Say what you will, it is a cowardly act to turn and run in the face of terror. It is cowardice, plain and simple!
Mel, you're making ALOT of assumptions on my position for me, and I question the fairness in that. Did 911 change things in our country? Absolutely! And it probably goes further than the things you state. The government acquired tools it felt it needed to fight this war at the detriment of our rights. I just hope, as has been promised that these changes are temporary and will be used as long as needed to defeat the enemy. Realistically?.... We have fought two wars and I imagine other operations not known to us as a result of 911. "Are you willing to say that AQ manipulated a major shift in American militarism and reduction of democracy in a major Western country?" Well, yes, we were attacked and prepared to respond and took the fight to the enemy and as I said adjusted how our society works to give the government better tools to fight. That all is given and basic,IMO. All these changes lie in the government. I'm not accusing the Spanish people of anything. I'm simply observing the fact that AQ influenced this election result and the raw emotion of Spanish people had something to do with it. I don't see how that is being arrogant...
You're going to have to tell me how Spain has turned and run in the face of terror. Electing the PSOE is not an endorsement of a cowardly agenda, simply an answer on the method of fighting terrorism. Please, if you are going to post, at least demonstrate a rudimentary understanding of Spanish politics and a recognition that the Spanish people have turned out en masse to voice their opinion of these terrorist acts. These people are not cowards.
Explain to everyone outside of Spain how A.Q. is not encourage by this development... They changed a government... And that government is one that will act in a manner that favors the terrorist... Cowardice is an accurate word for it!
And as you know, I happened to be directly involved in what you are decribing as a failure.. And I can report that what you think is a failure is most certainly NOT! WE ARE winning. And we will win. In spite of folks like you who would appease our enemies!
How the hell has democracy been reduced in America? Didn't the wonderful Democrats just get through with weeks and weeks and weeks of elections?
Democracy is not being questioned here, the people made their decision and it will be honored, but the process was tinkered with by a sinister party.
OK, but the gvt. they changed is the one that failed to stop them. I mean, that's like saying Duke fans were happy when UNC cashiered Matt Doherty and brought in Roy Williams. 1. You don't know that. 2. You DO know that that gvt. is pulling out troops from a pointless sideshow. So Spain will have more resources to fight against terrorists.
Yes, because assigning 1,300 troops to Iraq is a strain on their efforts to protect their borders. Had Spain not made a commitment and then decide on backing out of the commitment then there would be no fuss. If Spain's time was up in Iraq this would be a non issue. Spain is set to take control of the Southern command on July 1st.
You have said you are a military lawyer. Now you're saying that you are involved in protecting the Spanish people from terrorists. Please tell me which of those is a lie.
I doubt it. The new prime minister has already said that, unlike his predecessor, HIS number #1 priority will be fighting terrorism. You're operating under the wrongheaded assumption that AQ's priority is self-preservation. Using that same logic, I could argue that AQ were not worried about U.S. retaliation for 9-11 because they knew Bush wouldn't have the guts to go into Saudi Arabia or Pakistan.
Oh pulllleeeeaasseeee....this does not deserve a response only to ask....Tell me you are NOT this stupid! Typical! This is how you liberals debate. First, you set up the lie! Then you make up facts you know are not true to go with the lie, while at the same time avoiding what you know to be obviously true, and then charge the other person with lying in the form of a question like "at what point did you stop beating your wife", and expect the other person to engage you in your stupidity... Since you know what I do, you also know what I am doing.... Grow up Dave!
A lot of confused folks seem to think that because the Spanish government backed Bush in Iraq, that meant they were strong in the fight against terrorism. This is not true. The Spanish people elected the party who promised to make the fight against terrorism their number one priority. It's all pretty simple.
Hey, I'm not the jackalope that claimed to be involved in the effort to keep the Spanish people safe. YOU jumped the shark with the "I know better because of what I do" crap, and then I called you on it.
