Spinning the Spanish election - Another thought

clark · 2004-03-18 13:24:57

A moment of clarity, a moment of politcal pragmatisim...

So you're Spain. You join an ill conceived war to curry favor with the lone super-power of the world. Your contribution, in real terms, is small, but provides for politcal support for a super-power that needs international buy-in. You need foreigners for a coalition, even if it's just a few army cooks.

You do all of this against public sentiment, something that tends to be unstable within a democracy. So you pull out.

Why?

Becuase you won't be bombed anymore, and the lone super-power didn't really need you anyway. The people are happy, the super-power may be pissed, but the leader will be out in 4 years (if not sooner). Plenty of time to weather the storm and let them forget.

Cost to you for all of this? Domestic standing improves, both within the nation, and within a newly forming federal government (read, old europe... thank you Rumsfeld). Your country can also make the argument that they were one of the first to help, but their final decision was really affected by the whole lying on the WMD issue. So, really, you can play both sides of the coin, depending on who you are talking to at the time.

Shrewd, and shows that the US really has no allies. But then, that's what you get from a pack of mercenaries.

Edit:

If all the boys on the other side of the Atlantic got together, and said to America, "hey, we will follow you, but we won't follow Bush," I wonder what our reaction might be? How might that affect elections come Novemember? ???

Maybe Kerry should call his phantom foreign supporters.

Bill White · 2004-03-18 13:36:59

Lets run with clarks analysis. If Spain can do this, how much leverage does Tony Blair have right now?

Byron · 2004-03-18 13:48:57

Lets run with clarks analysis. If Spain can do this, how much leverage does Tony Blair have right now?

I would say he has quite a bit at the moment...if he hops off the Bush train and sides with the rest of Europe, that man is going to have to make some changes in his foreign policy initiatives pretty quick.

Just because the United Sates is the world's superpower does not mean we can play empire-builder and do as we like in Iraq and elsewhere...for this to work (defeating the terrorists, or at least holding them at bay), the U.S. desperately needs to work with other nations in a cooperative manner, and soon. I have a strong feeling that both the public and the governments of many European nations are getting rather tired of Bush's "my way or the highway" approach.

Maybe the E.U. does need to come out and say that they will follow the U.S....just not Bush's policies. If Kerry plays his cards right, he has the potential to make this a wedge issue against his opponent (along with the economy, jobs, etc)...but only if he's very careful about what he's doing.

B

DonPanic · 2004-03-18 14:14:05

LO

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.

Political fiction isn't an argument. We sent troops for Irak War I, so Koweit was no more occupied by Saddam anyways.
We are aside USA in Afghanistan, and our elite Alpine "hunters" track Bin Laden in the mountains together with US troops.
You think we have more respect for USA because Bush II attacked Irak, "tu te mets le doigt dans l'oeil *" *"You put your finger in your eye". We are just scared when "la bêtise" reigns over Washington,
and this is sure not respect.
You loose any kind of objectivity, as the result of this attack is an enlargement of terrorist threat, it was supposed to shink it.

Or get conquered by Muslims again.

Spain had Reconquista without US troops help, if I remember History.

Cobra Commander · 2004-03-18 16:48:08

Quote
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.

Maybe Clinton's missile flinging did destroy the weapons, we don't know. Maybe the trucks we have satellite photos of crossing into Syria before the war had them inside, we don't know. But to say "see, we didn't find any weapons, Bush lied" when for 12 years beforehand everyone knew Iraq had them is doublethink bordering on idiocy. I can't say with absolute certainty that Iraq was still in position of these weapons, but no one can provide a damn shred of evidence that they were destroyed.

But as I've said many times before, I really don't care if the weapons were destroyed, they weren't the real issue. There is far more at stake here than a few shells full of sarin.

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

We tried this approach for 8 years. It failed, as evidenced by 9/11.

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.

