Spinning the Spanish election - Another thought

Bill White · 2004-03-16 10:17:35

If media types "spin" the Spanish election as appeasement, then that empowers al Qaeda, it tells the world that terrorism works. To play up the "appeasement" angle empowers al Qaeda.

If we accept the words of many ordinary Spainards, the ruling party was ousted because they LIED about Eta and the Basques for political advantage. That explanation does NOT empower al Qaeda nor give al Qaeda a media victory.

It shows that Spaniards can be cool and rational under pressure and will punish their own leaders for attempting to "milk" tragedy for their personal benefit.

Alt2War · 2004-03-16 19:21:05

A vast majority of the spanish population was opposed to the Iraq war.

The "Coalition of the Willing" was never so, more of a coalition of the coerced or bribed.

Democratic leaders went aginst the will of the people. The people paid a heavy price for these decisions. This was the fallout.

Shaun Barrett · 2004-03-16 20:29:36

Hi Alt2War.
Your last post is typical of the attitude of so many lefties, who will use anything, even the unnecessary death and injury of thousands of innocent people, to further their cause.
It appears you are so rabidly anti-Bush and anti-Iraq-war that you will perpetrate, with breathtaking arrogance and disregard for reality, the very crime you applaud the Spanish people for punishing at their election, the crime of milking tragedy for personal benefit.

To save time and repetition here, I ask you to read my post at Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics, dated Mar 16 2004, 07:58.
It points out the real reasons the Spanish people were attacked; the reasons why all liberal democracies are under attack by these barbarians.

I regret to have to use such strong language, but it is precisely your kind of political opportunism I despise the most. Please, try to concentrate on the real enemy here, rather than airing your left-wing ideology at the expense of the Spanish victims.
When Al-Qa'ida comes to your neighbourhood one day, they won't care if you're waving a red flag and spluttering that you opposed the war ... they'll kill you anyway!
They don't care! Get it?!!
???

Alt2War · 2004-03-16 21:01:59

I believe you might be reading into my post quite a bit. You my want to wipe some of that spittle off your monitor.

A vast majority of the spanish population was opposed to the Iraq war.

Is this the fact you dispute?

The "Coalition of the Willing" was never so, more of a coalition of the coerced or bribed.

It is becoming all too clear that the coalition we had in Iraq was very soft in it's support, excluding Great Britan.

In most cases they agreed to follow us into this war without the popular support of their people. It is not unknown that bribes, threats, and other forms of coercion made up the root of most of our coalition members.

All but one spanish speaking coalition member has pulled out.

Do you deny that in most of the nations that supported us, including austrailia and great britan, has a population that did not approve?

The support is soft.

Democratic leaders went aginst the will of the people. The people paid a heavy price for these decisions. This was the fallout.

The Iraq war was optional. It takes quite a bit of mental contortion to link 9/11 with Iraq. There is no evidence that Saddam and Al Quiida had any signifigant involvement with each other.

In the global war on terrorism, Iraq was a side show.

In many cases, nations supported the US in this side show.
Spain, by some peoples opinions, attracted attention from Al Quida by involving itself in the Iraq War. As I recall, there was an Al Quida tape stating just that.

The people of Spain opposed entry into this war. It has been a struggle for the last government to keep troops there due to the lack public support.

Spain was brutally attacked. Some lay blame on Spains involvement in the Iraq war. Was it the cause or not? I do not know.

But the involvement in the Gulf War was not a popular thing, and those that supported it are now out.

Was this a victory on the part of Muslim Extriminsts? You bet.

Spin it all you want.

Shaun Barrett · 2004-03-17 00:58:07

Alt2War:-

It takes quite a bit of mental contortion to link 9/11 with Iraq.

Gosh.

Alt2War:-

There is no evidence that Saddam and Al Quiida had any signifigant involvement with each other.

Really?

Alt2War:-

In the global war on terrorism, Iraq was a side show.

I see.

Now that we've established beyond reasonable doubt that Iraq and Al-Qa'ida are unconnected (thank you for explaining that to us), all we have to do now is explain why participation in the invasion, or support for it, makes countries targets for Al-Qa'ida-sponsored terrorism.

Can you see now that the almost triumphant "I-told-you-so" gloating in your assessment of the Spanish tragedy is without logical basis? Your own reasoning establishes that Al-Qa'ida doesn't care about Iraq and never has.

Regardless of your psychological and ideological need to connect President Bush and the Coalition with Islamic extremist violence in some kind of hopelessly perverted cause-and-effect way, your own words trip you up.

You, and those like you, who are propaganda mouthpieces for left-wing groups, should stand back from the indoctrination you've accepted uncritically and take a long hard look at reality.

