Hey - I have a few questions that maybe somebody can help me on. a) Did somebody just say US democrats will be softer on terror than Bush? What kind of assumption is that? Do people believe Kerry would ride around on a tank like Tsongas (or a fighter jet like Bush) instead of committing the same resources to the war on international terror that Bush does? It surely can't just be this democrat who expects, no, demands, a higher level of committment from him on stamping out terrorism and less ****ing around in side-missions like Iraq. And Kerry has the chance to unite the free world behind us, unlike idiots who spout off about old europe and evil pygmys. b) Ditto for the socialist party in Spain. c) and this gem; ooooh - AQ manipulated a result in Spain so will try to attack america again to manipulate our election and get the dems to win. What kinda half-a$$ed logic is that? #1 - they will attack us no matter what, becuase we are america. #2 - its highly doubtful what the political result of such an attack would be. #3 - I thought AQ wanted global war against america? If so, then everything they do is an attempt to cause more conflict and deaths, martyrs on both sides. Then the last thing AQ would want is a "wimpy" democratic US president who won't fight. Well, actually, they may want a president who focuses on things other than the top terrorists and their financial backers in Saudi Arabia and in Pakistani society, but instead kills a lot of low/mid level operatives and thousands of innocent muslim civilians. Wonder who fits that description?
Perhaps. We don't know. Within three days the case goes from Aznar calling every national newspaper and TV station saying "definitely ETA" to the story getting blown open and public believing that there was a major coverup. I'm sure that that's exactly how AQ planned it. [Ian's voice]But... but.... but a vote against Aznar was exactly what AQ wanted! It was all a brilliant nefarious plot, you see? The timing, the elections, the irrefutable proof of an internet message board... it all fits! A vote for Kerry is a vote for terrorism![/Ian's voice] You ned to rephrase this: the more troops there are in Iraq, the more successful they are. The "problems" are a reaction to the troop presence, and no troops = no Islam vs. West problems for AQ to exploit. If we weren't there, bombings in Iraq are Muslim-on-Muslim violence and AQ gains nothing from that. I think that Islamic opinions on the Iraq situation are pretty well solidifed against the US and coalition partners at this point. They think it was about oil and Western imperialism. Why would AQ want a shift in Spanish policy that could change that general thinking? They want Western troops to stay in Iraq for as long as possible so that they can point to Iraq and say "look at how they are trying to destroy Islam!" And people will ask it from now until November. Bush wants the voters to think that Kerry wouldn't protect them from terrorism; Kerry wants voters to think he'll do a better job than Bush. We'll see what happens. But Bush will play both sides of this all year -- if there are no attacks he's done a spectacular job, but if there are attacks than a vote for Kerry is terrorist appeasement. Nice the way that plays, isn't it? I'd agree with that.
I'm not so sure about that. When the "coalition" troops leave Iraq, I think AQ will try to stimulate a civil war in Iraq. This would be an attempt to show that this American interference does not work, that the American ways don't work. It would also have the effect of isolating America further because the world community would blame America (and the other coalition nations, to a lesser extent) for causing such a catastrophe. The best hope against this is that the Iraqi people will be stoic enough to realise what would be happening in that situation. The concern though is that there are obvious schisms in Iraq for AQ to use to their advantage.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Analysis of Spain's elections [R] Let me get this straight. To you, the #1 problem in the Middle East is NOT the Israeli-Palestinian issue. It's not Wahhabiism. It's not the inequitable distribution of wealth and opportunity in the oil kingdoms. It's not Islamist revanchism. It was the toothless nothing of Saddam. That's it folks. We've hit rock bottom.
Hmm, let me think... In the last week how many people were killed in Britain, (that WAS prepared to examine a political settlement to the problems in Northern Ireland), as opposed to Israel that isn't or, at least, only on the most one-sided terms. Terrorism has NEVER been defeated by military means alone - never has, never will. In the end there will be a political settlement. It's just a question of how many thousands of our own people we want dead in the meantime.
http://www.counterpunch.org/hamod03162004.html "Contrary to what American political pundits have been saying, former President Aznar was not cruising to an early victory prior to the bombings in Madrid. Remember, the Spanish people had overwhelming voiced opposition to Spain entering the Iraq war as an ally of Bush and Blair; their anger at Aznar for the deaths of their soldiers was ripe in their minds as was the economic turmoil this has caused for Spain. This in addition to the Basque problem that was troubling Madrid. "Let us say that the bombing was the final straw for Aznar. The people were already angry, regardless of the government polls that showed him leading. Most of us in the country knew that he would lose this race because he was leading Spain into a disaster like that of Bush and the U.S. But once again, as is the case these days, the Amerian media paints pictures the way Bush wants them, not the way they are."
Do you really believe that we broadcast to the world how and where we put our most militarily effective units? There is a difference between facts you glean from reading the press and facts you know because of what you do for a living. I will leave it at that.
Cold War forces were/are not postured to conduct the types of combat action we have seen in Iraq and Afghanistan. Truth is - we are now much better postured to deal with these types of threats. Baghdad and Kabul aint the Fulda Gap. The cuts are less meaningul than the structure, and training, and focus.
This doesn't jive with what I've read in the Wall St. JOurnal, NYTimes and international newspapers including those like El Pais from SPAIN. From what I understand, the economics of Spain have been very strong and people are flourishing there. ALso, the Basque problem has been very much conrfronted and quelled, for now, by Aznar. I question the acuracy of this 'source' and I use that term loosely.