I wasn't trying to suggest that Iraq's army was first-rate, just big. It also still had a formidable but eroding mystique from it's pre-'91 days. Though Iraq did have one advantage over its neighbors. While the Saudis train with the f-15's we sold them and the Syians train with their Migs, Iraq learned first-hand that the US is the undisputed master of conventional warfare. They tried fighting us with massed infantry and armored columns, and they will not soon forget the stomping that resulted. Those that did fight were forced to fight like terrorists and guerrillas because they knew the alternative was hopeless. If we have to fight another Middle Eastern nation they will probably be better equipped and more formidable on paper than Iraq appeared. it will do them no good, and may make our job easier by giving us targets the US military is trained to handle.

So the resistance will simply turn into the sort we see Iraq after the proper military is defeated, true. But that won't do their governments any good, and they are the people we're sending the message to. When Bashar Assad looks at Iraq he doesn't see insurgents fighting back the infidel so much as he sees Saddam in a cell. When dealing with these piss-ant dictators the issue is not so much lines on a map as personalities and motivations. They need to be afraid or we can't win this.

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?

Did anyone ever say all Arabs were terrorists? No. Are you denying there are terrorists in Iraq? that we've killed a few? We didn't kill too many Iraqi soldiers, they were for the most part busy surrendering, unless you call the Fedayeen "soldiers" rather than terrorists, which I suppose is an arguable point.

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?

There are days... ??? hell, right now I'm up for it.

clark · 2004-03-18 16:57:15

Even in the land of free speech, certain topics are best avoided...

Our leaders said they knew where the things were, or had a good idea where they were. Our leaders said they could fire these things on a moments notice. Our leaders said we were in immediate danger. Our leaders said that this reasoning, these 'facts', were used to justify a preemptive strike on another nation.

And we agreed to a big fat lie.

Now, I don't know about others, but the way I look at it, if you ask a man to go die in some god-forsaken country, or you ask some mother to wish bonvoyage to their child, you have the responsibility to tell the truth. You ask something difficult of someone, you show them the same respect, and you do what is right, even if difficult.

Bill White · 2004-03-18 18:07:01

Cobra writes:

But that won't do their governments any good, and they are the people we're sending the message to.

Governments are not the root of the problem. You want to play chess while bin Laden is playing Go.

Cobra Commander · 2004-03-18 18:21:45

Governments are not the root of the problem. You want to play chess while bin Laden is playing Go.

Osama bin Laden is not working alone, some governments are providing assistance in various forms. If we cut off that assistance, we weaken al Qaeda significantly. While I'd prefer to simply be left alone, clearly that option doesn't exist. We've had this chess match thrust upon us, the only issue now is how well we move.

Bill White · 2004-03-18 18:28:30

Governments are not the root of the problem. You want to play chess while bin Laden is playing Go.
Osama bin Laden is not working alone, some governments are providing assistance in various forms. If we cut off that assistance, we weaken al Qaeda significantly. While I'd prefer to simply be left alone, clearly that option doesn't exist. We've had this chess match thrust upon us, the only issue now is how well we move.

Come on, we KNOW who is providing crucial assistance already. And its from the one place Bush refuses to pressure.

Cobra Commander · 2004-03-18 18:44:55

Come on, we KNOW who is providing assistance already. And its from the one place Bush refuses to pressure.

Oh, I'm all too aware of that. It might even be one of the reasons I've been so irritable lately

But the House of Saud isn't alone in supporting terrorists, they're just immune to scrutiny for the moment.

Now if we could take some of that Iraqi oil, it might be a whole new situation. We could deal with this situation much more directly than we have been, but it would require a wee bit of sacrifice on the part of the American people and an extreme tolerance for horrid screeching from the left. I'm up for it, for what that's worth.

