Terrorists claim victory in Spain

[GePap]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I don't thin either of these cases fall under the standard definition of appeasement as far as I can tell. In the first case, Iraq was the agressor and Bush I was simply demanding they leave the lands they conquered. In the second case, Iraq could have avoided the war by living up to the commitments they made after having thier arse kicked 6 ways from Sunday the first time. I don't really have any idea how that one qualifies as appeasement.

I'll have to look at the example of Muscovy though. Russian history isn't my strong suit.

"standard definition of appeasement"? You mean using the word in a derogatory manner, invariable refering back to the Nazi's, right?

Appeasement as a strategy has nothing to do with who is the "aggressor", Appeasement is deciding that confrontation at a point is destined to lead to a worse outcome in the end than not confronting the problem. When Iraq invaded Kuwait it expected no significant international opposition. Having met significant international opposition, deciding to give in to international pressure, as opposed to confronting it, would have allowed Saddam to stay in power. That is appeasement.

Inserting "moral" or value-laden words into discussion fo strategy is not my bag.

As for BC's exmaple-very good one-paying tribute: deciding that cash payments to X other there is better than tax levied by X when he rules you after having beaten you. That is appeasement again-deciding confrontation is the worse of two options.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Mr one-liner cannot complain about one-liner responses.

Mr one-liner was only curious about that one point and relly didn't care about the rest of GePap's long post. He also feels that if you didn't have an answer to the question asked then you shouldn't have annoyed him by foisting your wierd political opinions on him.

[SpencerH]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by GePap

No difference. 80%-90% of Spaniards opposed the Iraq war-assuming the 10-20% that always backed it stayed with the PP, that means that the vast mayority if not entirety of those that might have switched their support from the PP to PSEO (and given that turnout was far higher than expected, the PSOE could have simply been carried to victory by people who had not been likely voters when the polls were taken) must have bene opponents of the war.

Yes, those that switched were likely opponents of the war. So what? The socialists took roughly 42% of the vote and the PP 37%. By your numbers that must mean that a substantial number of voters who opposed the war voted for the PP.

The polls may have been incorrect, but if not, there was a swing in vote from PP to PSEO that occurred after the bombing.

EDIT: Che's comment about the reason for the switch is the most credible i.e. the government lies, but I still find the 'logic' hard to understand.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Arrian
Appeasement doesn't make much sense when your opponent is comparable to you, or weaker than you.

-Arrian

In tersm of strategy, no "rules" are certain. If two sides are the same in strength- and once side demands something of low value to the other side-it makes no sense to waste immense strength fighting (since a war between equals is bound to end in a bloody stalemate) for something you might value far less than the other side.

So whether to "appease" when confronted by an equal is completely based on the aim of each side, and the value to them of the thing at the heart of the confrontation.

Ditto for the strong vs. the weak-though I will ask you if you buy Fez's arguement that no Spanish government could have done anything to stop this attack?

[GePap]

Originally posted by SpencerH


Yes, those that switched were likely opponents of the war. So what? The socialists took roughly 42% of the vote and the PP 37%. By your numbers that must mean that a substantial number of voters who opposed the war voted for the PP.

The polls may have been incorrect, but if not there was a swing in vote from PP to PSEO that occurred after the bombing.

You said you could not understand them: i agreed with you, and stated hat the reaosn you can't is becuase you supported the war on Iraq while those that switched did not. It then comes down to a belief whether the war in Iraq has trully served any purpose in the war on terror, or whether Spain's participation in that war was a mistake. As someone who personally always supported that war, I am not surprised that you are unable to understand the decisions of people's with different opinions.

[GePap]

In another thread, Fez said there was nothing the PP could have done to stop this attack from happening. If so, then what service did the war in Iraq serve Spain's security? If being with Bush does not make Spain safer-why should the Spanish electorate stay with that boat? People make the claim AQ's aims are univesalist-world domination and all that blather-well, if after 1 year in Iraq and 2 in Afghanistan Fezzie is right and there was nothing a government like Spain's do to stop a massive terrorist attack like the one in madrid, then what has been the point? And if Fezzie is wrong and the PP government, with different priorities, could have stopped the attack-why re-elect a government that failed in securing Spain?

[DinoDoc]

Is Mr Funning considered less annoying now?

[GePap]

Its about as annoying as people ignoring good points.

[Sava]

thread... I'm sick and tired of the retarded excuses... AZNAR LOST!DEAL WITH IT! and stop blaming his faults on the terrorists...

morons

[Kidlicious]

Using the best strategy to fight al-qaeda is important, but at least equally important is the fact that they are going about trying to and maybe succeding in affecting our elections. I'm very pissed off about that, and I hope that voters will not support any ***** ass parties that don't really have a strategy to fight al-qaeda, but who just want to cover their own ass.

