What source did you use to determine that this is a “punishment vote”?
Well, if the citizens of Spain were opposed to engaging in the foreign policy venture that has resulted in the invasion of Iraq, and if the citizens of Spain feel that the bombings were a direct result of their unwilling participation in the Coalition of the Willing, then it’s only logical that they see this as a sort of, “I told you so.”
I mean, the Spanish ask themselves the same questions that the American electorate asks, “What’s in it for us?”
Now that we know we aren’t any more safe from Iraqi WMDS than we were before the invasion of Iraq, and now that we know we haven’t been made any safer from an al Qaeda - Hussein aliance than we were before the invasion of Iraq, and now that the USG has given up it’s idea to call for sweeping changein the ME and the Arab world, what is the benfit(s) that will accrue to the US electorate?
Actually, the invasion of Iraq seperated “the people from the leadership.”
The new election brought the leadership back in line with the wishes of the people.
This is noteworthy.
You’ve expressed that even if the “war” is wrong, it must continue.
What would be your justifications for pursuing a war that was “wrong”?
Don’t you realize that the mind-whipping fury of the anti-Bush crowd is so potent on this board that ANY…and I do mean ANY, thread that has a HINT of anything to do with Iraq, WMD, voting, oxygen, water, land masses, pretzels, pale ale, etc. will send these people into a keyboard tapping frenzy that, whether it is or isn’t relevant to the OP…will ONCE AGAIN become the basic logical fiber of their lemming-like post (and every post that they will make on this board UNTIL THE END OF TIME).
So…allow me to spare 85% of you from having to post any more on this thread.
Bush is Satan
Satan lied to us about Iraq
We shouldn’t be fighting Satan’s war
Oh yeah…there was a bombing in Spain and elections and stuff…did I mention Bush is Satan?
God, this board was a lot more fun when Clinton was in the White House.
The converse to Mr. Obvious’ theory seems to be:
1- Terrorism is evil
2- Bush is against terrorism
3- If you are against Bush you are for terrorism
4- Elections that don’t go Bush’s way are victories for terrorism
I don’t pretend to know enough about Spanish politics to conclude with conviction that the Madrid attack led directly to the election result. I do think that to equate election results to victory or defeat for BinLaden isn’t accurate- BinLaden is going to kill people regardless of the outcome of elections and there is no way to appease him.
Voodoochile: *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. *
So what you seem to be suggesting is that whatever terrorists claim to want or seem to want, people should automatically do exactly the opposite. No matter what we think is the right thing to do in any given situation, our only determining criterion should be taking the opposite stance from terrorists?
This sounds to me like a recipe for absolute disaster. We might describe it as the “Prick Response” (“I don’t care what I do as long as it antagonizes you! Bring it on!!”) to distinguish it from what some people here seem to be identifying as the “Pussy Response” (“I don’t care what I do as long as it appeases you! Please don’t bomb me!!”).
Surely any intelligent person would agree that both these attitudes are dumber than a poached egg and totally counterproductive? Surely we all agree that voters should support the leaders and policies that they feel to be right, no matter what terrorists think about it or do about it?
If somebody’s got any evidence that the majority of Spanish voters thought that the Aznar government was right in its actions, and simply abandoned their principles in the hope that al-Qaeda would stop bombing them, then you may have a point. Or if you have evidence that Spain is now going to stop pursuing and prosecuting terrorists because they don’t want al-Qaeda mad at them, then you may have a point.
But as far as I can tell, the vast majority of Spaniards had no sympathy whatsoever for their government’s dragging them into the Iraq war, and they were absolutely livid about the government’s trying to deceive them about the Madrid attack. I think it would be incredibly stupid of them to fall in line behind leaders they disagree with and distrust just because they’re afraid that somebody might think they’re afraid of al-Qaeda.
The situation was read. The catalyst set. The catalyst detonated. People died. The sought after outcome by those who set the catalyst occured.
