The right would like to set up the following argument: If there are no attacks between now and the election, then Bush has defended us from terror and deserves re-election; if there is an attack between now and the election, then voting for Kerry would be appeasement.
Conservative mindset: You cannot have your enemies believing they have won a victory. Your enemies morale is your principal target. Therefore, the only option is to keep Bush in office.
Liberal mindset: Unfortunately, it is the current US administration's disastrous foreign policy that has put us in this difficult situation. We have no choice but to take the short term risk of changing our bad leadership, however it is misinterpreted by our enemies, just so that we can reestablish a winning strategy.
But the real question is this: why didn't Spain or the US have a better handle on this? Why didn't they pick up on it? The fact that this caught both countries off-guard is awfully telling of how badly Bush has setup anti-terrorism countermeasures.
We are no safer today than we were on September 10, 2002.
Greeting from the USA. Thank you very much for promising to pull your troops out. You have shown the world that goals can be achieved by people with bombs... on trains in this case. You have illustrated your lack of resolve for fighting terrorism. Bombs go off, Spain retreats. One in the win column for Al Qaeda.
Greeting from the USA. Thank you very much for promising to pull your troops out. You have shown the world that goals can be achieved by people with bombs... on trains in this case. You have illustrated your lack of resolve for fighting terrorism. Bombs go off, Spain retreats. One in the win column for Al Qaeda.
Thanks for nothing, you spineless fools.
You are wrong with this one. The new prime minister have announced in his campaign that if he is elected he would pull out the spanish troops. It was announced months before the bombing.
You are wrong with this one. The new prime minister have announced in his campaign that if he is elected he would pull out the spanish troops. It was announced months before the bombing.
You gotta realize that the bombing had something to do with the election. It's not the PM alone... it is the Socialist party that won with great help of terrorist bombs. In the end, the people and their fear were the deciding factor.
You gotta realize that the bombing had something to do with the election. It's not the PM alone... it is the Socialist party that won with great help of terrorist bombs. In the end, the people and their fear were the deciding factor.
I don't think it's the case.
Aznar lost this election because he started to lied about the nature of terrorists. They claimed that it was ETA at 100 %. Spaniards get the impression that an another time their governement lied to them again. It was already the case with the catastrophe of the oil tanker the prestige. They said that everything was ok, dispite all this oil who was bleeding throught the ship at 1000 meters depth. They lied, and worse they managed this catastrophe poorly (if the ship sinked, it's because the gov refused to let enter the ship in a port)
For the record in the Basque countrie the right lose 10 % of votes. Basques where pissed to be designate responsilbes via ETA of this action.
Aznar was a poor politician, that's why he lose. I will add for the good understanding that i have never voted for socialists. If my opinion is biased, it won't be because of my political color
I think the recent developments in Spain as a response to the bombing are commendable, because they show the new government is not interested in outward appearances or vaguely "looking tough".
They recognize they are appointed to serve the will of the Spanish people, and the previous posse did not do that. If there is an urgent crisis of some sort, and the government has more facts than can be made public at that time, it might be understandable that they take action against the people's will. But even then the facts should be published as the smoke clears.
Is the same (with or without a bomb) going to happen in United Kingdom? Judging by gallup results, the British did not want the war any more than the Spanish, it looks like their government has malfunctioned worse overall with all the coverup business, and there are more British soldiers KIA. I imagine UK looks rather good a target for Al Quaeda planners right now, since UK troops leaving Iraq would be a sizable multi-front problem for US. (cost, logistics, internal debates, external accountability if the "coalition" ceases to be)
Well, let's just go ahead and let Al Qaeda have the world. Judging by the world's lack of interest in standing against terrorism, it is the logical next step... I dunno, maybe just on this board. In effect, terrorists that number no more than a few thousand are effectively slapping the entire Western Civilization into submission.
This is a war for our way and quality of life. Pathetic how many across the world will not stand up to people that want to end their lives as they know them.
If anyone thinks that by backing out troops or support that terrorism is going to end, they are an idiot. These people do not care- they want you and all that you believe in DEAD. Capitalism, representative democracy, the separation of religion and gov't is all out the window. How quickly we forget Iran in the 1970s and 80s.
