Exactly how do you read what I wrote as saying that Spain is somehow to blame for “the current mess”?
I am saying that they are contributing to a future mess. If terrorism visibly accomplishes its goals (in this case to use terror to convince a country’s populus that assisting the US is something that you don’t want to do “if you know what’s good for you”) then the tactic is validated for use in other countries. This has nothing to do with continuing protest movements that were already extant.
Eva,
Likewise, I am not saying that ongoing protest should not continue. My refernce was to what I understand happened in the Spanish election.
I’ve never seen you in person, let alone in a bathing suit, but my mental image of you does not include the word “hippopotamus” … so I guess Kerry is no Leftist. And I didn’t say he was. But the general election will be marked by a very small attack from the Left by Nader, and Kerry may end up saying things to appease the Left leaning base from bolting … I fear that such will drive away “the middle” and the disenchanted conservatives. I am working Saturday anyway. And then the kids have piano lessons. And …
Personally I usually just skip over Alde’s posts at this point. Every so often they are fun to read to see the same tired antics and baiting tactics played out again. You have to wonder why he posts. He states that he is not interested in convincing anyone of any particular POV. (And if anything he usually makes people more likely to move in the other direction, like when that smelly mumbling guy sits near you on the bus.) He certainly isn’t interested in appreciating a different POV or in understanding any differing perspectives (if only to better informed about what the other side will use as an argument in the future). I am left with concluding that he is just one of the people who likes the sound of his own voice … well virtual voice anyway … and the sense of power he gets from seeing that he can get under someone’s skin.
I’m not sure why you included the word Aldeberan in your quote of me, because it looks a bit confusing the way you did it. FTR that is my quote.
I find your remark about whether I consider the countries that constitute ‘Old Europe’ to be western democracies insulting, and better suited to the Pit, but no matter. As to whether or not it makes me happy or not, well that depends. If by working and collaborating with the other nations of Western Europe you mean futile diplomacy, appeasement, and hand-wringing, then no, that does not make me happy. But if you mean taking an active interest in furthering stability and fair elections in post-war Iraq, then that would make me happy.
I can most easily state my position by saying I’m a democracy chauvinist. I don’t think secular dictatorship or theocracy are different forms of political organization that deserve to be respected in the name of cultural diversity. Such a belief, in my view, is a most insidious form of racism, because it implies that nonwhite inhabitants of poor countries are just fine with living under dictatorship, because they’re not like us Westerners. No. I think dictatorship and theocracy should be stamped out, or at least opposed with all the vigor that Europe and America can put forth, and this because I think democracy is better, and dictatorship is worse in absolute terms.
And I am telling you that you are 100% wrong about this and someone has sold you a bill of goods somewhere along the way. Let’s see:
(a) The Spanish people have been overwhelmingly against supporting the invasion of Iraq from day one
(b) Zapatero has said, also from day one, that he would pull the troops out of Iraq.
(c) The USA said they would hand over the authority in Iraq no later than June 30
and NOW. . .
(d) Zapatero says he will pull the troops if the USA does not keep its word to hand over power by the 30.
Please note:
(1) Zapatero has changed nothing. He has been saying the same thing for over a year. It is ridiculous to say the bombings changed his mind. It was his promise to the voters and he should keep it. (Funny how America does not endorse democracy except when it is pro-American.)
(2) He is still keeping all promises made before. If Spain withdraws it is because the USA does not keep its promise to hand-over power by June 30. So, please do not blame Spain if the USA does not keep its word. Spain is keeping its word.
and
(3) The whole situation is a mess created solely and entirely by the really clumsy policy of the USA in its attempt to pretend this was a coalition with international support and that it was related to terrorism, both things which are obvious lies and if the USA had not done this there would not be this appearance that it is now losing something it never had.
Because:
3a- Spain is not withdrawing from anything it had promised.
