Terrorists claim victory in Spain

[GePap]

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.

"Poor precedent"-so you should waste huge recources simply for "precedent"? Sorry, but that is a waste, since "precedent" lasts only as long as the toher guys decides it lasts.

The problem here is the notion Spain just gave in-the fact is the PSOE had stated before the elections they would pull out, and if anything, tempered their response prior to the election. The events of last week made many Spaniards rethink their coutnries policy in Iraq. I still find it absurd to think that the voters of Spain had to decide who would govern them for the next 4 years based solely on whether it would set a precedent for a third party, specially given the questions they now had about the abiltiies and trusrtworthiness of their government.

Let me add for the record, I do not see this as "appeasement" of AQ by Spain under any circusmatnces, under the standard biased defintion or mine. Voters made a choice of their won government based on the events of the last few days and months. That is not appeasement. After all, the new Spanish government said they would remain in Iraq if a UN mandate was given. That is not appeasing AQ. The issue is one of the legitimacy of the occupation. If the Bush admin decides to set up a Un mandate in June, which is after all when the transition of power occurs, then Spain remains in Iraq, which is hardly what AQ wants.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by GePap

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.

As I posted earlier, if 80% of the voters oppose the war and 37% voted PP then a substantial number who voted for the PP must have been in the group who also oppose the war.

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"?

Zapatero made a campaign pledge to pull the troops out of Iraq unless the US turned over the government to the UN. Any reasonable reader of the (understandable) US antipathy to the UN would understand that is not going to happen. Therefore a reasonable assumption is that a vote for the socialists is a vote to remove the troops from Iraq.

BTW: you have an interesting take on 'personal viewpoints' (as being somehow fraudulant). All data analysis done by humans includes such viewpoints. I can point out yours if you like

[Ned]

GePap, correct me if I'm wrong, but it is my understanding that the coalition is already operating under a UN mandate.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Ned
GePap, correct me if I'm wrong, but it is my understanding that the coalition is already operating under a UN mandate.

the US (because we all know it's not really a coalition) is violating UN resolutions by using depleted uranium... oh wait, but we attacked Iraq because they were violating UN resolutions...

hypocrisy

[GePap]

Originally posted by SpencerH


As I posted earlier, if 80% of the voters oppose the war and 37% voted PP then a substantial number who voted for the PP must have been in the group who also oppose the war.

And this says nothing to back your contention that understanding the reasons for the war by itself makes you support the PP. Another just as valid theory is that there are people in Spain for whom the social and economic policies of the PP, or its stance on the Basque question, ie. internal issues, are more valid and important to them than the war on Iraq. Imagine Ben Kenobi, who, as a pacifist, would vote for Bush without question, becuase his main issue is abortion.

Zapatero made a campaign pledge to pull the troops out of Iraq unless the US turned over the government to the UN. Any reasonable reader of the (understandable) US antipathy to the UN would understand that is not going to happen. Therefore a reasonable assumption is that a vote for the socialists is a vote to remove the troops from Iraq.

Ah, so the ultimate reaosn for Spain no longer staying in Iraq is the inability of the Bush amdinistration to create and international mandate in Iraq in order to bring in more nations solely for its ideological issues against the UN-yes, a reasonable reader can see that very clearly. one could hope the Bush admin. would prove them wrong.

BTW: you have an interesting take on 'personal viewpoints' (as being somehow fraudulant). All data analysis done by humans includes such viewpoints. I can point out yours if you like

While all annalysis includes bias, one is able to see bias and deal with it. I am honest with my bias. I know what it is, I know when I can and can't empathize, and don;t make claims like those you did. So wink all you want- I know when I am biased and will be honest about it-you on the other hand have yet to show this possible.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned
GePap, correct me if I'm wrong, but it is my understanding that the coalition is already operating under a UN mandate.

The SC gave recognition to the interim government- tepid recognition to the authority of the transitional authority. But in June the US has stated it will hand over sovereignty to the Iraqis-which will end the transtional authority and thus change the staus of the occupational forces. What mandate will they be under when that change happens? The new government says they will pull out by June-ie, they are making a statement about what role the UN will have once soverignty in theory returns to an Iraqi government.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by GePap

The problem here is the notion Spain just gave in-the fact is the PSOE had stated before the elections they would pull out, and if anything, tempered their response prior to the election. The events of last week made many Spaniards rethink their coutnries policy in Iraq.

Isnt that what I've been arguing and you've been denying? I

I still find it absurd to think that the voters of Spain had to decide who would govern them for the next 4 years based solely on whether it would set a precedent for a third party, specially given the questions they now had about the abiltiies and trusrtworthiness of their government.

Let me add for the record, I do not see this as "appeasement" of AQ by Spain under any circusmatnces, under the standard biased defintion or mine. Voters made a choice of their won government based on the events of the last few days and months. That is not appeasement. After all, the new Spanish government said they would remain in Iraq if a UN mandate was given. That is not appeasing AQ.

I agree that this describes the majority of the pro-PSEO voters, but not those that switched. I think it likely that the switch voters believe that AQ attacks on Spain are less likely to occur if Spain does not support US policy and in that respect it is an 'appeasement vote'.

