PDA

View Full Version : First political fallout from Iraq war


ACPlayer
03-16-2004, 11:58 PM
Aznar is history for his misguided decision to support the misguided US push for a pointless and dangerous war in Iraq.

Blair, Bush are next?

jdl22
03-17-2004, 12:17 AM
To clarify, Aznar wasn't running in Spain. His named successor did bite the dust.

As for the other two I hope that you're right. The difference between Bush and the other two though is that going in most Americans did support the war. Some (such as me) say that was because we were lied to, but none the less the war was popular here initially. In Britain and Spain however the war effort had about 10% support. The bombings in Madrid made foreign policy the focus of the election so the Spaniards did the right thing and went with the party that represented their opinion on foreign policy.

GWB
03-17-2004, 12:25 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Aznar is history for his misguided decision to support the misguided US push for a pointless and dangerous war in Iraq.

Blair, Bush are next?

[/ QUOTE ]
The American people support me in the war against terrorism. We must fight evil in this world. Saddam was evil (you know he tried to kill my Dad).

Learn more by watching my TV commercials.

ACPlayer
03-17-2004, 01:29 AM
Yes. You are correct. I just resurfaced after a 4 day news blockout.

Here is a link for those interested:

Spain election. (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FC16Aa03.html)

More analysis from the same web site:

[ QUOTE ]
It will take a long time for Europe to digest the emotional and political earthquake Spain has been through since Europe's M-11 (for March 11, as the tragedy is now enshrined).

A four-day whirlwind saw the worst terror attack in modern European history; no fewer than 11 million people all over Spain rallying in the streets against terrorism; a sort of "SMS (short message service) revolution" calling for demonstrations against the conservative Aznar government; successive al-Qaeda claims of responsibility; and general elections with a very high turnout (77.2 percent, including 2 million new, young voters), which led to the conservatives being evicted to the benefit of the socialists.

The new Spanish prime minister will be Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, 43, a soft-spoken former law professor from Leon, in the north of Castile. His priority will be "the fight against terrorism", along with more progressive social policies and, crucially, a new foreign policy. Zapatero wants to "position Spain in the frontline of European construction". This means, unlike the outgoing Jose Maria Aznar, no more unconditional alignment with George W Bush's preventive wars. This means, unlike Aznar, very close cooperation with Europe's Franco-German engine. And this means - following a key campaign promise - no more 1,300 Spanish soldiers in Iraq, unless the United Nations takes over military operations before next July.

The conservatives of the Popular Party (PP) were thrashed from the Basque country to Galicia, from Catalonia to Andalusia. Most Spanish political scientists agree it was less a vote for the socialists than a referendum on Aznar and his party, widely, graphically accused of "lying" to the country by insisting on blaming Thursday's Madrid terrorist bombings on the Basque separatists of ETA (Euskadi Ta Askatasuna, or Basque Homeland and Liberty) even when all the leads started pointing to the global jihad. Waves of placards in Barcelona said it all: "Your war. Our dead." By Sunday morning, polling time, in the minds and spirits of most Spanish voters, the connection was finally clear. Hyperterrorism had struck against Europe. And average Spaniards had paid with their own blood for their government's blind support for Bush's war on Iraq - rejected by 94 percent of the population.


[/ QUOTE ]

MMMMMM
03-17-2004, 01:34 AM
The Spanish voted with chicken hearts. They should instead have prepared to launched a massive campaign to help rid the Mideast of Islamist militants in response to the brutal and despicable terrorist attacks against Spanish civilians.

The Islamists still want Andalusia back, they want restoration of the caliphate (and they say so, ACPlayer), and the Spanish will sooner or later be attacked again by Muslim fanatics. When will the world learn that appeasement is never anything but slow death.

jdl22
03-17-2004, 01:44 AM
That's total nonsense. It's not the middle ages anymore and Spain no longer has a powerful army. It's a small country with a relatively small military. It is questionable whether the US military, which undoubtedly is the most powerful army in the history of man, has the strenght to carry out this war both in Afghanistan and Iraq. What do you expect Spain to accomplish?

The Spanish people did not "let the terrorists win" they got rid of a government that would not listen to them any other way. Millions of people protested the war in the streets of Madrid, Barcelona, Sevilla, Valencia etc. and Aznar listened as well as Bush to them. 90% of the Spanish population was against the war and the Partido Popular supported it anyway. Then the bombing came and despite virtually no signs that ETA were responsible for the attack the government tried to ignore evidence of muslim involvement saying it was the basque terrorists. If the government will not listen to the will of its people it should be changed. That's what the Spanish people did.

As for the other claim, the muslims actually want pretty much all of Spain back, not just Andalusia. The moors conquered all of Spain with the exception of the Basque country (one of the reasons ETA claims they should have their own country).

ACPlayer
03-17-2004, 01:47 AM
You clearly dont like democracy when you dont agree with the results.

Like I have said before, your entire thinking is results oriented and not the result of critical thinking and evaluation of evidence.

Utah
03-17-2004, 02:05 AM
Okay - I have been trying really hard not to get involved in any posts on this site. However, this one set me off a little.

First, disagreeing with the results of a democractic decision and loving democracy are not mutually exclusive. Of course, anyone engaged in critical thinknig and evaluation would easily see that. And of course, because a democracy makes a decision does not necessarily mean that it is a smart one. See note on critical thinking and evaluation.

Anzar is gone because his country bowed to terrorism. Do you see it another way? In so, see the note on critical thinking and evaluation.

Since we are celebrating the idea of critical thinking and evaluation, let me ask you a simple question - how many terrorist attacks have there been in the U.S. since GW and gang took the fight to the enemy? Compare that with how many attacks occured or were planned in the appeasement era of Clinton. Iraq is on its way to being a democratic country after ridding itself of a brutal dictator. Sorry, is that too results oriented for you?

Is so, maybe you can explain your logic to the people that were freed. I am curious how they would take your logic that the torture and brutality should have continued in there country. I am especially curious how they would take your idea of saving them was pointless. Of course, if they disagree with you - simply tell them that they are too results oriented and that they are incapable of critical thinking and evaluation.

MMMMMM
03-17-2004, 02:14 AM
The terrorists who attacked Madrid weren't practicing democracy, ACPlayer.

MMMMMM
03-17-2004, 02:18 AM
Yes, it's not the Middle Ages anymore, but today's radical Muslims apparently don't know that.

Let me put it another way: no matter who the Spaniards elected, the new government should crack down hard on the terrorists and take the fight to them in their lairs, instead of rewarding their attacks with favorable results. But the appeasement-oriented Socialists will doubtless do just the opposite.

ACPlayer
03-17-2004, 05:05 AM
Yes but the people of Spain are and they see very clearly that the policy of Aznar was shortsighted and dumb. The people have spoken. You should open your ears and mind to what is really going on.

jdl22
03-17-2004, 05:32 AM
Perhaps the Spanish should also put a human on mars. Why don't they find a solution to world hunger? Perhaps they could invent a language that is so vastly superior to those in existence that everyone in the world would only speak it thus improving human oommunication forever. While we're saying that they should do ridiculously impossible things given their resources, why don't they find a cure for death? I wouldn't mind their government proving the damn Riemann Zeta hypothesis while we're at it.

Let's get serious here. This is a country that has a very small military with a very small military budget. Spain hasn't been anywhere near the front of the military technology curve since the early 1700's. Saying they should go out on the offensive is ridiculous. Their only chance is to garner international support for a worldwide (well the Western World mostly) fighting force against terrorism. That is what the socialist party will do I'm sure. The Partido Popular alienated Spain from most of the world by supported a US effort in Iraq that was at best flawed from the outset.

Most don't think the US can fight the terrorists by itself. What makes you think Spain can?

jdl22
03-17-2004, 06:11 AM
In your critical thinking and evaluation you have a few flaws, but first you got some things right:
[ QUOTE ]
And of course, because a democracy makes a decision does not necessarily mean that it is a smart one.

[/ QUOTE ]

We have plenty of great examples in this country:
1. Bush sort of elected president
2. US preemptively goes to war in Iraq, first preemptive attack involving the United States since Pearl Harbor and first time in history the US actually started a war preemptively

Now to the flaws:
[ QUOTE ]
Since we are celebrating the idea of critical thinking and evaluation, let me ask you a simple question - how many terrorist attacks have there been in the U.S. since GW and gang took the fight to the enemy?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your logic is amazing here. There are many problems not the least of which is that there were zero foreign based terrorist attacks in the US when Clinton was in power with the exception of the failed attempt to blow up the trade center. Your argument seems to be that they were planning the Trade Center attacks while he was in office and that may be true, but what could he have done to stop the planning? The problem is that you are applying post 9/11 thinking to the pre 9/11 world. By that I don't mean that you're being results oriented but you assume that Clinton had all the tools at his disposal that Bush had when he sent our soldiers to take down the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Clinton did everything in his power including bombing various sites in Afghanistan and attempting to assassinate Bin Laden and there was simply no more that could be done.