3b-Spain is certainly not stopping its cooperation in the fight against terrorism. It is withdrawing from iraq which is totally different but, by the USA claiming Iraq was about terrorism in order to gain support, it now appears it is losing an ally in that fight which is not true. this is the fault of the USA which presented this in that way. The Spanish people do not consider Iraq anything but an American aggression. The Spanish people are better informed than Americans in this point and do not believe, as many Americans do, that Iraq is about terrorism. It is not.
3c- If GWB had learnt a thing or two from his father he would have built a strong coalition and the present disarray would not be happening. Instead of that he arrogantly said he could go in alone and then he twisted some arms to get a few, very few and very unwilling, supporters. It is not surprising that such a “coalition of the unwilling” would unravel pretty fast. The whole thing was poorly put together and it might have been better for the USA to go it alone instead of trying to put a semblance of support which was non existent.
So, please, quite saying Spain has caved in to anything because it is just plainly not true. Spain is doing exactly what it had promised to do. Do I need to repeat that? Do I need to draw a diagram? Spain is doing exactly what it had agreed to do. Now we shall have to see if the USA does the same and hands over power by June 30 in which case you have nothing to worry about. And, if by June 30 the USA fails to do what it said it would do and hand over power in Iraq, I, having endured a thread calling the Spanish people “god-damned mother-fucking cowards”, will feel entitled to start a thread on July 1 titled “god-damned mother-fucking lying Americans”. Oh wait, there have been plenty of threads about GWB, Rumsfeld, &Co. already.
And, because I know people tend to disregard and ignore what they don’t like I will repeat: Spain has not changed its position one bit. It promised it would stay until June 30 and it will stay until June 30. Is that clear or do I need to draw a diagram? Anyone who says Spain has caved into anything is talking out of his ass.
Furthermore, this attitude of superiority in the US dismissing the Spanish as cowards by those who know zip about what has happened in Spain, while it may give a few ignorant Americans feelings of superiority, the whole process is one more step in the process which is making America more isolated from the rest of the world day by day. Ok, The French are idiots, the Germans too, etc. But where does it end? You know, if the entire world is telling you that you are wrong maybe you should pause for a moment and reconsider. And if after reconsidering you still believe you are right and the rest of the world is wrong, you may at least consider whether it is worth alienating yourself and making enemies of everybody. Because this, in fact, is what the policies of the USA are achieving.
So there you have it: Bush’s polices have increased the support for terrorists and have diminished the sympathy for the USA. But I suppose you can always blame Spain. And he continues to make things worse:
The article goes on to show this can only backfire because in reality the demand is just for unconditional support for the USA as the USA decides who are “terrorists” and who are not. It is a recipe for disaster because the rest of the world is not going to go along and America will just steadily lose more support. And it is happening fast. The Polish prime minister expressed his displeasure at having been led to support the war with lies and is talking of removing the Polish troops from Iraq. Honduras has said it will remove its troops when the Spanish leave. Ecuador I believe has troops under Spanish command so they would leave too. The fiction of the “coalition” is falling apart.
And, in the meanwhile, Iraq is a mess and the US government refuses to recognize that everything that the opponents of the war predicted has come to pass:
a) The justifications given for the attack were lies
b) While the military invasion was easy, the occupation is turning into a nightmare. The country is in a state of civil war and American troops cannot keep order because their prime interest is protecting themselves.
c) The idea that the Iraqis would welcome the invaders with open arms and then a democracy would make everyone happy and democracy would spread in the region and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would be ended was a pipe dream. the fact is that the invasion and occupation have radicalized the region and made matters worse. Iran, which was in a process of opening up, has clamped down again. The Israeli- Palestinian conflict is worse than ever.
