|
Terrorism Wins in Spain (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| I believe that it's not so much the terrorist attacks that caused the fiasco of the PP as it was their behaviour after the incident. Although the notoriously obvious suspect was AQ, the government intentionally pretended that it's prime suspect was ETA. If they hadn't done that, I'm certain that the results would be a bit different. Regardless of what Bush did in Iraq later on, after the 9-11 attacks he managed to unite his nation and to gain massive popular support by quickly identifying the attackers and announcing retaliatory actions. Aznar, on the other hand, tried to obfuscate the truth, and that course of actions lost him the elections. |
|
|
| UnBracKo |
| quote: | Originally posted by YaleTrance
It really bothers me that you're so convinced that the results of the elections would've been different if it hadn't been for 3-11. Dude, polls are just polls, and many of them were within the margin of error prior to 3-11! |
I have to disagree with you. I'm sure PP would has won before the 11-M, also all the polls as you said, confirmed it.
Well I'm not a PP voter but I have to say their economical policies have been excellent. They reduced the historical high inflation in Spain, the unemployement, they invigorated the economy with good economic growth taxes every year (over the European Union growth tax)... and this (quality of life / more salaries) is what the persons want. no??
However their social, foreign policies... have been mediocre. Their support in the war was an estrategy for having licences for extract petrol in Irak. That's clear!! the proof: Repsol, Campsa... have signed contracts for extract petrol in Irak. So ppl is not silly and many ppl were against this war.
The "Galicia" catastroph was an error of the government because they could put the boat in a port and transfer all the petrol there. What did they do?? To keep away the boat from the coast and then after 4 or 5 days (I don't remember exactly) the liner broke in two parts, and all the oil spilled over the ocean. Tragedy!! for Galicia.
But although that happened all ppl in here thought PP would win before the 11-M. What happened after 11-M?? The government reaction was only for their benefits. If they would have said: "Confirmed it's Al-Qaida", then all the society would has been against them cause many ppl would have thought that these attacks were a islamist reaction for the spanish support to the war.
So for the government (a government who has used the terrorism, majority the ETA's terrorism, for justify their actions and many policies) the best explanation before an elections was: "it's ETA the responsible of these attacks" and then the major part of the society would have thought: "ahh ing ETA, we should vote PP, because their terrorism policies are very harsh and effective and it's the best way to fight against terrorism". Again... we have to admit that they have reduced the ETA band in a few members. Their democratic policies against terrorism have been excellent so this plan (say to the society that was ETA) should have results for them.
Well said that, what was the mistake?? To hide info, to deceive the society (me include) and even to decieve the European governments saying that the responsible of the attacks was ETA, when they knew with real proofs that was Al-Qaida.
This hide of proofs enraged the society and all the ppl went on the streets in the demonstrations demanding the real info. Well that happened one / two days before the elections so it's clear that has influenced in this elections. Many voters went disapointed to vote and so these results.
Maybe PP would has needed the support of other parties to govern, but they would has won before the 11-M, sure.
The PSOE programm was not really good, and PSOE has won for the PP's errors.
That's a review of the last political/social facts in Spain. I have tried to be impartial since I'm not a PSOE or PP voter. I defend the interests of my region, Catalonia, so I voted a nationalist catalan party (CIU, the third party of Spain after this elections).
Cheers, _David_
edit: (my 500th post yeahh!!!:D ) |
|
|
| YaleTrance |
| quote: | Originally posted by UnBracKo
I have to disagree with you. I'm sure PP would has won before the 11-M, also all the polls as you said, confirmed it.
Well I'm not a PP voter but I have to say their economical policies have been excellent. They reduced the historical high inflation in Spain, the unemployement, they invigorated the economy with good economic growth taxes every year (over the European Union growth tax)... and this (quality of life / more salaries) is what the persons want. no??
However their social, foreign policies... have been mediocre. Their support in the war was an estrategy for having licences for extract petrol in Irak. That's clear!! the proof: Repsol, Campsa... have signed contracts for extract petrol in Irak. So ppl is not silly and many ppl were against this war.