What Clinton did do that conservatives don't like to admit was improve the military rather dramatically. Yes he scaled it down but he funded and focused more resources on technology and out of that came among other things the GPS guided "smart bombs" that were so crucial in both theaters. As the current vice president said when he was in the earlier Bush administration, the president really has the previous administration to thank when it comes to the capability the military. Even the biggest antiwar protester has to agree that the might and skill of the military has been impressive. Conservatives would love to thank that is due to what Bush did in his first year in office but that's just not the case.

Let's apply your logic to Spain and let me ask you a question. How many foreign based terrorist attacks were there in Spain under when the socialists had power from 1982 to 1996? How many were planned or carried out under the PP (Aznar's party)? Seems pretty clear that the appeasement strategy worked pretty damn well considering a big fat zero attacks came under the great appeasers and those that take the fight to the terrorists had a whole 1 more attack. Again this is your logic arguing here not mine. I think this argument is crap.

Finally saying that Spain is bowing down to terrorism or fighting muslims is pretty ridiculous if you are even vaguely familiar with Spanish history. While ETA are perhaps competing with the IRA in terms of terrorist violence Spain has been under constant terrorist attack since Franco ruled the country. They have been fighting these thugs for four decades and haven't given in. Of course these attacks are on much larger scale but they are much more accustomed to fighting and dealing with terrorists than we are. Of all western countries Spain has also by far the most experience in fighting with militant muslims. They were at constant war with the moors (which consisted both of Arabs and converted muslims from northern Africa) within Spain from 711 until 1492, and pretty much constantly fought in Morocco against muslim forces there until the 20th century. As I pointed out in my other post in this topic, the Spanish government is not bowing down to terrorists nor letting them win, they simply don't have the resources to go after them unilaterally as Bush thinks the US does.

What happened in the election was clearly a large block of voters that felt that the government was not listening to its people and no longer represented them. Before the attacks in Madrid 90% of Spanish people were against the war. There were other issues both foreign and domestic where the government policy was at odds with the majority of Spanish people. When people oust democratically elected leaders because they don't serve the will and desire of their electorate terrorists have not won they have lost.

Sorry to be so long.

nicky g
03-17-2004, 08:33 AM
"Let me put it another way: no matter who the Spaniards elected, the new government should crack down hard on the terrorists and take the fight to them in their lairs, instead of rewarding their attacks with favorable results. But the appeasement-oriented Socialists will doubtless do just the opposite."

The new PM has said his number one priority is fighting terrorism. The people who attacked Madrid had nothing to do with Iraq; they appear so far to have been Spanish-based Morrocans. With no war, there would have been no al-Qaeda in Iraq either.

The Spanish people clearly did not "give in" to terrorism. The PP lost for two reasons: they insisted on a war that the Spanish massively opposed, and they insisted on blaming the Madrid attacks on ETA when it soon became obvious it wasn't them. What would you recommend, that they should have voted for a government determined to focus on the threats from Saddam Hussein and ETA when the real threat was from al-Qaida? What sort of way is that to fight terrorism?

ComedyLimp
03-17-2004, 08:56 AM
"Anzar is gone because his country bowed to terrorism. Do you see it another way?"

Actually Aznar (or rather his party) went becuase the Spanish voters reckoned he was guilty of the most cynical form of electorial manipulation in the way they tried to use the Madrid bombings for political gain by pinning them on ETA rather than Al-Quaida. This is actually slightly unfair as everybody did assume it was ETA at first not just the PP.

I also note the following:

1) The new government have pledged to make the problem of terrorism its number one priority.

2) The policy of withdrawing Spanish troops was in place before the bombings so cannot be sensibly be described as appeasment in response to the attacks.

3) The policy of withdrawing Spanish troops was linked to the 30 June deadline for internationalising and to some extent legalising the occupation of Iraq by ceeding control to the UN. Getting Iraq out of US control will do more to reduce terrorism and solve the wider problems of the Middle East than any amount of military action or, for that matter, rhetorical chest thumping.

4) The war in Iraq was never anything to do with terrorism beyond starting another "You did that so we are doing this" cycle of violence. To say therefore that withdrawing from Iraq or opposing the war is appeasment or giving in to terrorists is specious at best and more realistically just flat out wrong.

Still struggling to see it "any other way"?

nicky g
03-17-2004, 09:29 AM
"Actually Aznar (or rather his party) went becuase the Spanish voters reckoned he was guilty of the most cynical form of electorial manipulation in the way they tried to use the Madrid bombings for political gain by pinning them on ETA rather than Al-Quaida. This is actually slightly unfair as everybody did assume it was ETA at first not just the PP. "

I don't think this it was unfair at all. When the first news of the bombs came in most people assumed it was ETA. But the government didn't just assume, it absolutely insisted it was ETA, to the absurd point of tabling a UN resolution condemning ETA for the attack, without waiting for any kind of significant evidence and despite the fact that ETA had never carried out anything like that scale of an attack, and that such deliberate indiscriminate carnage would be of absolutely benefit to any national liberation groups with domestic political objectives. The government was very quick to put out that the type of explosives used was titadine, previously used by ETA, when in fact it now turns out it was a different kind, Goma 2. WHat was this, just a mix-up? Had they even ahd time to carry out the relevant tests when they first announced this? Was there no room for doubt? The government stood fast to its insistence of ETA resposnisibility and even seems to have coereced state broadcasters to doing the same right up until the election, despite more and more evidence to the contrary. It was a blatant political ploy and they paid the price, with the Spansih electorate proving themselves a lot more sophisticated than most.

ComedyLimp
03-17-2004, 10:01 AM
I did say slightly unfair.

pudley4
03-17-2004, 11:13 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Clinton did everything in his power including bombing various sites in Afghanistan and attempting to assassinate Bin Laden and there was simply no more that could be done.


[/ QUOTE ]

So what is your take on the CIA surveillance videotape of Bin Laden that just surfaced (read here) (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/03/17/predator.video/index.html) ? It was a real-time feed, yet there was no attempt made to capture/kill him.

MMMMMM
03-17-2004, 12:06 PM
The Spanish apparently reacted to the terror attacks more with fear than with courage. That terrorists can alter the outcome of an election by employing a catastrophic bombing sets a terrible precedent.

MMMMMM
03-17-2004, 12:12 PM
What makes you think I think Spain should go on the offensive by itself?

Spain should punish rather than reward terrorist attacks. Appeasement simply never ever works. Spain should also respond stubbornly, such as ADDING troops to Iraq, in order to show the terrorists that mass bombings aren't going to get them what they want politically.

A truly terrible precedent has been set that will ene up costing cost many more lives.

nicky g
03-17-2004, 12:28 PM
The terrorists did not alter the course of the election. The government altered the course of the election by being dishonest about the terrorists.

MMMMMM
03-17-2004, 12:46 PM
nicky I actually think both factors probably came into play.

The terrorists specifically planned this attack in order to influence the elections. The government of Spain should have been less inclined to publicly cling to the ETA theory as the investigation unfolded and the attacks looked increasingly like the work of Islamic terrorists.

MMMMMM
03-17-2004, 12:58 PM
(excerpt) Al-Qaida planned to carry out attacks to sever Madrid from the U.S. and its other allies in the war on terror, according to a document published months before Spain's national elections.

CNN said it obtained a copy of the document, posted in December on an Internet message board used by al-Qaida and its sympathizers.

"We think the Spanish government will not stand more than two blows, or three at the most, before it will be forced to withdraw because of the public pressure on it," the al-Qaida document says, according to CNN.

"If its forces remain after these blows, the victory of the Socialist Party will be almost guaranteed – and the withdrawal of Spanish forces will be on its campaign manifesto."

On Sunday, that prediction was fulfilled when the Socialists overcame a late deficit in the polls and ousted Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar's Popular Party just three days after 10 bombs ripped through Madrid's central rail station, killing at least 201 people.

Then, yesterday, Prime Minister-elect Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero vowed to pull out 1,300 Spanish troops in Iraq by June 30 if the United Nations "doesn't take control of Iraq."

