|
Terrorism Wins in Spain (pg. 7)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by YaleTrance
It's not like Zapatero's retreating the troops right away when gets a hold to power. The troops will be retreated in June by June 30, when the provisional Iraqi government is supposed to take over the country, unless there are extenuating circumstances that would make Spanish troops essential. This policy is NOT giving in to terror or the terrorist attacks of 3-11, it's a platform policy promise that is over a year old. They won, deal with it. |
Look its like this Yale, you don't think removing troops from Iraq is giving into terror.
World opinion, and defintely terrorist opinion overwhelmingly disagree with you here. Removing troops from Iraq, even if it was a campagin promise (which noone will recall) after a suicide attack is blunt straight giving in.
Now with all due respect to Zapatero. If I was him and shared his lefty views, and I even promised to the people that I would remove troops from Iraq I would simply say this:
"Yes, it is right that I promised to remove troops from Iraq in my election bid as you all know, not agreeing with the way things have been run in the war on Iraq. However the world has changed since this promise, the facts have changed. I would be foolish, and it would be the greatest blow to Spanish pride if I were to honor a promise designed for circumstances that do not exist anymore. We have been attacked! We have been violated in the most inhuman and cruelest way ever known to humanity in its long history! We must not be precieved to give into terror and we must not encourage it! We must make sure that the lives of our citizens in Madrid were not for nothing. And we must never, never give in to terrorism! For this reason, I have ordered that tour troops in Iraq remain their as long as they need. Further I have sent an additional 1000 Spanish troops to both help coalition forces in Afghanistan and in Iraq to demonstrate to the world Spanish resolve."
With such a speech, where he emphasizes, that yes he made a promise, but that promise was made for different circumstance, in a different world. I think it would be no probem for him to get the majority of Spaniards to understand his reasoning, and the essential of not only having his forces remain in Iraq, but even expanding them, this would send a reassuring message to the Spanish people, to the world, and most poinantly to Al Qaeda, "Yes you can change matters in elections, but you can never ever change them to policies that will suit your interests!".
Since this would come from a main vehemently opposed to the war on Iraq, I don't think anyone would question his motives in this case. And if he did that Al Qaeda could defintely not declare this as a victory.
But yea, lets just be chicken and go with "I promised".. because we all know how politicans ALWAYS keep their promises:rolleyes: |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by YaleTrance
OMG I would never expect this kind of demagoguery from this forum. No one has said that Aznar killed people. Can you please have some respect for the victims of 3-11 instead of using their deaths to promote your political views?
Shakka posts a couple of editorials from the "leftward leaning" NY Times and he posts an editorial by DAVID BROOKS. :stongue: Man, I took a class with David Brooks in college, if he's not a mainstream conservative voice I don't know what he is. He would be insulted to be called a leftist.
Spain's best interests won in this election. The democratic will of the people has to be respected whether you like it or not. It's sad because with all of your rhetoric it seems like you people don't have much respect for democracy. I wouldn't be complaining if the PP had won, Spain is a sovereign nation, let it choose the government it wants. This is the kind of mentality that could potentially lead to a US-supported coup and a return to a Franco-like fascist dictatorship. :o |
You fail to see the forest for the trees. It doesn't matter who wrote what editorial or what the result of the elections in Spain were. The bottom line is that the attack UNDENIABLY had an affect on the way the votes were cast. If the results had gone the other way, the attack would STILL have UNDENIABLY had an affect on the election, but in the opposite sense, as it would've been perceived as having strengthened Spain's resolve to fight global terrorism. What is important to realize is that the attacks affected people's voting, and that is all that matters to the terrorists; knowing your attacks were effective. Case closed. I don't care to what degree you want to quantify the effect, as it's irrelevant. Get off your high horse and open your eyes.
I'm sure all of us here at the TA forum are proud of your affiliation with Yale, but don't try to talk down to people because you feel that you've got some special insight into things. You're just another faceless internet forum poster with another opinion. Opinions are like s--everybody's got one.:rolleyes
And yes, the NY Times is leftward leaning. I should've called it a leftist rag if you want my honest opinion, but I try to stick to the facts without letting the opinions weigh too much on the discussion. So what of David Brooks? You say nothing of Edward Luttwak, who's editorial says pretty much the same thing as Brooks'. Hell, who cares who wrote it--pretty much every news clip that I've been reading on the situation paints the same picture: Whether you are for or against the war on terror, Spain's decisions can only be perceived as a step in the wrong direction. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Vesa
Finally, one more comment about the claim that the Spanish decision proved to terrorists that they can affect voting decisions. I don't believe that. Every sane political strategist knows that a single example proves nothing. If something worked in one country, it's not valid to generalize it to other countries. That would be simplistic stategy, which loses the war very quickly. For example, in some other European country, a similar bombing might have motivated a backlash from the entire community, rooting out the Islamist network in that country for the entire 21st century.
