Socialist claim victory in Spain

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Agathon


What makes the US so special?

Ability, logistics, money.

Next question.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by jasev
Just a thing before I go to bed:



Oh, no, not at all. There was a lot of armed organizations that time: FRAP, GRAPO and many more. It's just ETA was the most important. When democracy arrived, almost every band left the violence (even the moderate wing of ETA), just ETA and GRAPO remained.

GRAPO was founded in 1975, not long after Franco died, if I recall. Can't remember who FRAP were though.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ted Striker

However I don't know how secure I would feel with the UN overseeing Iraq. The UN has absolutley no teeth and the place would turn into chaos overnight.

It would have plenty of teeth in this case. The UN is only as strong as its member states.

The Europeans, for their own reasons, want to engender multilateralism. That means making the UN look good.

It's in the interest of the US to spread the load, it is not in their interest just to walk away. The US itself is in the position to put a large number of "teeth" behind the UN.

But as long as the necon fantasy that the US can actually run the world unilaterally holds sway in Washington this won't happen. And it's a pity, since it reduces American influence in the world and does not play to the country's strength.

I don't admire Bush senior that much, but in my view he showed himself to be a master politician with respect to the first Gulf war. He managed to get his own way and get almost everyone on side - AND it cost him almost nothing, since others paid for the war.

Wake up and smell the coffee. If you really want to stop terrorism, you don't use that as an excuse to settle old scores and accrue power to yourself. The Iraq thing was a mistake and will haunt international politics for years to come.

It boils down to:

1. The US gains little but grief for its one sided stance with regard to Israel and Palestine.

2. The US gains little but grief by being excessively unilateralist.

3. The US gains little but grief for its two faced attitude towards Arab tyranny.

4. Certain groups in the US gain much from the above, but they are clearly not the majority.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by PLATO


Ability, logistics, money.

Next question.

OK - then the answer to that is "you're on your own and don't come crying to us when it doesn't work."

The fact is that you don't have the domestic political will or the military might to run the world. Your voters care about domestic issues first and foremost and would quickly vote out a government that tried to spend the money required to make this fantasy come true.

In short, as Niall Ferguson recently argued, you suck at being Imperial. You don't have the learning or the will to do it. So why pretend?

[Winston]

This seems like a big mistake by the Spanish voters, attempting to appease a terrorist organization in the hopes of avoiding further attacks.

"I've got it, if we vote for a change in government to one that won't take a hardline approach toward international terrorism, and then hide under some coats and keep REAL quiet, maybe this will all go away. Then, hopefully the next time they blow people up, it'll be somebody other than us."

I'm sorry to say, but I'm afraid that presented with a similar event, many of my own countrymen would think along those same lines. Most Europeans just have no spine when dealing with the harsh realities of the World we live in. They'll act like headless chickens when things heat up.

It's so sad.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Agathon


It would have plenty of teeth in this case. The UN is only as strong as its member states.

The Europeans, for their own reasons, want to engender multilateralism. That means making the UN look good.

It's in the interest of the US to spread the load, it is not in their interest just to walk away. The US itself is in the position to put a large number of "teeth" behind the UN.

But as long as the necon fantasy that the US can actually run the world unilaterally holds sway in Washington this won't happen. And it's a pity, since it reduces American influence in the world and does not play to the country's strength.

I don't admire Bush senior that much, but in my view he showed himself to be a master politician with respect to the first Gulf war. He managed to get his own way and get almost everyone on side - AND it cost him almost nothing, since others paid for the war.

Wake up and smell the coffee. If you really want to stop terrorism, you don't use that as an excuse to settle old scores and accrue power to yourself. The Iraq thing was a mistake and will haunt international politics for years to come.

It boils down to:

1. The US gains little but grief for its one sided stance with regard to Israel and Palestine.

2. The US gains little but grief by being excessively unilateralist.

3. The US gains little but grief for its two faced attitude towards Arab tyranny.

4. Certain groups in the US gain much from the above, but they are clearly not the majority.

While you make some good points, and I'd like to see the UN succeed just as much as anybody, they have an absolutley horrible track record.