And yet, The president of the USA refuses to admit the evidence of his failure and the people of the USA refuse to see that they were lied to. I do not know if it is ignorance or just not wanting to admit that they were suckered into this mess. They do not want to see the light and their leaders have embarked in a spiral of righteousness which is quite dangerous. If this goes on for some more years America is going to find itself more and more isolated and will become a pariah in the world. Next thing you know you might see GWB banging his desk with his shoe at the UN like Kruschef did. It is not a good thing for the world or for the USA. Let’s face it, Iraq has placed the USA in a much weaker position militarily and economically. America would have very serious problems if some other problem would flare up and it had to intervene. The chances of international support are close to zero and the American people and the congress would not support nor could they afford to pay another war. What this means is that other countries will feel stronger and might feel emboldened enough to act. A strong USA provides stability in the world but if it is bogged down in Iraq some country may decide now is the moment to grab that land they have been claiming. The practical result of present policy is to isolate and weaken America and it is not good for anybody.
Iraq has turned into a big fiasco. The policies of the US government (whether they are right or wrong) are only creating animosity towards the USA. It seems the government sees no other escape than to escape forward and escalate tensions. And blame Spain. Yes, that’s right, let’s blame Spain. And France, and Germany, and the UN, and. . . . it’s scary when someone believes he will save the world from itself, whether it is Bin Laden or GWB. More and more countries are stepping quietly away from the USA because the USA sounds more and more hysterical and fanatical every day. Twenty years from now Americans will look back and realize this latest attack of hysteria was much worse than the McCarthy with hunts. It is a shame that leaders find it so easy to garner support at home by creating outside enemies. It pretty much always works but can lead to disaster. Argentina did it and it lead to the Falklands war. In China, every time there is unrest at home, the government stirs nationalist feelings and brings up Taiwan. Up until now it has not passed from mere talk but sometimes things get out of the hands of those who created them and they can only keep going forward. As Churchill said: “Those dictators ride tigers which they dare not dismount. . and the tigers are getting hungry”. Once you excite the people into a patriotic frenzy they will not stop until they have blood. American leaders are doing the American people a disservice by exciting them into a patriotic frenzy.
Well, who could disagree with that? Not me! Eva Luna, I think you have unwittingly been drawn here into a pointless pissing contest. You might want to just concede that nobody pisses like Aldebaran pisses. There is no shame in that
DSeid, I’ve never had an issue with you; no harm done. I understood perfectly that you were primarily talking about the Spanish election. But I’m not at all sure whom you are including in "the Left"for purposes of the November elections. I’m further to the left than the average American voter on most issues, and my mom is considerably further to the left of me, and she is still not speaking to her friends who voted for Nader in 2000. She didnt vote for Nader in 2000, and I think even those few remaining lefties who still don’t believe that Nader is a self-centered prick who has roughly a snowball’s chance in Hell of winning even a single state in November are very few and far between at this point.
And **sailor, ** you’re probably right as usual, and I should know better than to let someone who is completely uninterested in integrating new information into his worldview get me worked up. The view that all Americans are a bunch of self-centered, xenophobic, insular, clueless idiots is somewhat of a sore spot for me, for reasons which you well know. I’ve spent too much of my life trying not to be the Ugly American to let this bullshit vitriol slide off my back, and perhaps that’s my own weakness. But at least I’m not planning to bomb the crap out of anyone over it. Y con eso, se acaba la lucha esta noche.
As Eva notes, I was speaking of the election results, not what Zapatero had promised or the already planned withdrawl. The populus voted Aznar out with a late shift that appeared to be a direct result of a terroristic act.
Certainly I am not one to disagree with most of the rest of your assessment. After 9/11 the world was very sympathetic to the concept of an American led response against terror. This worldwide goodwill was squandered with heavy handed unilateral imperialism and misrepresentation of speculations as facts. Hell, even by the standard of going to war for oil, this action has failed miserably; oil costs more now and production is a long way off with no guarentee that future Iraqi administrations will be very well disposed to selling to America. I don’t see a lot of people blaming the current situation on Spain or any one other than the current administration which told us untruths to get us in quick, and of course on the fundamentalist extremists who imagine that they can turn back the clock on a secularizing world by attacking the “Evil Empire.”