Zapatero called the Iraq war a mistake and said Spain's participation in it "has been a total error." (end excerpt)

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37605

With the results of this election, the terrorists have been rewarded spectacularly, and the precedent thus set will very likely encourage them to bomb other countries just prior to elections which they wish to influence.

fluff
03-17-2004, 01:01 PM
[ QUOTE ]
The Islamists still want Andalusia back, they want restoration of the caliphate (and they say so, ACPlayer), and the Spanish will sooner or later be attacked again by Muslim fanatics.

[/ QUOTE ]

For real? When I saw that bit on Comedy Central's Daily Show I thought they were just kidding about that.

jdl22
03-17-2004, 01:12 PM
Once again, what does Iraq have to do with fighting terrorism? Why should they beef up forces in Iraq?

If you had said Afghanistan it would be a viable argument but saying Spain should increase it's military force in a country that had nothing to do with the bombings and poses no future terrorist threat to Spain makes absolutely no sense.

ThaSaltCracka
03-17-2004, 01:15 PM
Spain is setting a very dangerous precedent in Europe. They are doing the complete opposite of what they should be doing. They are now playing the role of pacifist and appeasing Al Qaeda. You knw why Spain was attacked? Al Qaeda knew they would react this way, they knew that Spain would distance its self from the U.S. All Spain has done now is make the target on their back even bigger.

This is a sad dark day for Europe as a whole, the day that Europe starts to fall to its knees for Al Qaeda.
Spain has the complete support of the U.S. and Britian if they want to go after the terrorists (I would suspect probably France as well), so Spain wouldn't be doing this unilaterally, instead the elect a pacifist socialistic leader who wants nothing more than to isolate his country down a dark alley with Al Qaeda.

This is truely a dark day. I hope the Spanish people know what they are dealing with, because unless the go after Al Qaeda, the terrorists will continue to use and terrorize them. I can only imagine how much worse it will get in Spain once ETA joins up with Al Qaeda, if they haven't all ready.

Utah
03-17-2004, 01:18 PM
Your logic is amazing here.

No logic at all and I have made no statement to what I think. I simply asked a question. And since I knew the answer, I was obviously asking for some critical thinking and evaluation.

I liked a lot of what you said and I disagree with a lot of it as well. However, a fact is a fact and one needs to include those facts in any sort of evaluation.

My whole point is that there have been no attacks and one cannot easily dismiss that this may very well be the result of the actions of the GW team. It may also be correlation instead of causation. I am just saying it cant be easily dismissed.

Also, it is not a presidential thing. It is really just a course of action thing. Bush followed the Clinton approach previous to 9/11. I do think that Clinton was a major sissy when it came to fighting terrorists but I also think GW was as well to start.

I do not know a lot about Spain so I will not pretend I do. However, it is my understanding that the socialists scored a surprise win and that they were behind previous to the attacks. Are my facts incorrect. They might be I admit. But if they are correct, the spanish let terrrosim win a major victory.

Thanks for your comments.

jdl22
03-17-2004, 01:21 PM
This continued argument of "if the terrorists have any affect on our lives they have won" is utter nonsense. When you go to the airport and wait in line do you think "damn I didn't have to wait three years ago, the terrorists have won?"

Going one step further one of the goals of the terrorists was, well, to cause terror.

I don't know about things in your neck of the woods but pretty much everybody I know was scared out of their minds the first time they flew after 9/11. The terrorists won there apparently.

Think that 9/11 had any influence on the 2002 congressional elections? Republicans went to the point of saying that war heroes were soft on national security to maintain control of the house. Terrorists clearly affected the outcome of that election and hence you must conclude that they won there as well.

On September 11 Al Qaeda attacked not just our people but our way of life. Congress responded by passing the Patriot act which the president signed. This law does a lot to take away civil liberties enjoyed by Americans for 225 years. No matter how you feel about the necesity of this legislation clearly the terrorists won by changing our way of life.

I could go on but I will stop here.

jdl22
03-17-2004, 01:30 PM
You are indeed correct. Before the elections it seemed that the Partido Popular would win the election easily, though not with a full majority of representation. I think most thought they would win by roughly the same margin as the socialist party had.

I still don't see why you say they let terrorism win, but I'll let it go. I do however have another question. Can you blame the Spanish people for the results of the election?

Here is why I ask this: in the US after 9/11 people that had voted for Gore said they were glad they had voted for Bush. I am not one of those people but I understand where they were coming from. The reason they gave is that they felt safer with Bush in charge. This coming November election I think that many people will vote simply based on which candidate they think will keep them safer (is safer even a word? I've used it twice now). Some feel that Bush taking the fight to the terrorists and he is the man that will do this. Others like myself feel that Bush taking the fight to the non-terrorists in Iraq only has made us less safe so he should go. If you add to this other issues like Bush dragging his feet with the 9/11 investigation commission and the election could be very similar here to the Spanish election.

ThaSaltCracka
03-17-2004, 01:48 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Others like myself feel that Bush taking the fight to the non-terrorists in Iraq only has made us less safe so he should go. If you add to this other issues like Bush dragging his feet with the 9/11 investigation commission and the election could be very similar here to the Spanish election.

[/ QUOTE ]
Once the American people start paying attention, these facts will trouble them greatly. I don't think Bush will be re-elected based upon these facts, not to mention the economy. However, if Kerry is elected he won't isolate the U.S., like Spain is doing, if we happened to get attacked, he isn't going to blame the Bush Admin,( I would hope atleast).

What Spain is doing now is playing politics with a National Tragedy, they have greatly weakened the coalition against terrorist( atleast so far). They need to react with conviction and force, this stance of appeasment and finger pointing will get them no where.

MMMMMM
03-17-2004, 01:54 PM
Yes, for real.

(excerpt) The 500-Year War

Al Qaeda is at war with Western ideas, ideals, and societies, and not just with states. The Islamic extremists who support Al Qaeda consider southern Spain to be occupied Muslim land that deserves to be liberated from the “crusaders” who drove out Muslim rulers in 1492. Osama bin Laden’s chief lieutenant, Ayman al Zawahiri, referred to this loss of “Andalusia” in the first Al Qaeda videotape released after September 11, long before Spanish support for the war in Iraq was an issue. (end excerpt)

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Europe/wm448.cfm

If you take the time to do a bit of research about what al-Qaeda and radical Islamists actually believe, it may surprise you.

MMMMMM
03-17-2004, 01:59 PM
The terrorists who attacked Spain did not incidentally influence the election; they attacked deliberately in order to influence the election. See my recent post regarding the article which details the terrorists' goal of splitting Spain from the allies.

MMMMMM
03-17-2004, 02:09 PM
Iraq has much to do with fighting terrorism now because it is there that al-Qaeda and other Islamists are now choosing to fight with terror against democracy. And since the goal of the terrorists who attacked Madrid was to split Spain from the allies, Spain should do the opposite of what the terrorists hoped to achieve with those attacks, in order to discourage rather than encourage future similar politically motivated terror attacks.

One reason in Poker that you sometimes re-raise an overly aggressive opponent is not just for this hand, but for the sake of future hands. The terrorists need to know that when they attack they are at significant risk of being re-raised. Spain did the equivalent of Fold in this large pot, which is as much to say, Come Steal My Pot (or Blinds) Again--again, and again...

Just like a bully at the poker table, the terrorists will be only too happy to accept the invitation to commit future further aggressions in order to advance their political goals. So now we can likely expect other major bombings prior to elections. Prime candidates for this terror tactic: USA and Italy.

ACPlayer
03-17-2004, 02:22 PM
Al Qaeda in Iraq. Here is an opposing view (from the Asia times archives (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FC13Ak02.html) ). A slightly critical look at the patently self serving propoganda from Bush et al. For those who have not followed this Zarqawi is allegedly the Al Qaeda master mind trying to foster civil revolt in Iraq.

[ QUOTE ]
On March 3, the Coalition Forces deputy commander, General Mark Kimmitt, said there was "solid evidence" on Zarqawi, though refusing to present it. But providing a remarkable explanation for such evidence deficits, a March 4 Pentagon press conference proved extraordinary in both its revelations and flip-flops.

Brigadier-General David Rodriguez of the Joint Chiefs of Staff revealed that the Pentagon didn't even have "direct evidence of whether he [Zarqawi] is alive or dead", providing scathing commentary on the nature of so-called evidence linking Zarqawi to attacks and bombings. But that same day it emerged that an Iraqi resistance group claimed that Zarqawi had been killed months ago in the US bombing of northern Iraq, and that a letter he had allegedly written to al-Qaeda seeking aid in promoting an Iraqi civil war was "fabricated".

