Well, Spain got tested and failed badly. It’s really quite an embarrassment.
For that matter, let’s not forget the Taliban and Al Queda in Afghanistan.
SF
Since your position is a judgment of the Spanish based on the reasons why they voted Aznar out of office, all that is reasonable is to think that the reasons why the Spanish voted Aznar out of office are pertinent.
If the reasons why the Spanish voted Aznar out of office are not pertinent, that means that your judgement that Europeans are pussies has no relation to why Aznar was voted out of office. You just think that they are pussies no matter what.
Since you’ve asked me to assume that this is not the case, and that you have indeed based your judgement that Europeans are pussies on the reasons the Spanish voted Aznar out of office, I cannot come to any conclusion other than that the reasons why the Spanish voted Aznar out of office are relevant to the discussion. Any other conclusion dwindles your case to a single unsupported assertion- “Europeans are pussies.”
Given that that the reasons why the Spanish voted Aznar out of office are part and parcel to your suporting argument, it’s very odd that you’d claim that these have no bearing.
He’s not being blamed. He’s having to take responsibility for his actions. There’s a difference between blame and responsibility. As a conservative, surely he’s familiar with the idea that adults must take responsibility for their actions and their effects, intended and otherwise.
Those who were actually involved in bombing are to blame.
If you thought that ill-considered and unadvisable decisions by an employee of yours, (the PM), had led to an unecessary and grievous loss, you’d want to take steps to insure that you were protected from future unecessary and grievous losses, would you not?
Part of what you might do to protect yourself from future unecessary and grievous losses is to fire, (vote against), the employee, (the PM), who took the needlessly risky, poorly thought out and ill-advised actions that led to the initial unecessary and grievous loss.
It’s completely unsurprising that a nation would seek to avoid more unecessary harm.
You’d have the Spanish stick with a government whose decisions brought great harm and loss to the Spanish electorate via needless, ill-advised risks.
That’s an extraordinary and amazing expectation you have of the Spanish electorate.
You’re making an assumption about why people voted how they did and judging them for it. The rellative validity of your assumptions is pertinent unless your conclusion that Europeans are pussies entirely independent of the validity of the underlying assumptions- Europeans are pussies regardless of why the Spanish chose to vote how they did?
By allowing the attacks to happen? It’s really quite hard to defend yourself against people leaving bags on trains…
On the other hand, the Spanish police seem to be going well with the investigation (believed to have identified the bombers and have one already in custody), and the Spanish people have exercised their democratic right to choose a leader who they believe is less likely to make them a target for this kind of attack, and then lie to try to get out of it.
What do they have to be embarrased about?
It’s really quite simple.
The Spanish people were consistently against the PP Govt in its policies on Iraq & support of the US.
Those became the decisive issues, because of the Madrid bombings.
There was no change of mind or reversal of policy by the population. Given a say in the direction of policy the people rejected the Government’s line.
Shortly they will do the same in the UK, Australia and the US.
Mr. Obvious, this is too damn funny!!! Especially number 4. I literally laughed out loud as I read this.
Milum: Condemnations of Al Queda for killing and maiming 1700 people: 4
Condemnation of the United States for liberating Iraq: 46
Holy gum, Milum, this level of Orwellian doublethink is positively scary. Haven’t you noticed that the US has killed and maimed far more than 1700 people in Iraq, in an unprovoked invasion of a country that had not attacked us? Don’t you think that that might be why many people condemn it? Do you really feel that killing and maiming people doesn’t matter as long as you’re convinced it’s in the cause of “liberation”, and that everybody ought to support what we call “liberation” no matter how many people we kill and maim in the process?
Sweeping corpses under the rug for the sake of making your cause look good is a pretty appalling thing to do, and it places you in some awfully dubious company. I’ve no doubt that many al-Qaeda members are also convinced that they don’t need to apologize for their victims, and don’t need to listen to anybody condemning their spreading of death and destruction, because they believe they’re “liberating” the people they’re attacking.
SF: Well, the cite I recently posted is now making it look like it may have actually been a 9% swing
Still not very much. Even if it turned out to be true that (as I seriously doubt) every one of those 9% changed their vote purely out of a craven desire to appease al-Qaeda, that’s still fewer than 1 in 10 Spanish voters whose electoral decision was altered by the bombings.
So how do you imagine you could inflate that into the conclusion that the Spanish voters in general are “pussies”, much less that Europeans overall are “pussies”?
This OP and the posts agreeing with it seem to be pretty much just a malicious spew-fest against the Spanish people as a whole for not going along with what American right-wingers want them to do. There is just no support anywhere in the actual data for concluding that Spaniards or Europeans in general are cowardly or unprincipled when it comes to responding to terrorism.
I have to reply to this before I read the rest of the thread - sorry.
Many people in Ireland would feel that there is no comparison between the original IRA and the IRA of today.
You could say that all wars of independence that lead to the birth of newly sovereign nations like the Republic of Ireland are the acts of terrorists but I think this is a sticky and complicated issue - not so simple and I don’t want to get into this argument here.