[chequita guevara]

If the U.S. tosses out Bush (and hopefully sends him to prison where he and his belong), would you acuse us of appeasing the terrorists?

[GePap]

Probably.

[DinoDoc]

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

No. I'm refering to a strategy in which a state aims to modify the behavior of an aggressor by conceeding it power in the hope that the gesture will make the aggressor feel more secure, thus removing the motive for its aggression. I think its an ineffective and dangerous strategy because it allows the balance of power to shift against the threatened state.

[GePap]

Originally posted by SpencerH


Isnt that what I've been arguing and you've been denying?

What a short memory you have. You said you could not understand how voters could have changed thier votes due to the attack- I agreed with you, I said you could not understand due to your position on the Iraq war (in my first post I said this whole debate is just another proxy debate for the Iraq war).

I agree that this describes the majority of the pro-PSEO voters, but not those that switched. I think it likely that the switch voters believe that AQ attacks on Spain are less likely to occur if Spain does not support US policy and in that respect it is an 'appeasement vote'.

And is this a false assumption? If AQ won;t attack Spain anymore, then it is the correct assumption to make. If AQ will keep attacking Spain anyway, then it is the wrong assumption-BUT that says nothing about whether keeping troops in Iraq in any ways lower the chances of further inveitbale AQ attacks vs Spain now does it?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus


Yes they do. The main reason Spain was attacked, and not, say, Germany, is because of Aznars pro-Bush stand concerning Iraq (eventhough 80+% of the Spaniards opposed the Iraq war).

I for one am very glad to see the PP out of office. The Spanish people made a good and sensible vote.

Finally, a lefty who acknowledges the reality of why Spain was attacked!

[Arrian]

Originally posted by GePap

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.

"Poor precedent"-so you should waste huge recources simply for "precedent"? Sorry, but that is a waste, since "precedent" lasts only as long as the toher guys decides it lasts.

The problem here is the notion Spain just gave in-the fact is the PSOE had stated before the elections they would pull out, and if anything, tempered their response prior to the election. The events of last week made many Spaniards rethink their coutnries policy in Iraq. I still find it absurd to think that the voters of Spain had to decide who would govern them for the next 4 years based solely on whether it would set a precedent for a third party, specially given the questions they now had about the abiltiies and trusrtworthiness of their government.

Let me add for the record, I do not see this as "appeasement" of AQ by Spain under any circusmatnces, under the standard biased defintion or mine. Voters made a choice of their won government based on the events of the last few days and months. That is not appeasement. After all, the new Spanish government said they would remain in Iraq if a UN mandate was given. That is not appeasing AQ. The issue is one of the legitimacy of the occupation. If the Bush admin decides to set up a Un mandate in June, which is after all when the transition of power occurs, then Spain remains in Iraq, which is hardly what AQ wants.

Just to be clear, I've never accused the Spanish of appeasement. I got into the discussion of appeasement, but not to try and pin that accusation on Spain.

Precedent is pretty damn important. You say it only lasts as long as the other side decides it lasts. EXACTLY. It's all about the other sides perception of your actions. If you give in when they demand things, they will see their demands were rewarded, and demand something more important. So the precedent is not meaningless at all.

-Arrian

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by GePap

And this says nothing to back your contention that understanding the reasons for the war by itself makes you support the PP. Another just as valid theory is that there are people in Spain for whom the social and economic policies of the PP, or its stance on the Basque question, ie. internal issues, are more valid and important to them than the war on Iraq. Imagine Ben Kenobi, who, as a pacifist, would vote for Bush without question, becuase his main issue is abortion.

It is not my contention. Stop reading small parts of posts and jumping to conclusions. I used a hypothetical example of someone who opposed the war but supported the PP.

Zapatero made a campaign pledge to pull the troops out of Iraq unless the US turned over the government to the UN. Any reasonable reader of the (understandable) US antipathy to the UN would understand that is not going to happen. Therefore a reasonable assumption is that a vote for the socialists is a vote to remove the troops from Iraq.

Ah, so the ultimate reaosn for Spain no longer staying in Iraq is the inability of the Bush amdinistration to create and international mandate in Iraq in order to bring in more nations solely for its ideological issues against the UN-yes, a reasonable reader can see that very clearly. one could hope the Bush admin. would prove them wrong.

While all annalysis includes bias, one is able to see bias and deal with it. I am honest with my bias. I know what it is, I know when I can and can't empathize, and don;t make claims like those you did. So wink all you want- I know when I am biased and will be honest about it-you on the other hand have yet to show this possible.

You must have a MPD to have written the last two paragraphs.

EDIT: fixed quote

[GePap]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
No. I'm refering to a strategy in which a state aims to modify the behavior of an aggressor by conceeding it power in the hope that the gesture will make the aggressor feel more secure, thus removing the motive for its aggression. I think its an ineffective and dangerous strategy because it allows the balance of power to shift against the threatened state.

The problem DD is who defines "aggressor". You have never been one to believe in the UN, so who has the right to make that definiton? Without a system to legitimately label a state "aggressor", your definition runs into all sortsof problems.