Coalitition of the Willing, Shrinks [Archive]

alteran

03-15-2004, 07:51 AM

Here is an interesting viewpoint.

---------

A HUGE VICTORY FOR TERRORISTS

This morning on CNN they were asking whether or not the socialist victory in Spain meant the terrorists were winning. Answer: Definitely. Up until the time of the terrorist (apparently Islamic) attack on those trains in Spain the government of Jose Maria Aznar was holding a dominating lead in the polls. Spain's new leader will be Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero. He is pledging to bring Spain's troops home from Iraq. He will also adopt a foreign policy that is decidedly less friendly to the United States than was Aznar. The new Spanish government will align itself with the European Axis of Weasels, Germany, France, Belgium and other appeasement-oriented countries.

There is no doubt that terrorists are going to consider this to be a victory. How could they not? It's a week before a Spanish election. A man who has been bold and eager in his support for President Bush's war against terror and the liberation of Iraq is enjoying a seeming insurmountable lead in the polls. Terrorists attack ... 200 people die ... 1500 are injured ... and the people go to the polls and vote against Anzar. Many voters said that the terrorist attack was payment for Anzar's support of the United States. So that support is going .. and Islamic terrorism wins.

Today, as a result of the Zapatero victory in Spain, the hand of Islamic terrorism is strengthened.

Clearly the terrorists prefer national leaders who will appease them rather than leaders who will try to locate them and kill them. This would mean that the terrorists would much rather see John sKerry win in the United States than President Bush. I know that's a tough pill to swallow for the Democrats ... but the fact is that in this presidential election they are clearly on the same side as the terrorists. Saying it ain't so won't work. You're just going to have to find a way to accept it and live with it

Now ... here's the more sobering question for you to consider. Do these Islamic terrorists think that the same tactic would work in the United States? Would a deadly terrorist attack in this country help them as it did in Spain? Would voters quickly turn against George Bush and put a man more friendly to them in office? Now I'm not saying that this is the way Americans would react. What I am saying is that this might be the way the Islamic terrorists think you would react. If they do, then the danger of another deadly terrorist attack on America has just become more serious.

-------------

Greg H

03-15-2004, 07:57 AM

I suppose this apotus will want to invade Spain now.

Looking through the Black and white lens of Neoconism of course.

But by your very argument, then we are NOT winng the war on terror, and apotus should be removed so we can.

[ 03-15-2004, 08:59 AM: Message edited by: Greg H ]

High C

03-15-2004, 07:59 AM

Weak, fearful people yeild to the will of their enemies. Strong people defend themselves and fight back. Cowardice is not the pathway to peace.

LeeG

03-15-2004, 08:01 AM

alteran,, even more interesting are the number of people in the US that think Iraq is related to Al Queda and that invading Iraq was retribution and prevention against Al Queda. Heck,,look how long it took for Saudi Arabia to acknowledge the identity of the 9/11 terrorists.

LeeG

03-15-2004, 08:04 AM

HighC,,so what was Ollie North and gang doing back in the good old days?

alteran

03-15-2004, 08:09 AM

This last paragraph is something I would is something Bush haters don't seem to want to address.

"here's the more sobering question for you to consider. Do these Islamic terrorists think that the same tactic would work in the United States? Would a deadly terrorist attack in this country help them as it did in Spain? Would voters quickly turn against George Bush and put a man more friendly to them in office? Now I'm not saying that this is the way Americans would react. What I am saying is that this might be the way the Islamic terrorists think you would react. If they do, then the danger of another deadly terrorist attack on America has just become more serious."

Jack Heinlen

03-15-2004, 08:13 AM

Are we at war or are we not? This is war with a different face. Apparently Spaniards want a fatuous peace, a peace bought over sixty years with our dollars and our blood. Few voting remember well their blood and history.

Spain has an ancient and proud history, and I have not desire to defame. I do sense though a movement of the mindless mass. Democracy. No, I don't trust the mass. Give me a virtuous King.

Just ramblings.

[ 03-15-2004, 07:31 PM: Message edited by: Jack Heinlen ]

High C

03-15-2004, 08:15 AM

Originally posted by LeeG:
HighC,,so what was Ollie North and gang doing back in the good old days?They were doing a lot of things, but they sure weren't voting for socialists to appease terrorists.

LeeG

03-15-2004, 08:18 AM

Jack, Spain moved beyond kings,,so did we.

Jim H

03-15-2004, 08:22 AM

There is always the possibility that the same will happen here, the Socialists could sweep the elections. People do tend to vote with their wallet in mind.

Jack Heinlen

03-15-2004, 08:31 AM

The kings of the world are growing old,
and they shall have no inheritors.
Their sons died while they were boys,
and their neurasthenic daughters abandoned
the sick crown to the mob.

The mob breaks it into tiny bits of gold.
The Lord of the World, master of the age,
melts them in fire into machines,
which do his orders with low growls;
but luck is not on their side.

The ore feels homesick. It wants to abandon
the minting houses and the wheels
that offer it such a meager life.
And out of factories and payroll boxes
it wants to go back into the veins
of the thrown open mountain,
which will close again behind it.

Rilke(Bly)

LeeG

03-15-2004, 08:32 AM

Originally posted by alteran:
This last paragraph is something I would is something Bush haters don't seem to want to address.

"here's the more sobering question for you to consider. Do these Islamic terrorists think that the same tactic would work in the United States? Would a deadly terrorist attack in this country help them as it did in Spain? Would voters quickly turn against George Bush and put a man more friendly to them in office? Now I'm not saying that this is the way Americans would react. What I am saying is that this might be the way the Islamic terrorists think you would react. If they do, then the danger of another deadly terrorist attack on America has just become more serious."Alteran, here is something the fascist lovers don't seem to want to address: that leaders can't force their citizens in a direction they clearly don't want to go. The CITIZENS of Spain have a different view of Islam, terrorism, and Iraqs connection to 9/11 than many citizens in the US do.
That doesn't mean they're wrong or that we're right. Is AA the only treatment for alcoholism, therapy, antabuse, ???
When our president gets voted into office with his entire foreign policy pre-determined by long term appointees like Cheney/Rumsfield/Wolfowitz and he's clueless about who's the prime minister of Pakistan AND his win was by a slim margin,,,AND the war was predicated on a shifting basis doesn't THAT tell you he's vulnerable in the upcoming election regardless of what kind of virgin the suicide terrorist prefers?

Andrew Craig-Bennett

03-15-2004, 08:34 AM

What a nauseating display of US parochialism, mean-spiritedness and fear this thread is.

Two hundred innocent people are killed and your response is to puff out your chests and congratulate yourselves on how brave you are.

LeeG

03-15-2004, 08:35 AM

Jack,embrace the words and make them real but don't look for a king at the voting booth. Unless you'd like to dispense with that inconvenience.

Mrleft8

03-15-2004, 08:38 AM

Originally posted by Andrew Craig-Bennett:
What a nauseating display of US parochialism, mean-spiritedness and fear this thread is.

Two hundred innocent people are killed and your response is to puff out your chests and congratulate yourselves on how brave you are.AMEN!

alteran

03-15-2004, 08:38 AM

Lets distill the question a little further.

"What I am saying is that this might be the way the Islamic terrorists think you would react. If they do, then the danger of another deadly terrorist attack on America has just become more serious."

The whole premise of the article is this, will our country be safer from terrorism with Bush as president or Kerry?

LeeG

03-15-2004, 08:47 AM

Originally posted by alteran:
Lets distill the question a little further.

"What I am saying is that this might be the way the Islamic terrorists think you would react. If they do, then the danger of another deadly terrorist attack on America has just become more serious."

The whole premise of the article is this, will our country be safer from terrorism with Bush as president or Kerry?Alteran, I understand the premise of the article and it's a waste of brain cells as much as blaming 9/11 on Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Monica or Bush. The assumption behind that question is that all that matters is we've got the gun and we're willing to shoot it. Totally absent from that premise is whether the president is shooting the right enemy, whether we'll have any friends after the shoot out.
You can make the same damn argument about OBL and the US forces in Saudi Arabia,,OBL wanted the US out of Saudi Arabia,,Saudis wanted us out of Saudi Arabia,,,,did the US buckle in to terrorists by redeploying into Qatar and Kuwaitt?? of course not,,but that's the same argument you are posing by saying that Spainards voted out a politician who supported the war into Iraq WHEN THE CITIZENS OF SPAIN DIDN"T SUPPORT IT!
Are you saying it would be better if a democracy couldn't remove an unwanted leader?

On Vacation

03-15-2004, 08:49 AM

Andrew, with great respect to all of the grieving members of all terrorists attacks, we, as a nation stand together to take on these ands all terrorists as the terrorists take on the modern and free world. You are either with us or against us. What side of the fence you and others maybe on, is not for me to decide. Its for me to seek out and destroy all enemies of the free world. I for one, stand firm to do the same, both here and abroad, with my vote come Nov. War has been declared on the free world. Read and hide in the closet as they come to get you.

A Message from Usama bin Muhammad bin Laden unto his Muslim Brethren all over the world generally,
and in the Arab Peninsula specifically

Few days ago the news agencies had reported that the Defence Secretary of the Crusading Americans had said that "the explosion at Riyadh and AlKhobar had taught him one lesson: that is not to withdraw when attacked by coward terrorists".

We say to the Defence Secretary that his talk can induce a grieving mother to laughter! and shows the fears that had enshrined you all. Where was this false courage of yours when the explosion in Beirut took place on 1983 CE (1403 A.H). You were turned into scattered pits and pieces at that time; 241 mainly marines solders were killed. And where was this courage of yours when two explosions made you to leave Aden in less than twenty four hours!

But your most disgraceful case was in Somalia; whereafter vigorous propaganda about the power of the USA and its post cold war leadership of the new world order you moved tens of thousands of international force, including twenty eight thousands American solders into Somalia. However, when tens of your solders were killed in minor battles and one American Pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu you left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you. Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge , but these threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear. It was a pleasure for the "heart" of every Muslim and a remedy to the "chests" of believing nations to see you defeated in the three Islamic cities of Beirut , Aden and Mogadishu.

LeeG

03-15-2004, 09:01 AM

there you go Andrew,,I'd say Oyster reflects about 5% of the voters in the US. Like the prez. said,,,you're with us or you're agin' us. Mushroom clouds on the Potomac, WMD with every order of Freedom Fries. Time for another Americon Idol.

Jack Heinlen

03-15-2004, 09:01 AM

Two hundred innocent people are killed and your response is to puff out your chests and congratulate yourselves on how brave you are. Andrew,

I, as one US citizen, don't feel that at all. I feel tragedy happening, and no way aside from what we're doing to stop it. If I could click my fingers, make it stop, I would.

It breaks my heart, but you will agree that a solution is not at the click of anyone's finger.

I don't understand power well, I never have. I think I was born without a good understanding of why men do these things, and no one disabused me. I think Rilke is as close to it as anyone I've read, and I will not be rationed off as a lover of it, just because of my citizenship. Between power and humility there has to be a way.

Jack

Keith Wilson

03-15-2004, 09:04 AM

Give me a virtuous King.
Jack, one of the reasons Spain made such a rapid and smooth transition to democracy after 40+ years of Fascism is that they had a virtuous King at exactly the right moment. It's not a reliable form of government though; the virtuous King tends to have an corrupt idiot son . . .

And for those who think the defeat of José Maria Aznar is a "victory for terrorists", please look a lttle more closely. Whatever the virtues of the US invasion of Iraq (and remember, I supported the war) it is most emphatically NOT the same thing as the "war on terror", despite propaganda to the contrary. Most of the world understands this. Spanish popular opposition to sending their troops to Iraq was very strong.

