Analysis of Spain's elections [R]

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by Speedball, Mar 14, 2004.

  1. chibchab

    chibchab Member

    Jul 8, 2002
    New Jersey
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    If that's how you interpreted it that's your problem. I don't espouse the connection between Iraq and 911 so don't go climbing that tree with me...
     
  2. obie

    obie New Member

    Nov 18, 1998
    NY, NY
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    chibchab -- it's difficult to quote you given the formatting, but generally I don't think that we are that far off from each other. Perhaps if Aznar hadn't jumped all over ETA on Day 1 and then refused to backtrack as new evidence suggested AQ, his party might have won yesterday. But in three days they formed opinions without facts and then tried to alter the facts that didn't correspond with their pre-held opinions. That made Spaniards suspicious at best.

    But beyond that, you can't say that the bombers wanted to hurt Aznar but didn't want to help the Socialists. The Socialists were the only serious opposition party. It either had to be the bombers' desired effect, or the timing of the bombing had nothing to do with the elections. It has to be one or the other.
     
  3. Mel Brennan

    Mel Brennan PLANITARCHIS' BANE

    Paris Saint Germain
    United States
    Apr 8, 2002
    Baltimore
    Club:
    Paris Saint Germain FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    If I assumed anything about your argument, I apologize. It seemed that by your observing:

    ...Huge, Huge victory for AQ IMO, they just manipulated a major election in a major Western country.

    You were failing to observe the same about the US, given that model of observance/analysis. We didn't just take the fight to the enemy; we took it to our own citizenry, and to our own values. We, IMO, semi-caved on what we claim to stand for when it became hard to stand for it; far from "give me liberty or give me death," far from regular Joes freezing in Valley Forge with Washington, far from that nation-building mentality, we have embraced a "Give me FRIENDS, or give me THE SIMPLE LIFE; anything BUT death!" mentality, one that is fear-based, and thus we manifest a fear-mongering administration, one that hasnt even addressed our fears, but rather took advantage of the situation to settle old business of their own.

    To call the Spanish people to taks at all, for doing what we claim we want everyone around the world to do (be engaged citizens and live democracy everyday), and not to call to task our own conduct and cowardice as a nation in terms of living the fullness of democracy (particularly when its hard to do) is to miss the hypocrisy of an administration that represents us in the world...

    You may not have been saying all that, and if not, again, I apologize. I'm still saying all that, however.
     
  4. Attacking Minded

    Attacking Minded New Member

    Jun 22, 2002
    Yes the SOTU where Bush clearly said we had to attack Iraq because the threat was imminent. Or not.
     
  5. superdave

    superdave Member+

    Jul 14, 1999
    VB, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    YOU reference New York and the Pentagon. If that's not about 9/11, then please explain what the hell else you could possibly mean.

    THEN you mention the Spanish people being against the alliance, when all over this thread people have been talking about the Spanish people being against involvement in Iraq, NOT Afghanistan.

    Please, you got caught. You and many of the conservatives here are trying to tie Iraq to AQ. And I'm gonna point that out when they do.
     
  6. Attacking Minded

    Attacking Minded New Member

    Jun 22, 2002
    We did not invade Iraq because it caused 9/11. We invaded Iraq because it's part of the solution to 9/11.
     
  7. Mel Brennan

    Mel Brennan PLANITARCHIS' BANE

    Paris Saint Germain
    United States
    Apr 8, 2002
    Baltimore
    Club:
    Paris Saint Germain FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I disagree with every single part of these sentences.

    Well, not the grammar. But everything else.

    We were attacked by AQ. We invaded Iraq, creating more operating room and more recruits for AQ. That is irrational.

    In the wake of 9-11 we reducedthe reality of the democracy we had prior to 9-11, through legislation, terror alert color-coded warnings, and various other measures. We lacked the guts to say in the face of 9-11 that American democracy would never be truncated, that the acts of 9-11 were a crime (albeit a uniquely horrible one), and that while the criminals were dead, we had the law and the int'l relationships on the books and in the fold to deal with this crime, that we would bring the perpetrators to justice while ensuring that our democracy was neither truncated at home nor subjugating anyone else in the world, but rather was ensuring freedom, at home and abroad, and not particularly corporate freedom but rather human freedom.