The IRA of today do not have the same level of membership as the old IRA or, more importantly, the support that they had. I don’t think the British government have capitulated to them at ALL. They are still an illegal organisation and are still treated as criminals. However, as another poster said and it bears re-iterating because it was a good point, the British Government have addressed some of the legitimate complaints of the Nationalist population in Northern Ireland and this has lessened support for the IRA and the other terrorist organisations there. In the '70s when they didn’t listen to the nationalist politician’s concerns about civil rights etc. but rather sent in the military to search and ransack people’s homes and control the border and the streets in a very intimidating manner the IRA had much more support.
What does this show? Take away the reasons people support/ become terrorists (kids aren’t born as suicide bombers after all you know). Meet people half-way. Don’t over-intimidate. If people fear you they will hate you and resent you and you’ll never bring them round to your way of thinking. You don’t earn someone’s trust by holding them at gunpoint!
I would say American Intelligence got tested and failed in the past. It’s really quite an embarrassment. (Especially for a former pro-American like myself.) Naturally the polls show that americans are coming to their senses.
What is the most important battlefield in the war on terror? Is there any acceptable answer to the OP other than Iraq? If the answer is “no, the only conceivable battlefield of value against global terrorism is Iraq” then the debate might as well end.
If the Spanish are the cowardly knaves and fair-weather friends that the OP would suggest then why hasn’t Spain pulled its forces from Afghanistan? (Heck, the question works for France and Germany and others as well.) Some might argue that Afghanistan is an important battleground on the war in terror (many might say moreso than Iraq). Right now the US military seems to feel it is worthy of a decent sized push. And there most people accept that Afghanistan was and is a legitimate location for using military means to fight terrorists.
It is my understanding that neither the former ruling party nor the socialists have a reputation for being “soft” on terrorism w.r.t. ETA (hopefully a Spanish poster can clarify).
Does the government deserve any blame for its failures wrt national defense or criminal activity? If Al-Qaeda were to detonate a radiological weapon in Miami in August, what would the proper way to vote be? Keep Bush, regardless of what would be a huge failure in intelligence and preparation (no money for port security),just to show 'em?
Yes they do, now that you posted the link. 
But the question isnt whether the words mean anything to me, its whether they mean anything to the people who planted the bombs. They are the ones who may, or may not, plant more.
From CNN (so take it, or not, as you will):
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/03/16/spain.invest/index.html
*CNN also has obtained an al Qaeda document that spells out the terrorist group’s plan to separate Spain from the U.S.-led coalition on Iraq.
The document was published on the main message board that is used by al Qaeda and its sympathizers last December.
The strategy spelled out in the document calls for using terrorist attacks to oust Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar’s Partido Popular from power and replace it with the Socialists.
“We think the Spanish government will not stand more than two blows, or three at the most, before it will be forced to withdraw because of the public pressure on it,” the al Qaeda document says.
“If its forces remain after these blows, the victory of the Socialist Party will be almost guaranteed – and the withdrawal of Spanish forces will be on its campaign manifesto.”
*
This is dead wrong. Democracies must continue to function and do what they need to do regardless of what the terrorists think. If that means pulling troops out of Saudi Arabia, so be it. If that means electing center-left governments, so be it. Fear of terrorism is no excuse to go wobbly on democracy, Voodoochile.
I just thought that this was worth repeating.
Aw, shucks. 
No doubt Slyfrog, Starving Artist and the rest cried their eyes out in 1980 when the electorate caved to terrorists by electing arms-dealing appeaser Ronnie.
Anyway, I’ll hijack a moment by saying that I have a feeling that the whole Republican appeasement/coward/intimidation rhetoric that’s being trotted out against the Spanish is just a proxy for the way conservatives feel toward Democrats and Kerry, and that they’ll be employing it against us once they feel comfortable doing so or are sufficiently desperate. Seriously, this Spanish=appeasers meme is everywhere, on the Daily Show, on Fark.com, on every conservative blog you can think of, and certainly in the White House. And we already have Congressman Tom Cole (R-OK) saying: “I promise you this, if George Bush loses the election, Osama bin Laden wins the election, it’s that simple.” Here’s his press release that includes this quote (which he owns up to), but which is mainly about denying that he said a vote for Kerry is like a vote for Hitler (he kind of did say it, though):
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ok04_cole/react.html
If only we had a liberal media… Anyway, apologies for the hijack.
Don’t fall for the newspeak.
Republican does not equal conservative does not equal the Bush apologists.
I’m a conservative Republican who finds that many of the Bush Admin’s policies to be almost, but not entirely incompatible with conservatism. I’m not alone.
Don’t fall for the false divide trap, the us vs them mentality of Lib v Con, Dem v Rep.
See executive Jesus’ thread On Republican Disillusionment for further comment.
We’re all Americans and we have some things we need to talk about
Point taken. Hey, I hear McCain might be Kerry’s VP pick!
Just to add to Kimstu’s important point –
Turnout for the election was 77% – 9% higher than in 2000.
(Sorry if others have made the same point…it’s not easy wading through some of the vitriol here…)
If the OP calls me a pussy, can I call him an asshole or a stupid motherfucker? Dickwad? Or is Pussy as foulmouthed as you can get in this so called “Great Debate” forum?
He seems to think the vote of one individual country represents the pussiness of a whole continent, me included he therefore calls me a pussy. Isnt that just a little too mindbogglingly stupid to be posted here? He also specifically suggests this may represent “further evidence” on how Im a pussy. I’d like to see his first set of evidence. I really do.