The Spanish have had to deal with terrorists for a long time; ETA's not a pleasnt bunch of people. The new government is not going to be any easier on terrorists than Aznar was, although they will not be as likely to go along with the US. Local reports say that the effect on the elections of the bombings in Madrid was more a reaction to the Partido Popular's attempt to exploit them than anything else.

Here's the home page of El País (http://www.elpais.es/), probably Spain's best newspaper, for those of you who can read Spanish.

You are either with us or against us. And with all respect, this is a profoundly stupid statement.

[ 03-15-2004, 10:07 AM: Message edited by: Keith Wilson ]

ahp

03-15-2004, 09:06 AM

We support democracy, provided the people vote the "right" way.

On Vacation

03-15-2004, 09:10 AM

Originally posted by LeeG:
there you go Andrew,,I'd say Oyster reflects about 5% of the voters in the US. Like the prez. said,,,you're with us or you're agin' us. Mushroom clouds on the Potomac, WMD with every order of Freedom Fries. Time for another Americon Idol.Did you run and hide from the neighborhood bully, Lee? I am proud to stand up against the evil. Did someone remove your spine? Did doing nothing stop the terrorists from training to kill us and many others around the world, dating back for generations? Remember these pilots trained on our own soil while the worlds most liked :rolleyes: president was in office. Now we are confronting them head on, reinforced by real evidence at the scenes of the crimes, all over the world.

The up and coming voting cycle has nothing to do with issues. Its a hate vote and nothing else. No one more person will vote against Bush that wouldn't vote against him to start with, if no shots were fired. Not one terrorists would have stopped training in Aftganastan or any other region in the world, if we had never fired a shot. Did you read Bin Laden's words? What is your reply to it?

Keith everytime someone threatens you, do you coward down in fear? This is no difference. Stupid is when stupid does nothing over years and decades of killings..

[ 03-15-2004, 10:13 AM: Message edited by: Oyster ]

High C

03-15-2004, 09:13 AM

Originally posted by Andrew Craig-Bennett:
Two hundred innocent people are killed and your response is to puff out your chests and congratulate yourselves on how brave you are.No Andrew, this is no display of bravado. This is a display of sadness and compassion towards a people who feel defeated, and are now trembling in fear. :(

I am amazed, though, at the Spanish people moving toward a more pacifist stance in light of a horrific attack. My instincts are to do the opposite. What is nauseating about that? The actions of a group of barbaric terrorists have just reversed the likely outcome of a major election in a great European nation. I find that nauseating.

Allen Foote

03-15-2004, 09:17 AM

What a bunch of sick B*****ds. So, you hate Bush so much that you jump upon the deaths of hundreds of innocent Spanish citizens in order to improve your self-esteem in your loser endorsement of Kerry.

The Spanish citizens will pay the price with continued terrorist attacks if they do choose to let these bombings dictate thier politics.

You cannot negoiate with terrorists.

If they pull out, they will not be eligible to compeat for rebuilding contracts.....just like the Canadians.

I seriously doubt that the ousted party lost due to the coalition. Spain has been fighting seperatist Basque groups for 50 years....terrorist bombings are not new to them.......quite the opposite.

Greg H

03-15-2004, 09:24 AM

Alteran, the assertion that opposing apotus is the equivalent of supporting terrorism is disgusting beyond words.
And it is an example of the type of black and white thinking that has put us in a position in the world where the US is seen as the greatest danger to peace.

Terrorism must be defeated. But apotus is creating enemies, faster than we can eliminate them with his arrogant, blind, thick headedness that he calls leadership.

Iraq was george's war, it had nothing to do with terrorism.

LeeG

03-15-2004, 09:25 AM

HighC, I lived in Spain for 5months,you're talking out your back pocket to say that voting out a prime minister who took the country where they didn't want to go reflects fear and defeat. Eight million Spainards went to the streets last friday. You are speaking for people you don't know.
If you want to see a similar democratic response in the US there should be people lining up to enlist in the Guard to fight terrorists crawling across the Rio Grande, infiltrating Portland Maine,,flouridating the water.

Jack Heinlen

03-15-2004, 09:40 AM

Who needs to go to Iraq, or Spain, the war is here. Loud voices all wanting, in some way, that thrown open mountain Rilke speaks of.

Peace brothers. I've thought about this a lot, and all I keep coming to is finding some peace in yourselves. I've not done it, but I think it possible. Stepping into the world at war is stepping into Bedlam. Step back a bit, unless you are ready for Bedlam.

Bedlam--memory, but one of the first organized English mental hospitals. Organized is probably not the right word, but they tried.

LeeG

03-15-2004, 09:42 AM

Allen, we will do whatever we can to get what we need/want. If it's negotiating with a dictator for access across borders then that's ok,,if it's funding militia A to fight country B and install president C then that's ok. But lumping Iraq with WMD and Al Queda was the most dumb ass thing Cheney could have done to secure our oil interests in the middle east. He was never elected, he's good ,he's effective, he's got a vision to secure our nations needs but he's immune to the consequences, arrogance has risen above humility in the highest office,that's why GW was put into office,,he's likable, goes with his gut,,,and knows **** from Shinola when Condi and Cheney educated him on foreign policy two years before the 2000 election.
Our partnership of denial with Saudi Arabia doesn't end with clarity,,for the war into Iraq to require so much b.s. and unknowns is the fallout of that partnership failing. Come on,,"they hate us because we're free"????
"known unknowns"? ,,"absence of proof isn't proof of absence"? You have got to be kidding that there was ANY direct threat to the US from Iraq. There IS a threat from fundamentalist/militant Islam,,and guess who that threatens the most?? Our partners Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.
There's a reason a specialist in terrorism quit the state dept. and joined Kerrys campaign, there's a reason that Paul O'Neil allowed a book to be written describing how the president operates. There's a reason the CIA sends a high profile ambassador to Niger who's WIFE works for the CIA and who's KNOWN to disagree with the lead up to war. The CIA was covering their backside because THEY saw the misuse of intelligence.
You're with us or you're agin us is for people who can't see more than two options.

High C

03-15-2004, 09:42 AM

Originally posted by LeeG:
HighC, I lived in Spain for 5months,you're talking out your back pocket to say that voting out a prime minister who took the country where they didn't want to go reflects fear and defeat. Eight million Spainards went to the streets last friday. You are speaking for people you don't know.
I'll grant what you say, that I have little knowledge of the Spanish and of their politics, but polling data clearly indicates that this election did an instant flip-flop after the bombings. Clearly, the acts of terrorists reversed the outcome of this election.

Andrew Craig-Bennett

03-15-2004, 09:44 AM

Allen wrote :I seriously doubt that the ousted party lost due to the coalition. Spain has been fighting seperatist Basque groups for 50 years....terrorist bombings are not new to them.......quite the opposite.

Allen is pretty much right, though I think ETA have only gone in for bombings in the past 30 years or so, starting with Admiral Carrero Blanco, Franco's Fascist prime Minister, who "became Spain's first astronaut" on his way to Mass (same route, same time, every day of the year) when ETA used so much explosive in a hole they had dug in the road, posing as workmen repairing a gas main, that his car was hurled seveal hundred feet.

When Franco died and democracy was brought in by King Juan Carlos, ETA lost a lot of mainstream support and became more of a pure terrorist organisation - closely linked to the IRA, incidentally.

I think the voting out of the PP was as much as anything a reaction to the instant pinning of blame on ETA, rather than waiting for the results of the investigation, which seems (still early days) to be suggesting an Arab origin for the murderers.

Perhaps a majority of voters in Spain opposed Aznar's committment of troops to Iraq but this is in no sense a country that is soft on terrorism.

One can doubt if Saddam Hussein had much to do with Osama bin Laden without being "soft on terror" - but not in a universe where "you are either for us or against us"!

[ 03-15-2004, 10:48 AM: Message edited by: Andrew Craig-Bennett ]

On Vacation

03-15-2004, 09:56 AM

One can doubt if Saddam Hussein had much to do with Osama bin Laden without being "soft on terror" - but not in a universe where "you are either for us or against us"!

Doubt? Fine, What had been done to address these previous acts in the past as a global response? Not much except words, including many from the international community, represented by the United Nations. Closing many loopholes, working and sharing information on a wide scale to name another,in many ways, is just a couple of ways that this President took it upon himself to make an unpopular decision, since statis quo did nothing to spread the forces of evil.

Yes this has been covered here. But like it or not, the world has to deal with these terrorists that know no country and no borders. These people bring out the lowest forms of humanity, like it or not. Nothing worked to stem the tide of these people.

Keith Wilson

03-15-2004, 09:57 AM

Keith everytime someone threatens you, do you coward down in fear? This is no difference Neither I nor anyone else here have suggested "cowering in fear". How many people, whether on this forum, in the US, or worldwide, opposed turing the Taliban out of Afghanistan and shutting down the Al-Qaida bases there? Just about zero. How many have suggested that we should not hunt down Osama Bin Laden? No one. I think you'll find very few pacifists here.

It is simply false to say that uncritical support of all Mr. Bush's policies is necessary to oppose terrorists. One can make quite a few reasonable arguments in favor of the occupation of Iraq. Fighting terrorists is not one of them.

Again, "You're either with us or against us" is profoundly stupid, particularly when "with us" appears to mean slavish support of some fairly dubious ventures. Mr. Bush's black-and-white views on just about everything, and bluster and chest-thumping in public, while apparently popular with a certain part of the American electorate, have been very counterproductive in the actual fight against terrorists.

JimD

03-15-2004, 10:05 AM

Terrorism did not win in spain.
The people of Spain won.
If the leader doesn't represent the will of the people (and can't have the supreme court fix the election) out he goes.
It is a democracy you know. Exactly. Spain had a change of government. Its the sort of thing that happens in countries with free elections from time to time. Spain has had far more experience with dictatorship and terrorism than most of the rest of us. I think the Spanish are capable of making well informed decisions at the polls.

Jack Heinlen

03-15-2004, 10:19 AM

Hm, good to hear a British perspective, closer and all that.

I have not an idea, as I said power isn't my strength.

I think someday, not in this generation, that power will be superfluous. I don't expect to see it, but I know it's there. It is the natural of Rilke's loss of king, but he wrote almost a hundred years ago, and a hundred years is a pittance.

It's so sad, the death, the ravage. It is going to get worse.

"It is a good day to die." Anon. Souix warrior.

On Vacation

03-15-2004, 10:25 AM

Keith, as usual, the United States bares the blunt of dealing with many security issues around the world. It is a very nice spill to say why doesn't the United States just stay out of foreign issues in so many countries. Well, that would be very nice and I would truely support that, if we did not the calls to clean up a lot of mess around the world. Forming partnerships with other nations to meet the needs of some badly policed areas in the world, does a lot for gaining support for the citizens and families of this country to participate and sacrifice, as we so often do with own our flesh and blood. This is truely a smack in the face of ones that give up a lot for other people.

We have done it for all commander-in-chiefs, too. Isn't it about time, once again that we stand with this president, instead of allowing the bitter hatred for three and half years to dictate the mindset in this one instance here?

We have always had anti-war protests in the country. We also have never had a cold hearted attack on our own mainland by people from a certain area of the word. Whether you connect the dots with Irag to any of this, there was more than enough evidence over a period of more than a year that the region harbored a lot of these types, and was willing to participate in the destruction of this country and the whole region that keep a lot of Europe liquid and running with its oil production. I lean more towards dealing with it, as it had not been done in the past.

Politics have gotten in the way here, in our own country, and has dictated some of the increased actions overseas, too. This is exactly how I find myself as "being the stupid one", in your own mind. I stand by the logic that this war could be done easier and shorter if we all did stand together, both here and abroad. This did not happen, and has caused a lot of split between one and all, both here and abroad.
Signed,
Stupid is when stupid does nothing.