    Iraq was certainly the most convenient nation to invade after Afghanistan, and the easiest of the Axis of Evil. The reality is that there was nothing HARD about invading Iraq, and today we've lost more troops after mjor combat operations were concluded than we did during those operations. This certainly was an invasion of convenience. North Korea still stands, as does Iran...for now.

    This Bush policy has not been clear. I don't understand it right now. Its not even a full commitment to the DPI doctrine; its political militarism, a dangerous statism that makes us less safe.

    This Bush policy is not thoughtful. Name the exit strategy. Name how many times it has changed. Give methe over/under on how many times it will change. Now tell me what any of that has to do with AQ.

    This Bush policy wasn't even forceful. We haven't brought our resources to bear regarding anything but invading two weak nations, nations weak in such a way that is directly attributable to...you guessed it US action that lacked the force of moral courage in the first place. How did Afghanistan not only get the way it is, but stay the way it is? How did Iraq become Iraq?

    This Bush policy has instituted nothing along the lines of positive change, unless you define that as getting us about the common and typical paths of empire. Let's hope this one rightly expires without any uranium tantrums or plutonium petulance.
     
  8. csc7

    csc7 New Member

    Jul 3, 2002
    DC
    Actually, there is a lot of disagreement about the definition of terrorism in light of Al Qaeda's rise.

    Historically, terrorists sought to use violence to coerce governments to change position or policy. They wanted a lot of people watching, but not a lot of people dead. That way they maximize their influence without turning too many people against them.

    However, in the 1990s we've seen a change in terrorists. There has been the development of apocolyptic terrorists, like the group in Japan that used Sarin gas in the subway. They wanted to kill millions of people (and multiple times, thought they pulled off attacks that would kill 1/2 the people in Tokoyo) because they thought the world was near its end and that such a cataclysmic event would bring the apocalypse. There were no political goals for this organization and no way to placate them.

    Al Qaeda does have political objectives, but those objectives are so revolutionary that they cannot be placated either (one of OBL's primary goals was to get US soldiers out of Saudi Arabia-guess what, they're gone and OBL doesn't seem to be pulling back on his jihad.) They want an entirely different world order and they seek the destruction of US/Western/'heretic' muslims. They don't want to change policy, they want to destroy us. They really believed that the 9/11 attacks would bring world trade to its knees.

    As such, I don't think Al Qaeda wants to alter the results of an election in Spain, or for that matter, the United States. If Al Qaeda is responsible, the timing of 3/11 is probably based on the anniversary of 9/11.
     
  9. chibchab

    chibchab Member

    Jul 8, 2002
    New Jersey
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I agree with you in the first paragraph.


    The second paragraph...the bombing HAD to be tied to the elections, it's no coincidence, but AQ could care less who filled in for the PP, so 'helping' the socialists is just a unintended consiquence, IMO, it's not like I have OBLs phone number...
     
  10. Dante

    Dante Moderator
    Staff Member

    Nov 19, 1998
    Binghamton, NY
    Club:
    Juventus FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    That's my only beef here, not fulfilling agreements that have already been agreed upon. Poland, which is currently in command, has agreed to remain in commaned if the Spaniards pull out. The Spanish also maintain some authority over the contingents from Honduras, San Salvador and the Dominican Republic. If Spain was to go how would this affect those three countries as well.
     
  11. chibchab

    chibchab Member

    Jul 8, 2002
    New Jersey
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Me, a conservative? Since when? I just like discussing, intelligently, different arguements and opinions.

    Look we were attacked, our government then laid out a plan to fight this war and asked for help from people. The plan they came up with is up for debate. Afghanistan was more black and white. Iraq was fuzzy at best but at no point did I suggest that Iraq is tied to 911. Iraq is just part of the government's plan on the grand scale war. Was it right? Who knows! I'm just as frustrated as the next guy about Iraq. I gave Bush the benefit of the doubt but its dwindling by the day.