Josh Cryer · 2004-03-17 03:42:48

One cannot make any argument that proves or disproves that Spains involvement in the Iraq war was a factor or not. It does not take much logic, however, to come to a position that would suggest that it was. al Qaeda has in fact stated that they would go after anyone who basically "supported the infedels." People claiming that Spain was a target because "the Spainards weren't extremist Muslim" is too much of a black and white generalization; it may be true that they could care a crap less about everyone but themselevs, but as far as stragetically chosing a target, they almost certainly went after the "most supportive" of the US (with also weaknesses; like easily accessable trains). Would they have attacked Spain eventually? Maybe, but we'll never know either way.

Some say that the terrorists won because Spain voted left; no, I think that Spain was going to go left regardless, specifically because of the overwelming desire for the people not to go to the Iraq war. The terrorists only win by increasing fear in people (ie, those who go on the news and say, outright, "the terrorists have won").

I agree with Bill in the other thread that this is essentially psychological warfare, and I wouldn't be surprised if more liberalish countries were now attacked, to increase the right wing rhetoric about terrorists winning, (perpetuating the myth that right wingers are better at keeping the world safe), and because liberals wouldn't be as compelled to put explosive detectors and xrays and basically create a police presence on every corner, to "subdue" the terrorists and "dispell fear."

Nothing like having to take your shoes off to make you feel safe getting on a plane.

Shaun Barrett · 2004-03-17 06:01:55

All well reasoned points, Josh. Unless or until the perpetrators of the Spanish attack are interrogated, assuming they know anything much about the overall picture in the first place, we may never know whether Spain was already high on the terrorists' hit list before Iraq.
With regard to your comment about "the myth that right wingers are better at keeping the world safe", I saw the result of an opinion poll recently. I may be wrong, but I think the poll was conducted in America (seems logical), and asked the punters whom they thought the terrorists would prefer to win the U.S. elections later this year. 25% thought the terrorists would prefer Bush, while 60% thought the terrorists would prefer Kerry in the Whitehouse.
I'm not sure how representative these figures are from a national perspective but it does seem the "myth" you mentioned is still alive and well in at least some parts of America.

I'm not American, as you know, so I suppose it's not my business anyway. But I am a certifiable Mars nut, so I hope the man with the most 'vision thing' for space exploration is elected!

Which guy is most likely to get a crewed mission to Mars before I drop dead, Bush or Kerry?
???

Bill White · 2004-03-17 06:05:32

Which guy is most likely to get a crewed mission to Mars before I drop dead, Bush or Kerry?

Neither. Both would be out of office before a mission were launched.

[http://www.thespacereview.com/article/116/1]http://www.thespacereview.com/article/116/1

Bill White · 2004-03-17 06:08:01

Alt2War:-
It takes quite a bit of mental contortion to link 9/11 with Iraq.
Gosh.
Alt2War:-
There is no evidence that Saddam and Al Quiida had any signifigant involvement with each other.
Really?
Alt2War:-
In the global war on terrorism, Iraq was a side show.
I see.
Now that we've established beyond reasonable doubt that Iraq and Al-Qa'ida are unconnected (thank you for explaining that to us), all we have to do now is explain why participation in the invasion, or support for it, makes countries targets for Al-Qa'ida-sponsored terrorism.
Can you see now that the almost triumphant "I-told-you-so" gloating in your assessment of the Spanish tragedy is without logical basis? Your own reasoning establishes that Al-Qa'ida doesn't care about Iraq and never has.
Regardless of your psychological and ideological need to connect President Bush and the Coalition with Islamic extremist violence in some kind of hopelessly perverted cause-and-effect way, your own words trip you up.
You, and those like you, who are propaganda mouthpieces for left-wing groups, should stand back from the indoctrination you've accepted uncritically and take a long hard look at reality.

Shaun, have you heard the flypaper argument for the Iraq war? That we intended to use Iraq as flypaper to catch terrorists?

Maybe bin Laden intended to use Iraq as flypaper to catch Americans. Now, every Iraqi translator killed in a drive by shooting is a loss for American prestige.

Shaun Barrett · 2004-03-17 06:44:20

Bill:-

Neither. Both would be out of office before a mission were launched.

Sheesh ... then I guess it'll all be up to Arnie.

[And no, I wasn't familiar with the 'flypaper argument'. It's as good a hypothesis as any, I suppose, whether it was the CIA's idea or Al-Qa'ida's. It probably cuts both ways anyhow.]

Bill White · 2004-03-17 07:16:22

Bill:-
Neither. Both would be out of office before a mission were launched.
Sheesh ... then I guess it'll all be up to Arnie.
[And no, I wasn't familiar with the 'flypaper argument'. It's as good a hypothesis as any, I suppose, whether it was the CIA's idea or Al-Qa'ida's. It probably cuts both ways anyhow.]

Elsewhere I posted the argument that Bush is already a lame duck President on space, whether he wins or not.

Remember, under his vision, nothing happens between 2004 and 2008 except shuttle returns to flight and we fly a few ISS missions and we spend modest seed money on CEV/OSP. Kerry would do exactly the same thing except rename OSP the DSP - - for Dummycrat Space Plane.

