We won the Cold War because their economic system was crap. All the little conflicts and so forth just determined how much territory rolled back.
I don't understand this. From what I'm getting from this thread, people are blaming Aznar's party for getting involved in Iraq. GW II had nothing to do with the war on terror, unless you count how we pulled out so many of our special ops troops from Afghanistan, and thus reducing our ability to fight the Taliban and kill Osama. It sounds like you're buying Bush's bulls*** that GW II was something other than a colossal distraction in the war on terror.
Ian and The Wanderer have to be the biggest cowards on these boards. Really, you two pussies need to get some balls.
I have been watching Peruvian television, a sunday news magazine type show, this evening. The host is live, in Madrid. They have been showing some Peruvians (3) who lived in Spain and died in the attack of 3/11, talking to their families. and all that stuff. He finally interviewed a lady, talking head from Spain on the elections. I don't know her or her credentials. She said that even a few days ago, nobody could or would have guessed that the guy who won would or could win. He is new to politics if I caught that right. he has never been elected to anything before. Is that right? She went on to say that the Bush admin helped Aznar lose to the extent the Bush admin has been talking of AQ links. Just another perspective for you to consider, but not that different from what we have been reading here. I was surprised that she did make the strong case that the general trend was not changing before the election, as some have said. This attack and the AQ link put the newbie politico intom office.
If you re-read the general feeling here and the very words you wrote, the part I underlined does not seem to fit with the rest. Care to make any corrections? I mean, "if it was ETA, that helped the Socialists" then why would the current govt still trying to make it or at least maintain the ETA link? Because in fact, it better served them?
You think that matters to Karl Rove? Check out the new Arab Willie Horton ad. Kerry could kill Osama with his bare hands and Rove would still label him as a terrorism apologist. I'm more worried about a terrorist attack, whenever it might happen.
Yes but before the 80s the Sovs thought they were at least keeping up with us and we might be losing the will to fight. Once the Sovs decided they needed to do more they brought in Gorbachev. Glasnost and Peristroka eventually led to the fall of the Berlin wall and the rest is history. The point is Democracy can't lose unless it decides to give up. I am sure that will never happen. One policy or another will hasten the end of the WOT but I'm sure the Democracies themselves can never lose.
Remember that the people of Spain opposed going to war with Iraq by a large margin. Yet that didn't seem to be affecting the polls, with the PP always in the lead. From my cross the atlantic perspective, it seems like the people of Spain found what their government was doing was distasteful, but it didn't really hit home. It obviously hit home on 3/11. I have to say I have very mixed feelings about this. I don't like Bush, didn't like the war in Iraq, and wouldn't mind a change of office in the States, so I can't begrudge the people of Spain for wanting the same. Yet I can't help but think that, in one sense, the terrorists may very well have gotten what they wanted. They altered an election, and removed a pro-U.S. political party, by murdering 190+ people a few days before. That just doesn't sit well with me. I also have to say that the fact that the election might hinge on WHO committed the bombings is absurd in some ways. Suppose it was ETA, then wouldn't that mean that Aznar's hard line policy of cracking down and refusing to negotiate was at fault as well? It could just be that people were pissed that the government appeared to jump to conclusions and "cover up" (I didn't see it from here, but who knows). My hope is that Zapatero is willing to work with Bush and not use his election as a platform to denounce "imperialism" and the like. And from what people are saying right now, it appears that he might go that route. At the same time, my concern then is that Bush will refuse to show any flexibility and essentially expect Spain to follow in lockstep. And for what it's worth, I will miss Ana Palacio. For whatever reason, I liked her.
You are correct -- I misstated the general perception, which was that ETA bombings would have helped the Popular Party. I misspoke -- or, more accurately, mis-typed.
Gringo and I have this love/hate relationship. He loves to hate me. I hate to love him. I mean, if it weren't for that whole Texas/Cowboy image, and him being such a beloved and missed moderator of this forum, I'd have to edit/remove his post due to the personal attacks, even if it is true. Don't most of you ask for links for some proof? I don't want to be this kind of mod. On one hand, we have the uptight, Catholic nun mod who is a real killjoy. On the other hand, we have the double-standards mod who let's his friends or political allies run the joint. Gringo, I will allow your words speak for themselves. It shows a lack of thought on your part and I know you can do better. Want to try again? Or do you want to further force yourself to the "fringe" consideration in this forum?