Bill White · 2004-03-18 18:54:48

Come on, we KNOW who is providing assistance already. And its from the one place Bush refuses to pressure.
Oh, I'm all too aware of that. It might even be one of the reasons I've been so irritable lately
But the House of Saud isn't alone in supporting terrorists, they're just immune to scrutiny for the moment.
Now if we could take some of that Iraqi oil, it might be a whole new situation. We could deal with this situation much more directly than we have been, but it would require a wee bit of sacrifice on the part of the American people and an extreme tolerance for horrid screeching from the left. I'm up for it, for what that's worth.

Sure they are not the only ones but they have the most money (by far!) and bin Ladens version is the only terror network with global aspirations. The other groups are essentially regional.

Until we cut off the Saudi money spigot we cannot win militarily. Yet we cannot regime change the Saudi royal family without losng all Saudi oil for several years and enraging all Islam by our conquest of the land of Mecca and Medina.

Stalemate.

We KNOW who is ultimately behind 9-11 and we cannot touch them.

= = =

Here is MY take on Saddams role in all this.

Imagine living in a small town. The Sheriffs son rapes and murders a girl. Sheriff soon finds out the truth which he in unwilling to act upon.

So he arrests the local town sleaze. The guy is a punk and an a$$hole and has done lots and lots of bad things to deserve whatever fate befalls him.

Saddam is that town sleaze. He is an evil MF who deserves being pulled from a spider hole. The Iraqi people are better off. But he didnt do the crime in question, meaning 9-11.

= = =

Now if we could take some of that Iraqi oil, it might be a whole new situation. We could deal with this situation much more directly than we have been, but it would require a wee bit of sacrifice on the part of the American people and an extreme tolerance for horrid screeching from the left. I'm up for it, for what that's worth.

Okay, so that is a plan. Now, WHO most benefits from chaos in Iraq? Who most benefits if oil fields or pipelines or pumping stations get blown up? Who is paying all those foreign fighters flocking to Iraq?

By the way - - have you read about the expected OPEC production cut come April 1st? ???

= = =

Okay, its a plan - Part Duex.

Now if this really is the plan, can you blame the Europeans for being pissed about being suckered into Iraq by trumped up charges for WMD when the real reason was to leverage the Saudis in a way we are not willing to discuss openly?

If this is the plan, shouldnt Bush and Powell have been very very nice to the Europeans so they play along?

Cobra Commander · 2004-03-18 19:06:27

Saddam is that town sleaze. He is an evil MF who deserves being pulled from a spider hole. The Iraqi people are better off. But he didnt do the crime in question, meaning 9-11.

Certainly not, and I get a little concerned when people claim otherwise. But unless we get up the cajones to deal with the Saudis directly, we're gonna have to play this little chess game, picking off the smaller players as the opportunities present themselves until the real target is isolated and in a far less powerful bargaining position. Either way we're looking at the same costs, just our current strategy stretches them out over a longer span of time.

Bill White · 2004-03-18 19:16:50

Cobra - let us assume we are amoral Machiavellians. Which I am not. This is all hypothetical only.

100,000 US soldiers in Venezuela right now looks a whole lot better than 100,000 US soldiers in Iraq and might actually better secure our oil supplies.

And, being in Iraq, we would be rather over extended politically and militarily if we tried to move into Venezuela today.

That said, who in OPEC can we turn to for support? How will a few years time improve our position concerning Saudi Arabia?

Bill White · 2004-03-18 19:25:24

Hee! Hee!

Maybe the Europeans would go along with a plan to stabilize Iraq and use Iraqi oil reserves to leverage Saudi Arabia if they were given a sacrificial offering.

Maybe like President Bush losing the election? :;):

Cobra Commander · 2004-03-18 19:32:32

Okay, so that is a plan. Now, WHO most benefits from chaos in Iraq? Who most benefits if oil fields or pipelines or pumping stations get blown up? Who is paying all those foreign fighters flocking to Iraq?

No argument here.

Now if this really is the plan, can you blame the Europeans for being pissed about being suckered into Iraq by trumped up charges for WMD when the real reason was to leverage the Saudis in a way we are not willing to discuss openly?
If this is the plan, shouldnt Bush and Powell have been very very nice to the Europeans so they play along?