    This is what I said: 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?

    This was your responce: 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.


    How you draw 911 to Iraq from my statement is beyond me. Why does Iraq HAVE to be tied to 911 for my arguement to work?

    +Take my word for it: I've never suggested to maintained that Iraq had anything to do with 911+
     
  12. verybdog

    verybdog New Member

    Jun 29, 2001
    Houyhnhnms
    This morning from NPR they said Spain wants to pull back the troops in Iraq.

    It's entirely possible that people of Spain is sick and tired of involving in the US-AQ politics. They figured that there's really no real benefits to get tangled in this ugly affair and supporting US' fighting of AQ is not their business. The common sense is that your friend's enemy may not be your enemy. So in that sense AQ indeed is a factor in the voting thought process.
     
  13. chibchab

    chibchab Member

    Jul 8, 2002
    New Jersey
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    A noble mission, I guess; but it's making you a bit trigger happy and understand things with that bias in mind (paranoid). I didn't deserver the trigger pulled on me...
     
  14. riverplate

    riverplate Member+

    Jan 1, 2003
    Corona, Queens
    Club:
    CA River Plate
    You're right.

    Real Democracy = George Soros's pocketbook. His individual freedom hasn't been affected one ioda. Neither has mine. Period.

    And there's no point over-elaborating about what Spain did on Sunday as many of you are trying to do. It's simple. They gave up.
     
  15. superdave

    superdave Member+

    Jul 14, 1999
    VB, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Again with this s***!!!!!!

    The Socialists campaigned on getting out of Iraq. They won the election. They're planning to follow up on their campaign promise.

    And, for the one millionth time...pulling out of Iraq and being involved in US-AQ politics isn't connected. Except that every ounce of energy and every Euro spent on Iraq distracts Spain from fighting AQ.

    I hate to be paranoid, but the conservatives are definitely preparing a "heads we win-tails you lose" situation. If there are no attacks on the US, Bush did a great job in the WOT. If there are, pointing out the waste of resources and goodwill and all that in GW II is just appeasement to AQ. If I mention the time the FBI spent interrogating 10,000+ Iraqi-Americans instead of breaking up AQ cells, then I'm just a modern day Neville Chamberlain.

    Well, bulls***. If I do that I'm a modern day Winston Churchill. I'm a premature anti-fascist. If you've got a blacklist, I wanna be on it. Waiting for the great leap forwards.
     
  16. superdave

    superdave Member+

    Jul 14, 1999
    VB, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    If you read what I wrote carefully, you'll see that I didn't really call you a conservative. I deliberately wrote like that because I wasn't sure.

    Again...you mention the Pentagon and New York. That's a 9-11 reference, right? Then you talk about the Spanish people opposing the US-Spain alliance. If you're not talking about GW II, then plesae tell me what you ARE talking about.

    Because if they're not tied, then the logical conclusion one would make about the Spanish people is that they thought the Iraq war was a stupid waste.
     
  17. GringoTex

    GringoTex Member

    Aug 22, 2001
    1301 miles de Texas
    Club:
    Tottenham Hotspur FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Bolivia
    Why should the new Spanish government continue participating in a meaninglessly symbolic shell game whose only purpose is to provide the Bush re-election machine the "evidence" that this is a "coalition."
     
  18. GringoTex

    GringoTex Member

    Aug 22, 2001
    1301 miles de Texas
    Club:
    Tottenham Hotspur FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Bolivia
    I see Republicans are in dress rehearsal in case there's a terrorist attack on U.S. soil before November.
     
  19. Ombak

    Ombak Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 19, 1999
    Irvine, CA
    Club:
    Flamengo Rio Janeiro
    Nat'l Team:
    Brazil
    There's no point trying to convince intelligent people that voting for a party that's against the war in Iraq = giving up.

    As has been said before, you're setting up a heads we win, tails you lose proposition, but it's not that simple and when you get challenged on that bullshit you're the one giving up by making posts such as the one above.
     