The resistance group Leadership of the Allahu Akbar Mujahedeen also claimed that al-Qaeda was not involved in Iraq, and that most of the foreign fighters who had come to resist US efforts had left long ago. Notably, this latter information matches reports this journalist had received about a month prior from an Italian correspondent who had been in Iraq and had established links to the resistance there. It also flies in the face of repeated assertions by US and Iraqi Governing Council (IGC) officials that foreign fighters and terrorists are behind the recent violence. But unpleasant facts are what propaganda is used to counter.

In off-the-record revelations, both the US intelligence and military communities have quietly admitted they possess increasingly little knowledge regarding those dominating Iraq's bloodletting. But a consensus has emerged that reports of foreign elements has been vastly overblown. And unresolved issues in blaming al-Qaeda for allegedly seeking to instigate civil war are compounded by a previous al-Qaeda message.

Months ago, al-Qaeda was widely acknowledged as having urged Sunnis and Shi'ites to put aside their differences, to unite and jointly resist the United States, not fight each other. And a rare denial of responsibility for the Shi'ite blasts was issued in the group's name, though the text of the denial did build upon anti-American sentiment, and in so doing contained propaganda of its own. But many Middle East experts agree that while an Iraq civil war may well happen, it will be the US-precipitated power vacuum's release of latent factional forces, not outside efforts, that will ignite it.

Addressing civil-war "spin", media at the March 4 Pentagon press conference questioned the legitimacy of the much-publicized alleged Zarqawi letter to al-Qaeda. But regardless of its authenticity, the letter provides the centerpiece of the administration's efforts to deflect the blame for the surfacing and mishandling Iraq's internal civil-war pressures.

Pentagon spokesman Lawrence DiRita did acknowledge that the letter's alleged authenticity was not based upon "smoking-gun-type intelligence". He also pointedly noted that he wasn't "responsible to or for" those who "believe that it's authentic", revealing how shaky the document's pedigree actually is.

When the alleged Zarqawi letter was first revealed in February, the Washington Post highlighted that "US officials provided no independent verification of authenticity". But the letter has already proved its worth, broadly shifting responsibility for ongoing Iraq violence from the Bush administration's lack of foresight and planning. If at some future point the letter's fabrication is proved, then every accusation against the administration that the letter's use - until then - deflected or inhibited provides a measure of propaganda victory.

[/ QUOTE ]

One point worth noting is that, as long as the blame can be assigned elsewhere, the only party gaining from the Iraq insurgency is us. As Bush etc can use this as an excuse to stay in Iraq longer and use it to a) protect oil interests and b) protect Israeli interests. The only two reasons that Bush had for going to war -- regardless of the lies he told.

superleeds
03-17-2004, 02:29 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Spain is setting a very dangerous precedent in Europe.

[/ QUOTE ]

What, buy exercising their democratic right?

[ QUOTE ]
This is a sad dark day for Europe as a whole, the day that Europe starts to fall to its knees for Al Qaeda.

[/ QUOTE ]

Europe has a far longer history of dealing with terrorists than you obviously imagine.

[ QUOTE ]
This is truely a dark day. I hope the Spanish people know what they are dealing with, because unless the go after Al Qaeda, the terrorists will continue to use and terrorize them. I can only imagine how much worse it will get in Spain once ETA joins up with Al Qaeda, if they haven't all ready.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have no idea what your talking about do you?

adios
03-17-2004, 02:30 PM
[ QUOTE ]
What Clinton did do that conservatives don't like to admit was improve the military rather dramatically. Yes he scaled it down but he funded and focused more resources on technology and out of that came among other things the GPS guided "smart bombs" that were so crucial in both theaters.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a funny one. Weapons technology has been constantly evolving and it started long before Clinton took office. Usage of GPS and INS in something like JDAM certainly wasn't a Clinton idea. The technology used in JDAM for instance is a natural evolution from aircraft flight control system navigation which certainly wasn't Clinton's idea. If you're saying that Clinton deserves credit for not standing in the way of such progress woopy do.

superleeds
03-17-2004, 02:35 PM
I can't really see what your point is. Are you saying that terrorists are usually ignorant of world affairs and that coinciding attacks with local events is a new terrorist tactic.

Maybe something they have learnt from political spin masters

jdl22
03-17-2004, 02:51 PM
One of the very few reasons that some thought the bombings were done by ETA is that they were so close to the election. Pretty much every election in Spain there is an ETA bombing/scare in the few weeks before. In 2000 they found bombs outside of a building where Aznar was going to speak. They are rather accustomed to these tactics albeit on a much smaller scale.

jdl22
03-17-2004, 02:53 PM
I agree that the technology would probably be there in any case. The point I was trying to make (and did so very poorly) is that Clinton streamlined the military as both Reagan and Bush failed to do after the coldwar ended. This has made the military more efficient and we saw this in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

Utah
03-17-2004, 03:16 PM
Hello,

The logic seems simple, but tell me if I am making a logical error.

1) The party taking the fight to the terrorists are slated to win
2) Terrorists attack and say we will fight you back if you attack us
3) People respond and say that we will elect a party that wouldnt fight the terrorists

thus, the terrorists have effectively used terrorism to win them some serious breathing room. Worse, the people showed that they will bow to terrorist attacks. There were two responses the people could have made - we will slaughter you terrorists like dogs and we will not be covered or we are afraid and we will bow to your threats and attacks.

Unfortunately, it appears the people chose the later.

superleeds
03-17-2004, 03:23 PM
[ QUOTE ]

1) The party taking the fight to the terrorists are slated to win
2) Terrorists attack and say we will fight you back if you attack us
3) People respond and say that we will elect a party that wouldnt fight the terrorists


[/ QUOTE ]

1) Not always
2) Terriosts will attack regardless
3) In Spains case, the party the people elected said no such thing

ThaSaltCracka
03-17-2004, 03:31 PM
[ QUOTE ]
What, buy exercising their democratic right?

[/ QUOTE ]
no, by eroding the war on terrorism by finger pointing. Regardless of whether or not we went to war in Iraq or not, I think Spain was an easy target for Al Qaeda, so thats why they attacked them. They don't seem to have the same security fervor as the U.S., Britain, or France.

[ QUOTE ]
Europe has a far longer history of dealing with terrorists than you obviously imagine.


[/ QUOTE ]
The entire continent or just specific countries? Because I don't think Luxemburgh or Portugal has the experience of say England.
Its too bad 9/11 happened before this, otherwise we would have known the "proper" way to respond. There were two main reason why the U.S. was attacked on 9/11. One was U.S. troop presence in Saudi Arabia, the other was our foreign policy torwards Israel.
Apparently since Europe has so much more experience with terrorists we should have followed the Spanish Doctrine, and blamed Israel for the attack. Then pledge to withdraw our troops from Saudi Arabia.
Yeah we could have done that, unfortunately we aren;t a country of pacifist, so instead we said [censored] you terrorists, your ass is mine!!! And they have paid dearley for it, and will continue to pay dearly for it.

[ QUOTE ]
You have no idea what your talking about do you?

[/ QUOTE ]
you seem to not know what I am talking about

ThaSaltCracka
03-17-2004, 03:34 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I agree that the technology would probably be there in any case. The point I was trying to make (and did so very poorly) is that Clinton streamlined the military as both Reagan and Bush failed to do after the coldwar ended. This has made the military more efficient and we saw this in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a point no Republican can admit, but this is so true.

Wake up CALL
03-17-2004, 03:38 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree that the technology would probably be there in any case. The point I was trying to make (and did so very poorly) is that Clinton streamlined the military as both Reagan and Bush failed to do after the coldwar ended. This has made the military more efficient and we saw this in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a point no Republican can admit, but this is so true.

[/ QUOTE ]

Both these statements are so false as to be laughable, I'll let others elaborate except to say substitute the word gutted for streamlined.

ThaSaltCracka
03-17-2004, 03:56 PM
I will respond once to this WUP, if you want to discuss it start a thread because I don't want to talk about it here, but...
I will explain why the military is better now because of Clinton, and there are a lot of parrallels with the current economy. Now some may argue that Bush inherited a recession, I am not going to argue about this so so don't bother, anyways... If you look at the economy now, we see some growth, clearly the economy is getting stronger, however were not seeing job growth. One of the reasons is many companies were operating with excess capacity, essentially they were waisting money, either with too many resources or to many workers.
Much can be said for the Military Clinton inherited. Clinton cut much wasteful spending, forced the military to become more effecient with less, which lead to the fantasticly efficient and quick military we have now.
I find it utterly odd that Republicans who always want less government spending and reform of certain welfare programs, always seem to want to write a blank check for the Military....
again Wake up Call, if you want to debate this start a new thread and copy and paste this in it.

adios
03-17-2004, 03:57 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Both these statements are so false as to be laughable, I'll let others elaborate except to say substitute the word gutted for streamlined.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wake I would use the former word myself. You and I both know that any elaboration is a complete waste of time in this instance. The facts speak for themselves for anyone that lifts a fingernail to investigate. Clinton was a disaster regarding Defense.