Have any doubts? Go live a few months in Jerusalem.
Odd. There were no al Qaeda in Iraq until we invaded. There are now. Iraq has recruited who knows how many new converts to al Qaeda. Iraq had nothing to do with 911. Bin Laden hated Saddam. Saddam had nothing to do with international terrorism. Iraq has never been the place to get WMD; that was the Pakistan black market. Countries that were involved in the 'coalition' are more likely to get attacked.
Do, please, tell me how action against Iraq was supposed to reduce terror?
Odd. There were no al Qaeda in Iraq until we invaded. There are now. Iraq has recruited who knows how many new converts to al Qaeda. Iraq had nothing to do with 911. Bin Laden hated Saddam. Saddam had nothing to do with international terrorism. Iraq has never been the place to get WMD; that was the Pakistan black market. Countries that were involved in the 'coalition' are more likely to get attacked.
Do, please, tell me how action against Iraq was supposed to reduce terror?
That's an awfully myopic viewpoint you have. I have no desire to elaborate because 90% of the people on this board are against this war in every way, shape, and form and having a reasonable discussion with them would be like talking to a lamppost, except I could get brighter responses out of a lamppost (no offense).
That's an awfully myopic viewpoint you have. I have no desire to elaborate because 90% of the people on this board are against this war in every way, shape, and form and having a reasonable discussion with them would be like talking to a lamppost, except I could get brighter responses out of a lamppost (no offense).
Regards!
Dude, if you disagree with his post explain why. Say why's he's wrong.
Dude, if you disagree with his post explain why. Say why's he's wrong.
I don't see the point:
1) That would be deviating from the topic.
2) This debate has been rehashed a hundred times over the past year. Why start another?
3) I don't think that I can definatively say that he's "wrong" because my argument would be speculation just like his. Both of us could give facts and figures and stats and stuff to justify our position, but there would be no concrete piece of information that would sway either one of us to the position of the other.
I disagree. I'm one of the two people on this board who support the war for many many reasons. Let's leave it at that.
Jubelum says the "Spanish Socialists" have gone soft on terror, because they think Iraq is a bad idea (just like 90% of the Spaniards).
So I ask if he think there's some kind of link.
You say there is.
I point out that Saddam was not an international terrorist and had a mutual animosity with al Qaeda. And had nothing to do with 911 (disagree with any of that? The UK government agrees).
Jubelum says the "Spanish Socialists" have gone soft on terror, because they think Iraq is a bad idea (just like 90% of the Spaniards).
So I ask if he think there's some kind of link.
You say there is.
I point out that Saddam was not an international terrorist and had a mutual animosity with al Qaeda. And had nothing to do with 911 (disagree with any of that? The UK government agrees).
At this point you stop wanting to discuss this.
I regret I even posted that now. Let's drop it! You're right!
Greeting from the USA. Thank you very much for promising to pull your troops out. You have shown the world that goals can be achieved by people with bombs... on trains in this case. You have illustrated your lack of resolve for fighting terrorism. Bombs go off, Spain retreats. One in the win column for Al Qaeda.
You roll up like a bulldog, demanding justification, and you expect someone to feel it is worthwhile continuing a discussion with you? What did you expect, honestly, with your approach (and others here who would use a similar approach)? We know how you feel, you know how we feel. All there is left is demeaning the other side for what they believe simply because it is not what you believe (don't freakin' tell me that isn't true- you damn well know it is true).
The bottomline is that there is no black and white. There are just as many reasons for war as there are against. There will be benefits AND sacrifices no matter which you choose. Anyone who looks at all the sacrifice we have so far on the path we are on, and then suggests that had we taken the other path, everything would have peachy-keen, world lives happily ever after is absolutely delusional. You can no longer claim wisdom from 20-20 hindsight anymore than you can be assured that the path not taken would have been invariably better. You can hypothesize, it could be a hunch, but in the end, no one (here, particularly) can claim to be an authority on knowing for sure.
Iraq has never been the place to get WMD; that was the Pakistan black market.
Tell the Kurds and Iranians that Saddam did not have WMDs.