The last "successful" UN campaign that took place was in Korea.

And here, over 50 years later, the issue is still unresolved.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ted Striker


While you make some good points, and I'd like to see the UN succeed just as much as anybody, they have an absolutley horrible track record.

The last "successful" UN campaign that took place was in Korea.

If MacArthur hadn't been so gung ho, that would have been solved. The near success was entirely due to strong backing from the US.

And here, over 50 years later, the issue is still unresolved.

But now there is no Cold War. The world is a lot different than it used to be. For example, China would much rather trade with the US than fight it.

[Niessuh]

Originally posted by Winston
This seems like a big mistake by the Spanish voters, attempting to appease a terrorist organization in the hopes of avoiding further attacks.

"I've got it, if we vote for a change in government to one that won't take a hardline approach toward international terrorism, and then hide under some coats and keep REAL quiet, maybe this will all go away. Then, hopefully the next time they blow people up, it'll be somebody other than us."

I'm sorry to say, but I'm afraid that presented with a similar event, many of my own countrymen would think along those same lines. Most Europeans just have no spine when dealing with the harsh realities of the World we live in. They'll act like headless chickens when things heat up.

It's so sad.

Spain has been fighting in first line against the terrorism for forty years. This is a punishment to a government who has tried to obtain benefit from that.

Blind aggression is the greatest proof of fear and lack of understanding.

[Agathon]

Good post Niessuh.

[molly bloom]

So far the notion that Spain's electorate ushered in the Socialist Party because of, or mainly due to the terrorist attack, is just supposition.

One might as well look at the sale of white goods and and say- 'clearly, increasing numbers of purchased washing machines cause a rise in the breast cancer rate'.

Those in favour of the 'rewarding terrorism' argument have yet to show any correlation- wishful thinking isn't enough.

And please- let's not anyone attribute it to the mercurial 'Latin' temperament.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by molly bloom
So far the notion that Spain's electorate ushered in the Socialist Party because of, or mainly due to the terrorist attack, is just supposition.

This is the point I was hoping to see debated here. Was the election the result of the terror attacks or would these results have been obtained in any event. If they are the result of the terror attacks then surely this is a dangerous precedent.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Agathon


OK - then the answer to that is "you're on your own and don't come crying to us when it doesn't work."

The fact is that you don't have the domestic political will or the military might to run the world. Your voters care about domestic issues first and foremost and would quickly vote out a government that tried to spend the money required to make this fantasy come true.

In short, as Niall Ferguson recently argued, you suck at being Imperial. You don't have the learning or the will to do it. So why pretend?

I agree with a lot of what you say. However, I don't believe that the UN has even the level of will that the Us has. Time after time, they have shown that they are willing to go through the motions without achieving hard results.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by jasev


¿Could we argue that the victory of the republicans in the congress elections (2002?) was a result of 9/11?

you could, but the democrats were just lamers for 2002, they had no message what so ever. Besides, Republicans held control of the congress and senate in 2000(before the Jeffords switch), so no real power changed hands. now if the elections for house and senate had occured right after 9/11 and there was a 2/3rds super majority in both houses rather then the barest hint of a majority then there would be a case.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by PLATO


I agree with a lot of what you say. However, I don't believe that the UN has even the level of will that the Us has. Time after time, they have shown that they are willing to go through the motions without achieving hard results.

They do right now and that's what matters. Now is a chance to prove that it works and get everyone on side. More importantly it would be a way for countries like Canada to be able to support the US with the full support of their population.

[Thorgal]

This is the point I was hoping to see debated here. Was the election the result of the terror attacks or would these results have been obtained in any event. If they are the result of the terror attacks then surely this is a dangerous precedent.

There has not been a significant change in the intention of vote. The Popular Party has obtained approximately the same number of votes that in the year 2000. It is only that the Spanish Socialist Party has obtained many more votes due to a higher participation in these elections.
This extra electorate is mostly left people disillusioned with the Spanish Socialist Party that does not use to vote normally, but that due to the prepotence and lies of the Popular Party, have encouraged themselves to vote.