Wake up CALL
03-17-2004, 04:03 PM
I figured that I owed you some examples of how poorly the Clinton administration fared in increasing one aspect of our worldwide military superiority. I am using an example of our unparalled Air Superiority.


NO AMERICAN SOLDIER HAS BEEN KILLED by enemy aircraft since the Korean War. No American military plane has been shot down by enemy aircraft since the Vietnam War. And throughout the American Century a period of history essentially coterminous with the age of air power the American homeland has never been subject to a bombing campaign by foreign adversaries. These achievements have been made possible in large measure by what air power theorist Guilio Douhet at the beginning of the century called "command of the air."

Americans have enjoyed air superiority for so long that they have come to take it for granted. Few citizens fully grasp what an accomplishment it was to pound Serbia into submission without losing a single allied pilot or having to commit ground forces. But precisely because U.S. air superiority has come to seem so inevitable, there is a real danger that it could be lost sometime early in the next century. The Air Force plans for a stealthy heavy bomber not dependent on forward bases were scaled back to a mere 21 planes, the only survivable long-range strike aircraft it now plans to operate for decades to come. The Clinton administration reduced scheduled production of the only new air-superiority fighter the Air Force has developed in the last quarter century, the stealthy F-22, from 750 planes to 648, then to 438, then to 339 and finally, congressional appropriators in fiscal 2000 budget deliberations threatened the plane with extinction altogether. And because it had expected to have large numbers of stealthy next-generation bombers and fighters, the service abandoned its fleet of electronic-warfare aircraft, leaving the joint tactical jamming mission to the Navy.

Planners also cut the production goal for the service next-generation strategic airlifter, the versatile C-17, by 40 percent and threatened the program with termination in the early 1990s. That program eventually got back on track, and the Air Force will probably buy close to the 210 planes originally planned. But in virtually every other category of aircraft fighters, bombers, tankers, surveillance planes, tactical airlifters the service operates an increasingly aged and decrepit fleet. High rates of utilization and low rates of production during the Clinton years accelerated the decay. If U.S. air superiority is to be assured during the early decades of the next century, three efforts in particular must receive increased funding:

Plans to upgrade the Air Force 21 B-2 bombers should be organized to facilitate further production of long-range strike aircraft in the near future. Careful sequencing and management of programmed improvements would allow the service to develop a "virtual prototype" of a cheaper, more capable B-2 variant that could be produced in the next decade.
Production of the F-22 must be kept on schedule to avoid huge costs and delays in fielding a next-generation air-superiority fighter. The F-15 fighter that the F-22 will replace is a Vietnam-era airframe that cannot assure air superiority against more modern foreign fighters, and the other tactical aircraft the U.S. is developing are not suitable for the air superiority role.
The Joint Surveillance and Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS), a radar plane that does for ground surveillance what the awacs does for air surveillance, must be upgraded and procured in sufficient numbers. The Clinton administration wrongly assumed allies would buy six for coalition operations, but since they haven the U.S. production goal should be restored to at least the original 19 aircraft (some senior Air Force officers think twice that number would be optimal).
The Air Force also needs to revitalize its electronic-warfare community and determine how it will replace hundreds of aging KC-135 tankers and C-130 tactical transports. These missions are not as well understood in Congress as the more visible combat missions, but they are critical to the Air Force success in future conflicts. With access to foreign bases increasingly doubtful, the importance of range-extending aerial refueling tankers and rugged intratheater airlifters that can land almost anywhere will become increasingly apparent in the years ahead. But the average KC-135 tanker is 38 years old, and many C-130s are operating well beyond their intended design lives. They need to be replaced soon.

Although the above is but one aspect of how the Clinton administration attempted to gut our military superiority I feel it is the most important example. Without the air superiority we have enjoyed for many decades the total number of troops we have lost in the last few decades would pale in comparison to the likely number of dead. It is therefore logical to assume that if the Clinton administration had not done it's best to hamper our growth and technilogical advances we would have had even less troops die in the most recent military conflicts.

elwoodblues
03-17-2004, 04:22 PM
This reminded me of a discussion in another thread. If the terrorists win because of the post-attack actions of the Spanish government, could the same be said of the US:

1) on 9/11 terrorists attacked the American way of life
2) fundamental principles of the American way of life include protecting personal liberties of those accused of crimes
3) In response to the terrorist attacks, the government responded with a series of actions that are aimed to overcome the protections afforded to those accused of crimes

Therefore, we let the terrorists win by our actions subsequent to 9/11.

We might be winning battles in the war on terror, but I hope we aren't losing the war...

jdl22
03-17-2004, 04:38 PM
In my opinion you are, it depends on your beliefs about the war in Iraq I guess.

[ QUOTE ]
1) The party taking the fight to the terrorists are slated to win

[/ QUOTE ]

I would read it as:

1. The party supporting a war that has nothing to do with the terrorists is slated to win.

Was Iraq involved somehow in the terrorist bombings in Madrid? I thought they captured Moroccans and Indians but maybe I missed something. Al Qaeda has presence in Iraq now that we have invaded but they are certainly not based there.

I mentioned this earlier but I think that Spain needs world support to fight the terrorists. As a result I think the stance of the PSOE is a better way to fight them. It's not appeasement to back out of a war that angered most of the world when you need the support of so many other countries in order to fight.

jdl22
03-17-2004, 04:43 PM
How do you respond to Cheney saying that an administration has the previous administration to thank for a strong military?

If Clinton was so bad wouldn't we have had a lot more problems taking control in Afghanistan and Iraq? It took what, about 20 minutes each for us to take power?

superleeds
03-17-2004, 04:43 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
What, buy exercising their democratic right?
------------------------------------------------------------------------

no, by eroding the war on terrorism by finger pointing. Regardless of whether or not we went to war in Iraq or not, I think Spain was an easy target for Al Qaeda, so thats why they attacked them. They don't seem to have the same security fervor as the U.S., Britain, or France.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK let me get this straight. The Spanish people were alligned with US policy on terrorism and therefore have no right to change their minds regardless of circumstances and new facts coming to light (WMD being the obvious). Their government initally jumped in bed with the US (which has nothing to do with Europoen politics, i.e just to piss the French off, bolstering its position in the Europeon Union, etc, of course), and so they must now blindly follow whatever the US does or decides and if they don't it's because they are yellow livered pussys.

They attacked Spain because after the US and Britain it was the most promiment target. As for there security I don't know how good it is but I will point out that ETA is not some fly by night organisation so I would assume Spanish intelligence and security is not as naive as you imply.

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Europe has a far longer history of dealing with terrorists than you obviously imagine.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The entire continent or just specific countries? Because I don't think Luxemburgh or Portugal has the experience of say England.
Its too bad 9/11 happened before this, otherwise we would have known the "proper" way to respond. There were two main reason why the U.S. was attacked on 9/11. One was U.S. troop presence in Saudi Arabia, the other was our foreign policy torwards Israel.
Apparently since Europe has so much more experience with terrorists we should have followed the Spanish Doctrine, and blamed Israel for the attack. Then pledge to withdraw our troops from Saudi Arabia.
Yeah we could have done that, unfortunately we aren;t a country of pacifist, so instead we said [censored] you terrorists, your ass is mine!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

entire continent or specific countries? You pick, unless you believe Boise or Little Rock has the same experience as say New York, in which case we'll say specific countries - Great Britain, Germany, France, Spain and Italy being the main examples.

There is no proper way to respond.

IMHO, the main reason is jealousy. We're rich, they are not. Our economies do not just rely on exhaustable commodoties, theirs do. We (as in the Western World) are the center of human civilisation now, they were.

I'm not up enough on Spanish doctrine to comment altho I'd love to see some evidence that this is their position.

No you couldn't of done that and unfortuanately you aren;t a country of pacifist, who instead said [censored] you terrorists, your ass is mine.