Eva,
Nader doesn’t need to win any states, and he won’t. The concern of the Kerry camp is that he might get a few of your Mom’s freinds to believe that Kerry is just as bad as Bush and to vote for him in protest (again). And those few votes made a difference last time. My concern is that the effort to stave that off will alienate those who voted for Bush last time but are sick of the lies and/or feel that he has betrayed values dear to their conservative hearts. (Bush is a betrayer of those who are against Big Gubbermint and those who believe in fiscal responsibility.) We want our tent to be welcoming to those folks, while staying true to our own core beliefs.
The more I hear about this, the less sense the right wing cry of “appeasement” makes.
I’d say that allowing 200 citizens to be killed is a pretty major failure for the Aznar administration, no? Given that the election was pretty much a statistical dead heat anyway, and given that the major effect of the terrorism was to get more people to vote than usual, and I find it kind of hard to make the case anymore that the Spainish somehow radically altered their views in response to terrorism. They’d had enough of a government that not only failed to protect them, but also botched the investigation right afterwards. Their new government is planning iniatives to fight terrorism that weren’t even on the drawing board before 3/11.
Would that there had been a Presidential election right after 9/11, and maybe we would have seen the exact same thing, and it would have been a loss for terrorists, not a gain.
In the final poll, on March 7, the Popular Party led, 42-38.
On March 14, they ended up losing, 43-38.
That’s a pretty small swing in public opinion: with the margins of error taken into account, it may even represent no swing at all. And yet virtually every news story I’ve seen on this issue implies that there was some massive shift in Spanish opinion. The evidence just doesn’t bear this out.
Apos, in my experience, the more someone is talking about “cowardly appeasement”, the less knowledge he has about the facts. I know this idiot in Dc who felt the need to call me and tell me how cowardly the Spaniards had been but when I asked him he had not idea about any particulars, only the general notion that the election had been turned on its head. He did not have a clue about the small difference or the fact the PP had actually won in the Senate.
Let’s face it. 90% of the people were strongly against supporting the war and if that were the only matter being voted the PP would not have a chance no matter what. Bomb or no bomb. But the PP had going for it the good economic results and other factors so people in the end weigh everything and maybe give their vote to PP even though they disagree with them on Iraq
I have seen a number of studies and surveys here analyzing votes by age, location and other factors (including how near they lived to the area of the blasts) and, in summary, the conclusions were along the lines that:
a) Close to nobody had changed their vote. On the contrary, if anything the bombs reaffirmed people in their beliefs. Those who believed the PSOE was the answer were now more sure and same thing with PP. (Kind of reminded me of this board where people become more entrenched in their positions no matter what the argument or evidence) It seems people tend to analyze facts according to their own beliefs and so find support. The number of people who changed their vote was negligible.
b) The terrorist attack brought out the vote. This is supported by the participation which was close to 80% which is 10 - 12% higher than expected. Especifically it brought out young, working-class votes which were overwhelmingly for the Socialists and that is what made the difference. Older people who vote conservative tend to vote more so there was less to bring out there but the younger people who are less conscientious about voting were inspired to vote not only by the attacks but by the events following (government coverup attempt etc). It was in the working-class precincts where this higher turnout of younger people was noted. It seems these younger working people identified with the victims more.
I am often mystified by simplicity of people’s expectations. I am talking to an American housewife and mother who told me how she knew the Spanish people had changed her vote out of fear (again, she did not know any details but who needs details). I asked her and she said a terrorist attack in America would harden their resolve, it would certainly harden hers. I asked her why she thought it would weaken that of the people of Spain and after some unclear thinking she just thought they were “different”. She could not understand that another people could be as “tough” as Americans. . . even if they have been dealing with terrorism for decades. In her mind she expects that the Iraqis, Al Qaeda and any other people on earth would be intimidated shitless by the US army killing a few of them but the American people would be hardened in their resolve should an enemy kill some of them. I think this attitude is quite common among Americans and I think it is dangerous in two ways:
a general feeling that they are better than other people: we are brave and tough, they are cowards. therefore, knowing we are better we have a right to police the world and the best way is to
bomb the crap out of those cowards and they will immediately submit.