A valid point. This highlights one of the Bush Administration's problems in such matters, Bush didn't lie about the WMD's, but he could have been alot smoother with the build up. I'd have used a more Machiavellian approach (since you bring it up) and drop subtle hints that would make the Europeans want to be involved in the wider Saudi smack-down. It would've started around noon on Sept.11, 2001.

But it's hardly relevent here as I wouldn't be concerned with the Saudis getting word of this because I'd only be taking such a mellow road due to other elements' opposition and waiting for an excuse to take more direct action. And now Bush and Cheney don't let me in the super-secret meetings at the undisclosed location anymore.

Bill White · 2004-03-18 19:52:54

Bush didnt lie? Okay, I can accept that, since the meaning of - - is - - is, well, open to debate. :;):

Zapatero says he lied. The Polish President says he was taken for a ride, 67% of Canadians believed Bush lied. Did he really lie? Does it matter?

Anyway, the plan you describe pretty much is the only plan. Its a shame Bush botched it.

So now, same game plan, new quarterback?

= = =

Edit. Oh yeah. Part of the problem? Bush tried to fight a two front war. Defeat terror and suppress the Europeans diplomatically. Reshape the UN to strengthen the US position.

Not necessarily bad (open to argument) but two front wars are usually a bad idea.

Now we either empower Europe or suffer major setbacks in the war on terror.

Byron · 2004-03-19 06:17:17

Now we either empower Europe or suffer major setbacks in the war on terror.

Yeah, no kidding. If Bush wants to play world leader, then he needs to start acting like one, and soon, before we end up not having any allies at all...

B

DonPanic · 2004-03-19 07:10:53

LO

Edit. Oh yeah. Part of the problem? Bush tried to fight a two front war. Defeat terror and suppress the Europeans diplomatically. Reshape the UN to strengthen the US position.
Not necessarily bad (open to argument) but two front wars are usually a bad idea.
Now we either empower Europe or suffer major setbacks in the war on terror

Wise. As a froggy, I'm amazed by the french incredible diplomatic influence, showed by UNO delegates applauses at de Villepin's speech.
Keeping France as close (even quite messy) ally and friend strengthens the US position. Bush administration acting to weaken France and push her in a rest of the world alliance v USA have been as mistake as for Stalin asking : "Vatican, how many divisions ?"
Vatican had its revenge on active USSR split off.
Alliance could have been set if USA had assured that France's interests in middle East were to be preserved.
There was an old US British Dutch and French agreement attributing to France "Mesopotamia oil".
With Clinton, the Frenchies had a fairly good opinion at USA, and same each side of Atlantic, Bush and his room strategists destroyed this relationship, and he personally cannot restore it, any kind of trust has gone,
only another US president can. Same for majority of european citizens.

Bill White · 2004-03-19 07:26:52

Governments are not the root of the problem. You want to play chess while bin Laden is playing Go.
Osama bin Laden is not working alone, some governments are providing assistance in various forms. If we cut off that assistance, we weaken al Qaeda significantly. While I'd prefer to simply be left alone, clearly that option doesn't exist. We've had this chess match thrust upon us, the only issue now is how well we move.

I wonder how much financial support for al Qaeda comes from private parties in Egypt? The Egyptian President has done a good job of suppressing Islamicists in Egypt yet he is now quite elderly and has no obvious successor.

What if (after the current leader dies) Egyptian factions more openly supports radical Islam? (Not the government which is paid billions in annual US bribes not to fight Israel - - but rather support from wealthy private Egyptians now being suppressed by the strong Egyptian President)

Does our occupation of Iraq help or hurt on that potential battleground?

DonPanic · 2004-03-19 08:19:06

LO

I wonder how much financial support for al Qaeda comes from private parties in Egypt?