I perfectly understand the reasoning of the spanish electorate. That doesnt change the corollary implications one bit.
Considering how a few fanatics just influenced the election in a major nation, you sound awfully dismissive of the perception of the fanatics. It is a reality we are going to have to deal with.
This is one way you could choose to see it.
Another more valid way would be to see it like this:
Since engaging in warfare is the gravest affairof the state, and since warfare often has unintended cosequences, (see UbL, the Mujahedin, USSR, Afghnanistan and 9-11), the state should only engage in warfare where there are compelling national interests and benefits to be reaped by engaging in the warfare.
The Spanish people, (apparently), didn’t see why support for invading Iraq was necessary to begin with. Once the cost of the invasion goes even higher, it only reinforced the view that the invasion incurred a grave yet entirely unecessary risk.
All that Spain’s asking of its gov is that it have good reasons for engaging in military foreign policy ventures.
This is a very sane, reasonable, and Conservative to ask of your government.
First,
The Spanish people are intimately familiar with terrorism- moreso thanm the American people. It’s an insulting slight to them and their dead and wounded to imply otherwise.
Second,
The invasion of Iraq is not the same thing as “fighting terrorism.”
So your sentence would be more accurate if it read as follows:
“Those who have a different policy, one of engaging in elective, preventative wars against countries that present neither an urgent nor dire threat, or those who support such wars, are the one’s really responsible for killing the civilians (hence calling the Spanish leadership “murderers”).”
While it is debatable whether the Spanish govt is “responsible” for the bombings, or whether it is merely the “fault” of the Spanish govt. it is undisputed that the Spanish govt is responsible for the lives of its citizens and nationals.
The Spanish Govt took risks that were both grave and unecessary in an attempt to obtain dubious benefits that were undesired by the Spanish people. So, naturally, the Spanish electorate feels sort of miffed.
There’ve been more instances of terrorist attacks in Europe than in the US. They know that they’re already targetted. They’ve known this for some time.
Your analysis of the European critique of the Buish Admin’s foreign policies is facile and uninformed. See above re unecessary yet dire risks for poorly defined, and insubstantial rewards.
Foreign policy based on feelings is ill-advised at best.
Yeah, what do Europeans know about war anyway? Living way over there in safety, in Europe so far removed from the violence of the last century?
If I were to suggest anything, it would be to ignore the terrorists as completely as possible. Act as if the bombing had never taken place.
But this is reality, and that is asking too much of far too many. Im not blaming the spaniards. Im lamenting the inevitablity of the consequences of the election. In the end, to many, that which is legitimate is that which works. On a couple of levels, this was a checkmate on the part of the bombers, IMO.
Surely this shows that Europeans can keep terrorism in perspective, having had so much experience of it over the years that an election can take place whose result is not solely dominated by a single issue?
Certainly, I would venture that embarking on a global Soviet-style tantrum merely to avoid accusations of “pussihood” would convince only the most gullible of electorates.
Those are exactly my thoughts. Too many people seem to be thinking that if you take an action in accordance with one of of Al Qaeda’s goals, then you are endorsing said terrorist organization. However, it is entirely possible to want some of the things Al Qaeda wants without agreeing with their overall goals or tactics.
The Iraq war was a huge political and military gamble for Bush and for any world leader who supported Bush, and the Iraq/Al Qaeda link was the weakest of all the arguments for war. It should be no surpise that there will be political fallout for those leaders, especially in Europe where the war had so little popular support in the first place.
Well, it certainly is valid to ask: What do those Europeans know about preventing war, given the events of the last century. But either statement is really a non sequitur in terms of the debate in this thread.
A fundamental American principle of govt is that the “just powers” of a government are derived from the consent of the governed.
If the government deliberately provides misleading, and/or false infromation for the electorate to use in making their decisions to give consent, then the consent was obtianed under false pretenses and is therefore not true consent at all. Thus the govt that would do such a thing has no “just powers.”