I think this is part of the miscalculation regarding Iraq.
Why a housewife and mother who has led a pretty comfortable life in Florida feels she is tougher than people who live in other countries and generally have tougher lives is a mystery to me. But she has it clear that Spaniards are cowards and to arrive at that conclusion she does not need to know anything about Spain or its people or what happened. By golly, she is an American and that makes her better.
I readily admit that I am no expert on matters of Spanish politics and thus tried to carefully phrase my comments with the appropriate "if"s and "appeared"s. Still, having now learned more of the specifics from your posts, I am not completely convinced that the message of capitulation was still not sent. The media reported an 11% shift; your numbers are still a 9% shift. This is not a statistically insignificant amount as you so portray. The argument that it changed the relative importance of the issues holds some sway. That is that the vast majority felt that Aznar had done a poor foriegn policy/terroism job already but had put domestic issues (on which he was well rated) as the more important factor until the bombing made the former the more salient item. And made the election more important. Okay. I can buy that. But the appearence is decieving and I do not doubt that AQ will read it as evidence of their power as well.
As to your read of your Floridian housefrau freind … I think that you are over-simplifying. As if the average European doesn’t believe what she hears in her media too. This housewife has these believed “facts” to integrate: after 9/11 Americans responded with tough talk and all the bluster of resolve, confiscating knitting needles at airports and everything … we in truth were very sure not to give any appearence of intimidation or capitulation; the Spaniards responded to a similar type of attack without tough talk and instead took an action that looks (at first and maybe even a quick second look) like capitulation … certainly nothing that is standing back up from the mat swinging. How to reconcile those bits of percieved information? [thought balloon]There must be a cultural difference, maybe its our cowboy mentality, maybe the Spaniards are just like the French?[/thought balloon] (Please note that you are doing precisely the same thing in your generalization of what Americans think as you try to reconcile observed differences in behavior and assume that Americans think different - and the difference is that they think that they think different.
DSeid, suppose the day before the election in Spain you are talking to one of those young people who were brought out to vote by the bombings. He says to you “I was planning on skipping the voting but I have decide to vote for the socialists who are the ones I agree with”. Now, it is votes like these that made the small difference you see. So now explain to me why the behavior of this young man is wrong and what you would advise him to do.
a) Not vote?
b) Vote for the party he had never planned on voting for and does not want to vote for?
c) ?
Please answer the above.
The whole thing makes no sense. None whatsoever. We have established that the fact that the socialists won has given the terrorists nothing whatsoever. No advantage. But somehow they think they have won something and can claim victory. They have won nothing, we have established that. The logic is missing or escapes me. Your point seems to be that their actions have modified the behavior of some Spanish people by bringing them out to vote and that is somehow wrong even if this has resulted in no gain for the terrorists. Pretty tortured logic if you ask me.
Let’s see. After 9/11 millions of Americans decided not to fly and the airlines took a huge hit which is not totally over yet. They have clearly modified their behavior due to terrorist acts in ways which have a negative effect on the economy of the USA and therefore benefit the enemies of the USA. Cowards?
My friend who has a travel agency in Madrid reports some American tours have cancelled. Cowards? Yes or no?
Well, the Spanish media is showing footage of President Bush’s speech on the first anniversary of the war showing how he lists “the countries which have troops in Iraq” and he lists them all except Spain. Americans will probably not notice and Spain will take notice of the slight. I do not understand what he is trying to achieve by insulting Spain like this. It might give him some childish satisfaction but other than that does he think this type of thing is going to get Spain to cooperate? Does the USA have a shortage of antipathy in the world that it needs to gratuitously create more? if this is not playing into what the enemies of the USA want then I don’t know what is.
sailor, I am sorry if am unclear. I thought that I acknowledged the information presented that the true effect of the attack was to make the election more important (bring out the vote) and to decrease to relative importance of domestic to foreign policy issues. But that nevertheless, the combination of a vote suddenly going to the underdog canidate who has advocated staying out of it, with the lack of any response visibly aimed at hitting AQ back, looks bad. Appearences may be deceiving.