Keith Wilson

03-15-2004, 10:46 AM

Oyster, supporting the U.S. and opposing terrorists is NOT the same thing as supporting the current president and his policies. Please don't confuse the two. I think we can stand together against our common enemies without following someone who I consider to be a misguided and marginally competent leader. I don't hate the fellow, I just think he's wrong on a lot things. I also think his "If you're not with us you're against us" attitude has made the fight against terrorists significantly more difficult and less effective.

Peter Malcolm Jardine

03-15-2004, 11:00 AM

Cowardice is not the pathway to peace. That statement is quite correct. The pathway to peace is through people of reason sitting down to discuss what the real problems are, and identifying solutions that work. War never brings peace. It brings death and destruction, perhaps temporarily silencing your enemy. Only through dialogue and compromise is a lasting peace possible. People of the earth can learn to live with one another, but not with guns as the major method. You will never be able to satisfy everyone, but escalating the violence will no longer work in this world. No one on either side will have a chance of winning. :(

Jack Heinlen

03-15-2004, 11:11 AM

The pathway to peace is through people of reason sitting down to discuss what the real problems are Such pathways don't exist Peter, or if they do I can't see them. We are dealing with a fundamentalism, and not just on the Islamic side. We, in our secular way, are strange fundamentalists too.

I'm with Osama Bin Laden in his philosophy. I think his methods grotesque, but as to his notion that so called Western Freedom is a sham, a lie, worse a deceiver, I'm hip.

So what to do with a madman, a John Brown? We're gonna try to hunt him down and kill him, like we did with Brown, and there is a great civil war darkening horizons.

I think the world is going to descend further into madness, and all I can do is try to stay centered and at peace myself.

[ 03-15-2004, 07:18 PM: Message edited by: Jack Heinlen ]

LeeG

03-15-2004, 11:19 AM

righto daddio

Jack Heinlen

03-15-2004, 11:54 AM

I'm one of the few here who can live inside a suicide bomber. I'm not advocating, but I understand. You give your life for something beyond self.

Why? It is "medieval". But it is real to many. They are taught, rightly, that this life is a shadow, a strange valuable shadow, but a shadow nonetheless.

We are talking a religious fanaticism, that is not going to be argued against. The power of the West is so resistant because it doesn't embrace this power anymore.

Greg H

03-15-2004, 11:59 AM

I don't believe compromise this case is workable. Nor do I think reinforcing the idea that we are the great evil of the world will work. We need new ideas and a willingness to explore them. It's not about what bush thinks or american bravado. They don't care who is president.

Memphis Mike

03-15-2004, 12:04 PM

Before a problem can be solved, a cause has to be determined. Here's something for all of you to ponder. Why do these people hate us so much as to wish to kill us at will?

Keith Wilson

03-15-2004, 12:08 PM

A fine sentiment for nearly all conflicts, nearly all. Jeff, I agree with you 100% on this one. People who are convinced that they are on a mission from God are not very amenable to reason.

JimD

03-15-2004, 12:09 PM

The pathway to peace is through people of reason sitting down to discuss what the real problems are Unfortunately Bush supporters are noticably lacking in reason. How's this for fundamentalist reasoning?:

W is brave
W is great
His vision is always clear
His motives are always pure
His actions are always correct
And most of all he is against terrorism

So therefore it only stands to reason that anyone anywhere in the world whose actions conflict with W's version of the brave new world is obviously the opposite of all of the above. :rolleyes:

Peter Malcolm Jardine

03-15-2004, 12:11 PM

Such pathways don't exist Peter, or if they do I can't see them Or don't want to.

Jeff, I agree with you 100% on this one. People who are convinced that they are on a mission from God are not very amenable to reason.

No, they think they will be REWARDED by God for dying for their cause. Their cause is human, we just haven't spent alot of time figuring out what it is yet. Apparently it's better to use military force to eradicate them than to try and figure out how to make them stop any other way. Good luck, success is not likely. People who are willing to blow themselves up for their cause are hard to win against.

Question: What do you think the islamic terrorists want?
What do you think the PLO want?

[ 03-15-2004, 01:15 PM: Message edited by: Peter Malcolm Jardine ]

MarkC

03-15-2004, 12:28 PM

Remember the tanker PRESTIGE!!!!

The oil tanker - the debacle that the Populist Conservatives wreaked on the coast of spain.

Despite expert advice to bring the tanker to the coast, place booms around it and narrow the area of damage, the Aznar/conservatives order it towed out to sea so it might 'dissapear'. Except that it washed back up on the Spainish coast.

This is a prime example of the crap crisis management practiced by the conservatives. The dealing with the terror attack was another.

Good reason to vote them out.

htom

03-15-2004, 12:43 PM

>>The pathway to peace is through people of reason sitting down to discuss what the real problems are ...

And when the mad bombers blow up your peace conference you ...?

Bombs are difficult critters to reason with.

JimD

03-15-2004, 12:52 PM

Do I have my facts wrong?
Sounds about right

Meerkat

03-15-2004, 01:16 PM

Facts OK as far as they go. You left out orthodox jews who want to either eliminate or enslave the palistinians and American fundamentalists who would like nothing better to turn the US into a christian hell hole.

The real problem with the world is that there are too many people in it. Tight quarters increase tensions.

JimD

03-15-2004, 01:21 PM

The real problem with the world is that there are too many people in it. Talk about inviting a snappy comeback :D

Andrew Craig-Bennett

03-15-2004, 01:49 PM

Well, I certainly agree with Mark.

The PP's lousy handling of the PRESTIGE, where they took the wrong decision and then blamed the ensuing mess on the Greek Master, chimes with their instant attribution of blame to ETA for this much more serious matter.

Alan D. Hyde

03-15-2004, 02:05 PM

There is no right way to do something wrong.

Alan

Jim H

03-15-2004, 02:19 PM

Originally posted by Peter Malcolm Jardine:
What do you think the PLO want?Ever wonder how Isreal knows when a militant is driving from point A to point B, or where he may be sleeping? They are being fingered by Palestinians who are tired of the violence, tired of being used to enrich Arafat and his cronies and tired of being a pawn of ME politics. The militant's power is derived from the conflict, it brings them money and influence, if peace broke out they'd have nothing. If peace broke out, the people of Egypt, Jordan and Syria would have more time to think about their own disenfranchisement, where all the oil money went and who's living in the lap of luxury at who's expense. ubl and his ilk want to replace Pan-Arabism with Pan-Islamism which casts a wider net over the world's population, but don't confuse it with democracy or freedom, it's another form of tyranny - the money and power will still be in the hands of the few to the detriment of the many.

[ 03-15-2004, 03:21 PM: Message edited by: Jim Hillman ]

Memphis Mike

03-15-2004, 04:06 PM

"Their cause is human, we just haven't spent alot of time figuring out what it is yet."

It doesn't take a rocket scientist. They consider us immoral. They want the West to completely withdraw from the land of Islam. But due to our heavy dependency on their oil, it will never happen.

Chris Coose

03-15-2004, 04:37 PM

We can all learn a lesson from Spanish democracy.

It's the people stupid.

High C

03-15-2004, 05:01 PM

Originally posted by Chris Coose:
We can all learn a lesson from Spanish democracy.The Spanish have made a horrible mistake, in a moment of fear and panic. They have gone beyond merely negotiating with terrorists. They have allowed them control. The Spanish have elected weak leadership out of hope that they will be left alone. Nothing could be further from the truth. Al Qaida has now been emboldened by this success and may well make similar moves in other countries whose leadership Al Qaida would like to see changed.

Can anyone think of such a country?

Who would Al Qaida rather see as President of the United States? George W. Bush, or John Kerry? It doesn't matter, you say? Don't bother.

I pray that Spain's letdown doesn't result in a domino effect of increased attacks.

And may God grant comfort to the families of the many victims of 3/11. :(

JimD

03-15-2004, 05:05 PM

Heaven forbid that we entertain the very real possiblity that the Spanish were going to vote the way they did bombs or no bombs

High C

03-15-2004, 05:14 PM

Originally posted by JimD:
Heaven forbid that we entertain the very real possiblity that the Spanish were going to vote the way they did bombs or no bombsNobody believes that.

Chris Coose

03-15-2004, 05:20 PM

Let me try that again.

It's the people stupid.

True Love

03-15-2004, 05:21 PM

Peter,
You are extremely naive, and you're old enough not to be.

While you're calmly reasoning with those terrorists, would you mind putting troops along your own border to keep terrorists out of my country? Your country certainly is welcoming to them. And believe me, they'd rather hurt me than you. If you truly care about me, fix your own immigration system.

Warmly, -- TL

Meerkat

03-15-2004, 05:22 PM

Well, if the Spanish made a horrible mistake in March, 2004, they can take consolation that the US made a horrible mistake in September, 2001.

Jim H

03-15-2004, 05:36 PM

Originally posted by Meerkat:
Well, if the Spanish made a horrible mistake in March, 2004, they can take consolation that the US made a horrible mistake in September, 2001.You mean November 2, 2000 don't you?

Meerkat

03-15-2004, 05:38 PM

No, that was just a bad mistake that led to the horrible mistake ;)

Keith Wilson

03-15-2004, 05:45 PM

HighC, your analysis only makes sense if the Socialists will be “easier” on terrorists than the Partido Popular, and (the underlying assumption) the fight against terrorists is the same thing as the war on Iraq. Almost the entire world (including the new Spanish government) supports the US fight against the Taliban, Al Qaida, and other Islamic fundamentalists. Most of the world does not support the occupation of Iraq. I repeat, there are quite a few good arguments in favor of the Iraq war. Attacking Islamic fundamentalist terrorism is NOT one of them.

If I were a member of Al Qaida, I might prefer a bellicose, swaggering, and ill-informed president of the US to one who had a more nuanced view of the world; much better for the recruiting effort, and more likely to make mistakes. Do not confuse tough talk and a low threshold for the use of military force with effective strategy against terrorists, they're not at all the same thing. Of course, a President who would cower in fear would be better from their point of view, but that’s not one of our choices in November.

Jim H

03-15-2004, 05:48 PM

No, that was just a bad mistake that led to the horrible mistake Explain what you mean then.

[ 03-15-2004, 06:52 PM: Message edited by: Jim Hillman ]

JimD

03-15-2004, 05:48 PM

Originally posted by High C:
[QUOTE]QUOTE]Nobody believes that.Why not? Would Americans run cowering to the polls and vote for appeasment after such an attack? Of course not. Nor would Canadians, nor Brits, nor Aussies or any nation I can think of. So why would the Spanish?

Meerkat

03-15-2004, 05:52 PM

They're not Americans, who are the only people that really count in this world, according to some opinions.

True Love

03-15-2004, 05:56 PM

Let me tell you something Meerkat, you spineless little bastard, I lost someone very dear in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Don't you DARE say we did something wrong that day. If you were here in front of me right now, you would be picking yourself up off the floor.

Meerkat

03-15-2004, 06:03 PM

Ooooooh, I kinda doubt it True.... ;)

High C

03-15-2004, 06:04 PM

Originally posted by JimD:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by High C:

QUOTE]Nobody believes that.Why not?Have you seen/heard the news today? The whole world is agog over this. Nobody gave the Socialists half a chance. Before the bombings it looked as lopsided as a potential race between Reagan and David Duke!

Why is this hard to accept? The "why?" is another question, but there seems to be no debate that the bombings turned this election on its head.

True Love

03-15-2004, 06:10 PM

Not for lack of trying and not for lack of you deserving it.