Those schisms existed anyway, before and during Saddam. Saddam kept them from causing civil war by suppressing the Shi'a and Kurd populations. So, by deposing Saddam without a well-designed post-Iraq plan for a government, the US has all but guaranteed civil war. What could that new post-Saddam government have been that would have avoided civil war? I really don't know; I'm not a political scientist. But I do know that Ahmad Chalabi wouldn't be the head of it, and non-coalition companies wouldn't be excluded from working with it. Perhaps what I should have said was not "troops", but "Western presence". That's what AQ talks about regarding Saudi Arabia -- the fact that they are in bed with every Western government and oil company. It's what they are going to talk about in the post-Saddam Iraq. In AQ recruitment videos, they'll say that continued Western economic, political, and military influence will keep Iraq from self-determination. Spain pulling out reduces that influence, which harms AQ's arguments.
And we can take these facts shaken, not stirred, can we? Jesus, what a crock. My brother-in-law spent about 8-9 years in Northern Ireland during the eighties. Apart from my own observations of world events he told me that there is no chance of defeating terrorism by military means alone. No offense, pal, but I believe him and not you.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/march11/coalition/military.html Spain Country representatives arrived at CENTCOM on 05 Nov 01. There are currently 9 personnel at CENTCOM. Spain will soon deploy 1 P-3B to Djibouti, 3 C-130s to Manas and 2 naval frigates to the CENTCOM AOR to support continued operations in OEF. Spain provided a hospital in Bagram on 8 Feb 02. As of 20 Feb 02, this hospital has treated 607 patients and has expanded its operation to conduct over 2 hours of humanitarian aid calls per day. You were saying?
if and when we start to depart Iraq this summer and a transitional government starts to take power - the bombings will continue - not because we are there - but because any government even slightly supported by the west - will be attacked by AQ - they are now killing innocents in Iraq and you ought to ask yourself why would AQ target innocent Iraqi civilians? Kerry by the way - will continue to blame Bush regardless of why it occurs. There will be more attacks - and it will be tragic - and it should serve to remind people that you don't negotiate with terrorists. By the way - if Aznar was already on the way out (as everybody says) - then why would AQ seek to attack them? I mean you cannot have it both ways - either they were trying to affect the election because they thought Aznar had a chance of being defeated - or Aznar was already defeated in which case you ought to ask why attack? Occam's razor - the simplest explanation is that they were trying to affect the election by getting rid of Aznar because the opposition leader (as he stated in the last 24 hours) who was elected - stated he would remove Spanish soldiers from Iraq - it is now going to happen.
as I was saying - Aznar supported it and you provided evidence to prove it. The newly elected leader will remove them.
If you read the link, you'd see that it talked about Spanish support for Afghanistan. If Zapatero removes support from Afghanistan, then come back and talk. What we're doing in Afghanistan has everything to do with the war on terror. What we're doing in Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror.
no offense taken - I have friends and associates currently in action in Iraq and Afghanistan and I believe what they are telling me. Just as you said - it is about personal associations. It is all about hearts and minds of these people and taking care of them and our troops. That is what is going on in Iraq - we are trying to help them out - and AQ doesn't give a rat's ass about the Iraqi kid. All they want to do is blow them up. AQ loves the fact that Afghanistan is in the stone age - and wants to keep them there. Why do you think they are holed up there? Terrorism is solved militarily and politically - neither alone. But you don't solve it with cowardice.
so you really think he will demonstrate selective support - keep troops in Afghanistan and remove support from Iraq?
This paints a pretty accurate picture of what was happening in Spain prior to the actual attacks in Madrid. Aznar cruised to victory in the 2000 elections, but the PSOE still held 34% of the vote vs. the PP's 44%. However the 1996 elections were a squeaker. And the tide had certainly turned against him after his controversial support of the Iraq War. The attacks did not completely alter the election's results. It was still going to be a very close race and it's important to remember that the PSOE were the ruling party in Spain prior to 1996 and throughout the 80's. They have always enjoyed plenty of popular support. More than anything, the attacks brought out that group of undecided or undeclared voters in record numbers, a full 7.1% greater overall turnout than the 2000 elections, which also tipped the balance in the PSOE's favor. Also, it's important to remember that Aznar himself had stepped down and would not have remained as prime minister after the elections. Although Zapatero has been maligned as uncharasmatic, etc..., he was not up against Aznar, but Aznar's hand-picked successor.
Colin Powell will talk to him. But he will follow through on his election mandate and remove them (a prediction). They will emphasize focus on domestic terrorism and working international terrorism issues inside the border and will try to align more with the French and Germans. Essentially a retrenchment of dealing with these issues forcefully abroad. But I guess we will just have to see.
Since he's explicitly stated that he plans to withdraw troops from Iraq, yet he's made no such comments regarding Spain's support of the Afghanistan operations, then yes, that's what I think unless he does something to indicate otherwise.
And for this reason, not to mention their piss poor assesment of Spain's economy, proves how the counterpunch article is just a steaming pile of crap.
Two things on this: 1. You think we are departing Iraq this summer? 2. You have proof that AQ is behind the bombings in Iraq? If some attack occurs between now and November, I will bet you he won't. If Kerry makes any statement that directly links the words "Bush", "attacks" and "blame", I'll vote for Dubya in November. If he doesn't, you will vote for Kerry. A good bet, perhaps? Because it was his hand-picked successor, and the Popular Party supported him in his decision to support for the Iraq war. If the PP stayed in power, there would not have been any substnatial change in foreign or domestic policy. The election was more or less a referendum on the Aznar years.