Maybe I missed some very important cite, but someone please point me to the place that will show me what pussies the socialists are guaranteed to be regarding terrorism. I have no trouble believing it considering how peaceful and appeasing all the other socialist governments of the world both past and present have been, but I just want the cite to show all my friends because they tend to be a little more skeptical than I.
This is one way you could choose to see it.
Another more valid way would be to see it like this:
Since engaging in warfare is the gravest affair of the state, and since warfare often has unintended cosequences, (see UbL, the Mujahedin, USSR, Afghnanistan and 9-11), the state should only engage in warfare where there are compelling national interests and benefits to be reaped by engaging in the warfare.
The Spanish people, (apparently), didn’t see why support for invading Iraq was necessary to begin with. Once the cost of the invasion goes even higher, it only reinforced the view that the invasion incurred grave yet entirely unecessary risks.
All that Spain’s asking of its gov is that it have good reasons for engaging in military foreign policy ventures.
This is a very sane, reasonable, and Conservative to ask of your government.
Asking sane, reasonable, and Conservative things of your govt doesn’t necessarily have jack-diddly-squat to do with appeasement. YMMV
Well they seemed to have taken their time and learned. Too long naturally. Does this justify the US going down the same road and doing the same mistakes ? Hardly.
European over-reluctance to fight should balance over-enthusiasm of americans do dish out damage. A middle way would be ideal.
I’m coming rather late into this, I admit, but I have a question: what exactly is AQ’s supposed goal in getting the Socialists into power in Spain?
I ask because for the life of me, I can’t figure out what good it is going to do AQ. Aznar supported the Iraq war and despatched troops there; but it’s not as if their removal will in any way improve AQs situation or seriously imperil that of the remaining Axis of Good forces in Iraq. The Socialists will take Spain out of the coalition of the willing, so much seems assured, but even nations who were manifestly not part of that coalition, like Germany (where I’m from; at least, that allows me to claim that my nation NEVER appeased anyone) are performing more effective anti-terrorist work than anything that happened in Iraq will ever be. I don’t know if Spain supplies any forces to the Afghanistan venture, but if they do, I doubt those forces will be withdrawn. And to my mind, bringing stability to Afghanistan, even if it will take decades, is going to hurt AQ much more than anything that will come out of Iraq.
I also find very little evidence that the bombings themselves did turn Spanish opinion so much as the Spanish governments utterly deplorable mishandling of information about it in the aftermath.
This is an overly simplified analysis of the situation.
There’re more ways for Western powers to regain controls over ME oil than Risk[sup]TM[/sup] style capture and control manuevers.
The history surrounding WWI and the subsequent eras provide background for some comtemporary attitudes toward the West in general and the US in particular.
I’m sure that tamerlane has access to some informative all-in-one sites. Maybe he’ll grace us.
A start would be googles for these various items
“TE Lawrence”,
“meddling in mesopotamia”,
“Gertrude Bell”,
“King Faisal”,
“Paris Peace Conference” of 1919,
“British Petroleum” and “Masjid-i-Salaman”,
“St John Philby”,
“Sir Mark Sykes” and “Francois Georges-Picot”,
the “Sykes-Picot agreement”,
“Persia, poverty and chaos”,
President Wilson and “the whole disgusting scramble for the Middle East”,
“By gas attacks the whole population of offending districts could be wiped out neatly; and as a method of government it would be no more immoral than the present system,”
“Sayid Taleb”,
“The Seven Pillars of Wisdom”
Lieutenant-general Stanley Maude’s 1917 quote upon siezing Baghdad, “Our armies do not come into your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators,” probably resonates today in the minds of some Arabs.
So what you seem to be suggesting is that whatever terrorists claim to want or seem to want, people should automatically do exactly the opposite. No matter what we think is the right thing to do in any given situation, our only determining criterion should be taking the opposite stance from terrorists?