There is a traditionnal arab banking and credit letter system so anybody can send money from almost any part of the world to another part, not only from Egypt but from the whole islamic world.
Some of these money transactors are official, some unofficial, all rely on trust, and the fees are much lower than with real banks.
That is a very massive amount of money transactions escaping any control.
Any islamist militant can send money, so that terrorism funding is almost free, at web speed.

Bill White · 2004-03-19 09:53:58

LO
I wonder how much financial support for al Qaeda comes from private parties in Egypt?
There is a traditionnal arab banking and credit letter system so anybody can send money from almost any part of the world to another part, not only from Egypt but from the whole islamic world.
Some of these money transactors are official, some unofficial, all rely on trust, and the fees are much lower than with real banks.
That is a very massive amount of money transactions escaping any control.
Any islamist militant can send money, so that terrorism funding is almost free, at web speed.

So it would seem that to dry up the funding sources for al Qaeda we need to target those wealthy Muslim families living in places like Egypt, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, wherever. Yet aren't these wealthy families also well connected with the leaders of those same countries? Here in America, we have cracked down on the so-called Islamic charities, yet that does not help overseas.

How does regime change in Iraq help persuade wealthy Cairo Islamic socialites to not give money, quietly, to al Qaeda?

Have a nice quiet dinner party amongst Egypt's or Kuwait's elite and collect $1 million or $10 million per guest for al Qaeda.

Stopping this sounds like police work to me and sounds like the problem the British had when working class Irish-Americans gave money to the IRA.

dickbill · 2004-03-19 10:46:36

Taking the iraqi's oil is the ultimate mistake, in this case, the arabs understand "stealing" instead of "taking".
The US should not do that, that' the sillyest thing to do, (so they will probably do it). The european and France should not do it either and they should make repentance and moult flagellation for all the dirty bussiness they've done with Saddam. It's not because other guys, including the US, did that dirty bussiness, that they had to do it too.

The reason is that what gives so much power to the house of saoudis and other Bush's friends is OIL and our dependance of it. That money comes from the devil since it is not associated with righteous sweat and work. Without this oil, what could be these friends of Dubbya ? camels and goat farmers at best. They would have no power and no money to send to AlQuaeda.

So the US should see OIL independance as the ultimate solution, unfortunatly long term. Reconverting the all automobile park to H2 car or electric car can probably be spread over tens of years, not less. Nevertheless years after year, the oil importation would decrease, and the saoudis would start to seriously worry about their status as the source of their power slowly evaporates.

That means that US citizens must accept nuclear energy as a substitute for the oil. It can be clean and safe you know.

Dickbill the wise.

Bill White · 2004-03-19 12:15:53

Taking the iraqi's oil is the ultimate mistake, in this case, the arabs understand "stealing" instead of "taking".
The US should not do that, that' the sillyest thing to do, (so they will probably do it). The european and France should not do it either and they should make repentance and moult flagellation for all the dirty bussiness they've done with Saddam. It's not because other guys, including the US, did that dirty bussiness, that they had to do it too.
The reason is that what gives so much power to the house of saoudis and other Bush's friends is OIL and our dependance of it. That money comes from the devil since it is not associated with righteous sweat and work. Without this oil, what could be these friends of Dubbya ? camels and goat farmers at best. They would have no power and no money to send to AlQuaeda.
So the US should see OIL independance as the ultimate solution, unfortunatly long term. Reconverting the all automobile park to H2 car or electric car can probably be spread over tens of years, not less. Nevertheless years after year, the oil importation would decrease, and the saoudis would start to seriously worry about their status as the source of their power slowly evaporates.
That means that US citizens must accept nuclear energy as a substitute for the oil. It can be clean and safe you know.
Dickbill the wise.

US sales of SUVs are [http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s … fsuvbuyers]up. Go figure that. ???

dickbill · 2004-03-19 12:45:53

US sales of SUVs are [http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s … fsuvbuyers]up. Go figure that. ???