[ QUOTE ]
And they have paid dearley for it, and will continue to pay dearly for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

And what you fail to realise is so will you

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have no idea what your talking about do you?
------------------------------------------------------------------------

you seem to not know what I am talking about

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct

MMMMMM
03-17-2004, 04:57 PM
You didn't get it straight, superleeds.

Aznar's party was leading well ahead in the polls right up until the Madrid attacks debacle, which was engineered by radical Islamists for the specific purpose of changing the outcome of the election. The Spanish didn't change their minds on the election slowly over time due to rethinking things; they changed abruptly in the few days after the bombings, which is precisely the effect the terrorists were trying to achieve with the bombings. Again see my post in this thread detailing these plans.

MMMMMM
03-17-2004, 05:06 PM
"It's not appeasement to back out of a war that angered most of the world when you need the support of so many other countries in order to fight."

Fine, BUT the fact is that Aznar's party was leading way ahead and expected to win handily. Then came the bombings which were plotted and executed by Islamists for the specific purpose of changing the outcome of the elections. So if the Spanish had previously decided to back out of the war, or to elect Zapatero, that wouldn't necessarily be appeasement. But instead they turned on a dime after the attacks, saying in effect to the terrorists, "OK we'll do what you want, just please don't bomb us again." Zapatero the underdog was elected, and the terrorists' bullying tactics succeeded.

In case the appeasement of Hitler example means little to you, consider the schoolyard example too. The best way for a child to deal with a serious schoolyard bully is to punch him squarely in the nose as hard as possible. I know this from regrettable personal experiences on both sides of the coin in my schoolboy days. Appeasement just simply never works. The bully invariably demands more and bullies more later.

superleeds
03-17-2004, 05:11 PM
I accept your point.

But this dramatic change of mind happened in part because of a deep seated unease in Aznar's seemingly uncritical alignment with the US. Right or wrong, the Spanish people would not have made such a dramatic U Turn at the polls if they had backed the US War on Iraq, something the general population plainly did not.

To suggest the Spanish people crumbled because they have no heart for a fight as Salt claims is ludicrous

superleeds
03-17-2004, 05:25 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Fine, BUT the fact is that Aznar's party was leading way ahead and expected to win handily. Then came the bombings which were plotted and executed by Islamists for the specific purpose of changing the outcome of the elections. So if the Spanish had previously decided to back out of the war, or to elect Zapatero, that wouldn't necessarily be appeasement. But instead they turned on a dime after the attacks, saying in effect to the terrorists, "OK we'll do what you want, just please don't bomb us again." Zapatero the underdog was elected, and the terrorists' bullying tactics succeeded.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or maybe Aznar trying to claim it was ETA was just too much. Disagreeing with your political leaders is one thing. When they blatently try to hoodwink you maybe its going to far

jdl22
03-17-2004, 05:28 PM
[ QUOTE ]
IMHO, the main reason is jealousy. We're rich, they are not. Our economies do not just rely on exhaustable commodoties, theirs do. We (as in the Western World) are the center of human civilisation now, they were.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are mostly correct. Let me give a brief selective history of Spain.

The dates prior to the year 711 are failing me so please forgive me.

At some point BC the Romans took rule over the Iberian continent, save the basque country. They named it Hispania from which it's current name is derived. Some time later (I believe during the 6th century) the Visigoths took control as the Roman empire collapsed. During the Visigoth reign a civil war broke out over who would take over the throne when a ruler died. As a result of this civil war broke out. In the year 711 a very well known guy whose name I can't remember (the Spanish call him the "great traitor") asked for help from the moors from Morocco. The moors consisted of various tribal groups. Those in the ruling class were of arabs. They were muslims and were well known to be extremely tough in battle.

These groups came to Spain and essentially conquered it for themselves. Through years of fighting they took the entire country except for the mountains in the North. Gradually the Christians fought back lead by two major kingdoms - Castilla-Leon and Aragon-Catalonia. The Catholics pushed farther south until the year 1492 the muslim armies were expeled from Granada, their final stronghold (and the city with the most muslim influence in Spain). 1492 also marked the unification of the two kingdoms and marks the time Spain came into existence as a unified country.

After the Catholics won the reconquista they immediately passed laws forcing muslims (and jews) to either convert to Christianity or leave. Later the laws were even more strict and antimuslim/semitic - if it could be shown that you had any ancestors that were muslim/jewish you would have to leave the country. The Spanish people became obsessed with the "purity of blood."

Muslim Spain is thought to be one of the most advanced countries of its time. It is considered one of jewels of the muslim empire.

After Spain took control they expanded their empire into the Americas and also into northern Africa. The size of their holdings in Africa have ebbed and flowed through history. Currently they only have a couple of cities.

If I have misstated anything feel free to correct me.

I think that the history between Spain and the muslim world is certainly a factor. Consdering they fought openly for nearly 800 years on the Iberian peninsula and several years after it seems clear. Jealously rearing its ugly head seems true here also considering that when the muslims had control of Spain was one of their glorious eras.

Taxman
03-17-2004, 05:30 PM
Damn skippy! How could cutting any money from the military budget ever be a good thing? In fact, we should spend more, more, more! I myself would proudly special taxes for the military if it meant we could have a few thousand more cruise missiles. You can never have too many.

Utah
03-17-2004, 05:35 PM
Nothing wrong with your logic, although I might question premise 2.

Utah
03-17-2004, 05:37 PM
Well said.

superleeds
03-17-2004, 05:38 PM
I was mainly referring Muslim countries in general and the middle east in particular rather than Spain but thanks for the history lesson /images/graemlins/smile.gif

ThaSaltCracka
03-17-2004, 06:20 PM
[ QUOTE ]
To suggest the Spanish people crumbled because they have no heart for a fight as Salt claims is ludicrous

[/ QUOTE ]
we shall see, maybe I am jumping to conclusions but if they don't do something other than blame the U.S. the only conclusion I would make is they in fact don't have the heart for the fight.

But I will wait and see.

MMMMMM
03-17-2004, 07:19 PM
I agree that the change was made possible in part due to other longer-term views and factors. Yes still the Spanish effectively rewarded terrorism with their abrupt about-face, and thus sent a clear message to the terrorists that this abominable tactic pays dividends rather than draws reprisals.

jdl22
03-17-2004, 07:59 PM
It's not an about face when 90% of the people opposed the war before the bombings and after the bombing the people vote in a party opposed to the war.

superleeds
03-17-2004, 09:23 PM
Sadly this message has been sent time and time again. The simple fact is terrorism does work at least on some level, for instance both ETA and the IRA have political wings who have seats in their relevant constituencies. We shall see what the new Spanish regime do and how their policy changes towards The War on Terror. I don't think it will change much.

They may well pull out of supporting the US in Iraq but will no doubt argue that has no bearing on The War on Terror. We shall see.

ACPlayer
03-17-2004, 10:05 PM
Unfortunately we are not even using our resources correctly on the war on terror. We are wasting capital, manpower, goodwill, in Iraq and to some extent, now, in Afghanistan.

The country is changing, as you correctly point out and not for the better. Our attitudes are getting more repressive, fundamentalist and un-american.

ACPlayer
03-17-2004, 10:06 PM
The Spanish PEOPLE have not changed their mind. The new govt reflects long held Spanish views on the Iraq lunacy.

ThaSaltCracka
03-17-2004, 10:18 PM
[ QUOTE ]
We shall see what the new Spanish regime do and how their policy changes towards The War on Terror. I don't think it will change much.

They may well pull out of supporting the US in Iraq but will no doubt argue that has no bearing on The War on Terror. We shall see

[/ QUOTE ]

Superleeds I hope you are right.

[ QUOTE ]
They may well pull out of supporting the US in Iraq but will no doubt argue that has no bearing on The War on Terror

[/ QUOTE ]
I only quote this twice because I agree with you on this, completely, and this will be , IMO, Bush's undoing.

MMMMMM
03-17-2004, 10:39 PM
"The Spanish PEOPLE have not changed their mind."

The Spanish people abruptly changed their minds on whom they were going to elect.

"The new govt reflects long held Spanish views on the Iraq lunacy."

The real Iraq lunacy was in letting Saddam Hussein get away with so much sh*t for so long in the first place.

MMMMMM
03-17-2004, 10:41 PM
It certainly is an about face when polls taken just before the bombing showed Aznar's party winning easily. The Spanish people about-faced on whom they were going to elect due to terrorist pressure and brutal attacks. Weak weak weak.