The "Galicia" catastroph was an error of the government because they could put the boat in a port and transfer all the petrol there. What did they do?? To keep away the boat from the coast and then after 4 or 5 days (I don't remember exactly) the liner broke in two parts, and all the oil spilled over the ocean. Tragedy!! for Galicia.
But although that happened all ppl in here thought PP would win before the 11-M. What happened after 11-M?? The government reaction was only for their benefits. If they would have said: "Confirmed it's Al-Qaida", then all the society would has been against them cause many ppl would have thought that these attacks were a islamist reaction for the spanish support to the war.
So for the government (a government who has used the terrorism, majority the ETA's terrorism, for justify their actions and many policies) the best explanation before an elections was: "it's ETA the responsible of these attacks" and then the major part of the society would have thought: "ahh ing ETA, we should vote PP, because their terrorism policies are very harsh and effective and it's the best way to fight against terrorism". Again... we have to admit that they have reduced the ETA band in a few members. Their democratic policies against terrorism have been excellent so this plan (say to the society that was ETA) should have results for them.
Well said that, what was the mistake?? To hide info, to deceive the society (me include) and even to decieve the European governments saying that the responsible of the attacks was ETA, when they knew with real proofs that was Al-Qaida.
This hide of proofs enraged the society and all the ppl went on the streets in the demonstrations demanding the real info. Well that happened one / two days before the elections so it's clear that has influenced in this elections. Many voters went disapointed to vote and so these results.
Maybe PP would had needed the support of other parties to govern, but they would win before the 11-M, sure.
The PSOE programm was not really good, and PSOE won for the PP's errors.
That's a review of the last political/social facts in Spain. I have tried to be impartial since I'm not a PSOE or PP voter. I defend the interests of my region, Catalonia, so I voted a nationalist catalan party (CIU, the third party of Spain after this elections).
Cheers, _David_ |
fair enough. but my main point is that the PP brought this upon themselves for lying and deceiving the people after 3-11. that just pushed their momentum down. whether some election results make al-qaeda happy or not should not be the concern of democratic people. |
|
|
| UnBracKo |
| quote: | Originally posted by YaleTrance
fair enough. but my main point is that the PP brought this upon themselves for lying and deceiving the people after 3-11. that just pushed their momentum down. whether some election results make al-qaeda happy or not should not be the concern of democratic people. |
Yeah is what I think also. PP brought themselves these results for this 11-M atttack wrong policy. PSOE hasn't won for their effort and their programm otherwise for the PP's errors (and specially this last error).
Also the reaction of the voters was excellent, I think in this elections the tax of participity was too high (75% of the voters went to vote). This a great thing for the democracy. |
|
|
| anuneventrade |
Frankly put, Spain has put itself in a very awkward position. Not only is it backing out of its agreement with the US, it's making itself look like a weak country that can be defeated.
One attack and they're out of the war? See it as: We can demolish them easily.
Secondly, it's showing a weakness of leadership. How can you convince your people that your country is safe if you're doing nothing to prevent further attacks other than stepping out of the war, which will surely bring more attention in the ways of Spain, becuase they won't be as much on gaurd.
Thirdly, it's making Spain look bad in terms of partnership. Who is going to want to team up with Spain in a future war if they have a history of backing down/giving into defeat? |
|
|
| YaleTrance |
| quote: | Originally posted by anuneventrade
Frankly put, Spain has put itself in a very awkward position. Not only is it backing out of its agreement with the US, it's making itself look like a weak country that can be defeated.
One attack and they're out of the war? See it as: We can demolish them easily.
Secondly, it's showing a weakness of leadership. How can you convince your people that your country is safe if you're doing nothing to prevent further attacks other than stepping out of the war, which will surely bring more attention in the ways of Spain, becuase they won't be as much on gaurd.
Thirdly, it's making Spain look bad in terms of partnership. Who is going to want to team up with Spain in a future war if they have a history of backing down/giving into defeat? |
But they're not out of the war because of the attack, they're out of the war because the PSOE won the election and this was a campaign promise from over a year ago (a foreign policy supported by an absolute majority of Spaniards). They would have retreated the troops in a 4 month period regardless of any attacks.
