Socialist claim victory in Spain

[Sava]

[Arrian]

Sorry, but why not negotiation with Al-Qaeda?

Dialogue is only a good idea when the two sides have some remote possibility of finding a middle ground both can agree upon. I don't see any such middle ground between AQ and the US Government.

-Arrian

[Sava]

Originally posted by Arrian



Dialogue is only a good idea when the two sides have some remote possibility of finding a middle ground both can agree upon. I don't see any such middle ground between AQ and the US Government.

-Arrian

I think the removal of troops from the MidEast would would have been enough for AQ to not bother us. Yes, they hate the support of Israel, but it's harder to find recruits willing to fly themselves into buildings if there isn't an active American presence provoking terrorist responses.

9-11 was a direct consequence of troops in Saudi Arabia and our support of oppressive dictatorships (Kuwait, SA).

Would they probably still hate us and call us infidels? Sure... but would they be as embolden and motivated to kill us? I doubt it.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Sava
I think the removal of troops from the MidEast would would have been enough for AQ to not bother us. Yes, they hate the support of Israel, but it's harder to find recruits willing to fly themselves into buildings if there isn't an active American presence provoking terrorist responses.

9-11 was a direct consequence of troops in Saudi Arabia and our support of oppressive dictatorships (Kuwait, SA).

Would they probably still hate us and call us infidels? Sure... but would they be as embolden and motivated to kill us? I doubt it.

Congratulations! You get the "Most Naive and foolish post of the day" Award!

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

And this is different from any other day in which way?

[Sava]

Originally posted by The diplomat


Congratulations! You get the "Most Naive and foolish post of the day" Award!

as opposed to the most ignorant and dopey conservative post of the day award?

It's so hard to discuss international politics with people who aren't well-read. Perhaps if you read a book, diplomat, you might understand things better. I have a reading list if you wish to enlighten yourself.

anyways... go back to your NEWSMAX, Rush Limbaugh and Foxnews... leave the real issues to people who aren't inundated with right-wing garbage.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
If we buy the oft repeated "AQ hates us for our freedom", then any time a people get to elect their new leaders freely and a peaceful transfer of power occurs, AQ has lost. Will now the people who repeat this most often stop saying it? Or do they trully believe it?

Plato: those that sold the war on Iraq sold it a a short term action-an immidiate cure to an immidiate problem -remmber all the flack given to Dean for saying we werew not a lick safer having caught Saddam? Well, to the people of Spain, this has come to shown true- Iraq is a very long term part of the possible solution to the war on terror, which will not yield benefits for at leasta decade in that regard. It was not sold that way though-and those that sold the war on false premises should see the consequences of their claims.

1. Yes - the holding of a democratic election in Spain, with a peaceful alteration of political parties IS a defeat for Al Qaeeda, as such. That IS true. Which does not necessarily mean that a particular change in Spanish polices may not be a victory for Al Qaeeda, even it results from such a democratic election. However as others have said, polls arent always right, and Azbars handling of the investigation were relevant, so it cannot be said for certain that was an AQ victory , even in that sense.

2. The case in Spain, as wrt to Dean, as elsewhere, is that the war in Iraq is part of a larger strategy NOT that it would reduce AQ bombings in the short run. The argument about timing was based on risks WRT WMDs, problems in maintaining containment, etc - not that it would reduce the number of bombings in the next 12 months.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sava
I think the removal of troops from the MidEast would would have been enough for AQ to not bother us. Yes, they hate the support of Israel, but it's harder to find recruits willing to fly themselves into buildings if there isn't an active American presence provoking terrorist responses.

9-11 was a direct consequence of troops in Saudi Arabia and our support of oppressive dictatorships (Kuwait, SA).

Would they probably still hate us and call us infidels? Sure... but would they be as embolden and motivated to kill us? I doubt it.

AQ hates the US because the US supports the oppressive Saudis.

Except that Bin Laden had no problem with the Saudi govt before it invited US troops in in 1991. In fact OBL has NO problem with the repressive nature of the Saudi regime - rather he hates the Saudi regime BECAUSE it allies with the US. The reasons he hates the US can only be understood by studying Jihadi ideology, going back to the works of Sayd Qutb.

[Sava]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
AQ hates the US because the US supports the oppressive Saudis.

Except that Bin Laden had no problem with the Saudi govt before it invited US troops in in 1991. In fact OBL has NO problem with the repressive nature of the Saudi regime - rather he hates the Saudi regime BECAUSE it allies with the US. The reasons he hates the US can only be understood by studying Jihadi ideology, going back to the works of Sayd Qutb.