You cannot have everything. Long term peace is based on solid fundations and healthy policy.
MAny things in american policy don't make sense but I think that people can be teach better what is the consequence of their choice. Free choice is great, but you have to have the knowledge which come with free choice.
I cannot believe that with a choice between a clean H2 or electric car that gives healthy ecology and healthy relation in the middle east, people will continue to choose the short sighted, testosterone loaded SUV cars, just because the "bachelor" has the same SUV or teenagers like it fast and shiny.

People change of mind can be easily induced. What's gonna be difficult to influence are the OIL lobbies and dependant industries. I believe clean/oil free cars could have been made a long time ago but the OIL companies do not see that favorably. Neither do the Saoudis kingdom of course. Rather, the OIL compagnies use the excuse to say "that's the consumers who don't want slow electric cars, that's not our fault". yeah sure.
I bet that if H2 or electric cars were available right now, in the present political context, people would choose massively over oil powered cars. Maybe not everybody, but a trend would be created, irreversibly.

I was in Miami last week end, I saw a Lamborghini locked in the chaotic traffic, sweating gas fumes and oil to advance two meters, and ridiculous babes-bait cars (with no babes aboard), like in the "happy days". All that can be changed faster than you think. That's not the problem.

Bill White · 2004-03-19 12:51:42

Read [http://www.agonist.org/archives/014453.html#014453]this - - speculative to be sure but interesting nonetheless.

Treat this report with suspicion.

= = =

Do not treat this [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17013]with suspicion. It is opinion and commentary yet its a solid source.

= = =

Another interesting article. [http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/st … ory=502755]Poland is said to withdraw many of its objections to the EU constitution. If I recall correctly, this change is NOT a change Washington favors.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2004-03-18 13:24:57

Re: Spinning the Spanish election - Another thought

#27 2004-03-18 13:36:59

Re: Spinning the Spanish election - Another thought

#28 2004-03-18 13:48:57

Re: Spinning the Spanish election - Another thought

#29 2004-03-18 14:14:05

Re: Spinning the Spanish election - Another thought

#30 2004-03-18 16:48:08

Re: Spinning the Spanish election - Another thought

#31 2004-03-18 16:57:15

Re: Spinning the Spanish election - Another thought

#32 2004-03-18 18:07:01

Re: Spinning the Spanish election - Another thought

#33 2004-03-18 18:21:45

Re: Spinning the Spanish election - Another thought

#34 2004-03-18 18:28:30

Re: Spinning the Spanish election - Another thought

#35 2004-03-18 18:44:55

Re: Spinning the Spanish election - Another thought

#36 2004-03-18 18:54:48

Re: Spinning the Spanish election - Another thought

#37 2004-03-18 19:06:27

Re: Spinning the Spanish election - Another thought

#38 2004-03-18 19:16:50

Re: Spinning the Spanish election - Another thought

#39 2004-03-18 19:25:24

Re: Spinning the Spanish election - Another thought

#40 2004-03-18 19:32:32

Re: Spinning the Spanish election - Another thought

#41 2004-03-18 19:52:54

Re: Spinning the Spanish election - Another thought

#42 2004-03-19 06:17:17

Re: Spinning the Spanish election - Another thought

#43 2004-03-19 07:10:53

Re: Spinning the Spanish election - Another thought

#44 2004-03-19 07:26:52

Re: Spinning the Spanish election - Another thought

#45 2004-03-19 08:19:06

Re: Spinning the Spanish election - Another thought

#46 2004-03-19 09:53:58

Re: Spinning the Spanish election - Another thought

#47 2004-03-19 10:46:36

Re: Spinning the Spanish election - Another thought

#48 2004-03-19 12:15:53

Re: Spinning the Spanish election - Another thought

#49 2004-03-19 12:45:53

Re: Spinning the Spanish election - Another thought

#50 2004-03-19 12:51:42

Re: Spinning the Spanish election - Another thought

Board footer