This doesn't show weakness of leadership, it shows a change of leadership.
Partnerships between democratic countries are volatile during elections and governamental transitions.
The PP sucks. if you're a Democrat in the US you should be glad for Spain for shifting towards the center. |
|
|
| imokruok |
Well, the Poles still have their balls. Thank you, Poland. :)
| quote: |
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/...raq-poland.html
15 March 2004
BRUSSELS, Belgium (Reuters) -- Poland has vowed not to pull troops out of Iraq because of "terrorist" attacks and said it was willing to remain in command of a stabilisation force there if Spain, which had been due to take over, withdrew.
Spain was due to take command of 9,000 troops in central Iraq on July 1, but that was thrown into doubt on Monday when Socialist Prime Minister-elect Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero said he could bring home the Spanish 1,300 troops currently there.
"Revising our positions on Iraq after terrorists attacks would be to admit that terrorists are stronger and that they are right (to pursue attacks)," Prime Minister Leszek Miller told a news conference in the Polish town of Tarnow.
Zapataro's Sunday election victory was attributed in large part to a voter backlash against the previous government's support for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq last year.
Many Spaniards blame last week's Madrid train bombings, which killed 200 people, on Spain's backing for the U.S.-led invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Poland has 2,400 troops in Iraq and has led a 9,000-strong division of troops from 24 nations in a central-south zone since last September.
"If it is necessary, we will continue leading the multinational division," Polish Ambassador to NATO Jerzy M. Nowak told Reuters in Brussels. "We are prepared for that even if Spain is not able to fulfil its promise." |
|
|
|
| NeoPhono |
| I think what anuneventrade has said has merit because I believe that what she says is what the bulk of the world feels happened in Spain. I argue that most people will not take the time to look at the politics or other motivating forces behind the Spanish elections and merely see it as the terrorist bombings changing the outcome of the election and the course of a government. I still maintain my original argument that the bombing did have a direct impact on the voting, but even if you do not agree with that, the way the world sees what has happened is more important than why it happened. The media reports I have read from the US, Europe and more importantly the Middle East all say the same thing: the bombings changed the results of a freely democratic election. This is what is damanging and this is what I believe will only fuel the terrorist propoganda machine and al-Qaeda. |
|
|
| imokruok |
I won't bother to post the whole thing, because people won't read it, but Mark Steyn makes the same point in his latest Telegraph editorial:
| quote: | | To be sure, there are all kinds of John Kerry-esque footnoted nuances to Sunday's stark numbers. One sympathises with those electors reported to be angry at the government's pathetic insistence, in the face of the emerging evidence, that Thursday's attack was the work of Eta, when it was obviously the jihad boys. One's sympathy, however, disappears with their decision to vote for a party committed to disengaging from the war against the jihadi. As Margaret Thatcher would have said: "This is no time to go wobbly, Manuel." But they did. And no one will remember the footnotes, the qualifications, the background - just the final score: terrorists toppled a European government. |
Link |
|
|
| anuneventrade |
| quote: | Originally posted by imokruok
Well, the Poles still have their balls. Thank you, Poland. :) |
Your welcome :D
imokruok, I will read that link and comment on it in a little bit. AORN, I'm wickedly busy.
| quote: | But they're not out of the war because of the attack, they're out of the war because the PSOE won the election and this was a campaign promise from over a year ago (a foreign policy supported by an absolute majority of Spaniards). They would have retreated the troops in a 4 month period regardless of any attacks.
This doesn't show weakness of leadership, it shows a change of leadership.
Partnerships between democratic countries are volatile during elections and governamental transitions. |
Yes, a change in leadership that uses the first attack against them as a reason to back out of the war. If the new leader is already backing out, who's to say he'll ever stand his ground? I'm just stating what an enemy would think.
| quote: | | The PP sucks. if you're a Democrat in the US you should be glad for Spain for shifting towards the center. |
Oh good grascious. Here we go with generalizations again. :rolleyes: |
|
|
| YaleTrance |
| quote: | Originally posted by anuneventrade
Yes, a change in leadership that uses the first attack against them as a reason to back out of the war. If the new leader is already backing out, who's to say he'll ever stand his ground? I'm just stating what an enemy would think.