  20. chibchab

    chibchab Member

    Jul 8, 2002
    New Jersey
    Nat'l Team:
    United States


    THe only tie between Iraq and 911 is: that after 911 (which Iraq was not a part of) the US embarked on a war to root out terrorism and in their mind, the invasion of Iraq was necessary. That's how they're connected, ok.
     
  21. Garcia

    Garcia Member

    Dec 14, 1999
    Castro Castro
    Well, I was thinking of this today. I would guess that there is something Bush admin would/could offer the new govt of Spain. That doesn't sound right, but let's take a guess that there are things that happen below the radar that we never know about.

    Bush has already called the winners and is extending a hand. In the very least, we need continued coordination to fight terrorism in both nations, if not Iraq.

    This "coalition" is only as strong as the weakest link. Spain was attacked because it is the weakest link. The people have spoken, even before the election, that they didn't want any part of Iraq. The visible bloodshed and now the attacks on civilians has broken the coalition. Spain is out, but not before the official handover of June 30. So, in reality, Spain is doing everything on the correct timetable. I don't see why this would hurt Bush, if Spain was not doing much to begin with and are leaving just as Iraq goes back to Iraq.

    It all depends on the spin you want and the real evidence on who attacked Spanish civilians.
     
  22. Shabs

    Shabs Member

    Jun 19, 2002
    NYC
    Did the Socialists before 3/11 say they were going "to get tougher" on terrorists before 3/11? If not, of course theyre going to use that as a platform afterwards. And you think the Spanish people who changed their vote did so because of that promise? After less than a week? What kind of credibility does that promise have? It seems far more likely to me they think the present govt invited the attack with their policies and wanted to change that govt to show terrorists that theyre not on US's side anymore. I believe THEYRE the ones linking our/their actions in Iraq with AQ-3/11.
     
  23. Nico Limmat

    Nico Limmat Member+

    Oct 24, 1999
    Dubai, UAE
    Club:
    Grasshopper Club Zürich
    Nat'l Team:
    Switzerland
    Memo to all power puff conservatives: The War on Terror can never be completely won.


    Sincerely,

    The War on Drugs
     
  24. Malaga CF fan

    Malaga CF fan Member

    Apr 19, 2000
    Fairfax, VA
    Club:
    Colorado Rapids
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    To quote Lewis Lapham (loosely):

    How can you win a war on an abstract noun?
     
  25. Sardinia

    Sardinia New Member

    Oct 1, 2002
    Sardinia, Italy, EU


    WOT is idiot.

    You fight terrorism with the best strategies, tanks and blind bombs most of the times aren't. Intelligence, police and strong democracy are.

    Tanks and bombs are good to pursue PNAC's agenda.

    Endless WOT is a good excuse to pursue hegemonic policies.

    Are you going to teach european states (above all spain) how to fight terrorism?

    USA never demonstrated that it's able to fight organized terrorism while it demonstrated that it's good in using it.

    it has done it again in irak.

    Where else I heard this kind of stuff?

    Old europe, new europe.

    The yes-states are new europe (funny because I think they're old europe), the "let's see if it's also our interest and if we agree"-states are old europe.

    It's just fear of EU integration process. Fear of an independent european foreign policy.

    Did you ever happen to read the PNAC line talking about "no power rivaling, or even getting near to, our power"?
    When tey say no power there is no (except our dear friends and allies...)

    I am glad to announce you that Zapatero told clearly that it was important to get near again to France and Germany's positions and work hard and quick on the EU integration process.

    And Romano Prodi is coming next in Italy.

    By 2006 (if not before) you will likely have France, Germany, Italy and Spain all willing to accelerate the above mentioned process (ie work on common foreign policy, EU army etc).

    This would also mean that UK following is not indispensable.
    If they want to, fine otherwise...

    I think you really need someone a bit balancing you (not rivaling, bullies) and your power.
    Better if it is a democratic and developed one.

    And while many of you would sincerely welcome the idea I assure you that your powermen (especially GOP's ones) don't.

    Please, vote Kerry.
     

Share This Page