The good stuff all starts after 2008 and MUST be bi-partisan or its doomed.

clark · 2004-03-17 10:04:08

Bush won't get us there any sooner than what he has already stated. A new term administration might decide to alter the "vision" enough to skip the moon completely though.

If a democrat wins the next election, and dosen't challenge the space policy in any appreciable way (which is more than likely), then we assure bipartisan support in the future (as much as we can hope for at least). Then, any following President, Dem or Republican, will say they are supporting their parties Space Plan.

2012 though is a turning point, since at the point, we can forgo actual development of a lunar CEV, and just retain an ISS capable one, with the idea of going beyond at some later date.

Too bad about what happened to the Spanish people.

This is what happens when you draw lines though. We can try and guess as to why this happened, for what reasons, but it all boils down to, "Us vs. Them". Spain is part of the US, or was, and so the Them, attacked.

It dosen't matter what you think anymore, it just matters which side you're on (red rover, red rover...). IMO, both sides are to blame.

Alt2War · 2004-03-17 12:15:20

Alt2War:-
It takes quite a bit of mental contortion to link 9/11 with Iraq.
Gosh.
Alt2War:-
There is no evidence that Saddam and Al Quiida had any signifigant involvement with each other.
Really?
Alt2War:-
In the global war on terrorism, Iraq was a side show.
I see.
Now that we've established beyond reasonable doubt that Iraq and Al-Qa'ida are unconnected (thank you for explaining that to us), all we have to do now is explain why participation in the invasion, or support for it, makes countries targets for Al-Qa'ida-sponsored terrorism.
Can you see now that the almost triumphant "I-told-you-so" gloating in your assessment of the Spanish tragedy is without logical basis? Your own reasoning establishes that Al-Qa'ida doesn't care about Iraq and never has.
Regardless of your psychological and ideological need to connect President Bush and the Coalition with Islamic extremist violence in some kind of hopelessly perverted cause-and-effect way, your own words trip you up.
You, and those like you, who are propaganda mouthpieces for left-wing groups, should stand back from the indoctrination you've accepted uncritically and take a long hard look at reality.

You need to relax man.

If the US were in Egypt, Lybia or Yemen as occupying powers, it would have the same or very similar effect to our current occupation of Iraq.

Your making logical steps that are erronius.

Iraq was not a war of necessity, but a war of option. There was no Immenent threat of invasion. There was not violent act that required retaliation, there was no movement of troops into our soil or any attack on our allies.

It was declared by the president as a Crusade, and a war on Evil. It is seen as an affront to Arab Nations by radicals, it was seen as a humiliation by most Arabs.

If the US had invaded Syria, Yemen, or Egypt it would have had a similar effect of sparking terrorists into action.

dickbill · 2004-03-17 12:39:54

The dispute is about weither or not spanish people'votes have been directed by the terrorists. I think the issue was settled before because, yes, a majority in spain opposed its own government policy. The attentat influenced, especially because supposedly the government tried to blame ETA instaed of the islamist, but I don't think that it was that that decided the voters.
It's not nice to say "spanish are like french wee-wee who turn their back in front of the danger" after all the benedictum and sanctitum urbi and orbi that Dubya gave them.
The spanish vote was predictible, with or without the attentat.

In France there are elections soon, But I doubt that France will vote leftist. French realize that they don't have anymore to be ashmed and culpabilized by the leftist for being patriotic and conservator since guys like Le Pen are moderate democrate leftists compared to guys like Dick Cheney. Why french should be ashmed to vote for moderate like Le Pen when a majority of US citizen support ultraconservators at the white house ? It's difficult to stay moderate in a world of extremists.

Cobra Commander · 2004-03-17 17:01:54

And I was all ready for a calm discussion when I came in here. Alt2War, here's the cold, simple reality. If you or people who think like you were in charge Saddam would still be running Iraq, and Kuwait, terrorists would have killed thousands more Americans after 9-11, and the US would have no respect in the world. Now they may not all like us and they may be afraid, but they know we aren't screwing around and we aren't takin' any more crap. I have just two words for you. Neville Chamberlain.

Coalition of the bribed and coerced? Tell that to the soldiers from Britain, Spain, Poland, Bulgaria, Italy and so on. Tell it to their families, especially those of the dead. Tell them that they were lied to and coerced into an unjust war and that even if they believe they are doing the right thing, which many of them do, that they're too simple minded to understand when they're being manipulated by the evil, oil-drinking, planet killing demon Bush. You and i have profound differences of opinion on most matters, but in this case there is really only one difference. I want to do something to protect this country, you want to make nice with the people who would destroy it.

To the topic at hand, I hope that the Spanish people are really a bunch of socialists rather than people scared into voting that way by terrorists. If they did this because they think it will make them safer, I pity what's coming for them. But even if that's the case, the prior administration has done the honorable thing on their behalf and we are obligated to do what we can to help them until they actively refuse it.

