellions (as per the supply of fuel for Franco’s rebels in the Civil War), in the pre-War years suggests they have not got anything to be proud about in the run up to war either.

But on a specific…

Actually Begium **did ** appease Germany. It held to a strategy of strict neutrality despite all the evidence they had and were given by their allies to the contrary (that it was a busted flush and Germany would invade in any event). The Belgiums wanted to rely upon the guarantee of French and British help if invaded but refused to co-operate in the slightest militarily prior to that event. Not in allow inspections of ground to be occupied on the River Dyle to resist the German invasion, not permitting discussion on integration of plans in the event of invasion, even issuing a formal protest to the British and French governments when the British and French forces finally crossed the border in response to firm intelligence that the Germans had already invaded.

All acts of appeasement on the basis that they did not wish to “provoke” the Germans into invasion - in the by then vain hope that it might somehow not happen.

110

Apparently someone planted those bombs to Get Spain Out of Iraq/Punish Them for Being In Iraq. Spain is now going to leave Iraq.

The tactics/plans/ideas used by the planner of the attack have been vindicated. It has now been demonstrated that violence works. Terror works.

What more is there to say?

111

Why are spanish or any troops in Iraq ? Seems you forgot that ask that question first. Yes AQ made its point… but Aznar losing also made the point that Western Leaders cannot go against 90% of their people. Aznar was wrong and the violence in Iraq he was supporting was wrong too.

Or killing Iraqis is less abhorrent than
112

That democracy works?

Al Qaeda demanded that the US withdraw from Saudi Arabia. Bush withdraws 5,000 troops. Terror works.

113

I could say you have no concept of cause and effect. How about an alternative? Just a scenario, OK, and not my views necessarily…

A government implements a policy that 90% of it’s electorate opposes. But it has sufferred no real consequences and has increased the profile and political clout of Spain on the international stage, it is not the most important issue on the agenda, Spains role is a side-issue, and the economy is doing well. Nobody feels particularly strongly about the election…

(BOOOM!!!)

Holy fuck! What was our government thinking of getting us involved in this shit? For what? Hell and now they are trying to pull the wool over our eyes and tell us it aint AQ, no way, its ETA. We were always against the War in Iraq - and now it is THE most important issue in the election. Let’s chuck this bunch of posturing lying incompetents out…

114

You guys are missing the point.

An action was taken with a desired result. That result was achieved. Thats it.

Dont explain to me the real reasoning behind it, the subtle shades; I allready understand and them and to a certain extent agree.

Its to whomever planted the bomb that you need to explain it.

115

**Voodoochile: **

How about this…A majority of the Europeans who voted Saturday day are indeed pussies!

116

Odd, I thought that the PP had been in pretty dire straights BEFORE the bombings. Is the fact of a terrorist attack enough to make it mandatory to change one’s support of a political party to keep them from feeling like it were thier actions that caused a change of power?

117

I could actually make the opposite argument. The current US doctrine is one of strong military responce to terrorism, fight the terrorists as hard as you can, and ignore any of the underlying political causes of terrorism as that would be “giving in to the terrorist”. I can see this reasoning - give them what they want (or move in that direction) and you encourage more terrorism. Spain followed the US in this policy.

And this is exactly what Al-Qaeda wants! Sure, it has lost its bases in Afganistan, and undoubtedly some of its agents/cells worldwide due to US and allied action. But it gains more than it loses. These policies cause massive discontent among ME nations, lead to even more anti US and pro Al-Qaeda feeling. Noone has only figures on how many people are signing up to Al-Qaeda or affiliated organisations, but i bet its a lot more than they’re losing. These policies are building a massive bedrock of support for Osama, and making a “holy war” between the West and the Muslim world more likely.

Now i’m sure Al-Qaeda, while totally insane, are not stupid. They know this. They welcome all the new recruits our policies are creating. So they see an election coming up in Spain, between Aznar who is a strong support of the US policies on terrorism, and Zapatero who is not. They want Aznar to win. So what do they do? Simple, attack Spain, knowing this will cause an upswing of patriotic feeling, which will likely benefit the incumbent PM. They saw it happen in the US after 9/11 so they can be pretty sure it will happen again. Except the Spanish people are clever, and didn’t fall for it.

I applaud the Spanish for choosing a new leader who will fight more effectively against terrorism, and not do what Al-Qaeda wants. How about i start an OP saying that Americans are stupid because their policies are helping Al-Qaeda and the like? I would never dream of doing so (and i don’t believe Americans are stupid) but it would be just as valid as the OP.

118

I dunno, Fear, maybe if someone else makes the same point, they may be forced to address it.

Osama wants us troops out of Saudi, bombs USA. Bush removes troops, therefore Bush is a wussy. (More to the point than “pussy” and besides, I don’t like “wussy”.)

119

Why?

Every single news source I have read watched have said that the main reason the PP lost is because of perceived political points scoring with regards to who planted the bombs. The PP fucked up in the way it dealt with the aftermath and the people didn’t like it. Add to that a increased turnout of what seems to be mostly disaffected left wingers and you’ve got the election result that happened.

Why are people who don’t want a government to play fast and loose with the facts for political gain after the countries worst terrorist attack pussies?

120

Er, if that is it, so what? As in “I prayed last night the sun would rise again this morning. It rose. The result was achieved. Thats it.” Nothing to do with cause and effect.

However “us guys” posted in response to this:

My bolding.

You postulated that it has been demonstrated that violence works. No it has not. How have we missed the point? Unless you mean that the terrorists will believe that one caused the other irrespective of the evidence or lack of it - well that is not news. It is the nature of fanatics to try and take the credit for anything of which they approve.