Oh good grascious. Here we go with generalizations again. :rolleyes:[/font] |
I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be rude or anything, I'm just clearing up some basic political facts about my second country.
Zapatero (the new leader)is not ALREADY backing out of Iraq as a result of the attacks. Please understand this, the PSOE was always clear and firm in its position that it would phase out Spanish troops out of Iraq if elected. This has been a key part of the PSOE's platform for over a year now. The attacks didn't change this in any way. This party IS standing its ground in doing this, if it decided to do otherwise then we could question its integrity. Maybe the attacks influenced the elections to some degree, but they certainly did not change the winning party's policy on Iraq.
Please understand that the PP (the party that was booted out of power and supported the war on Iraq) is the right-wing party that is a direct legacy of the establishment of Francisco Franco's fascist and corrupt dictatorship that ended in 1976.
What I said is no generalization. An American Democrat if put in Spain's context would definitely be against the PP and in favor of the PSOE or one of the provincial parties, unless you were a Zell Miller kind of Democrat.
Nevertheless, that's irrelevant and inconsequential, just like what caused the PSOE to win yesterday. Is it so hard to accept the democratic will of the Spanish people? |
|
|
| YaleTrance |
| quote: | Originally posted by Vesa
Terrorists don't need to look at the response. They believe even before their acts that they have a possibility of getting a political change through terrorism sooner or later. They wouldn't commit their acts in the first place if their motivation depended on a single election.
The only thing which would reduce the motivation of terrorists is if they knew any change is impossible. Does one election affect that probability? No. Does any number of elections affect that probability? Not necessarily. They can keep on going year after year if they think that somewhere along the line, a change is possible. Just look at ETA. There has been no very significant appeasement for decades. Has that reduced their willingness to go on? No. |
Exactly. No appeasement for ETA has come from neither the PP or the PSOE. au contraire. And their willingness is still there.
| quote: | | If PP had won, terrorists would still have known that they have a possibility of getting a political change at a later time. So they wouldn't have stopped, anyway. Is there any proof that their determination to act would have been any less if PP had won? No. Even if no government had ever given in to terrorists, there would still be new candidates who think they are the first ones who can pull it off. Especially if they think God is on their side, which would be a logical explanation why all previous attempts by infidels have failed. |
If the PP had won, the terrorists would have more incentives to attack Spain AGAIN. Much more than now anyways. If anyone puts themselves in the position of Spanish voters, it is obvious that they made the right choice for geopolitical, national self-interest and security reasons.
| quote: | | On the other hand, if voters notice that the ruling party is acting against the democratic will of the people, should they vote for the ruling party just because of terrorism? No, that would be letting terrorists affect their decision! |
That's what would probably happen in the US if an attack happened a week before the election. The Spanish electorate simply behaved differently, and I agree with them.
| quote: | | In a democracy, it's wisest to vote for a party which one believes to care for voters. PP didn't give out such a signal at the decisive moment on the day before the elections. And PP hadn't given such a signal when they dispatched Spanish troops to Iraq, contrary to the will of record-level demonstrations in Spain. |
Thumbs up for democracy in Spain and everywhere else. 
| quote: | | Spain is geographically located in Old Europe, so the most important message that these elections sent to foreign countries was that the Spanish people accepts and likes being in Old Europe. This was geopolitically a more significant issue than War Against Terrorism. If someone says that Al-Qaida is a more important issue than the Spanish location on the geopolitical map, isn't that giving in to terrorism? |
Very true. Zapatero said that his government will be the most Europeísta (pro-European)and multilateral government that Spain has ever had. Spain believes it's a part of Old Europe and rightly so, even if they all look like Arabs like someone ridiculously said in this thread as I looked at the picture of my pasty-white, blonde and blue-eyed Catalunyan ex-girlfriend. :p |
|
|
|
|