ThaSaltCracka
03-17-2004, 11:06 PM
[ QUOTE ]
It certainly is an about face when polls taken just before the bombing showed Aznar's party winning easily. The Spanish people about-faced on whom they were going to elect due to terrorist pressure and brutal attacks.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't see how this can be argued, it is so blantanly obvious. this is simple cause and affect. the terrorist attack caused spanish voters to vote against Aznar.

ACPlayer
03-18-2004, 01:55 AM
That is quite incorrect as usual. The Spanish people were long against the war. They finally saw that their leaders were actively lying to them and continued to do so. They did the right thing in throwing the sycophanct Aznar's group out of power. The chances of peace have improved. Now to get rid of Blair and Bush.

Saddam had been effectively castrated since 1991. He had no teeth, a tinpot despot and no threat imminent on otherwise to the US.

Iraq is now a bigger threat then it was prior to the lunacy. The administration has grossly underestimated the task of winning the peace and running that country.

ThaSaltCracka
03-18-2004, 02:31 AM
[ QUOTE ]
The administration has grossly underestimated the task of winning the peace and running that country.


[/ QUOTE ]
I think you are right about this. Rummy definitely underestimated the insurgency.

[ QUOTE ]
They finally saw that their leaders were actively lying to them and continued to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]
I am not quite sure what you are talking about here, I have never heard that Spains president misled them, or for that matter that Blair did as well. Now as for our pres, that seems like a different story......

MMMMMM
03-18-2004, 03:46 AM
ACPlayer you generally seem to have an appeasement-oriented mindset, so it does not surprise me one whit that you would think the Spanish people did the right thing in their recent election. I suspect that in Poker you may be known as a "folder."

ThaSaltCracka
03-18-2004, 08:19 PM
This is from Bill O'Reilly's show, I was wondering what everyone thinks about what he said. I don't care at all about what you think about him, just about what he said.


The Will to Fight

Thursday, March 18, 2004
By Bill O'Reilly
Hi, I'm Bill O'Reilly. Thank you for watching us tonight.



Hi, I'm Bill O'Reilly. Thank you for watching us tonight. Happy St. Patrick's Day. May the wind always be at your back. The will to fight is an Irish trait and it is the subject of this evening's "Talking Points Memo."

A new poll says most people in France and Germany believe the U.S.A. has overreacted to the threat of terrorism. And indeed Spain's actions this week prove that western Europe is certainly not taking a hardline against al Qaeda and other terror killers.

Today in Baghdad, terrorists struck again, a bomb killing more than 20 people and demonstrating the power that random murders continue to wield in that country.

There's no question that like Vietnam, the continuing carnage in Iraq will wear down some Americans and have an impact on the presidential election.

Now the Bush administration desperately wants the Iraqis to take charge, but that won't stop the terrorism over there and American troops will have to remain to ensure security. The key question here is the will to fight. "Talking Points" believes the majority of western Europeans don't have it. They see Islamic fascism as an American problem not a worldwide issue.

Like the run up to World War II, many Europeans are convinced that fascism can be contained. And they are willing to stay on the sidelines and allow al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and all the others to carry on.

The Bush administration knows this, of course. And I believe John Kerry knows it as well, but Kerry believes he can convince the Europeans to cooperate more fully. I doubt it. Europe, with the exception of Britain, is a soft society today, weaned on socialism and protected from the Soviets by the USA. It is generally undisciplined and lacks any sense of urgency.

Give them what they want and they'll go away, many Europeans believe. Besides, it's America's fault for supporting Israel and being a bully. America is the real problem.

That's a tough attitude to change. There's no question that France in particular wants America to kiss its collective butt. And under President Bush, that's not going to happen. Who knows what the Democrats will do if they get power? And who knows what Americans will do if terrorists continue to tear up Iraq? The will to fight is not indefinite. People get weary. The terrorists are counting on it.

And that's "The Memo."

MMMMMM
03-18-2004, 10:40 PM
I think O'Reilly's summary is largely correct, although a few points may be overstated or oversimplified.

Time will force the Europeans to confront Islamic fascism. If history is any indication, though, for the most part that won't be until the last minute (as Europe waited until the final hour to confront even European fascism). As years go by and Europe suffers more attacks at the hands of the Islamists, people will finally get thoroughly fed up. I doubt that will be be any time real soon, though.

jdl22
03-18-2004, 11:08 PM
I have several problems with what he is saying although I must say that for O'reilly it's surpisingly tame. He didn't even make up facts for example.

The main issue is that he is oversimplifying the situation. Furthermore he is confusing the Saddam regime with Al Qaeda. They are not the same thing. Hence when he says: [ QUOTE ]
And indeed Spain's actions this week prove that western Europe is certainly not taking a hardline against al Qaeda and other terror killers.

[/ QUOTE ]

He is off. Al Qaeda are now in Iraq but that is because of the war we started there. I think that Bush is not taking a hardline against Al Qaeda when he shifts resources that were fighting them to fight in a war that not only has nothing to do with them but only serves to increase their numbers and standing in the Arab world. If the new government came out and said that they wanted more trade with the Saudi's that would be taking a softline. What the government is saying is that they will use their resources to fight terrorism, not engage in a war that not only doesn't reduce the threat of terrorism but increases it.

Then there's this:
[ QUOTE ]
Like the run up to World War II, many Europeans are convinced that fascism can be contained. And they are willing to stay on the sidelines and allow al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and all the others to carry on.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a thoroughly confused argument. First of all I don't understand his definition of fascism. I have the same definition as the American Heritage Dictionary:
[ QUOTE ]
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism

[/ QUOTE ]
Given that fairly universal definition of fascism, groups such as al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, the IRA and ETA for that matter are not fascist entities. This is a typical example of O'reilly and others like him both on the right and left throwing out scare words like fascism, treason, and racial profiling even when they don't apply. Considering that Spain is the western country with the longest fascist reign in recent history I would say they are more than familiar with the concept.

It could be argued that he was saying that the Spanish, French and Germans felt that Saddam could be contained and he used WWII as evidence of this. Here he is again oversimplifying the issue. Saddam and WWII fascists such as Mussolini, Hitler, and Franco have much in common that's true. What O'reilly has apparently missed is what they do not have in common. When the three European dictators invaded foreign territories there was not a major global super power chomping at the bit to attack them. My history books may be wrong but when Hitler invaded Poland I don't believe the US went to war and pushed the German army back out of the country. I don't believe that the US or any other power was bombing military targets in Italy Spain or Germany before WWII started. While it may be argued that the three European dictators during WWII could not be contained it seems Saddam was. The fact that we had military bases in three surrounding countries as well as a large naval presence off the coast should serve as evidence.

On a final less serious note I hope there was a hint of irony in his voice when he said:
[ QUOTE ]
I doubt it. Europe, with the exception of Britain, is a soft society today, weaned on socialism and protected from the Soviets by the USA. It is generally undisciplined and lacks any sense of urgency.

[/ QUOTE ]

Europe being undisciplined when the US went to war on bad intelligence (if you believe Bush/Blair/Aznar) or based on lies (if you don't).

jdl22
03-18-2004, 11:11 PM
Anybody watch the Bill Maher show last week. The best line was in the monologue. I may not have it verbatim but he said:

"There were terrible attacks in Spain yesterday. The Bush administration called the Spanish government and assured them that the US will invade a country that had nothing to do with the bombings."

MMMMMM
03-18-2004, 11:44 PM
Bill Maher: "...The Bush administration called the Spanish government and assured them that the US will invade a country that had nothing to do with the bombings."

So then why the hell is al-Qaeda so obviously concerned with preventing the transformation of Iraq into a democratic society?

Al-Qaeda represents a fascist (theo-fascist if you prefer) ideology, a theo-fascistic political world view, and feels it must fight and destroy anything which does not conform to its extremely narrow view of how things should be.

In your other post you questioned the use of the word "fascist" because you did not see a fixed government behind matters. The Islamic fascist movement and its corresponding ideology has been around for a long time; it is only now becoming much more noticeable than it was some decades ago. And this form of fascism is the most absolute, unreasonable, insane form of fascist ideology ever.

ThaSaltCracka
03-19-2004, 12:53 AM
[ QUOTE ]
This is a thoroughly confused argument. First of all I don't understand his definition of fascism. I have the same definition as the American Heritage Dictionary:

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Given that fairly universal definition of fascism, groups such as al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, the IRA and ETA for that matter are not fascist entities. This is a typical example of O'reilly and others like him both on the right and left throwing out scare words like fascism, treason, and racial profiling even when they don't apply. Considering that Spain is the western country with the longest fascist reign in recent history I would say they are more than familiar with the concept.