Quote:
Countries that were involved in the 'coalition' are more likely to get attacked.
By terrorists, no? Now what stake would terrorists have in Iraq's regime? I think sensible people can see where I am going here...
There would never have been a war if Saddam had just shown the UN that he destroyed them- but he didn't. Adios, compadre.
I love all these people who are right on board with "human rights" re: gay marriage, but cannot see the human rights victory we had in Iraq. Simply stunning.
This is a war for our way and quality of life. Pathetic how many across the world will not stand up to people that want to end their lives as they know them.
If anyone thinks that by backing out troops or support that terrorism is going to end, they are an idiot. These people do not care- they want you and all that you believe in DEAD. Capitalism, representative democracy, the separation of religion and gov't is all out the window. How quickly we forget Iran in the 1970s and 80s.
Have any doubts? Go live a few months in Jerusalem.
I think it doesn't matter what the war is being fought for, but it will come to an end when the Middle Eastern people in general are so well off the terrorists no longer have recruits or support from discontent masses.
You're obviously pointing to Khomeini and co. there with Iran. Point is, when that kind of nutjobs are an exception to the rule, they're easy to deal with. When you angry everybody, you have a bad situation.
FYI, I have lived in Jerusalem for two years. You have almost twice as big a chance of dying in a car accident than dying in a bombing in Jerusalem. The Israeli situation is, in fact, "US vs the terrorists" as a miniature version, and the same treatment (keep your nose out of others' business) would also work there. Granted, the Israeli have historically had more reason to fight than the US. What was your point again?
One last thing.
If it weren't so much trouble, I'd put money on that Spain pulling out of Iraq and refraining from open support of the US, *will* really keep them out of Al Quaeda sights. Al Quaeda will just bomb the remaining allies of US. Better for the Spaniards, and a good decision for them.
Comments
What a chance to do some things right. And finally a election where not everything moves to the right.
Spain is just the dry-run. Matthew Yglesias
Conservative mindset: You cannot have your enemies believing they have won a victory. Your enemies morale is your principal target. Therefore, the only option is to keep Bush in office.
Liberal mindset: Unfortunately, it is the current US administration's disastrous foreign policy that has put us in this difficult situation. We have no choice but to take the short term risk of changing our bad leadership, however it is misinterpreted by our enemies, just so that we can reestablish a winning strategy.
But the real question is this: why didn't Spain or the US have a better handle on this? Why didn't they pick up on it? The fact that this caught both countries off-guard is awfully telling of how badly Bush has setup anti-terrorism countermeasures.
We are no safer today than we were on September 10, 2002.
Greeting from the USA. Thank you very much for promising to pull your troops out. You have shown the world that goals can be achieved by people with bombs... on trains in this case. You have illustrated your lack of resolve for fighting terrorism. Bombs go off, Spain retreats. One in the win column for Al Qaeda.
Thanks for nothing, you spineless fools.
Originally posted by Jubelum
Dear Spanish Socialists:
Greeting from the USA. Thank you very much for promising to pull your troops out. You have shown the world that goals can be achieved by people with bombs... on trains in this case. You have illustrated your lack of resolve for fighting terrorism. Bombs go off, Spain retreats. One in the win column for Al Qaeda.
Thanks for nothing, you spineless fools.
You are wrong with this one. The new prime minister have announced in his campaign that if he is elected he would pull out the spanish troops. It was announced months before the bombing.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
You are wrong with this one. The new prime minister have announced in his campaign that if he is elected he would pull out the spanish troops. It was announced months before the bombing.
You gotta realize that the bombing had something to do with the election. It's not the PM alone... it is the Socialist party that won with great help of terrorist bombs. In the end, the people and their fear were the deciding factor.
Originally posted by Jubelum
You gotta realize that the bombing had something to do with the election. It's not the PM alone... it is the Socialist party that won with great help of terrorist bombs. In the end, the people and their fear were the deciding factor.
I don't think it's the case.