Or get conquered by Muslims again.

DonPanic · 2004-03-17 18:01:48

LO

Your last post is typical of the attitude of so many lefties, who will use anything, even the unnecessary death and injury of thousands of innocent people, to further their cause.

That's exactly what 80 % Europeans and rest of the World think about what Bush and his bunch did with the 9/11 tragedy as a reason to attack Irak, inflating US desire for a retaliation and adding lies about WMD, and Saddam's links with Al Qaeda.
Shaun, sorry to tell you, but that's a very ridiculous "righties"' argument.

Cobra Commander · 2004-03-17 18:25:49

LO
That's exactly what 80 % Europeans and rest of the World think about what Bush and his bunch did with the 9/11 tragedy as a reason to attack Irak, inflating US desire for a retaliation and adding lies about WMD.

Okay, let's start with the WMD issue. It is a matter of documented historical record that Saddam's regime had these things. It has never once been documented that a stockpile of chemical weapons disappeared into the eigth dimension, so where are they? Just because the damn things are hidden doesn't mean they don't exist.

Unless you want to argue that bin Laden doesn't exist.

As for the previous statement, I seriously doubt that 80% of the European population opposed the action, but more to the point the American desire for retaliation needed little inflating after 9/11.

But the War on Terror isn't just about al Qaeda and it certainly isn't just about Afghanistan. Thinking of it in those terms is to guarantee failure. Iraq, while perhaps not linked to al Qaeda (debateable, need more data) it did have a history of being somewhat supportive of certain terrorist elements.

But I'll be generous and concede the whole Iraq/al Qaeda argument for the moment. Why Iraq? Because Iraq was the largest military force in the region, and by rolling it over in a matter of weeks we've sent a message. And in the process we've liberated the Iraqi people, begun the process of creating a Middle Eastern democracy and killed a buttload of terrorists.

But does this justify unilaterally invading some country that couldn't possibly do the same to us? Ah, but we didn't. There's a technicality here that no one wants to talk about. We had a cease-fire agreement with Iraq, and part of the terms was complete inspections and destruction of the prohibited weapons, a list that went well beyond WMD's. We merely resumed hostilities based on Iraq's (repeated) violation of the terms. Opposition to such action is in essence opposition to any enforcement of international agreements, UN or otherwise. So forgive my utter lack of respect for, and confidence in the UN and the enlightened socialist elites of the world. We've got a war to win so they can resume the comfortable lifestyle they rail against but can't quite seem to give up.

Bill White · 2004-03-17 19:27:14

But I'll be generous and concede the whole Iraq/al Qaeda argument for the moment. Why Iraq? Because Iraq was the largest military force in the region, and by rolling it over in a matter of weeks we've sent a message. And in the process we've liberated the Iraqi people, begun the process of creating a Middle Eastern democracy and killed a buttload of terrorists.

As a question of fact, I disagree. Iran would be harder to occupy than Iraq was and Saudi Arabia probably would put up the best fight, unless we sucker punched them. Saudi F15s (even the dumbed down export variety) are still F15s and they have plenty of spare parts and lots of current training.

Do you doubt the Saudis have been running wargames with their AWACs to defend the Kingdom against American aggression? Which way Kuwait went in a Saudi-American war would be significant as well.

Pakistan is the nightmare scenario, if they use nukes.

Dont forget, Iraqi air defenses had been pulverized over 8 years between Gulf Wars.

Actually, except for maybe Qatar or Bahrain, Iraq was probably the weakest Islamic state for us to knock off.

But the War on Terror isn't just about al Qaeda and it certainly isn't just about Afghanistan. Thinking of it in those terms is to guarantee failure. Iraq, while perhaps not linked to al Qaeda (debateable, need more data) it did have a history of being somewhat supportive of certain terrorist elements.

But more to the point. Islam has a billion people, a huge percentage of them unemployed. RPGs cost less than $100 and AK-47s even less. With a high birth rate and plenty of oil money suicide bombers are cheap. Tanks, helos and unmanned drones are expensive.

Our casualties are mourned. Theirs are mourned as well but deemed heroes and glorified for their martyrdom. Wounded Arab pride is a nasty motivator - - dont forget bin Laden is the privileged and wealthy son of a good Saudi family. Close kin of bin Laden are good friends with Bush, Cheney et. al.

That war cannot be won with JDAMS or special forces or aircraft carriers. It is won with school teachers.

Josh Cryer · 2004-03-17 19:34:01

Such hostility in this thread. And is it just me, or are we not even talking about the news' portrayal of the Spanish vote? Why have few addressed the fact that the news "conceeding" that the terrorist have won is letting the terrorist win?

Bills orignal point is still quite valid here. Dang shame it got hijacked by people with conflicting personalities (and clearly built up hostility).

Oh, and anyone thinking the world is safer under a government which leans a particular way, needs to wake up and smell the roses, the world is safest when governments are completely bogged down and essentially unable to do anything to one another or their people. Kind of common sense, really.