To your specific question - I’d ask why he was going to vote now when he wasn’t going to vote before. And see if he’s voting now because the bombing scared him. Or why. My answer would depend upon his response.
As to the other specifics -
What did the terrorists win? A recruiting tool. See how powerful we are? We control elections. They are scared of us. We can bully them around. Soon we’ll have the US standing alone and the rest of the Western world on the run. God is on our side. Because whether or not it is true that is how it looks.
Were Americans cowards for not flying after 9/11? Yup. And stupid cowards to boot. Bigger risks driving places. We humans are pretty easily spooked I guess. Cowards for cancelling trips to Madrid? Depends on why. Fear, then sure. The “Freedom Fries” foolishness applied to Spain, then, no, just dumb. No more shortage of idiots in America than anywhere else.
I can see the merits in DSeid’s points; it’s not so much what we rational Westerners think as what the people doing the bombing think, because they’re the ones who might try to kill me before the American election. And a LOT of info has come out since the Spanish election that we Merkuns just didn’t know, so please take that into account when we posted our reactions last Sunday.
GoHeels, LOL at ‘Revolution’ and our Saudi buddy! That’s exactly his problem!
Just got back from the Chicago demonstration; biking in what turned out to be 40-degree weather with 30 - 40 mph gusts of wind along the lake was not such a bright idea. (Particularly for the guy biking in front of me; he hit the brakes too hard and went over his handlebars, ending up sprawled out on the path with an extremely broken arm. I missed the beginning of the demo waiting for the ambulance to come and cart him away.)
Anyway, the demonstration was pitiful by the time I got there. The ratio of cops and journalists to demonstrators must have been 2:1. The cops were all in riot gear with bulletproof vests, helmets, shields, etc. which was completely unnecessary, and they were complete jerks, keeping people from crossing the street except at 1 tiny point on each corner (there was no reason for that, as the street was blocked off anyway). Mayor Daley is definitely his father’s son.
There were some very unfocused speeches, at least half of which had nothing whatsoever to do with Iraq (marijuana legalization, anyone?). One guy from Venezuela was going on and on about a strike at a Coca-Cola plant in Venezuela (with truly awful English interpreting, I might add; there were points where I swear the interpreter was making stuff up). Hardly anyone was even paying attention to what was going on up on the podium.
Can’t we do better than this? Or is almost everyone with a modicum of organizational skills in Chicago either working on the election, or trying to make money?
Eva, when the weather seemed like it was going to be nice I did get out for a ride with the three younger of my four kids and did see a little local march here in Oak Park. Two police shadowing and a nice litle show of it. I applauded some over my 13 and 9 y.o.s objections of “Dad, you’re embarrassing us!” (The two y.o. old didn’t care at the least) Then the wind picked up and we went on. Watching it I did see the value of an organized protest. Too bad the downtown one wasn’t one.
(I had one one of those over-the-handlebars-with-the-bike-following maneuvers myself on one my first rides in my first ever road bike last Fall. Only sprained my a-c but it was so humiliating to be stuck clipped in with my fancy schmancy bike shoes to a bike laying on top of me.)
Salior, that is really fucking tragic. I find what you’ve said an incredibly depressing comment on our nation’s ability to have coherent and factual discussions about issues.
Eva Luna, your post also depresses me. The activist left is utterly pathetic these days, cartoonish, and yet no matter how irrelevant they remain to politics, they just, don’t, get, it.
A short list of things that they don’t seem to get, and seem to love showing off that they don’t get
-Raising money for a political cause is a heck of a lot more effective than making puppets and waving them around. In this day and age, protests can just as easily garner bad PR as good, making them almost pointless in many cases. Most people in America tonight are going “protest against the war? Aren’t you guys like, a year late?”
