Socialist claim victory in Spain

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Ned, our government is first and foremost, resposible to its own people. The current Spanish government baldly lied to coverup the results of its extremely unpopular support of Bush's illegal war. It failed the Spanish people an should be replaced.

The Socialists have no obligation to uphold the policies of a lying government against the will of the Spanish people. Regardless of what AQ wants, democracy demands that Spain pull-out. It would be almost as stupid for Spain to remain in Iraq as it was for the Russians to stay in WWI after there was an anti-war revolution. If you capaign on pulling out and you take power, you damn well better pull out.

You may be right about why the vote the went the way it did. But if one steps into the shoes of al Qaeda, do you think they will agree with this kind of thinking? Will they agree that their attack had nothing to do with the shift in the Spanish electorate?

[Sava]

Sava, contribute an idea please and not just counter-ideas

my idea is: saying "the terrorists win" because of the election is absolutely retarded...

that's the same dumb-assed Ann Coulter "yera traitor" mentality... it belongs in the Freerepublic forums with the rest of the right-wing ****.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Lying to Congress.

The problem with this is that Congress had full access to the same intelligence as did Bush and drew the same conclusions. Ditto Clinton before Bush. Ditto Britain, Spain, Italy and many other states.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


I said no such thing. Even if the people believe it was their token involvement in Iraq that got them into trouble, they had every right to, having seen that the negative consequences of involvement now outweighted the positives, for them to change course. Again, I find it absurd to say that the sole idea in a voter's mid when deciding what tehir government will be for the coming 4 years should be avoinding giving the wrong impression to outsiders...screw that.

Now, you keep saying what Spain's position would be in NATO took over-well, for that to happen, given that all decisions have to be unanimous, by definition Spain would have to agree to make it so, no?

1. spain is both a sovereign country and a democracy - if they want to elect someone cause they think he can stop the tides, they have every right to do so.

They also have every right to make a decision based on cost-benefit to Spain. It would behoove them to consider the impact of sending a message on that Cost-benefit. It may still be that the vote is desirable from the point of view of Spains cost benefit, yet harmful from the point of view of the rest of the world. How does expressing disappointment at the harm done to the rest of the world imply that Spain didnt have the right to do what it did?

2. Even France has said they would consider a NATO role in Iraq, if and when a sovereign Iraqi govt requests it. Germany has said they would not veto, though they would not send troops. I was asking if Spain would keep troops in those circumstance - i cant see Spain vetoing it in circumstances where France wouldnt.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Sure it influenced the people to vote a certain way.

Just like 9/11 will do this November.

When are the next elections in Britain?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
if one steps into the shoes of al Qaeda, do you think they will agree with this kind of thinking?

I refuse to base my vote for government based upon what terrorists think.

[GePap]

You know, first people say that AQ would target Europe anyway, since their aim is total world domination-now they will blame Spanish voters for electing the socialist and encourgaing more AQ attacks..so is that saying that AQ was not planning widespread attacks against Europe as it was becuase of their support for either Iraq or Afghanistan? And if AQ's aims were always to attack all freedom loving people's, why would a PP victory have done anything to lessen the vulnerability of all European countries?

Can't you guys get you claims straight?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap



NOw the question posed by the socialist is will an occupation without any UN mandate be legitimate-and can an illegitimate occupation succeed? After all, what the Spanish government has said is that come June, if there has been no UN mandate given they will leave the mission.

In fact the post war UNSC resolution gave some recognition to the Iraqi Governing Council. And the UN rep, Lakthar Brahimi has been working closely with the CPA on the political future of Iraq.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
The problem with this is that Congress had full access to the same intelligence as did Bush and drew the same conclusions.

Except that the data was manipulated to downplay the uncertainty that the CIA had, while ignoring many of the Agency's misgivings about the information that contradicted the Bush Admin's claims. Congress was deliberately given bogus information.

But hopefully Bush won't survive (politically) the election to be able to be impeached. Instead we can toss his ass in prison!

[GePap]

They also have every right to make a decision based on cost-benefit to Spain. It would behoove them to consider the impact of sending a message on that Cost-benefit. It may still be that the vote is desirable from the point of view of Spains cost benefit, yet harmful from the point of view of the rest of the world. How does expressing disappointment at the harm done to the rest of the world imply that Spain didnt have the right to do what it did?

Voters within any sovereign state have no responsibility towards the world-not voters in the US, not voters in Spain. That is one of the basic tennets of soverign nation-states that happen to be democracies. As for the contention this vote might harm the rest of the world- that is left to be seen: most liekly that can never be answered.

2. Even France has said they would consider a NATO role in Iraq, if and when a sovereign Iraqi govt requests it. Germany has said they would not veto, though they would not send troops. I was asking if Spain would keep troops in those circumstance - i cant see Spain vetoing it in circumstances where France wouldnt.

Then that answers your own question about the issue, does it not?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why am I not surpised that this thread turned into something about Bush .

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
In fact the post war UNSC resolution gave some recognition to the Iraqi Governing Council. And the UN rep, Lakthar Brahimi has been working closely with the CPA on the political future of Iraq.

June is also the hand-off date the US has set. So we will see what is done when control is handed over to Iraqis themselves.

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap
You know, first people say that AQ would target Europe anyway, since their aim is total world domination-now they will blame Spanish voters for electing the socialist and encourgaing more AQ attacks..so is that saying that AQ was not planning widespread attacks against Europe as it was becuase of their support for either Iraq or Afghanistan? And if AQ's aims were always to attack all freedom loving people's, why would a PP victory have done anything to lessen the vulnerability of all European countries?

Can't you guys get you claims straight?

GePap, what you have to agree on is that al Qaeda is not stupid. They are way ahead of the curve for the most part and are enormously effective in their tactics and stragegy. This enemy is the most sophisticated manipulator of public opinion since.... Well, name a terrorist organization that was more effective.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
You know, first people say that AQ would target Europe anyway, since their aim is total world domination-now they will blame Spanish voters for electing the socialist and encourgaing more AQ attacks..so is that saying that AQ was not planning widespread attacks against Europe as it was becuase of their support for either Iraq or Afghanistan? And if AQ's aims were always to attack all freedom loving people's, why would a PP victory have done anything to lessen the vulnerability of all European countries?

Can't you guys get you claims straight?

I dont know why AQ targeted Spain. Frankly there is still considerable disagreement, (right here on this board among other places) as to why AQ targeted the US on 9/11. It SEEMS that while AQ may have intended to target europe generally, they may have prioritized an attack on Spain, since to change the course of a European election would show the muslim world their continued strength, in a way that killing 200 frenchmen or Germans would not. Bonus points for ending Spanish participation in the Iraqi occupation, an occupation that is unpopular in the muslim world, at least outside Iran(the people, not the govt) Kuwait, and Iraq itself.

On the other hand its quite possible that Spain was targeted because it is more easily accesible from the muslim world. Or that the Spanish govt has been less competent than other European govts in internal policing (strikes me as quite possible - say what you will about France, their Interior Minister has been VERY aggressive about internal counter terror actions)

[Ned]

LoTM, come on. They announced they attacked Spain because of its support of Afghanistan and Iraq.