High C

03-15-2004, 06:14 PM

Originally posted by Keith Wilson:
If I were a member of Al Qaida, I might prefer a bellicose, swaggering, and ill-informed president of the US to one who had a more nuanced view of the world....Yeah, but given the actual choices, whom would you choose? tongue.gif :D

[ 03-15-2004, 07:14 PM: Message edited by: High C ]

Meerkat

03-15-2004, 06:15 PM

Funny, but Only Yahoo and MSNBC has a front page item about the Spanish election and the PM-elect's pledge to bring home troops. CNN, CBS and ABC don't have it on the front page at all. Not exactly screaming headlines...

JimD

03-15-2004, 06:16 PM

Originally posted by High C:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by JimD:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by High C:

QUOTE]Nobody believes that.Why not?Have you seen/heard the news today? The whole world is agog over this. Nobody gave the Socialists half a chance. Before the bombings it looked as lopsided as a potential race between Reagan and David Duke!

Why is this hard to accept? The "why?" is another question, but there seems to be no debate that the bombings turned this election on its head.[/QUOTE]I don't mean to play devil's advocate but surprise upsets do happen. It was at the very least a vote against a government that supported Bush and I think that doesn't sit too well with Bush supporters.

LeeG

03-15-2004, 06:20 PM

HighC, why did the majority of Spain not agree with their prime ministers support of the war into Iraq?

Peter Malcolm Jardine

03-15-2004, 06:22 PM

Your country certainly is welcoming to them. And believe me, they'd rather hurt me than you. If you truly care about me, fix your own immigration system.
While I might be naive,(I prefer to say "hopeful") you obviously are terribly misinformed. While I care about you in the sense that Canada and the US have allied itself in many things, your country seems to have its paranoia about the rest of the world well in order if your remarks are any indication ;)

The terrorists you think we "welcome" have to come through your border crossings. I think Timothy McVeigh and John Malvo were homegrown americans however.

[ 03-15-2004, 07:25 PM: Message edited by: Peter Malcolm Jardine ]

True Love

03-15-2004, 06:23 PM

Because it is easier, for a time, to hide your head in the flag of appeasement.

Peter Malcolm Jardine

03-15-2004, 06:27 PM

True love, is there any other form of action you would wish to take against "enemies" of the US than military? Could you outline them for us?

True Love

03-15-2004, 06:28 PM

Peter,

You're the one who is misinformed. Your country allows anyone into it with little background checks. You have the most fluid immigration "laws" going. Two of your former officials participated in a documentary on the subject broadcast here just a few nights ago.

Do you think terrorists are coming to Canada for the sunny winters? Be hopeful all you want - just not at my expense.

Peter Malcolm Jardine

03-15-2004, 06:31 PM

Oh well, you better put more troops on your borders and arrest more people without charges, and then deport them to countries that will torture them. That should build support for your cause :rolleyes:

Jim H

03-15-2004, 06:31 PM

Nuanced, Riiight....I think Kerry might be leftover technology from the sealth program, no matter how hard you try you just can't seem to see him take a stand, God help us if he wins.

NY Times OP-ED by David Brooks (http://www.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/)

The next crisis occurred in Somalia. Again, the U.S. Senate faced what appeared to lesser minds as a clear choice: to withdraw in the wake of U.S. casualties or not to withdraw. The oxymoronically gifted junior senator from Massachusetts perceived an equivocation between the modalities: "The choice for the United States of America is not between two alternatives only: staying in or getting out. There are many other choices in-between which better reflect the aspirations and hopes of our country."

Kerry backed a policy of interventionist withdrawal, which jibed with the "third way" option embraced by President Bill Clinton himself. As Kerry noted, "I think that the president today made the right decision to try to establish a process which will maintain the capacity of our forces, protect them, and to disengage while simultaneously upholding the mission we have set out to accomplish."

[ 03-15-2004, 07:39 PM: Message edited by: Jim Hillman ]

High C

03-15-2004, 06:42 PM

Originally posted by LeeG:
HighC, why did the majority of Spain not agree with their prime ministers support of the war into Iraq?Why do choosey mothers choose Jif? Why did Spanish voters tell pollsters they were going to reelect that same Prime Minister? Why did they change their collective mind after the bombings, not before?

Jack Heinlen

03-15-2004, 06:42 PM

Look, they're winning. Reading True Love and Meerkat's exchange, they're winning.

Tighter, not looser borders seems an order of the day. A military more flexible, less directed toward a contintental threat, that seems to be happening. A different mindset, one saying anyone could be a threat, but not surrendering basic liberty in the process.

I don't know. People spout here as if they know but I'm saying now, here, that I don't know. It's a difficult world to know in.

True Love

03-15-2004, 06:45 PM

Why, Peter, there are many and if you were informed you'd know we are attempting to do just that, including hunting them down and killing them.

Ever heard of cutting off their funding? Ever heard of eliminating nations that allow them to train inside their borders? You won't like that one because it involves those nasty little military things. Very effective though, because this terrorism is state-sponsored; therefore, to cut it out, you have to deal directly with the states who sponsor it. Sanctions might work with some countries. Threats with others, but threats are empty unless you will follow through. This president will because he understands that our very existence hangs in the balance.

Need a list of terror providers? Here's a short one: Syria, Iran, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Ethiopia, West Bank, Gaza, Lebanon, Egypt, Pakistan, Chechnya, Balkan states. That's a short list.

It'd be nice if people in the western hemisphere would buy a clue and understand that their very way of life is what is offensive to the terrorists. So, seeing countries stand up to terrorism by hunting down and killing the terrorists and those who support them, rather than appease it as Spain did yesterday, is the most effective way of fighting it.

You won't like this medicine. Tough. It's what we must do whether you like it or Kerry likes it or the French like it or the Spanish like it or the UN likes it. I don't even like it, but it has to be done if we are to live freely in our country.

alteran

03-15-2004, 06:48 PM

"Oh well, you better put more troops on your borders and arrest more people without charges, and then deport them to countries that will torture them"

We will turn them 180 degrees send them back to you. Didn't know you tortured them up there but if thats what you want to do .....

Meerkat

03-15-2004, 06:50 PM

Originally posted by Jack Heinlen:

Tighter, not looser borders seems an order of the day. A military more flexible, less directed toward a contintental threat, that seems to be happening. A different mindset, one saying anyone could be a threat, but not surrendering basic liberty in the process.Yeah! that's it! I'd say let's have a police state, but we already have one - it just got worse and more noticable after 9/11. OBL and AQ got us to do all sorts of things to their advantage, not the least of which was to give them credibility! :mad:

JimD

03-15-2004, 06:50 PM

Originally posted by True Love:
Peter,

You're the one who is misinformed. Your country allows anyone into it with little background checks. You have the most fluid immigration "laws" going. Two of your former officials participated in a documentary on the subject broadcast here just a few nights ago.

Do you think terrorists are coming to Canada for the sunny winters? Be hopeful all you want - just not at my expense.Obviously you are correct in that terrorists are looking at Canada for the reasons that 1) we are a western nation with many freedoms such as freedom of movement and freedom to congregate and so on which makes it easy for them to operate here, and 2) that great long border with the US. It doesn't get much press but Canada and the US have been working very closely on the border issue.

As for fluid immigration laws isn't it true that every one of the 911 hijackers entered the US legally?

True Love

03-15-2004, 06:52 PM

Absolutely, Peter, we must put our troops along our border with you and along our border with Mexico - I'd welcome that. And I believe we've treated the prisoners at GITMO quite well.

Oh, and let me say that I have no problem with torturing known Al Quada members to get info that will save American lives. This is a war for survival. You just don't get that.

True Love

03-15-2004, 06:56 PM

Yes, and several entered through Canada. We have somewhat tightened our processes here although not nearly enough. That's a point of major frustration among many Americans.

JimD

03-15-2004, 06:59 PM

Originally posted by True Love:
Because it is easier, for a time, to hide your head in the flag of appeasement.Easier for who? You? Me? Anyone you know? History has shown that when warlike violence reaches one's homeland the overwelming response is resolve to catch the perps. This has been the case time after time in country after country. And who's to say the Spanish Socialists are just gonna sit back and take this just because they didn't buy the wmd in Iraq line? History has also sshown Socialist governments to quite adept at violence against enemies of their countries. All thats missing in this thread is for a Bushy type to say the socialists secretly support the bombers because it got them elected.

Jack Heinlen

03-15-2004, 07:05 PM

I've held back, but you're an idiot Meerkat.

[ 03-15-2004, 08:23 PM: Message edited by: Jack Heinlen ]

alteran

03-15-2004, 07:17 PM

"Yeah! that's it! I'd say let's have a police state, but we already have one - it just got worse and more noticable after 9/11. OBL and AQ got us to do all sorts of things to their advantage, not the least of which was to give them credibility!"

Care to explain that Meerkat?

Leon m

03-15-2004, 07:31 PM

All this could be avoided if we just "live and
let live"...But theres too much money to be
made...

Sounds simple I know...but it is.

Choices people...its all about good choices

Not ones made out of fear.

alteran

03-15-2004, 07:42 PM

"All this could be avoided if we just "live and
let live"...But theres too much money to be
made...

Sounds simple I know...but it is.

Choices people...its all about good choices

Not ones made out of fear."

Tell that to the people who's family members are killed everyday around the world by terrorists Leon.

Or explain it to the suicide bombers. Tell them they are making "bad choices". They might listen to you if you're nice to them.

You chastised me a while back for calling someone dumb. So out of respect for you I won't tonight.

[ 03-15-2004, 08:43 PM: Message edited by: alteran ]

Meerkat

03-15-2004, 07:47 PM

Originally posted by True Love:

Oh, and let me say that I have no problem with torturing known Al Quada members to get info that will save American lives. This is a war for survival. You just don't get that.If you advocate torture, it's one war you're already a victim of. How sad.

High C

03-15-2004, 08:11 PM

Originally posted by alteran:
"Yeah! that's it! I'd say let's have a police state, but we already have one - it just got worse and more noticable after 9/11. OBL and AQ got us to do all sorts of things to their advantage, not the least of which was to give them credibility!"

Care to explain that Meerkat?I think Meer lives in a police neighborhood.

LeeG

03-15-2004, 08:16 PM

Originally posted by High C:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by LeeG:
HighC, why did the majority of Spain not agree with their prime ministers support of the war into Iraq?Why do choosey mothers choose Jif? Why did Spanish voters tell pollsters they were going to reelect that same Prime Minister? Why did they change their collective mind after the bombings, not before?[/QUOTE]are you incapable of understanding why a huge majority of Spain was not behind their prime minister?

Jack Heinlen

03-15-2004, 08:24 PM

High C

03-15-2004, 08:38 PM

Originally posted by LeeG:

....are you incapable of understanding why a huge majority of Spain was not behind their prime minister?Understand this: The Spanish were solidly behind their Prime Minister and had every intention of reelecting him, until the 3/11 bombings.

They didn't toss out their PM because of Iraq.
They didn't toss out their PM because of Afghanistan.
They didn't toss out their PM because of his association with our President.
They didn't toss out their PM because of a sunken ship that caused an oil spill.

They tossed out their PM because of the 3/11 bombing. Why? What price will the rest of the Western world pay for that action?

Allen Foote

03-15-2004, 08:41 PM

I agree 100% Jeff...and believe the death penalty removes murders from society for good.