Aznar lost this election because he started to lied about the nature of terrorists. They claimed that it was ETA at 100 %. Spaniards get the impression that an another time their governement lied to them again. It was already the case with the catastrophe of the oil tanker the prestige. They said that everything was ok, dispite all this oil who was bleeding throught the ship at 1000 meters depth. They lied, and worse they managed this catastrophe poorly (if the ship sinked, it's because the gov refused to let enter the ship in a port)
For the record in the Basque countrie the right lose 10 % of votes. Basques where pissed to be designate responsilbes via ETA of this action.
Aznar was a poor politician, that's why he lose. I will add for the good understanding that i have never voted for socialists. If my opinion is biased, it won't be because of my political color
They recognize they are appointed to serve the will of the Spanish people, and the previous posse did not do that. If there is an urgent crisis of some sort, and the government has more facts than can be made public at that time, it might be understandable that they take action against the people's will. But even then the facts should be published as the smoke clears.
Is the same (with or without a bomb) going to happen in United Kingdom? Judging by gallup results, the British did not want the war any more than the Spanish, it looks like their government has malfunctioned worse overall with all the coverup business, and there are more British soldiers KIA. I imagine UK looks rather good a target for Al Quaeda planners right now, since UK troops leaving Iraq would be a sizable multi-front problem for US. (cost, logistics, internal debates, external accountability if the "coalition" ceases to be)
This is a war for our way and quality of life. Pathetic how many across the world will not stand up to people that want to end their lives as they know them.
If anyone thinks that by backing out troops or support that terrorism is going to end, they are an idiot. These people do not care- they want you and all that you believe in DEAD. Capitalism, representative democracy, the separation of religion and gov't is all out the window. How quickly we forget Iran in the 1970s and 80s.
Have any doubts? Go live a few months in Jerusalem.
Originally posted by Harald
OK, let's be clear about this: being strong against terror meant invading Iraq?
Yes!
Originally posted by X X
Yes!
Odd. There were no al Qaeda in Iraq until we invaded. There are now. Iraq has recruited who knows how many new converts to al Qaeda. Iraq had nothing to do with 911. Bin Laden hated Saddam. Saddam had nothing to do with international terrorism. Iraq has never been the place to get WMD; that was the Pakistan black market. Countries that were involved in the 'coalition' are more likely to get attacked.
Do, please, tell me how action against Iraq was supposed to reduce terror?
Originally posted by Harald
Odd. There were no al Qaeda in Iraq until we invaded. There are now. Iraq has recruited who knows how many new converts to al Qaeda. Iraq had nothing to do with 911. Bin Laden hated Saddam. Saddam had nothing to do with international terrorism. Iraq has never been the place to get WMD; that was the Pakistan black market. Countries that were involved in the 'coalition' are more likely to get attacked.
Do, please, tell me how action against Iraq was supposed to reduce terror?
That's an awfully myopic viewpoint you have. I have no desire to elaborate because 90% of the people on this board are against this war in every way, shape, and form and having a reasonable discussion with them would be like talking to a lamppost, except I could get brighter responses out of a lamppost (no offense).
Regards!
Originally posted by X X
That's an awfully myopic viewpoint you have. I have no desire to elaborate because 90% of the people on this board are against this war in every way, shape, and form and having a reasonable discussion with them would be like talking to a lamppost, except I could get brighter responses out of a lamppost (no offense).
Regards!
Dude, if you disagree with his post explain why. Say why's he's wrong.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Dude, if you disagree with his post explain why. Say why's he's wrong.
I don't see the point:
1) That would be deviating from the topic.
2) This debate has been rehashed a hundred times over the past year. Why start another?
3) I don't think that I can definatively say that he's "wrong" because my argument would be speculation just like his. Both of us could give facts and figures and stats and stuff to justify our position, but there would be no concrete piece of information that would sway either one of us to the position of the other.
I disagree. I'm one of the two people on this board who support the war for many many reasons. Let's leave it at that.
Regards!
Jubelum says the "Spanish Socialists" have gone soft on terror, because they think Iraq is a bad idea (just like 90% of the Spaniards).
So I ask if he think there's some kind of link.
You say there is.
I point out that Saddam was not an international terrorist and had a mutual animosity with al Qaeda. And had nothing to do with 911 (disagree with any of that? The UK government agrees).