You thought being a mod was all fun and games! You see? Now, I'll get 10 reported posts sent to my email. I'll have to edit. I'll have to split a huge thread. I'll have to bin. I'll have to request yellow cards. I'll have to PM both users. I'll have to talk to Dante. I'll have to talk to SuperMods. I'll have to respond to PMs from carded users. I'll have to talk about this in the Secret Mod forum. I'll have to waste my time! Thanks guys! But seriously, can we get past this and continue the good conversation? And, I don't care who started it.
The reason Anzar got fired, and the reason Bush should get fired, is because what they are doing is not winning the war on terror. I'd really hate to see the USA lose a second war. Remember, a previous Republican stud, Nixon, lost the only war in US history. Actually Viet Nam fell under Ford's watch, but that is trivial. Gad, all these weak, appeasing Republican presidents" Nixon: lost the Viet Nam war Ford : did nothing Bush I: failed to finish off Iraq BushII: invaded the wrong country. Terrorism goes on, business as usual.
Well, I have to give credit where credit is due, but Johnson knew he couldn't win the vietnam war as early as 1964...i'd say a string of several presidents lost the vietnam war... I just hope that we're not in Iraq long enough to say that a string of presidents lost the Iraq war.
Huh? You're pinning Vietnam on Nixon? Vietnam was over, for all intents and purposes in 1969. The remaining years were spent trying to salvage what little dignity was left after the Lyndon Johnson fiasco. And, Bush is losing the war on terror? Whatever.
7,220 U.S. soldiers dead between 1969-1974, countless wounded. Everytime the spirit moves you, and you get up on your hind legs and waddle on over to the ol' Apple IIc, we all know that volumes of stupid are on the way... We've left AQ strong enough to murder our Spanish allies. We've got Iraqi oil though. I guess that's a win in your book. You're a failed state all unto yourself, McCracked.
Foreign policy is hardly a decider in the results of elections. Domestic matter will always take serious control of any election campaign. It will be interesting to see what bridge building the Socialists will enagge in. Some people who would be watching the results may draw a feeling that terrorisim can bring down a government. Such a victory as that of the Socialists in Spain may surge on terrorist groups and isolationist politicians.
I for one can't think of too many countries (if any) that were not in support of the Afghanistan operation. Iraq on the other hand singled Spain out... That is a fact.
Jesus Cristo, you're a drama queen. I love you unconiditionally. There- is that better? Here's my very thoughtful response: A record number of Spaniards voted in this election and conservatives are complaining about a blow to democracy. This hypocrisy is old news, as for the past 40 years, one of the major Republican strategies is to have as few people vote as possible because it works better for them. The reason a record number of Spaniards voted is because they have watched their government sit idly by in the fight against terrorism. Sending a token force to Iraq in exchange for reconstruction contracts in the Middle East while terrorists have free reign to plot their plans for destruction in your own country is pathetic. The conservatives in Spain lost because they were weak on terrorism.
At the risk of being labeled an a$$hole by obie, I do believe the Thursday's bombing had an effect on this election. GRANTED: an estimated 90% of the population was against Spain(Aznar) allying herself with the US against Iraq(Saddam) but as has been previously stated, this was not reflected in pre-bombing election polls. ++How do you explain this rapid change in poll number is three day's time??++ I can't reconcile this major shift without considering the emotions of the population AFTER the bombing. Foreign policy, as Mel, would have us believe, is not the SOLE factor in choosing a candidate. Domestic policy, economic policy, legislation etc, are other things to consider and by most accounts Aznar's party had done well in this areas. As for Dbogs, question of where was the US's interest in Spain's terrorism before 9/11, I think that's unfair? Would you all have taken it well if we got involved in your internal issues?
Of course it had an effect. It woke people up. Hence the record turnout. They realize their government was diddling in Iraq instead of fighting terrorism, and so booted their asses out.