-Don’t let lousy speakers speak just because you want every crazy group to be represented. For that matter, kick out crazy groups. Having a bunch of dictator loving communists help organize your movement taints the entire enterprise in the public mind. No wonder so few people show up when only a those who agree with a wide range of issues get heard. Just because someone doesn’t want war with Iraq doesn’t think that they want to be lectured about how a cop-killer should go free because he writes well
-focus on certain issues at a time, and don’t let speakers waste people’s time promoting their pet issues
-national politics in the U.S. is like a tug of war. Tug left, and the debate and agenda moves left. Let go of the rope and you become totally irrelevant.
-and so on…
and no matter how obvious any of this is, it never sinks in. Instead, just more puppets.
In summary, you and sailor are currently listed as parties in my lawsuit against the universe for being dull and depressing.
I find this to be ridiculous in the extreme. A young man thinks “These terrorist attacks make my blood boil and I am going to do my civic duty of voting even though I was thinking of skipping it” and you would say “wait, don’t do it, you have to be careful, because it might possibly, conceivable be the case that what you do would have effects which, although make no change in reality as to fighting terrorism, might, possibly, conceivably, be interpreted by some misinformed American people as caving in to terrorism”. Oh my. I find that ridiculous in the extreme and the young man would probably say “those ignorant Americans can take a flying fuck and get educated as far as I am concerned”. And he’d be right. He did what he wanted to do and if voting freely is a vote for AlQaeda then . . . what can I say?
I would say to an American voter that a vote for Bush is a vote for terrorism and I can prove a much more direct and obvious link. The invasion of Iraq has increased support for terrorists in all Muslim countries. That is an indisputable fact proven by surveys. The policies of President Bush have increased terrorism and that is a direct link which is obvious. A vote for Bush is a vote which will have the direct effect of increasing terrorism, it is, in effect, a vote for terrorism. The Americans who voted for Bush have done more to increase Islamic terrorism than BenLaden could ever dream of. And there is a direct, obvious, link, not some tenuous, indirect, link. Don’t tell me about the intentions of the voters, the vote is, in fact, in effect, a vote for increased support for terrorists.
My prediction is that as long as the USA continues with the present policies Islamic terrorism will increase. Now president Bush is radicalizing the situation with this rhetoric about “you are with us or you are against us” which is patently ridiculous and will just have the effect of classiffying most of the world in the “against us” camp. This is the old switch and bait tactic. The world was with the USA in the war against terrorism afyter 9/11. Then Bush decided “fight against terror” meant whatever he wanted it to mean and the ranks began to thin out. The more extreme he gets the less support he will get from other countries. The damage he is doing to the USA is very important.
There was a demonstration against the war yesterday in Madrid and it was quite successful although not comparable to the one against terrorism a few days ago. This might come as a surprise to those who think I am rabidly against this war but I missed the demonstration simply because I forgot about it. A shame because it was a beautiful day out there. There were speeches (nobel prize winner Saramago was one).
sailor, your knee jerk reaction disappoints me after the intelligence of your previous postings. Ah well.
What would have been that young man’s answer to my question? If it was that he got pissed at how Aznar’s administration handled the aftermath of the bombing then fine, I’d say get out here and vote young man. If it was that now he was scared enough to want to do something, then I’d express my POV that he was letting terrorists control his actions and that such has a negative consequence for us all. And sure, he’d tell me to “Take a flying fuck, you condescending bastard!” And whatever Spanish is for “Mind your own damn bidnizz. Jerk.”
Of course he can freely “vote for AlQaeda” if so wishes, but he should be aware of it if that is what he is doing. Anyway, I wasn’t saying he was; I was reacting to your very negative thoughts on how ignorant judgemental Americans are with an explanation of how such was a very reasonable conclusion given the information available. That the message sent to AQ and the world still may not be the one that was intended. And the likely consequences of the message that has nevertheless been sent.
Why you attack Bush in a post aimed at responding to me is a curiousity. Have I in any way struck you as a fan of Bush or his policies? In point of fact I agreee with most of your portrayal of what a vote for Bush equals, although I’d probably keep my rhetoric a bit less over the top. Have a green tea my man. Get out and enjoy the sunshine.