[chequita guevara]

Sava, don't you understand. Rejecting Bush has to do with Spanish cowardice, not Spanish integrity. To accept that the Spanish had a valid reason to toss out their Bush supporting government means that maybe supporting Bush isn't the God ordained faith based obligation they want it to be. Better to rage about cowardice than let an independent thought disturb their brains.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by GePap

You said you could not understand them: i agreed with you, and stated hat the reaosn you can't is becuase you supported the war on Iraq while those that switched did not. It then comes down to a belief whether the war in Iraq has trully served any purpose in the war on terror, or whether Spain's participation in that war was a mistake. As someone who personally always supported that war, I am not surprised that you are unable to understand the decisions of people's with different opinions.

Its not a question of opposing viewpoints wrt support vs no support of the war. If the spanish voters who switched did so because of distrust of the government (the straw that broke the camels back etc). That I can understand. But if that was not the reason, then what was?

For example, a voter may not support the war but may generally understand the reasons why it took place and therefore support the PP (or perhaps for other reasons). Your country is then attacked by the same terrorists that the war is purportedly trying to eliminate and your choice is to switch your vote to a party that will no longer support external action against the terrorists?

Do you believe that would occur here or in Britain if AQ succesfully attacked either country?

[Sava]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Sava, don't you understand. Rejecting Bush has to do with Spanish cowardice, not Spanish integrity. To accept that the Spanish had a valid reason to toss out their Bush supporting government means that maybe supporting Bush isn't the God ordained faith based obligation they want it to be. Better to rage about cowardice than let an independent thought disturb their brains.

and what's really sad is the dopey right can't admit Aznar FAILED and couldn't protect his people.

[GePap]

Originally posted by SpencerH

For example, a voter may not support the war but may generally understand the reasons why it took place and therefore support the PP (or perhaps for other reasons). Your country is then attacked by the same terrorists that the war is purportedly trying to eliminate and your choice is to switch your vote to a party that will no longer support external action against the terrorists?

Sorry, but your response shows the problem-why do you associate understanding the reasons it took place to "therefore supports the PP"? That isd an asusmption based on your opinions, not hard facts. I understand the reaosns the Iraq war took place very well- I don;t support the War nor the Bush amdinistration. And take your second line-"the party that will no longer support external action against the terrorists" an utterly biased line based completely on your personal viewpoints. Is the war in Afghanistan "external action against the terorrists"? The PSOE said it would keep the troops in Iraq if a UN mandate was given-is this not "external actions against the terrorists"?

It is really not good to try to disprove an assertion of intellectual bias inhibiting empathy by posting an obviously biased response.

Do you believe that would occur here or in Britain if AQ succesfully attacked either country?

Not in the US-due to how the war has been presented. Of course, a mayority backed the war in Iraq. Though as time goes by, we will see. In the Uk? Don't know.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by GePap


In tersm of strategy, no "rules" are certain. If two sides are the same in strength- and once side demands something of low value to the other side-it makes no sense to waste immense strength fighting (since a war between equals is bound to end in a bloody stalemate) for something you might value far less than the other side.

So whether to "appease" when confronted by an equal is completely based on the aim of each side, and the value to them of the thing at the heart of the confrontation.

Ditto for the strong vs. the weak-though I will ask you if you buy Fez's arguement that no Spanish government could have done anything to stop this attack?

In your first example, you have 2 relatively equal powers, and one demands something trivial from the other. You say it makes sense to give it, rather than fight. My response to that is twofold: 1) why assume the demanding power will follow through with a threat and actually go to war; and 2) if you give in to a demand, even a trivial one, do you not set a poor precedent? If, via negotiation, both sides give something up, it is (IMO) a very different thing than one side just giving in.

As for "strong versus weak," well, let us take an extreme example in the current WoT:

USA trying to appease AQ. Think about what the US would have to do to actually appease those nutbars. We're not just talking about troop withdrawls here, folks. And for what? At the end of the day, while terror attacks are terrifying and horrible, AQ's effect on the US is like that of an irritating bug*. Absent nuclear weapons, AQ is weak in comparison to the US, so the US making huge concessions such as total withdrawl from the ME (political as well as military) and a change in our own values (anybody want to become a fundamentalist Islamic state?) doesn't make sense.

Finally, could a Spanish government prevented the attack? Of course, such a thing is possible, just like a US government that was more vigilant could have stopped 9/11. We all know that the US government was complacent, both under Clinton and Bush. Whether or not the Spanish government was as well I don't know. Maybe, maybe not. The investigation is just getting going.

-Arrian

* - in terms of how much they can kill and destroy. The other ramifications of AQ's attacks, like the Patriot Act and whatnot, are mostly of our own doing.