[ 03-15-2004, 09:41 PM: Message edited by: Allen Foote ]

LeeG

03-15-2004, 09:04 PM

HighC, why would they not re-elect Aznari because of a national tragedy?
read through some of these comments,,read the Spanish ones,,that's who we're talking about. Please provide data showing that Spainish citizens were behind their PM.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/3512422.stm

http://www.glocom.org/special_topics/eu_report/20031201_eureport_s64/

Polls taken after the attack (12/03)clearly indicate that the overwhelming majority of Spaniards want their soldiers to return home as soon as possible. News interviews with the public reinforce this message as people express practically no support for troops remaining in Iraq. Before the attack opinion polls showed that more than 90% of Spaniards opposed the Iraq war.

Despite not committing any troops to the main combat phase of the war, Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar has been one of President George W. Bush's staunches supporters. In the face of fierce public opposition, he dispatched some 1,300 troops to Iraq for postwar reconstruction duties. Spain has also pledged about 300 million US dollars towards Iraqi reconstruction.

After the latest attack Mr. Aznar addressed the nation, brushing aside demands for Spanish troops to be withdrawn. He insisted that the troops would remain in Iraq, justifying his action by saying, "Freedom is under threat from the terrorists." The prime minister has also assured President Bush that the tragedy would in no way weaken his determination to stay the course in Iraq.

[ 03-15-2004, 10:12 PM: Message edited by: LeeG ]

High C

03-15-2004, 09:18 PM

Originally posted by LeeG:
Please provide data showing that Spainish citizens were behind their PM.
Lee, this is truly maddening. Don't you listen to the radio, or watch the news, read CNN online or anything? This is a HUGE story. The whole world is talking about how reelection was in the bag for the "Spainish" PM, and that the bombings reversed that, a BIG, BIG surprise, but you act as if I've dreamt this up myself. :mad:

There is great concern that the Spanish voters have encouraged further attacks by doing this. Some are furious with them for dropping the ball in the middle of a war.

Where are you getting your news? You're missing a lot.

Allen Foote

03-15-2004, 09:23 PM

My understanding was that the PM wasn't the most popular to begin with. Not only that, but the party he represented had fallen out of favor. Since everyone seems to be looking up support of thier opinion....what majority voted his party in to begin with?

Bob Smalser

03-15-2004, 09:24 PM

Originally posted by JimD:
All thats missing in this thread is for a Bushy type to say the socialists secretly support the bombers because it got them elected.OK...I'll try. How's this?

The Terrorists Win One

The war on terror suffered a setback yesterday when Spain elected a Socialist government, apparently in response to last week's terror attacks in Madrid.

The Socialists and the terrorists are on the same side, at least as far as the liberation of Iraq goes. "We declare our responsibility for what happened in Madrid, just two and a half years after the attacks on New York and Washington," says a video purportedly from an al Qaeda spokesman. "It's an answer to your collaboration with the criminals Bush and his allies. This is like an answer to the crimes that you have caused in the world and specifically in Iraq and Afghanistan and there will be more if God desires."

CNN quotes the prime minister-elect, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, as saying, "I think Spain's participation in the war has been a total error." Zapatero still vows to withdraw his country's 1,300 troops from Iraq on June 30, unless the U.N. takes military command. (As we noted Friday, Zapatero is one of the few foreign leaders to have openly endorsed John Kerry.)

"Al-Qaeda or its affiliates have toppled a democratic government for the first time,'' Bloomberg News quotes Bernard Walschots, a Dutch economist, as saying, in a note to investors. "This may have dramatic implications for the Western democracies.'' The ruling Popular Party, a staunch U.S. ally, had been ahead in pre-3/11 polls.

The Weekend Australian reports that some 1,000 antigovernment demonstrators gathered in Madrid Saturday "to blame [last] week's bombs in the capital on the government's unpopular decision to support the US war on Iraq." The Associated Press interviews Spanish voters and finds this sentiment was reflected at the ballot box:

Some voters were angry at outgoing Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar, accusing him of making Spain a target for Islamic extremists because of his support for the Iraq war, despite the opposition of most Spaniards. Aznar sent 1,300 Spanish troops to Iraq after the conflict and 11 have died.

''I wasn't planning to vote, but I am here today because the Popular Party is responsible for murders here and in Iraq,'' said Ernesto Sanchez-Gey, 48, who voted in Barcelona.

The urge to appease wasn't the only factor at work. The government was overly eager to pin the blame on Basques rather than Islamists; Agence France-Presse reports that Foreign Minister Ana Palacio "ordered all Spanish ambassadors worldwide to use every possible opportunity to 'confirm ETA's involvement' in the attacks." For reasons we don't quite understand, an ETA attack was supposed to have been good for the ruling party, an al Qaeda attack for the Socialists, and it did not inspire confidence that the ruling party was so quick to draw a conclusion that would be politically advantageous but was certainly unwarranted and probably incorrect.

It's too early to tell if al Qaeda's tactical victory in Spain will turn out to be a strategic one as well. An article in the Financial Times is encouraging:

Spain's new Socialist government will be quickly put to the test as Ireland makes a big push for the European Union to share more intelligence, beef up co-ordination on security issues and make fresh efforts to stem the flow of funds to banned terrorist organisations in the wake of last week's attacks in Spain that killed over 200 civilians. . . .

The issue of counter-terrorism issues has been catapulted on to next week's summit agenda, instead of the June summit.

Diplomats said member states were in no mood to suggest that only those countries that supported the US-led war in Iraq were vulnerable. "Terrorism affects every country. Terrorist networks use countries in which to 'sleep,' " said a senior EU diplomat.

On the other hand, Agence France-Presse quotes Romano Prodi, head of the European Commission, as saying, "It is clear that using force is not the answer to resolving the conflict with terrorists," and, "Terrorism is infinitely more powerful than a year ago." Infinitely?

Still, Spain's vote for appeasement may turn out to be a lagging indicator; perhaps 3/11 will turn out to cause Europeans to wise up, even if Spanish voters were not quick enough to do so.

The election outcome has had a demoralizing effect on pro-war bloggers. "It's a spectacular result for Islamist terrorism, and a chilling portent of Europe's future," writes Andrew Sullivan. John Ellis calls it "the most depressing political development since 9/11, bar none," and says his "assertion that 3/11 would engage the EU in the War on Terror as never before was proven wrong in record time."

Buck up, guys. Every war has casualties and setbacks, and this isn't the end of the world. If we mope, the terrorists will have won. To paraphrase Dr. Seuss, stop wringing the hands that should wring bin Laden's neck!

And this:

Kerry's Deadly Doctrine

What lessons can America learn from 3/11? One is that the Kerry Doctrine--treating terrorism as a "law enforcement" matter rather than a war--kills. The Los Angeles Times reports that one of the Moroccan suspects arrested after last week's bombings had long been a known al Qaeda associate:

Spanish police searched the Madrid apartment of Jamal Zougam in August 2001, according to investigators. The search revealed that Zougam, 30, associated with key figures in a Madrid Al Qaeda cell whose alleged leader, Imad Eddin Barakat, was jailed three months later on suspicion of helping plot the attacks in the United States that year, according to Spanish court documents.

"A high-ranking Spanish investigator said Zougam had not been arrested during the 2001 crackdown because he was not implicated in specific crimes," the Times reports. Now, of course, he has been. The cost of waiting now stands at 201 lives.

The new prime minister's stated determination to bring Spain into the axis of weasels also underscores the dangers of making a fetish of multilateralism, another Kerry fallacy. Eugene Volokh makes the point:

If we agree that we may not do what we think is right and necessary for our national security if any one of England, France, Russia, or China says "veto," then our enemies can paralyze us simply by influencing one foreign country. The influence might be exerted by bribes . . ., or by threat of terrorist violence. But one way or another, an enemy that couldn't break down our resolve could still stop us from doing what needs to be done by breaking down the resolve of one of the veto-owning countries. (The same applies if we just generally agree not to go ahead without the agreement of "our European allies" generally--if the threat of terrorist retaliation cows several of those allies, that could be enough to stymie our plans.)

And here's a chilling thought, courtesy USA Today:

In American politics, it's called the October Surprise: a dramatic, last-minute event that swings the election into the hands of the incumbent president. In Spain, that surprise came seven months early, a terrorist attack that turned a near-certain win for a pro-U.S. government into a stunning defeat with potentially ominous repercussions.

We're far from the first to ask this, but what if al Qaeda decides that an election eve attack is the way to persuade Americans to vote "the criminal Bush" out of office? We suspect such an attack wouldn't have the desired political result; a complacent America is much more likely to vote for John Kerry than a freshly terrorized one. But the Spanish attack makes us awfully uneasy about what may happen in America in late October.

[ 03-15-2004, 10:25 PM: Message edited by: Bob Smalser ]

LeeG

03-15-2004, 09:28 PM

one more time.

There was an expectation that Aznar would get re-elected. You are saying therefore that Aznar had popular support. Bombing occured,,Aznar isn't elected. You are saying his support dissapeared because of the bombing. Is that your position?

I am saying he didn't have that support. There's a difference between expectation for an election and popular support, ie, Gore/Bush for example. Read the above statements and the sentence in the article from 12/03 "Before the attack opinion polls showed that more than 90% of Spaniards opposed the Iraq war" Where in that do you get the opinion that Aznar had support by the citizens of Spain?

LeeG

03-15-2004, 09:39 PM

Bob, It's perfectly reasonable for a leader to sacrifice himself for the right decision that is for the good of the country. I don't like the opening title of this thread because Spain wasn't a part of the war and we were entering into it regardless of UK participation, I mean the shrinkage is less than a new pair of jeans for a lame analogy. The problem here is that outside of the US the leaders who made the decision to support the US have done at a large political cost. Could this be the "blowback" to pre-emmptive war by the one remaining superpower when the reasons for the pre-emption fall like dominoes,,ie, WMD, a clear and present danger, support for Al Queda,,all those known unknowns.

High C

03-15-2004, 09:45 PM

Originally posted by LeeG:
one more time.

There was an expectation that Aznar would get re-elected. You are saying therefore that Aznar had popular support. Bombing occured,,Aznar isn't elected. You are saying his support dissapeared because of the bombing. Is that your position?

I am saying he didn't have that support. There's a difference between expectation for an election and popular support, ie, Gore/Bush for example. Read the above statements and the sentence in the article from 12/03 "Before the attack opinion polls showed that more than 90% of Spaniards opposed the Iraq war" Where in that do you get the opinion that Aznar had support by the citizens of Spain?:rolleyes: You're making no sense, Lee. Of course he had popular support. Maybe I'm being silly, (I don't really mean that ) but I think it's reasonable to say that voting for someone to lead a nation suggests support. Before the bombings, Aznar had that support, Iraq be damned. Your 90% nonsupport figure obviously meant little to Spanish voters. They were still gonna reelect the guy. The bombings changed that.

Sorry, but Iraq didn't do Aznar in. It was something about the bombings, or his response to the bombings that cost him the gig.

And BTW, I've been told repeatedly by you and others here that there is no link between AlQaida and Iraq. So remind me why AlQaida did this?

High C

03-15-2004, 09:47 PM

Thanks Bob.

Dutch.Rub

03-15-2004, 09:56 PM

Originally posted by LeeG:
righto daddio....Roflmao......

LeeG

03-15-2004, 09:57 PM

review,Al Queda was in Afghanistan and throughout the world,,iraq is weak and unstable next to an ally who supports anti-US fundamentalism, Saudi Arabia is threatened by severe internal problems, Iraq has oil, Saudi Arabia may not be the stable ally in oil pricing as it has been, so we invade Iraq on false pretenses. Everyone now knows it was false pretenses.