At this point you stop wanting to discuss this.
Originally posted by Harald
It's ON topic.
Jubelum says the "Spanish Socialists" have gone soft on terror, because they think Iraq is a bad idea (just like 90% of the Spaniards).
So I ask if he think there's some kind of link.
You say there is.
I point out that Saddam was not an international terrorist and had a mutual animosity with al Qaeda. And had nothing to do with 911 (disagree with any of that? The UK government agrees).
At this point you stop wanting to discuss this.
I regret I even posted that now. Let's drop it! You're right!
Regards!
Originally posted by Jubelum
Dear Spanish Socialists:
Greeting from the USA. Thank you very much for promising to pull your troops out. You have shown the world that goals can be achieved by people with bombs... on trains in this case. You have illustrated your lack of resolve for fighting terrorism. Bombs go off, Spain retreats. One in the win column for Al Qaeda.
Thanks for nothing, you spineless fools.
Well, thanks for making my point.
Originally posted by Harald
At this point you stop wanting to discuss this.
You roll up like a bulldog, demanding justification, and you expect someone to feel it is worthwhile continuing a discussion with you? What did you expect, honestly, with your approach (and others here who would use a similar approach)? We know how you feel, you know how we feel. All there is left is demeaning the other side for what they believe simply because it is not what you believe (don't freakin' tell me that isn't true- you damn well know it is true).
The bottomline is that there is no black and white. There are just as many reasons for war as there are against. There will be benefits AND sacrifices no matter which you choose. Anyone who looks at all the sacrifice we have so far on the path we are on, and then suggests that had we taken the other path, everything would have peachy-keen, world lives happily ever after is absolutely delusional. You can no longer claim wisdom from 20-20 hindsight anymore than you can be assured that the path not taken would have been invariably better. You can hypothesize, it could be a hunch, but in the end, no one (here, particularly) can claim to be an authority on knowing for sure.
X X, you can still count yourself as 1 of 3!
Originally posted by Harald
[B]Odd. There were no al Qaeda in Iraq until we invaded.
Hogwash.
Iraq had nothing to do with 911.
Debatable. Al Saman
Iraq has never been the place to get WMD; that was the Pakistan black market.
Tell the Kurds and Iranians that Saddam did not have WMDs.
Countries that were involved in the 'coalition' are more likely to get attacked.
By terrorists, no? Now what stake would terrorists have in Iraq's regime? I think sensible people can see where I am going here...
There would never have been a war if Saddam had just shown the UN that he destroyed them- but he didn't. Adios, compadre.
I love all these people who are right on board with "human rights" re: gay marriage, but cannot see the human rights victory we had in Iraq. Simply stunning.
Originally posted by Jubelum
This is a war for our way and quality of life. Pathetic how many across the world will not stand up to people that want to end their lives as they know them.
If anyone thinks that by backing out troops or support that terrorism is going to end, they are an idiot. These people do not care- they want you and all that you believe in DEAD. Capitalism, representative democracy, the separation of religion and gov't is all out the window. How quickly we forget Iran in the 1970s and 80s.
Have any doubts? Go live a few months in Jerusalem.
I think it doesn't matter what the war is being fought for, but it will come to an end when the Middle Eastern people in general are so well off the terrorists no longer have recruits or support from discontent masses.
You're obviously pointing to Khomeini and co. there with Iran. Point is, when that kind of nutjobs are an exception to the rule, they're easy to deal with. When you angry everybody, you have a bad situation.
FYI, I have lived in Jerusalem for two years. You have almost twice as big a chance of dying in a car accident than dying in a bombing in Jerusalem. The Israeli situation is, in fact, "US vs the terrorists" as a miniature version, and the same treatment (keep your nose out of others' business) would also work there. Granted, the Israeli have historically had more reason to fight than the US. What was your point again?
One last thing.
If it weren't so much trouble, I'd put money on that Spain pulling out of Iraq and refraining from open support of the US, *will* really keep them out of Al Quaeda sights. Al Quaeda will just bomb the remaining allies of US. Better for the Spaniards, and a good decision for them.