Oogy boogy.

Bill White · 2004-03-17 21:48:44

Such hostility in this thread. And is it just me, or are we not even talking about the news' portrayal of the Spanish vote? Why have few addressed the fact that the news "conceeding" that the terrorist have won is letting the terrorist win?

By branding Spain as appeasers, the right wing media itself encourages terrorism as they give al Qaeda more credit than it deserved. Had we all agreed that the previous government was voted out because it LIED and sought to shallowly MANIPULATE PUBLIC OPINION and that Spain remains steadfast against terrorism then no victory would have been achieved by the events of 3-11.

DonPanic · 2004-03-18 03:33:48

LO
Hi Cobra Commander

Okay, let's start with the WMD issue. It is a matter of documented historical record that Saddam's regime had these things. It has never once been documented that a stockpile of chemical weapons disappeared into the eigth dimension, so where are they? Just because the damn things are hidden doesn't mean they don't exist.
Unless you want to argue that bin Laden doesn't exist.

This argument is miserable : a question isn't an answer !
Irak has been visited for ten years by disarmament inspectors,
it was overflyed everyday by US and british air force and spy satellites.
When someone accuses, he must bring up evidences to make true his accusations, if he can't, he shuts up until he finds out !
That's the way before any fair Court of Justice.
And if french secret services reported to the french governement that Irak was not a threat, I have more trust on the french secret services which are much more accurate on middle east than US ones, and particularly about Irak, we're facing ME terrorism at home since 1986.
I never argued that bin Laden doesn't exist, 9/11 is a such heavily obvious evidence !

Why Iraq? Because Iraq was the largest military force in the region,

That was true before Irak War I, that was untrue before Irak War II, first war destroyed Irak war machine, UNO sanctions didn't let any possibility to Irak to import war material.

As for the previous statement, I seriously doubt that 80% of the European population opposed the action

He he, of course, pro war proudly demonstrate clandestinely...here

Well, if you call a liberated people a people occupyed by foreign troopers...and gangrened by day to day terrorist attacs and new gang crimilality that didn't exist before the invasion.
If you are sure that at the very moment these troops come back home, Irak will not turn into an ayatollah's islamic dictatorship, as a will of its Shiite majority.

You may be brilliant at wargames, but maps are not territories.

clark · 2004-03-18 06:40:20

By branding Spain as appeasers, the right wing media itself encourages terrorism as they give al Qaeda more credit than it deserved. Had we all agreed that the previous government was voted out because it LIED and sought to shallowly MANIPULATE PUBLIC OPINION and that Spain remains steadfast against terrorism then no victory would have been achieved by the events of 3-11.

Is it a delusion if we all agree to see the world a certain way? :laugh:

Don't give em a victory, sensible as always Bill. However, forum trolls with bombs are not easily ignored, no?

I applaud Josh!

Cobra,

It is a matter of documented historical record that Saddam's regime had these things.

It's a matter of documented historical record that Saddam's regime got these things from the US, or with US help. It is also a matter of documented historical record that North Korea has provided WMD technology to other nations. It is further documented in historical record that the US opposes North Korea, and other nations, for providing WMD technology to other nations. It is current US policy to preemptively strike any nations who act in this manner.

By our very own argument, and by our very own actions, we must preemptively strike ourselves. Regime change, anyone? :laugh:

And to all,

It has never once been documented that a stockpile of chemical weapons disappeared into the eigth dimension, so where are they?

Wife comes to her husband asking, "Where's your tobacco?"

Husband replies, "I threw it out, like you told me too."

Wife, unbelieving, replies, "I didn't see it in the garbage can."

Husband, indignant, defends himself, "I took the garbage out to the curb already."

Wife, still unswayed, continues, "well, I don't believe you, go out to the curb, bring the garbage back in, and show me."

Now, the husband relazizes that his wife is the boss, even his neighbors know that. Yet the husband can't help but feel a bit put off by this entire situation, and what with the neighbors...They'll watch him, and they'll know, and he will know that they know that his wife is making him bring the garbage back inside to prove he had thrown out all his tobacco. In a flash, he made a decision.

The Husband took a stand, as men sometimes do, and said, "No."

The Wife, well, she was shocked, and realized that her position was being challenged. So, she stopped sleeping in the same bed as him. The husband just went into the bathroom with some old Esquire magazines. She stopped cooking, and he ordered take-out. She stopped doing his laundry, he stopped fixing things, so she settled on doing some of his laundry in exchange for him fixing a few things here and there.

Eventually, the wife realized that she could not win this game, that this might go on indefintetly. She had been confronted with similar challenges to her authority a few times with old boyfriends, like that Russian; and there was this one Cuban who was just stubborn as a mule. But her husband, well, it seemed he was more like the Cuban, and less like the old Russian boyfriend.

What's a girl to do, the wife asks herself.