It could be argued that he was saying that the Spanish, French and Germans felt that Saddam could be contained and he used WWII as evidence of this. Here he is again oversimplifying the issue. Saddam and WWII fascists such as Mussolini, Hitler, and Franco have much in common that's true. What O'reilly has apparently missed is what they do not have in common. When the three European dictators invaded foreign territories there was not a major global super power chomping at the bit to attack them. My history books may be wrong but when Hitler invaded Poland I don't believe the US went to war and pushed the German army back out of the country. I don't believe that the US or any other power was bombing military targets in Italy Spain or Germany before WWII started. While it may be argued that the three European dictators during WWII could not be contained it seems Saddam was. The fact that we had military bases in three surrounding countries as well as a large naval presence off the coast should serve as evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the point he was trying to make is that Europe in the 1930's had several Fascists governments. Many in Europe and for that matter the US seemed to feel that the best way to stop or combat the fascists was to isolate them, to cut them off from the rest of the world. He seems to be saying that Europe may be leaning in that direction now in regards to terrorists. I dunno if thats true, but I can see some similarities.

MMMMMM
03-19-2004, 02:30 AM
The Islamic terrorists may not have a fascist government or country, but they do have a fascist ideology.

ThaSaltCracka
03-19-2004, 02:50 AM
[ QUOTE ]
The Islamic terrorists may not have a fascist government or country, but they do have a fascist ideology.

[/ QUOTE ]
I am not sure what you mean by facist ideology, can you explain please?

But back to what, atleast I think, O'Reilly was talking about, I can see some similarities between the way many in Europe are reacting to the war on terrorism to the way they reacted to rising fascism in Europe in the early 20th century.

I think only a few contries in Europe are taking a proactive approach on terrorism, and I am not basing this on Iraq(mostly because I don't think Iraq has anything to do with the war on terrorism). I see Britain, France, Poland, Spain, and to some extent Russia actively combating terrorism.

MMMMMM
03-19-2004, 03:22 AM
Just marry the principles of fascism with theocracy, and you will know what I mean in this case by a "fascist ideology."

The Islamists want a fascist world Islamic government which enforces theological rule. They know they can't have it all at once so they are seeking to bring it about in stages, and by force wherever necessary. The first major milestone they dream of achieving would be restoration of the caliphate.

ACPlayer
03-19-2004, 03:54 AM
In poker you are probably a calling station. A single mindset --I must win this pot even in the face of overwhelming evidence that you are wrong and ill-informed and unread. The only difference is that you are calling down with lives of our soldiers (and not your on life).

I trust you have a good job or a trust fund that will last a while.

nicky g
03-19-2004, 05:31 AM
"Then pledge to withdraw our troops from Saudi Arabia."

Last I checked, the US did pledge to remove its troops from Saudi Arabia. And it wasn't a party that had pledged all along to do this and won power, it was the Bush administration in an outright U-turn. So I hope you'll be voting agains tthe appeasers and for the democrats this year.

Wake up CALL
03-19-2004, 11:23 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Last I checked, the US did pledge to remove its troops from Saudi Arabia.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then perhaps you should check a more credible source my son.

ThaSaltCracka
03-19-2004, 01:00 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Last I checked, the US did pledge to remove its troops from Saudi Arabia.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think the U.S. pledged they would move troops out of Saudi Arabia. I think they said they would like to move them to Qatar, as they are fairly friendly to American troop presence, but I agree I hadn't heard any pledge saying an outright withdrawl.

nicky g
03-19-2004, 01:07 PM
Withdrawal (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/30/wsaud30.xml)

America to withdraw troops from Saudi Arabia
By David Rennie in Washington
(Filed: 30/04/2003)


America began a historic reshaping of its presence in the Middle East yesterday, announcing a halt to active military operations in Saudi Arabia and the removal of almost all of its forces from the kingdom within weeks.


Donald Rumsfeld with his Saudi counterpart, Prince Sultan
The withdrawal ends a contentious 12-year-old presence in Saudi Arabia and marks the most dramatic in a set of sweeping changes in the deployment of American forces after the war in Iraq.

Withdrawal of "infidel" American forces from Saudi Arabia has been one of the demands of Osama bin Laden, although a senior US military official said that this was "irrelevant".

Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, said in the Saudi capital Riyadh that aircraft were being withdrawn "by mutual agreement".

Prince Sultan, the Saudi defence minister, said that with the ending of operations to enforce the southern no-fly zone over Iraq, there was "no need" for the aircraft to remain in his country.

"That does not mean we have requested them to move and it does not mean our friendship has been affected," he said.

Mr Rumsfeld said the "liberation of Iraq" had made the region a safer place. He played down the finality of the shift, saying that the US-Saudi relationship was "multi-dimensional - diplomatic, economic, as well as military to military".

But all the careful talk of friendship could not disguise the astonishing speed and impact of the shift. On Monday, US air command in the region was transferred from the Prince Sultan air base, outside Riyadh, less than two years after America opened a multi-billion-dollar command post there.

Air operations are now being run from the giant al-Udeid base in Qatar. At the height of operations last month, 200 coalition aircraft were flying from Prince Sultan, despite Saudi restrictions on attack missions.

Half of those aircraft have already left. Asked how many would remain by the end of the summer, Maj Gen Ronald Rand, an air force spokesman, said: "US airplanes zero."

In the 1991 Gulf war, Saudi Arabia was the launch pad for the American-led campaign to drive Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. At one time there were 500,000 foreign troops in Saudi Arabia.

During the war to topple Saddam there were 10,000 US forces in the kingdom, double the pre-war garrison.

Gen Rand said the Saudi military, which over the years has bought American weaponry worth billions of dollars, would maintain a close relationship with the US.

Behind the dry talk of rearranging America's military "footprint" in the Gulf, the great imponderables were bin Laden and Muslim radicals' complaints about the presence of "infidels" in the birthplace of Islam.

That presence was cited as one of the main justifications for the September 11 attacks.

Despite American insistence that the withdrawal had not been "dictated" by al-Qa'eda and that bin Laden was "irrelevant", there can be little doubt that undercutting a central plank of al-Qa'eda's platform is one of several advantages offered by withdrawal from Saudi Arabia.

In essence, the Bush administration has moved swiftly to take advantage of the toppling of Saddam to downgrade a relationship increasingly mired in mutual suspicion and tension.

The relationship has never fully recovered from the revelation that 15 of the 19 September 11 hijackers were Saudi nationals.

The overthrow of Saddam has also allowed the removal of American aircraft from Turkey, ending a decade-long operation to enforce no-fly zones over northern Iraq from the Incirlik air base.

Turkey's ties with Washington were badly strained when its parliament refused permission for 60,000 US forces to enter Iraq through Turkey and denied coalition fighters and bombers the rights to fly over the country.

Wake up CALL
03-19-2004, 01:37 PM
Perhaps I should have been more clear. It is my understanding that the last of the US combat troops moved out of Saudi on September 18th, 2003. Therefore it is difficult to have intentions to do something which is already complete.

ThaSaltCracka
03-19-2004, 02:12 PM
so we no longer have any military personel in Saudi Arabia?
or just no combat personel?

Wake up CALL
03-19-2004, 03:14 PM
[ QUOTE ]
so we no longer have any military personel in Saudi Arabia?
or just no combat personel?

[/ QUOTE ]

About 500 military advisers are left in country. But remember we had a tote sack full of "military advisers" in Nam! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

MMMMMM
03-19-2004, 04:40 PM
Nicky, you are really, really stretching if you think the US did that out of appeasement. Qatar was deemed a better base for numerous reasons.

Cyrus
03-21-2004, 03:17 AM
In November 2004, there will be presidential elections in the United States, as some of you are aware.

Wake up CALL
03-21-2004, 02:22 PM
[ QUOTE ]
In November 2004, there will be presidential elections in the United States, as some of you are aware.



[/ QUOTE ]

You left out the Democratic party. Their power (thankfully) will continue to diminish for the next decade. As soon as we get 67 seats in the Senate you will be amazed at how much life in the US will improve in spite of all the liberals wishing otherwise.

GWB
03-21-2004, 02:39 PM
[ QUOTE ]
In November 2004, there will be presidential elections in the United States, as some of you are aware.



[/ QUOTE ]

This reminds me what happened about a month ago. I was minding my own business, when Haley Barbour calls me up to say something like what is quoted above.

Well, I run to Laura and tell her, "Begging your pardon Dearest, but I 've got to get to work on this Re-election thing!"

She tells me, "Don't worry about it, Dick has it all under control."

Whew, dodged a bullet on that one. Carry on.