Invading Iraq to get a handle on Al Queda terrorism that no longer has a nation but has organic support in Saudi Arabias decay is like kicking a hornets nest to get rid of hornets. Invading Iraq to re-establish it as an oil producing country under US control in case terrorism cripples Saudi Arabia is like kicking a bees nest to get the honey,,,we'll get the honey, it'll sting anyone nearby. That's what the folks in Spain are seeing, they know terrorism more than billy bob in Texas. Yes their oil needs are 100% imported but at the same time they know they're closer to the region than we are. Aznar was taking care of some real needs for energy,,but it's not the leader who runs into car/train bombs,,,that's Pakistan.
Read a few books about the focus the GW/Cheney administration had in the year preceding and after 2000. 9/11 was a catalyst and GW/Rumsfield/Cheney/Powell DID eliminate the Taliban. But the focus was on Iraq more than OBL/Al Queda for long term security related to energy needs.

LeeG

03-15-2004, 10:08 PM

HighC,,,that 90% non-support figure does mean something if tragedy is the catalyst that makes the change.
In my experience when the **** hits the fan you hold onto those you trust and drop those that are dead weight. This is a vote of trust, not a vote for/against terrorism.

High C

03-15-2004, 10:09 PM

Originally posted by LeeG:
....so we invade Iraq on false pretenses. Everyone now knows it was false pretenses....No, everyone doesn't know it was under false pretenses. Your statement is transparent politics, from a drowning party grasping at a floating straw.

High C

03-15-2004, 10:10 PM

Originally posted by LeeG:
HighC,,,that 90% non-support figure does mean something if tragedy is the catalyst that makes the change.
In my experience when the **** hits the fan you hold onto those you trust and drop those that are dead weight. This is a vote of trust, not a vote for/against terrorism.Lee, we're cross posting now. Why don't you just come on over? :D

LeeG

03-15-2004, 10:12 PM

HighC,,, If you wish to reduce an argument to "if you're not with us you're against us" then that's your choice. eek,,you're right,,gotta take a break..cheerio

High C

03-15-2004, 10:19 PM

Originally posted by LeeG:
HighC,,, If you wish to reduce an argument to "if you're not with us you're against us"....Since I said no such thing, I'll take that as complete, unconditional surrender!

Cheerio!

Memphis Mike

03-15-2004, 10:33 PM

"Al Qaida won't let us "Live and let live".

Al Qaidi wouldn't give a rat's ass about the United States if we weren't over there trying to take their land and meddling in their affairs. This war isn't about religious fundamentalism. It's about money and oil. Every war in history has been fought over natural resources.

Leon m

03-15-2004, 10:36 PM

Originally posted by alteran:
"

You chastised me a while back for calling someone dumb. So out of respect for you I won't tonight.Thank you! I respect you too smile.gif

Jim H

03-15-2004, 10:38 PM

Originally posted by LeeG:
are you incapable of understanding why a huge majority of Spain was not behind their prime minister?It's not about imminent/potential threat, it's the shifting bullseye of terror coming to your city next week. Same bat day, same bat channel.
They hate us because we don't pay them to like us. What part of that don't you get Lee?

Jim H

03-15-2004, 10:42 PM

Originally posted by LeeG:
HighC,,, If you wish to reduce an argument to "if you're not with us you're against us" then that's your choice. eek,,you're right,,gotta take a break..cheerioGee Lee, your good at answering a question with a question and you even come up with a statement every once in a while. Unfortunately you're short on answers short of a blog or a C&P, how about some real answers?

alteran

03-15-2004, 10:51 PM

M Mike says, "This war isn't about religious fundamentalism. It's about money and oil. Every war in history has been fought over natural resources."

Could you give us some facts to go along with the rhetoric Mike?

Al.

Leon m

03-15-2004, 11:00 PM

Ya know...as I read through this thread I
see alot of anger, hate,and fear and most of all
devision amongst good people.its a sad day for
sure.

I'm not a Democrat ,Republican ,I'm not a freind
of the terrorist nor an enemy of the state.

I AM YOUR NIEHBOR, YOUR BROTHER, IF YOU WILL

I think its time we all did some soul searching
and decide what kind of future we want.Will it
be governed from reactions to fear,will it
come from greed, or will it come from an
understanding of respect for all man kind?

We can all sit and discuss who poked whos eye
first till the cows come home...But an eye for
an eye will leave a kingdom of blind men.

alteran

03-15-2004, 11:22 PM

"We can all sit and discuss who poked whos eye
first till the cows come home...But an eye for
an eye will leave a kingdom of blind men."

Fine Leon. But after he pokes out my first eye I'm damn sure not going to turn my face and give him a poke at the other eye. Or the eye of my friend.

You?

Leon m

03-15-2004, 11:48 PM

and the beat goes on................................................ .................................................. .................... .................................................. .......

LeeG

03-16-2004, 12:04 AM

Jim H.,, Ya gotta break a few eggs to make an omelet. Aznar was nice but he's a leetle robins egg. We gots a beeg pan,,lots of fire,,serve you up a big omelet, four eggs, five eggs,,even save a little moot for your omelet. Maybe a little known unknowns for garnish on this Iraqi omelet. Just remember to wait 30minutes before jumping into Al Queda or you'll get cramps.

Leon m

03-16-2004, 12:13 AM

Originally posted by alteran:
[QB But after he pokes out my first eye I'm damn sure not going to turn my face and give him a poke at the other eye. Or the eye of my friend.

You?[/QB]Before you get your eyes poked out you should
take a look at this photo of Rumsfeld shaking
hands with Saddam on an arms deal in 1983 or
would you rather a photo of US soldiers training
AQ members in Afganistan to fight the Soviets.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/handshake300.jpg

Where did it start ...How will it end ?

[ 03-16-2004, 01:17 AM: Message edited by: Leon m ]

Meerkat

03-16-2004, 01:36 AM

Originally posted by Jack Heinlen:
I've held back, but you're an idiot Meerkat.Go emote something Jack - (you think) it's your strong suite.

Meerkat

03-16-2004, 01:38 AM

Originally posted by Jim Hillman:

They hate us because we don't pay them to like us. What part of that don't you get Lee?Keep thinking that way and you're just part of the problem.

Meerkat

03-16-2004, 01:42 AM

Originally posted by Allen Foote:
I agree 100% Jeff...and believe the death penalty removes murders from society for good.Hmmm... just when did the murder rate go down?

Oh yeah, and while you're at it, reconsile being a compassionate christian with supporting state execution.

Meerkat

03-16-2004, 01:49 AM

Originally posted by High C:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by alteran:
"Yeah! that's it! I'd say let's have a police state, but we already have one - it just got worse and more noticable after 9/11. OBL and AQ got us to do all sorts of things to their advantage, not the least of which was to give them credibility!"

Care to explain that Meerkat?I think Meer lives in a police neighborhood.[/QUOTE]Of all the industrialized nations, the US has the highest ratio of police to citizens.

I'd say more, but you're not listening, so I won't bother wasting either of our times. I'm sure you're well conditioned to have the correct thoughts and say the correct line about "freedom", "liberty", "democracy" and America's self-appointed heroic role on the world stage.

Jack Heinlen

03-16-2004, 05:46 AM

Every war in history has been fought over natural resources. "Thus ended the American Civil War, which must upon the whole be considered the noblest and least avoidable of all the the great mass conflicts of which till then there was record."

Winston Churchill

Andrew Craig-Bennett

03-16-2004, 05:54 AM

To the losing side in that War, the human labour of their slaves was akin to a natural resource.

Peter Malcolm Jardine

03-16-2004, 07:19 AM

We will turn them 180 degrees send them back to you. Didn't know you tortured them up there but if thats what you want to do ..... You didn't do that. You deported a Canadian Citizen to Syria, where he was tortured and imprisoned for a year, even tho you failed to charge him.

Jack Heinlen

03-16-2004, 07:40 AM

98%(I'm making that up, but it's close) of the men who fought on the side of the South didn't have slaves.

This has been argued till generations are horse. A, if not the, central issue was slavery, but it wasn't all going on.

I remember Shelby Foote talking on one of those wonderful documentaries, quotes a Confederate. "Why are you fightin'? A'm fightin' 'cause you're down heah."

Slavery pales for most of the men. It does draw to question the reason to fight. "A'm fightin' 'cause you're down heah."

We're there, they are here, and we're going to fight about it.

LeeG

03-16-2004, 07:41 AM

there you go Peter, another example of how the US has saved Canada in the war against terrorism.
Isn't it unfortunate how they hate us because of our superior grasp of the fundamental issues in the world?

Mrleft8

03-16-2004, 07:43 AM

Is there really a coalition of willing psycho-therapists?

George Roberts

03-16-2004, 09:48 AM

Greg H ---

I remember a scene in Dr. Zivago. The soldiers just stop fighting, turn and walk toward home.

At some point everyone decides that life is not worth dying for.

ahp

03-16-2004, 09:53 AM

Who is winning?

JimD

03-16-2004, 10:22 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by JimD:
All thats missing in this thread is for a Bushy type to say the socialists secretly support the bombers because it got them elected.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OK...I'll try. How's this? (lengthy post left out for brevity only-JimD)That's not bad, Bob. As we all already know from the Bush propaganda machine if you're against Bush's war in Iraq then you are in favour of terrorism, but thanks for another reminder

True Love

03-16-2004, 11:43 AM

LeeG - Asnar wasn't even running for reelection. His hand-picked candidate was predicted to win the election just prior to the bombing. Asnar's government rushed to lay the blame on ETA appearing (and perhaps actually intentionally) to not place blame on AQ (because they feared that if it was known to be AQ that people would vote for the socialists). And that is what happened.

LeeG

03-16-2004, 11:45 AM

thanks true,,I get sloppy sometimes.

LeeG

03-16-2004, 12:50 PM

Originally posted by Jim Hillman:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by LeeG:
are you incapable of understanding why a huge majority of Spain was not behind their prime minister?It's not about imminent/potential threat, it's the shifting bullseye of terror coming to your city next week. Same bat day, same bat channel.
They hate us because we don't pay them to like us. What part of that don't you get Lee?[/QUOTE]Jim, Jim, Jim,,,it must be cocktail time because the attempt to pigeonhole me into a position of advocating that the US become the worlds sugar daddy isn't going to work.
We tried to buy off Turkey to move the Fourth Infantry into northern Iraq and that fell through. I'm not advocating replicating a LIBERAL welfare state disseminating pencils and box lunches "so they won't hate us".

True Love

03-16-2004, 12:55 PM

No sweat, buddy. We can disagree strongly but we're still pals.

Greg H

03-16-2004, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by George Roberts:
Greg H ---

I remember a scene in Dr. Zivago. The soldiers just stop fighting, turn and walk toward home.

At some point everyone decides that life is not worth dying for.I'm bad with movies...... but

I like the mental picture that brings up

when the takers see there is nothing to take
when those that have been exploited loose their resentment
when we loose the fear of death
Then the wielders of great egos will have nothing but their empty hearts to manipulate
and the people can go home

Jim H

03-16-2004, 01:45 PM

Originally posted by LeeG:
Isn't it unfortunate how they hate us because of our superior grasp of the fundamental issues in the world?No, they hate us because we don't pay them to like us. They attack the Spanish for being in Iraq but not the French for being in Afghanistan. Iraqi's must be a little higher on the IPVS (Islamic People's Value Scale). Perhaps they think that the land captured by the Moors in Spain should be returned. It's the shifting bullseye of terrorism, coming to a city near you. Same bat time, same bat channel...

Boomkin Joe

03-16-2004, 02:09 PM

It appears Assnar actively pressured the govnt-friendly media to retain the ETA explanation vs. the real ElQ expl. though evidence of the latter being bingo wuz already in his hand.
Duh!
One reason, or main reason is the first expl. would help Azinine win the elections which nobody seems to question there.
Logical as the blasts appeared as an anti-terrorist failure to the voters. Go figure.
His govnt focused on ETA & was soft on ElQ terror.