I do think that AQ has self-preservation to a point, I mean they have a mission and they will be smart about staying alive to comlete it, no? AQ would've loved for the US to go into Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. The more poignant a fight they can instigate between West and Middle East the better.
... and taking those 1300 away from Iraq will put a strain on our efforts to protect Iraqis and coalition interests there? I agree with you that the election of a new regime should not supercede pre-existing covenants, and new governments should do everything within their power to uphold those covenants. You know, kinda like how Bush has upheld ABM treaties with the Russians.... Regardless of precedent under the current American regime, Spain should uphold its written agreements but I'd be very surprised to find that Zapatero is voiding any written agreements here. Did the "coalition of the willing" sign any treaties regarding the post-war defense of Iraq? Are those Spanish soldiers under contract, so to speak? Please enlighten me here.
Gringo, Before 11M the average Spaniard only cared about ETA when it came to terrorism becuase any other kind of terrorism had not presented itself before, what could they care about NY or the Pentagon? That is why they were so opposed to allying with the US, 1. It's not so much our fight 2. Why make it our fight? Now that Aznar got them in the crosshairs of AQ they neeed to fight AQ for real, and you think they calmly chose the correct candidate in two or three days while having their judgement impaired by rage and grief. It's not that simple Tex, sorry.
From Atrios The people of Spain voted out the party which failed to protect them from a terrorist attack, and this proves they aren't serious about fighting terrorism. As a former co-worker of mine used to say whenever something loopy came down the line: "Ohhhhhhhh-kay."
Can we please keep this on topic? This clearly belongs in the "2003 State of the Union Speech" thread.
I didn't say that they chose calmly or correctly. I just said that they chose the candidate who promised to fight the toughest fight against terrorism. We might be doing the same thing in November. Bush is certainly betting on it.
The primary motives have traditionally been to kill people and get themselves noticed globally. So on that, assuming that they did this, they seem to have succeeded again brilliantly. The only way that this theory holds is if you can ensure that the democracies chosen by the Middle Eastern countries are sympathetic to Western interests and not interested in imposing sharia. And in order to ensure that, the US and its allies cannot really allow democracy. Therein lies the great paradox. Does anyone in the Bush Administration -- or within a potential Kerry Administration, for that matter -- really want Saudi citizens to vote for their next leader? I would hypothesize that the biggest obstacle to peace in this region isn't political or religious; it's economic. Middle class terrorists like Atta are the exception, and if we could do something about the 75% young male unemployment rate in the Occupied Territories, maybe they wouldn't see blowing themselves up as their best chance at career advancement
This paragraph only makes sense if there's a 9/11-Iraq connection. So please give us the connection, or just admit you're using the emotions of 9-11 to try to overwhelm our logic.
The US doesn't attack countries out of anger. Both Pakistan and SA have cooperated with the US in the WOT. Neither one has been perfect. However, relations with Pakistan have gone from "you're with us or against us" just before the war in Afghanistan to near full cooperation today. In SA they had to be attacked again before they've cooperated at a reasonable level. On the positive side, they are cooperating. Contrast that to their level of cooperation to Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and North Korea. Those four have stonewalled at every turn. Saddam failed to cooperate to the extent that he fought a suicidal war over weapons he didn’t havev. Afghanistan is the country that suffered an American invasion and has made the most progress from tyranny to democracy. The Iranian mullah check on full democracy could end any day. North Korea remains a basket case due to the sort of appeasement and nuance by the South Korean politicians that the Spanish socialists advocate. No, far from the accusations that the US simply made a list and kicked ass or failed to kick the right ass, America has made HUGE progress in the War on Terror. Who would have predicted on September 12th that Pakistan would be a full partner in the WOT, Afghanistan would be as free as it is, Saudi Arabia would be cooperating as much as it is and the Iranian Mullahs would be afraid to wear their dress openly in the streets of Tehran? Our policy has not been irrational, due to a lack of guts or a matter of convenience. It has been a clear thoughtful, forceful cause for positive change in the world.