Terrorists claim victory in Spain

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Sava
link: http://www.sundayherald.com/40579

The Western Media isn't reporting the MASS PROTESTS and DEMONSTRATIONS in Spain against the LYING, INEPT Aznar party. But that's the TRUTH FOLKS.

How strange that you talk about the Western Media not covering something by linking to a story covered by the Western Media?

[Arrian]

well, isn't it so that the only dangerous precedent that has been set the past year is the complete and utter destruction of the legitimacy of the UN security council by the one sided invasion of iraq by the US? This administration practically paralised the only international body that could actually solve the terrorist problem in the long run

Again, up front, for clarity: I am not accusing the Spanish of appeasement. I made my views on their decision in the other thread (what will pulling out the troops do...).

Yes, the Bushies' treatment of the UN set a bad precedent.

The concern here among many is that Spain pulling out its troops may send an unfortunate message to AQ and other likeminded groups. Personally, I have no issue with the Spanish withdrawing, since that's entirely up to them, I just don't like the timing of the policy change:

1 - terror attack
2 - election, results in election of opposition party
3 - opposition party leader announces troop withdrawl

You and I can look at this and say, ah, but 80% of Spain was against the war in the first place, and the socialist party has been for removing the troops all the while.

But many will not. You can bet AQ won't. They will trumpet this as a great victory against the evil crusader alliance, and they will certainly attempt to duplicate it.

At the end of the day, I think the people of Spain asserting themselves and electing a government that serves their interests is a very good thing, and outweighs my concerns regarding AQ.

-Arrian

p.s. Back to the U.N., I and many other Americans (including those who can't stand Bush), see it as a weak and ineffectual organization. This is largely because the UN only has teeth when its member states give it teeth (and this of course means the USA too), and only has resolve when its members have resolve. The members of the UN hardly ever actually agree on anything, and even when they do it's the result of negotiations over who gets what concession on what other issue... etc, etc. Better than law of the jungle? YES. But it still does suck when decisive action is needed, and so while I was against the Iraq war and am generally against US unilateralism, I *do* understand why we reserve the right to unilateral action to defend our interests if necessary.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sava
You know what I realized?

The Socialist Party in Spain, before the bombings, said it was going to remove troops from Iraq... but... after the bombings... if they KEEP troops... they will have changed their position in accordance with the bombings.

Osama bin Laden has made it known that he WANTS a war between Islam and the West. HE WANTS MORE AMERICAN TROOPS IN THE MIDDLE EAST.

So by keeping troops in Iraq, going against their platform, the Socialist Party WOULD let the terrorists win.

Sava, First we have Nedaverse, Imraniacism. What is this? Savaverse?

[GePap]

Originally posted by SpencerH
'Any reasonable reader ....'

i.e. anyone who appreciates that GWB believes what he is doing in Iraq is 'right' and that given his belief, he wont back down from a contraversial stand on the issue.

Finally, it's like pulling teeth trying to get you to provide any reasons for your arguements.

Now I can attack them

Even is Dub thinks his overall action in Iraq is correct-ie, invading, are you claiming he sees the entirety of his actions 100% correct and would never envision changing his strategy in order to improve the possibility of eventual success?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Arrian


Again, up front, for clarity: I am not accusing the Spanish of appeasement. I made my views on their decision in the other thread (what will pulling out the troops do...).

Yes, the Bushies' treatment of the UN set a bad precedent.

Bush set a precedent? What about Clinton and Kosovo? More: Clinton didn't even have a Congressional authorizatin. He simple declared war on a sovereign nation by his lonesome.

[Ned]

GePap, what is your position now? Pulling out of Iraq is a good thing?

[GePap]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I never said otherwise and if it will get the discussion back on more interesting ground (i.e. does appeasement work or not), I'm perfectly willing to stipulate to the UN definition of the term.

Well, the problem is that you and I disagree on what counts as appeasement. To me the fact Iraq might be labelled "aggressor" has nothing to due with the eventual question: when do you resist, when do you give in? Saddam did not pull out in 1990 becuase he
a. did not think the US would actually take the risk of war
b. though to pull out would reveal weakness and cause him to lose power.

Both assumptions I think were incorrect-history proves the first one wrong, and he would have had the power to crush any revolt against him with his army intact.

Now, if one says that the US would have decided it needed to get rid of Saddam period, then appeasing the US would not have worked, since the eventual US aim would have been Saddam's utter capitulation, and this was something he could not do.

Too me, your definition is like a self-fulfilling version of mine- as I said, whether appeasement works is based on the eventual aims of each side- if you label one side "aggressor" you are on the verge of saying their aims are inherently to utterly destroy the other side-well, then no duh appeasement would not work then.

[Arrian]

Clinton's actions w/regard to Kosovo were also bad, IMO. People allowed the genocide claims (later proven to be exaggerated, but not actually untrue, IIRC) to override all other concerns, and we rushed in and bombed the Serbs. Mistake, in hindsight, given the nature of the Albanian seperatist group (forget their name) and of course the precedent set.

So perhaps you could say that Bush didn't SET a bad precedent, but rather strengthened a bad precedent that was set by his predecessor.

-Arrian

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned
GePap, what is your position now? Pulling out of Iraq is a good thing?

No, But my position is irrelevant to the discussion.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian
I just don't like the timing of the policy change:

1 - terror attack
2 - election, results in election of opposition party
3 - opposition party leader announces troop withdrawl

-Arrian

I don't like it either. In fact, when I looked at the front page of the paper today, I got a very disturbed feeling. All Spaniards should reassert their opposition to al-qaeda and their willingness to stand with those who will fight them. It they don't they are free riders. I hate to say that, but victims should be the first to pick up the sword.

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap


No, But my position is irrelevant to the discussion.

Then you agree that people of common sense and good will should work to reverse the Spanish decision?

[Arrian]

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I don't like it either. In fact, when I looked at the front page of the paper today, I got a very disturbed feeling. All Spaniards should reassert their opposition to al-qaeda and their willingness to stand with those who will fight them. It they don't they are free riders. I hate to say that, but victims should be the first to pick up the sword.

Good post. Hopefully the Spaniards will agree that simply arresting the terrorist they find on their soil will not solve the problem of terrorism. Also, almost no one agrees that allowing Iraq to fall apart is a good thing from the point of view of terrorism.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ned
Good post. Hopefully the Spaniards will agree that simply arresting the terrorist they find on their soil will not solve the problem of terrorism. Also, almost no one agrees that allowing Iraq to fall apart is a good think from the point of view of terrorism.

Just arresting terrorists on your own soil does not absolve you of free riding if you let someone else pay the cost of hunting them out.

I'm very pissed about this. I'm really starting to understand why Bush calls this a war for freedom. If they try this **** in America (and thanks to Spain, that is more likely) I will vote for Bush.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Arrian
Clinton's actions w/regard to Kosovo were also bad, IMO. People allowed the genocide claims (later proven to be exaggerated, but not actually untrue, IIRC) to override all other concerns, and we rushed in and bombed the Serbs. Mistake, in hindsight, given the nature of the Albanian seperatist group (forget their name) and of course the precedent set.

the KLA... Kosovo Liberation ( ) Army... Yes... the Serbs did some things that were bad... but it is exactly like Israel's situation. They were fighting terrorists and yes, there were human rights violations... but not to the extent that the media portrayed it.

So perhaps you could say that Bush didn't SET a bad precedent, but rather strengthened a bad precedent that was set by his predecessor.

-Arrian

I agree... Clinton's mistakes are being repeated... to a greater extent. The problem is, I think the Bushies know they are doing something wrong. The Clinton's generally ****ed up.