LeeG

03-16-2004, 03:41 PM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3515138.stm

there's a link to Spanish "wo(man) on the street" reactions to the election that's worth reading. Instead of listening to the talking heads on tv or us folks why not listen to what people there have to say?

Elco's

03-16-2004, 04:41 PM

Lee......you and the other socialists here must be proud of the Spanish Socialist party recently elected in.

JimD

03-16-2004, 05:23 PM

Originally posted by Jed:
Lee......you and the other socialists here must be proud of the Spanish Socialist party recently elected in.Let's see what they do before passing judgement

Elco's

03-16-2004, 05:35 PM

JimD, I fail to see where my statement that you qouted has anything to do with "judgement". The newly elected SOCIALIST PARTY is in power now in Spain.

Lee's posts from above show that he is truely happy with this turn of events in Spain....an obvious supporter of the Spanish Socialists.

In fact, reading through all the many posts on several threads dedicated to the turn of events in Spain and the support of Mr. Kerry, one common thought arises from the left........
The political gain of the Socialist Party in Spain is a good thing for Mr. Kerry's campaign.

It is being echoed by GregH and Lee and LJB5. Todays supporters of Mr.Kerry are also todays supporters of the Socialists Party of Spain.

Wasn't "LIBERAL=SOCIALISTS" a thread on here a year ago?

And didn't aredent Democrats Poo-Poo that idea then?

[ 03-16-2004, 06:44 PM: Message edited by: Jed ]

JimD

03-16-2004, 06:08 PM

Jed, I meant although I am on the left side of center by American standards I won't be proud of a socialist government in Spain until I see what they do. To see a party calling itself socialist isn't by itself a source of pride. Its just a word until they begin to act as a government. After all, Hitler called himself a socialist, so did Stalin and they were murderous swines just like the bombers in Spain and New York.

Peter Malcolm Jardine

03-16-2004, 06:14 PM

No, they hate us because we don't pay them to like us No no no... They hate you because of what you do in other parts of the world. ;)

I don't see Lee supporting socialism, just democracy? Is democracy a bad thing among the right now? :confused:

Elco's

03-16-2004, 06:14 PM

JimD

03-16-2004, 06:16 PM

Originally posted by Jed:
Congratulations JimD....by admitting you left wing leanings and Liberl-socialists beliefs you just put yourself in the same socialistic catagory of Hitler and Stalin.

Your enemy's could not have said it better than you just did with your own words.

You may want to edit your post quickly before anyone else reads it.Now you're just being silly, Jed. And I'm not taking the bait. :rolleyes:

Peter Malcolm Jardine

03-16-2004, 06:30 PM

Congratulations JimD....by admitting your left wing leanings and Liberal-socialists beliefs you just put yourself in the same socialistic catagory of Hitler and Stalin.

Your enemy's could not have said it better than you just did with your own words.

You may want to edit your post quickly before anyone else reads it.

Now come on... you don't actually BELIEVE the stuff you wrote here do you? Aren't you just FUNNIN us? Just JOSHING your WBF buddies?

Pulling our LEGS? tongue.gif tongue.gif

http://www.topplebush.com/humor/stripes.jpg

[ 03-16-2004, 07:31 PM: Message edited by: Peter Malcolm Jardine ]

Jim H

03-16-2004, 06:37 PM

Originally posted by Peter Malcolm Jardine:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />No, they hate us because we don't pay them to like us No no no... They hate you because of what you do in other parts of the world. ;)

I don't see Lee supporting socialism, just democracy? Is democracy a bad thing among the right now? :confused: [/QUOTE]I think he's selling the Spaniards short. Polls are not always the best measure of how an electorate will vote, 1972 U.S. Presidential Election anyone? Aznar was not running for re-election and had served for two terms. Throw in the general opposition to Spain's participation in Iraq and membership in the EU nad you have a recipe for change. I imagine that things were going to change anyway and I think that using the attack as the main reason why the Spaniards voted the way they did, is selling them short.

I just compressed it into the Lee code, seems it's the only way to communicate with him. ;)

Elco's

03-16-2004, 06:37 PM

Peter...you are a true enemy of America. You are a non American (Canadian citizen) and with your continued posts, that show a hatred for the elected leader of the United States, you show your contempt for the American political system.

Perhaps you should stick to non-political threads.

I fear you will be calling for changes in the American political scene without elected outcomes.

[ 03-16-2004, 07:39 PM: Message edited by: Jed ]

Leon m

03-16-2004, 07:05 PM

Originally posted by Jed:
elected leader of the United States, .Since when...I thought he was appionted by the
supreem court :confused:

High C

03-16-2004, 10:26 PM

Originally posted by Leon m:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Jed:
elected leader of the United States, .Since when...I thought he was appionted by the
supreem court :confused: [/QUOTE]Yep, you're :confused: confused.

Meerkat

03-17-2004, 02:13 AM

Originally posted by Jed:

I fear you will be calling for changes in the American political scene without elected outcomes.I'm more worried about the Shrub/Cheney axis calling for changes in the american political scene without bothering Congess... oops, they've already done that! :eek:

Shrub's a liar and a hypocrite and it's entirely appropriate to be contemptuous of him and his shrubbery. Easily one of, if not the, worst mistakes we've ever made in an <strike>elected</strike> leader.

Speaking of our political system, I have only the highest regard for it - and the deepest disdain for what it's degenerated into. Shrub has pushed it down faster and further by his open mockery of the Constitution and laws.

Now, call me unamerican and a traitor, but before you do, I suggest you look at the first ammendment. I'd say that people who won't defend the first ammendment are the real danger and the henchmen of the people who really want to destroy American freedom.

Elco's

03-17-2004, 07:50 AM

MeerKat, the only thing you have ever defended on this forum is you hatred for the ELECTED leader of the United States.

Perhaps the only reason that you have been allowed to coninue your hate based lambasting is becuase the WoodenBoat Company shares your political views. If that is the case them perhaps the IRS should do an audit to find out the funding source of this forum.

MeerKat, your venomous posts are the same type of retoric (targeting the United states President and the American political system) that is seen daily in Muslim countrys and I am starting to wonder why it is allowed to continue here daily, when you are obviously the only one here spouting it.

I suggest you review the first amendment with a hired proffessional that is versed in defending those charged with treason. You will have your eyes opened.

km gresham

03-17-2004, 08:15 AM

Some posts are better just to skip over if you don't want to be irritated, frustrated, or demeaned for your opinions, values or political viewpoints. ;)

High C

03-17-2004, 08:27 AM

Originally posted by Jed:
Perhaps the only reason that you have been allowed to coninue your hate based lambasting is becuase the WoodenBoat Company shares your political views. If that is the case them perhaps the IRS should do an audit to find out the funding source of this forum.....Meerkat is right, Jed. He has every right to express himself as he sees fit. That's the most crucial element of American freedom (what's left of it, anyway). And the rest of us are free to laugh it off.

I think it's a good thing when your political opponents engage in Meerkat's sort of style. It is, at best, an ineffective way to promote a point of view. It often has the opposite of the desired effect.

Don't fight it, enjoy it! :D

LeeG

03-17-2004, 08:59 AM

this is for Jed to support his view that left wing liberals are polluting the polity,,,but the biggest reason for posting the following c&p is that there's more to what's going on in Spain than "pathetic losers" as Brad posits,,,or liberal pacifiers. There's the rest of the story.

Wednesday, March 17, 2004
www.juancole.com (http://www.juancole.com)

Role of the United Nations in dispute

az-Zaman has been reporting that 12 of the Shiite members of the Interim Governing Council, including expatriate Ahmad Chalabi, are opposed to the return to Iraq of special UN envoy Lakhdar Brahimi. They are angry that he certified that open, direct elections could not be held before June 30, as the Shiites had wanted. And they are suspicious of his loyalties, since he is himself a Sunni Arab.

Today Brahimi struck back, saying that the UN had received a letter from Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani requesting it to remain involved in Iraq. Brahimi knows that Sistani trumps Chalabi every time. Sistani's main concern appears to be to help Iraq escape from any kind of neo-colonial American domination, and he sees the UN as a wedge in that effort. Also, just on principle, he believes that a UN Security Council resolution has legitimacy in a way that the Anglo-American Coalition Provisional occupying authority does not.

Sistani's views seem to accord with those of the new Spanish president, Jose Luis Rodrigues Zapatera, who says that he needs a new UN Security Council Resolution if he is to keep Spanish troops in Iraq. (This is another thing those critics of his got wrong when they charged "cowardice." He hadn't said he would run away from Iraq. He said he would only keep troops there if international law could be upheld, i.e., if the UN SC authorized it. Even the chief British legal adviser had expressed worries that without a Security Council resolution, occupation authorities in Iraq would diverge farther and farther from the Hague Regulations and the Geneva Accords as time went on.)

Ironically, the Bush Administration, after having worked so hard for the past year to marginalize the UN in Iraq, has now made an about-face and wants a new UN resolution. Just three months ago, the Coalition Provisional Authority was reportedly "deeply offended" when the Interim Governing Council decided to approach the UN about getting involved in the transition to Iraqi sovereignty. Gone are those days.

The Bush administration is clearly petrified that its ad hoc coalition in Iraq will fall apart in the next six months. The US military is stretched extremely thin, and is reducing forces in Iraq from 130,000 to 110,000 simply because it has no more to spare. Some commentators have suggested that Spain's 1300 troops are not militarily significant. I disagree. All it would take is a handful of such countries to withdraw, and the US would be down another division. It cannot afford that. But of course the real cost of such withdrawals would be political. If it looks as though Bush's coalition of the willing is collapsing, he will risk looking like a failure in international affairs.

It would not take anything dramatic for a lot of coalition partners with small troop contingents to pull out. Some have already talked about not staying beyond mid-summer. And, some other Bush political allies are skating on thin ice. I am told by an expat in Japan that Koizumi's majority in parliament depends in part on a Buddhist party that is strongly pacifist and could get cold feet about the Self Defense Forces being sent to Iraq. There have also been controversies in Bulgaria, e.g, when their troops have been killed or wounded, about whether it makes sense for them to be there.

It turns out that Bush all along needed the United Nations and its mantle of legitimacy for the Iraq adventure much more than he realized.

Meanwhile, evidence is mounting that Zougam, one of the Moroccans suspected in the train bombings in Madrid, is close to both Imad Yarkas and a Moroccan religious leader called Fizazi, who head the Salafiyah Jihadiyah organization. It is suspected in last year's bombings in Casablanca. Yarkas appears to have played a logistical role in the September 11 attacks and met with Muhammad Atta.

Newsmen in Spain are beginning to reveal that defeated Spanish leader Jose Maria Aznar had called them and told them after the bombings that the Basque separatists were behind it. He apparently feared that if it were known to be al-Qaeda, he would be blamed for diverting Spain's energies into Iraq

[ 03-17-2004, 10:00 AM: Message edited by: LeeG ]

George Roberts

03-17-2004, 09:16 AM

Meerkat ---

I don't read much of the political stuff. I coment on even less.

I will agree with your statement:

"Shrub has pushed it down faster and further by his open mockery of the Constitution and laws."

Having government employees with guns and metal detectors at all public buildings certainly bodes ill.

If we are lucky, it is only temporary. I suspect it will be like Israel - the situation will only get worse and the end will never be in sight.

Peter Malcolm Jardine

03-17-2004, 09:27 AM

Peter...you are a true enemy of America First, I don't hate America. I don't even dislike all Americans. I dislike your president. I dislike his policies. I think he and his supporters have done a lot of damage to your reputation around the world. I think your country is quietly losing support from a lot of people. I'm not really happy to see the largest military power in the world start to distance itself from the rest of the free world. History would tell us that nothing good comes of that situation :(

Based on America's recent treatment of some Canadian citizens, You don't seem to like us anyway. :(

Jed: You have, by the way, the perfect right to criticize my country for any of our foreign polices.