Then the wife gets an idea, she tells the husband that if he doesn’t prove that he threw out the tobacco, she will get the police to come and make him prove he did it.

The Husband replies, "One, wife dear, is that I took the garbage out, with the tobacco, long ago. There is nothing left to prove or disprove that I threw my tobacco out. Two, wife dear, is that I threw the tobacco out."

So the wife stamps her foot, and calls the police. The police, more than obliging, search their home for tobacco. They search for weeks and months. They find no tobacco.

The husband, smirking to his wife, comments, "see."

But the wife is undeterred, she knows that he must be hiding that tobacco. He couldn't have thrown it all away. Her husband was crafty, she knew that, after all, she had spent many years in bed with the man.

So the wife got another idea. She called her friends and neighbors, and told them to come help her tie up her husband so she could search the house properly for tobacco. The police didn't find anything, but she knew her house better than they did. She started telling them that she knew exactly where the hidden tobacco was, but she just needed her husband out of the way to get to it. Some were still unconvinced, but after all, the wife, and the neighbors, hadn't actually seen the husband throw out the tobacco, so perhaps the wife was right. And who better to know the contents of the home, than the wife, right?

So the neighbors, some from next door, others from down the block, some bullied, others hoping to win the wife’s favor (she makes great apple pie!), come to help tie up her husband. The husband protests, but weakly.

The wife searches, and finds... no tobacco. And the entire neighborhood looked on...

****

I could go on, but I will not bore you any further. Thank you for the indulgence. :laugh:

dickbill · 2004-03-18 10:47:22

The Husband took a stand, as men sometimes do, and said, "No."
The Wife, well, she was shocked, and realized that her position was being challenged. So, she stopped sleeping in the same bed as him. The husband just went into the bathroom with some old Esquire magazines.

that's what happen in He3 mines in the moon. Lonely gold miners...

But back to the spanish spinning. It still continues. Friedman in the New York times, said that the decision of the spanish voters was "crazy". He says exactly (copy/paste thanks NYT)
"Spain is planning to do something crazy: to try to appease radical evil by pulling Spain's troops out of Iraq — even though those troops are now supporting the first democracy-building project ever in the Arab world."

My advice to Mr Friedman : stop eating Paellas, pour the spannish wine in the street etc

Alt2War · 2004-03-18 12:30:59

Okay, let's start with the WMD issue. It is a matter of documented historical record that Saddam's regime had these things. It has never once been documented that a stockpile of chemical weapons disappeared into the eigth dimension, so where are they? Just because the damn things are hidden doesn't mean they don't exist.
Unless you want to argue that bin Laden doesn't exist.
As for the previous statement, I seriously doubt that 80% of the European population opposed the action, but more to the point the American desire for retaliation needed little inflating after 9/11.
But the War on Terror isn't just about al Qaeda and it certainly isn't just about Afghanistan. Thinking of it in those terms is to guarantee failure. Iraq, while perhaps not linked to al Qaeda (debateable, need more data) it did have a history of being somewhat supportive of certain terrorist elements.
But I'll be generous and concede the whole Iraq/al Qaeda argument for the moment. Why Iraq? Because Iraq was the largest military force in the region, and by rolling it over in a matter of weeks we've sent a message. And in the process we've liberated the Iraqi people, begun the process of creating a Middle Eastern democracy and killed a buttload of terrorists.
But does this justify unilaterally invading some country that couldn't possibly do the same to us? Ah, but we didn't. There's a technicality here that no one wants to talk about. We had a cease-fire agreement with Iraq, and part of the terms was complete inspections and destruction of the prohibited weapons, a list that went well beyond WMD's. We merely resumed hostilities based on Iraq's (repeated) violation of the terms. Opposition to such action is in essence opposition to any enforcement of international agreements, UN or otherwise. So forgive my utter lack of respect for, and confidence in the UN and the enlightened socialist elites of the world. We've got a war to win so they can resume the comfortable lifestyle they rail against but can't quite seem to give up.

Okay, let's start with the WMD issue. It is a matter of documented historical record that Saddam's regime had these things. It has never once been documented that a stockpile of chemical weapons disappeared into the eigth dimension, so where are they? Just because the damn things are hidden doesn't mean they don't exist.

Blown the #### up by Clinton would be a good guess.

Just because you want to believe they are there, does not mean that they are.

But the War on Terror isn't just about al Qaeda and it certainly isn't just about Afghanistan. Thinking of it in those terms is to guarantee failure. Iraq, while perhaps not linked to al Qaeda (debateable, need more data) it did have a history of being somewhat supportive of certain terrorist elements.

Fighting Terrorism is a matter of Intelligence and Police Work, and just rarely should a military strike be required, As in Afghanistan.