I should rephrase my point... it wasn't that bin Laden hates the Saudis because they are oppressive... it is, as you pointed out, that bin Laden hates the Saudi's because they are working with the Americans. There is also somewhat of a civil war going on in SA between the more radical Islamists and the pro-American Saudi's. As I've said before, I have poor communication skillz.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

2. The case in Spain, as wrt to Dean, as elsewhere, is that the war in Iraq is part of a larger strategy NOT that it would reduce AQ bombings in the short run. The argument about timing was based on risks WRT WMDs, problems in maintaining containment, etc - not that it would reduce the number of bombings in the next 12 months.

Which leads to the question why a democratic government should continue a deeply unpopular policy if it won;t achieve the aims used to justify the policy in the first place. After all, what the new socialist government has said is they will no participate in an occupation lacking UN mandates.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by DanS


This guy is a goddamn idiot. The possibility of this happening is zero (sovereignty is going back to the Iraqis in June, after all ), so he's just grandstanding and giving AQ more fodder. Spain can pull it's troops out, but doing it this way is handing a victory to AQ.

I beleive he actually said if the multinational force is put under the UN, not goverenance of Iraq.

Of course its more likely at this point that the Multinational forces will go under NATO, not the UN, and I dont know what his position is on that.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Sava
as opposed to the most ignorant and dopey conservative post of the day award?

It's so hard to discuss international politics with people who aren't well-read. Perhaps if you read a book, diplomat, you might understand things better. I have a reading list if you wish to enlighten yourself.

anyways... go back to your NEWSMAX, Rush Limbaugh and Foxnews... leave the real issues to people who aren't inundated with right-wing garbage.

You have not even heard my opinion on the subject yet. How do you know that I am not well-read in international politics? I happen to know a few things about international politics. I took an advanced course in international politics when in college, and I have read several books on the subject.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Which leads to the question why a democratic government should continue a deeply unpopular policy if it won;t achieve the aims used to justify the policy in the first place. After all, what the new socialist government has said is they will no participate in an occupation lacking UN mandates.

Obviously the Aznar govt thought that it WOULD achieve the aims, in the long run. The people of Spain may well not have believed that, and so it is their right to remove said govt, of course. What is troubling is that it APPEARS they did so in reaction to a single short term incident.

analogy

a left govt passes a tax increase, to fund education, infrastructure, etc to lead to long term development. They do so at a time of economic stagnation. The tax increase is unpopular, and is opposed by 80% of the population, but the govt supports it anyway. In the next 12 months the economic stagnation remains (as everyone expected, since no benefits were expected to show up within a 12 month window) The party in power, despite its unpopular tax policy, is favored in the polls to win reelection.

The day before the election one of the largest companies relocates 20,000 jobs overseas, blaming the tax policy. Apparently the relocation is designed to influence the current election. The left govt loses, and is replaced by a right govt pledged to repeal the tax increase.

Now repealing the tax increase MAY be a good idea. But its hard to avoid the conclusion that this is a "victory" for the company that announced the job relocation.

[GePap]

Now repealing the tax increase MAY be a good idea. But its hard to avoid the conclusion that this is a "victory" for the company that announced the job relocation.

The problem here is saying that just becuase on one limited issue this gov. and AQ agree in something, ie, not participating in th US-led occupation of Iraq, it is a victory for AQ. This government support UN control over the Iraq occupation, something AQ is against.

If the huse of Saud fell tommorrow, one of AQ's mian aims, is that a bad things cause it is a victory for AQ?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap

Now repealing the tax increase MAY be a good idea. But its hard to avoid the conclusion that this is a "victory" for the company that announced the job relocation.

The problem here is saying that just becuase on one limited issue this gov. and AQ agree in something, ie, not participating in th US-led occupation of Iraq, it is a victory for AQ. This government support UN control over the Iraq occupation, something AQ is against.

If the huse of Saud fell tommorrow, one of AQ's mian aims, is that a bad things cause it is a victory for AQ?

If house of Saud fell tomorrow - well it would depend on 2 things 1. What followed 2. Was an AQ bombing the proximate cause?

NATO control over the occupation (which incidentally will cease to be an "occupation" on June 30, if all goes as planned) is more likely than UN control. What has the PSOE said about that?

But more important is that the bombing APPEARS to be the proximate cause of the PSOE victory - if the PSOE had led in the polls prior, or if there was convincing evidence that the shift was due to incompetent handling of the bombing aftermath by the govt, id be more comfortable saying it was not an "AQ victory"