Keith Wilson

03-17-2004, 09:41 AM

Meerkat is right, Jed. He has every right to express himself as he sees fit. That's the most crucial element of American freedom (what's left of it, anyway). And the rest of us are free to laugh it off.
And when HighC and Meerkat agree, we KNOW we are looking at undeniable Truth! :D :D

Seriously though, the right to say without fear that our current president is a worthless vile lying cheating stupid ugly immoral incompetent SOB is one of the few things really worth fighting for, whether the president is named Clinton or Bush. There have been a few posts here lately from the very far right that suggest otherwise - perhaps there's been too much overheated rhetoric about "treason", I don't know - but those who make such arguments might wish to reconsider.

And please, please, everybody, try not to view Spain only through the lens of US domestic politics. It justs muddles things and gets in the way of undestanding what's really going on. At least spell their names right, fer chrissake:

The outgoing prime minster is Jose Maria Aznar. of the Partido Popular. The guy who actually lost the election, Aznar's sucessor, is Mariano Rajoy. The Socialist candidate who won is Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero.

[ 03-17-2004, 10:52 AM: Message edited by: Keith Wilson ]

On Vacation

03-17-2004, 09:44 AM

Sometimes Descretion displays class in groups of more than one, which is ones own mind.

JimD

03-17-2004, 09:50 AM

Jed, or whoever member 8004 really is, you are not a very good troll. Its not really your fault, though. Too many trolls have preceded you so we've been mostly innoculated against your type.

One thing I'll give Bush credit for is his ability take advantage of the patriotism and good intentions of so many Americans to manipulate and mislead them. I'm sure other dishonest leaders around the world have considerable respect and admiration for his ability to do so. An honour among thieves sort of thing.

Keith Wilson

03-17-2004, 09:55 AM

Sometimes Descretion displays class in groups of more than one, which is ones own mind. :confused: Oyster, I don't understand this at all. Care to explain further?

On Vacation

03-17-2004, 10:05 AM

Yep, spouting off views is freedom of speech. But with that in mind, do we, as a group within a mixed bag of people in public surroundings say what is said as has been on display here as of late? Have you wished death to your neighbors because you don't like them or their views? DO you wish harm as a daily diet to civil and law abiding citizens in this country? DO you wish death to law abiding citizens in other countries, or in turn from other countries to people here in the states, that reside on this board? Well, some have no problem doing this here. Restraint could go a long ways here to put aside the real hate we see and experience in the real world. As we grow, we should grow up. Thats my thoughts.

[ 03-17-2004, 11:06 AM: Message edited by: Oyster ]

Elco's

03-17-2004, 11:30 AM

posted 03-17-2004 12:24 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lets not forget the Bush-hate mongering done on a daily basis by the Canadian posters. They seem to think that they are garunteed imunity with the American 1st Amendment. Not so.

The investigation of Atta's Al Queeda cell shows that they ruetinely communicated through pornographic chat rooms. Much as the Canadians and Anti-Bush haters communicate daily on this forum.

As the owners of this web site, WoodenBoat magazine and all affiliated partners are responsible for its content. All of it. Regardless if it is a personal rant or a death threat. They are fully responsible and that has been upheld by the courts.

Your continued hiding behind your grade school interpretation of the first amendment is appalling at the least and ignorant foremost.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: east coast

JimD

03-17-2004, 11:38 AM

Lets not forget the Bush-hate mongering done on a daily basis by the Canadian posters... Yawn. Jeb, if you need attention this badly why don't you try running naked down the streets of the east coast. Anything would be more constructive than what you're up to here.

mmd

03-17-2004, 11:43 AM

C'mon, Jed; you just posted that on the "Reporting vs Advertising" thread. Be more creative - I know you have it in you. smile.gif

Peter Malcolm Jardine

03-17-2004, 02:10 PM

Jed, that last post was a doozie. :rolleyes:

Meerkat

03-17-2004, 02:28 PM

Jed = Foote? The rhetoric and the bad spelling are pretty much the same.

LeeG

03-17-2004, 02:47 PM

right now it's only warm enough for a dog to run naked.

JimD

03-17-2004, 02:50 PM

Jed = Foote? The rhetoric and the bad spelling are pretty much the same. I wuz thinkin' Dutch. But whomever, thanks for the entertainment :D

Peter Malcolm Jardine

03-17-2004, 04:12 PM

I was thinking about some dinner :D

JimD

03-18-2004, 12:16 AM

Spain's new leader condemns anti-terror strategy, calls Iraq occupation fiasco

ED MCCULLOUGH
Canadian Press

March 18, 2004

José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero. (AP/EFE, Emilio Naranjo)
MADRID, Spain (CP) - Prime minister-elect Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero condemned the United States' "shock and awe" strategy for combatting terror and called the occupation of Iraq "a fiasco."

In a radio interview Wednesday, Zapatero also remained firm in his intent to withdraw 1,300 Spanish peacekeeping troops from Iraq, even if U.S. President George W. Bush tries to talk him out of it.

"I will listen to President Bush, but my position is clear and very firm," the Socialist leader said.

Rather than defeat terrorism, U.S. military actions risk fuelling it, he said, reinforcing his sharp break with the pro-U.S. policies of the defeated Spanish government of outgoing conservative Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar.

"Combatting terrorism with bombs, with operations of shock and awe, with Tomahawk missiles, is not the way to beat terrorism; not like that," said Zapatero. "It is a way of generating more radicalism, more people who can wind up being tempted by using violence.

"Terrorism is fought by the state of law," he said. "I believe this is what Europe and the international community must debate."

The election defeat Sunday of Aznar's Popular party marked the first time a government that backed the Iraq war has been voted out of office. The elections were shaken by train bombings that killed 201 people in the Spanish capital three days earlier.

The attacks led to accusations that Aznar's support of the Iraq war had made Spain a target for terrorism. Angry voters turned to Zapatero, who campaigned against the war and the stationing of Spanish troops in Iraq.

However, in his hourlong interview with Onda Cero radio, Zapatero stressed that combatting terrorism is as high a priority for him as it was for Aznar. Although he'll go about it differently, he said he will reinforce Spain's defences, no matter the cost.

Zapatero also vowed to better co-ordinate Spanish police agencies and to relentlessly hunt down terrorists.

"They will not have a moment of rest," Zapatero said, adding that he would have a single director for both the Civil Guard and the National Police, which currently answer to two chiefs.

Zapatero's threatened troop withdrawal has worried U.S., British and some other world leaders, who say pulling out of Iraq after the bombings would amount to a victory for terrorists.

But Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Graham said removing troops "is obviously a matter for Spaniards to decide. . . . The issue of Iraq is related to, but distinct from our war against terrorism.

"It's clear that the Spanish government has said 'we're committed' - as we all are - to the struggle against terrorism," Graham said during a visit to Toronto. "We're all seeking to establish how we can establish stability in Iraq."

On Wednesday, the regional Catalan party Convergence and Union, which has 10 seats in the new Spanish Parliament, endorsed the troop withdrawal.

"Spain should never have supported an illegal war," said party leader Artur Mas. He attributed Zapatero's win in part to antiwar feelings in Spain.

Some 5,000 supporters gathered outside the headquarters of Aznar's party Wednesday, accusing Zapatero of being soft on terrorism. Waving flags and banners, they protested Zapatero's upset win.

"Zapatero, president of al-Qaida!" "Zapatero with terrorism!" and "Zapatero resign!" they chanted.

The protesters left about 30 minutes after the Popular party's defeated candidate, Mariano Rajoy, appeared and greeted the crowd from a balcony.

Zapatero is putting together a Socialist government to take over next month. But decisions to be made already are piling up.

Environmentalists want to know whether he favours a huge plan to divert water from the Ebro River to southern Spain. They don't. He doesn't either. "It's not a good plan," he said.

The 43-year-old lawyer pledged to set up a new housing ministry to fulfil an electoral promise to build more low- and moderate-income dwellings. Asked if that wasn't a utopian solution, he responded, "No more utopian than (the prospect) that I would win the election."

Most pre-election polls projected the conservatives would lose their absolute majority in Parliament, but nevertheless win the most seats. They wound up with 148, a drop of 35. The Socialists won 164, 12 less than an absolute majority but 39 more than they won in the 2000 election.

Politically, the Socialists would like to have a working majority in Parliament. Zapatero repeated Wednesday that he intends to form a cabinet exclusively with Socialists, except for possible "independents, but near the Socialist" party on issues.

That stance may or may not win over customary allies like the United Left, which won five seats Sunday. Coalition leader Gaspar Llamazares said Wednesday he'd like to co-operate, but will not promise a "blank cheque" to the Socialists.

Mas said his party said in the campaign it would not enter into any government, neither with the Popular party nor the Socialists, but would cast votes on a case-by-case basis.

Meerkat

03-18-2004, 02:31 AM

Coalitions - too bad we don't have those in US politics - it would make things really interesting, give more of a voice to minority opinions and maybe make government more honest. Instead we have this lame 2 party system which gives more of the illusion of democracy than the substance.

Andrew Craig-Bennett

03-18-2004, 02:55 AM

The truth of the matter is that there was not a "huge electoral shift" after the bombings. The PP was projected to lose its absolute majority in any case, but might have been able to stay in power by cobbling together a coalition.

Zapatero's remarks on how to combat terrorism make very good sense to me - and the proof of the pudding is in the eating. The Spanish police have good forensic evidence on the strength of which they have arrested four suspects and and looking for others - their investigation is being headed by a Judge, Balthazar Garzon, with over a decade of experience in rooting out Moslem terrorists.

Hastert is well out of line. An apology from him would not be out of place, but will not be forthcoming because the "Neocons" have no manners.

Keith Wilson

03-18-2004, 09:20 AM

Andrew - exactly. The shift was a few percent. A couple of points:

- The vast majority of Spaniards (around 90%) opposed sending troops to Iraq. Any elected leader who goes to war, even on a small scale, against the wishes of 90% of the people can expect trouble.
- The vast majority of Spaniards enthusiastically support vigorous action against terrorists. They have had to deal with more of it than anyone in Europe except perhaps the Irish. In fact, both Aznar's and the previous administration have been pretty effective against ETA.
- Aznar was not very popular; respected but not popular. Most supporters were voting for him in spite of Iraq, based on reasonably good performance with the economy, not out of any great enthusiasm.
- The Communist party, normally a fairly significant force a bit to the left of the Socialists, got about half as many votes as last time. (This never made even the mainstream US media, BTW) This shift alone would probably have tipped the election.
- The very high turnout favored the Socialists; the (normally) non-voting public in Spain is significantly to the left of those who vote.
- The (perceived) attempt by the government to spin by claiming that ETA (against whom they have done well) was responsible, not Muslims, irritated a lot of people. It looked, rightly or wrongly, like they were using a terrorist attack for political ends. Personally, I think this is unjust; just about any reasonable person would have guessed it was an ETA attack without good evidence to the contrary, but it still influenced a lot of votes.
- Many people perceive the bombings as an anti-terrorism failure of the Aznar government.
- Most of the Spanish public (rightly, IMO) does not see the invasion of Iraq as part of a larger war on terrorists, but as a particularly American adventure, mainly for the benefit of the US.

Now, I can imagine that Muslim fanatics will think they may have had a larger influence than they did. Portraying the Spanish elections as akin to Neville Chamberlain at Munich, however, is a serious mistake.

[ 03-18-2004, 10:31 AM: Message edited by: Keith Wilson ]