A top Iraqi Aid met with an Al Quida General in Europe. They talked. That is the end of any positive link between Al Quida and Iraq. Osama has publicly denounced Saddam. Osama and Saddam are diametricly opposed in their world views. Osama wants a clerical world state under Islam. Saddam is just your run of the mill megalomaniac dictator, who happens to oppose religion as a basis of government.

If you are proposing that Iraq diserved to be invaded because it supported the Palistinians, than america has a long row to hoe. You are proposing the US make war on all the Arab world.

The violence Israel exacts on the Palistinians is no less monsterous than the violence palistinians give in kind.

But I'll be generous and concede the whole Iraq/al Qaeda argument for the moment. Why Iraq? Because Iraq was the largest military force in the region, and by rolling it over in a matter of weeks we've sent a message. And in the process we've liberated the Iraqi people, begun the process of creating a Middle Eastern democracy and killed a buttload of terrorists.

Your ignorance slip is showing.

Iraq was essentially defenseless, as far as conventional military might is concerned.

In fact, a few years before GW2, Saddam ordered his tank divisions to move to the Jordanian border as a symbol of solidarity with the palistinians.

Not one tank made it. They all broke down on the way.

Saddam was not a risk to his neighbors as far as conventional military arms were concerned. His military was destroyed utterly in the first gulf war. What remniants remained were in total disrepair due to the harshness of the 10 years of sanctions.

And in the process we've liberated the Iraqi people, begun the process of creating a Middle Eastern democracy and killed a buttload of terrorists.

Are all Arabs Terrorists? Thats what I have to assume you mean by this. We killed a lot of Arabs, thats for damn sure. But what can you possibly mean by the fact that when we invaded Iraq, we killed a lot of terrorists?

But does this justify unilaterally invading some country that couldn't possibly do the same to us? Ah, but we didn't. There's a technicality here that no one wants to talk about. We had a cease-fire agreement with Iraq, and part of the terms was complete inspections and destruction of the prohibited weapons, a list that went well beyond WMD's. We merely resumed hostilities based on Iraq's (repeated) violation of the terms. Opposition to such action is in essence opposition to any enforcement of international agreements, UN or otherwise. So forgive my utter lack of respect for, and confidence in the UN and the enlightened socialist elites of the world. We've got a war to win so they can resume the comfortable lifestyle they rail against but can't quite seem to give up

Thanks for the laugh! I'll let you think about this yourself and see if you can spot your contradictions.

Bill White · 2004-03-18 12:39:37

The Husband took a stand, as men sometimes do, and said, "No."
The Wife, well, she was shocked, and realized that her position was being challenged. So, she stopped sleeping in the same bed as him. The husband just went into the bathroom with some old Esquire magazines.
that's what happen in He3 mines in the moon. Lonely gold miners...
But back to the spanish spinning. It still continues. Friedman in the New York times, said that the decision of the spanish voters was "crazy". He says exactly (copy/paste thanks NYT)
"Spain is planning to do something crazy: to try to appease radical evil by pulling Spain's troops out of Iraq — even though those troops are now supporting the first democracy-building project ever in the Arab world."
My advice to Mr Friedman : stop eating Paellas, pour the spannish wine in the street etc

Too bad, I thought Tom Friedman was more sensible than that.

= = =

[http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s … oland_iraq]Now the Poles. . .

= = =

Okay, my faith in Tom Friedman is restored. Whether Spain actually pulls troops from Iraq remains to be seen. The article follows since the NY Times requires registration:

The new Spanish government's decision to respond to the attack by Al Qaeda by going ahead with plans to pull its troops from Iraq constitutes the most dangerous moment we've faced since 9/11. It's what happens when the Axis of Evil intersects with the Axis of Appeasement and the Axis of Incompetence.
Axis of Appeasement? Jury is still out, IMHO. Europe may well choose to confront terror, yet refuse to stand in line behind GWB. If this is NOT what is happening, then yes its appeasement
Let's start with the Axis of Evil. We are up against a terrible nihilistic enemy. Think about what the Islamist terrorists are doing: they are trying to kill as many people in Iraq and elsewhere as possible so the U.S. fails in Iraq, so Iraq collapses into civil war, so even a glimmer of democracy never takes root in the Arab world and so America is weakened.
True - Shaun Barrett is spot on here as well.
But if they are so bad, why aren't we doing better? It has to do with the pigheadedness of the Bush team and the softheadedness of many allies. Regarding the Bush team, let me say yet again: We do not have enough troops in Iraq, and we never did. From the outset, the Bush Pentagon has treated Iraq as a lab test to prove that it can win a war with a small, mobile high-tech Army. Well, maybe you can defeat Saddam that way, but you can't build a new Iraq — and control its borders to prevent foreign terrorists from coming in — with so few troops, especially when you disband the Iraqi Army on top of it.
Don't tell me we have enough troops in Iraq when our soldiers are getting picked off daily by roadside bombs, when our aid workers are getting murdered and when Iraqis are getting massacred by suicide missions. Don't tell me we are not fighting this war on the cheap when our diplomats in Baghdad don't have enough armored cars, cellphones, bulletproof vests or escort troops to protect them as they try to travel around the country. We are now paying for the contradiction between Mr. Bush's two great projects: his war on taxes and his war on terrorism.
Yes, yes and yes. More troops and more money -- I thought I said that a while back.
Yes, we can still win this, but right now, despite Paul Bremer's heroic success in helping Iraqis forge a progressive interim constitution, we can still lose it. If we do, it will be largely due to the Pentagon's inability to secure Iraq, which has encouraged Iraqis to turn to sectarian militias for security, undermining nation-building and planting the seeds of civil war. Second, it will be because we have so few real allies. As Spain proves, we had a few friendly governments, but most people in Europe and Asia have never been with the Bush team — especially when it continues to insist that we are going to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq to justify the war. It's time for the Bush team to admit it was wrong about this and move on.
Unless President Bush dispenses with his discredited argument for the war — W.M.D. — no one will hear or listen to what I believe was always the only right argument for the war and is now the only rationale left: to depose the genocidal Saddam regime in order to partner with the Iraqi people to build a decent government in the heart of the Arab-Muslim world — because it is the pathologies and humiliations produced by Arab misgovernance that are the root causes of terrorism and Muslim extremism.
Are these paragraphs connected with what follows? If Bush is following a losing strategy in the War on Terror then someone needs to get him on the right course. Maybe Europe is the only leverage there is
Spain is planning to do something crazy: to try to appease radical evil by pulling Spain's troops out of Iraq — even though those troops are now supporting the first democracy-building project ever in the Arab world.
I understand that many Spanish voters felt lied to by their rightist government over who was responsible for the Madrid bombings, and therefore voted it out of office. But they should now follow that up by vowing to keep their troops in Iraq — to make clear that in cleaning up their own democracy, they do not want to subvert the Iraqis' attempt to build one of their own. Otherwise, the Spanish vote will not be remembered as an act of cleansing, but of appeasement.
My dream is that the U.S., Britain, France, Germany and Spain announce tomorrow that in response to the Madrid bombing, they are sending a new joint force of 5,000 troops to Iraq for the sole purpose of protecting the U.N.'s return to Baghdad to oversee Iraq's first democratic election.
The notion that Spain can separate itself from Al Qaeda's onslaught on Western civilization by pulling its troops from Iraq is a fantasy. Bin Laden has said that Spain was once Muslim and he wants it restored that way. As a friend in Cairo e-mailed me, a Spanish pullout from Iraq would only bring to mind Churchill's remark after Chamberlain returned from signing the Munich pact with Hitler: "You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war."

Whether Spain intends appeasement or to wage war against terror under an EU banner rather than the American flag remains an open question.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-03-16 10:17:35

Re: Spinning the Spanish election - Another thought

#2 2004-03-16 19:21:05

Re: Spinning the Spanish election - Another thought

#3 2004-03-16 20:29:36

Re: Spinning the Spanish election - Another thought

#4 2004-03-16 21:01:59

Re: Spinning the Spanish election - Another thought

#5 2004-03-17 00:58:07

Re: Spinning the Spanish election - Another thought

#6 2004-03-17 03:42:48

Re: Spinning the Spanish election - Another thought

#7 2004-03-17 06:01:55

Re: Spinning the Spanish election - Another thought

#8 2004-03-17 06:05:32

Re: Spinning the Spanish election - Another thought

#9 2004-03-17 06:08:01

Re: Spinning the Spanish election - Another thought

#10 2004-03-17 06:44:20

Re: Spinning the Spanish election - Another thought

#11 2004-03-17 07:16:22

Re: Spinning the Spanish election - Another thought

#12 2004-03-17 10:04:08

Re: Spinning the Spanish election - Another thought

#13 2004-03-17 12:15:20

Re: Spinning the Spanish election - Another thought

#14 2004-03-17 12:39:54

Re: Spinning the Spanish election - Another thought

#15 2004-03-17 17:01:54

Re: Spinning the Spanish election - Another thought

#16 2004-03-17 18:01:48

Re: Spinning the Spanish election - Another thought

#17 2004-03-17 18:25:49

Re: Spinning the Spanish election - Another thought

#18 2004-03-17 19:27:14

Re: Spinning the Spanish election - Another thought

#19 2004-03-17 19:34:01

Re: Spinning the Spanish election - Another thought

#20 2004-03-17 21:48:44

Re: Spinning the Spanish election - Another thought

#21 2004-03-18 03:33:48

Re: Spinning the Spanish election - Another thought

#22 2004-03-18 06:40:20

Re: Spinning the Spanish election - Another thought

#23 2004-03-18 10:47:22

Re: Spinning the Spanish election - Another thought

#24 2004-03-18 12:30:59

Re: Spinning the Spanish election - Another thought

#25 2004-03-18 12:39:37

Re: Spinning the Spanish election - Another thought

Board footer