|
Vesa, I enjoy your posts and I absolutely respect your opinions, and I don't think that I would "disagree" with the above statement. However, what matters here is whether or not the terrorists themselves believe their attacks had any affect on things. If the answer is yes, then how can you say they will not be motivated to carry out similar attacks on other targets?
Take this crappy example: There's a burglar outside of my house and he cuts the telephone line to my house to keep me from calling for help. What he doesn't know is that all of my phones are cordless phones and the batteries are all dead, so I can't make an outgoing call in the first place. In any event, he can attack me and I can't make outgoing calls--for whatever it's worth, he's probably going to think that I didn't call for help b/c he cut my phone line, and he'll likely use the same tactic again on his next target because he has proven results from his methodology. Whether or not he is the cause of the phone outage or not, he believes he is, so he will continue to use the same methodolgy on future victims. |
|
|
| YaleTrance |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
You fail to see the forest for the trees. It doesn't matter who wrote what editorial or what the result of the elections in Spain were. The bottom line is that the attack UNDENIABLY had an affect on the way the votes were cast. If the results had gone the other way, the attack would STILL have UNDENIABLY had an affect on the election, but in the opposite sense, as it would've been perceived as having strengthened Spain's resolve to fight global terrorism. What is important to realize is that the attacks affected people's voting, and that is all that matters to the terrorists; knowing your attacks were effective. Case closed. I don't care to what degree you want to quantify the effect, as it's irrelevant. Get off your high horse and open your eyes. |
Reasoning flaws: You're talking about perception as if it were an absolute and unitary force, it isn't. What you perceive is not the same of what I perceive. What Spaniards perceive is not the same of what Americans perceive. If the PP had won, it would've been perceived from YOUR standpoint as having strenghtened Spain's resolve to fight global terrorism. Others would have perceived totally the opposite. This would probably be the case if a terrorist attack ocurred in US soil a few weeks before the election. Bush would probably be able to show strong leadership and overcome any problems in the polls, possibly winning the whole thing. Democracy is relative to populations, culture and circumstances. Perception is just as relative, you have yours and that's fine, but don't talk about it as if it were the single world viewpoint.
| quote: | | I'm sure all of us here at the TA forum are proud of your affiliation with Yale, but don't try to talk down to people because you feel that you've got some special insight into things. You're just another faceless internet forum poster with another opinion. Opinions are like s--everybody's got one.:rolleyes |
When did I say anything about my school affiliation? :conf: My intention is not to talk down to people, just trying to have a serious discussion about matters that affect some of my loved ones directly. If I feel I have some special insight into things it is because of my Spanish background, certainly having nothing to do with my school. :)
| quote: | | And yes, the NY Times is leftward leaning. I should've called it a leftist rag if you want my honest opinion, but I try to stick to the facts without letting the opinions weigh too much on the discussion. So what of David Brooks? You say nothing of Edward Luttwak, who's editorial says pretty much the same thing as Brooks'. Hell, who cares who wrote it--pretty much every news clip that I've been reading on the situation paints the same picture: Whether you are for or against the war on terror, Spain's decisions can only be perceived as a step in the wrong direction. |
I just mention David Brooks because unlike Edward Luttwak I happen to know him personally. Brilliant man, but not a leftist at all. The NY Times might be leftward leaning by American standards, but those writers definitely aren't. So if you're trying to make a point that the American Left is against the PSOE I'm not convinced with that at all. Spain's decisions are perceived by you and the mainstream American media as a step in the wrong direction, but perceived by me and the majority of Spaniards as a step in the right direction. Since Spain is a sovereign democracy, their perception is the only one that counted in these elections. |
|
|
| imokruok |
| quote: | Originally posted by YaleTrance No one has said that Aznar killed people. Can you please have some respect for the victims of 3-11 instead of using their deaths to promote your political views?
|
That's certainly been said in Spain, mostly by the protesters who went out and voted Socialist. Haven't you see the signs about "Aznar's 200 deaths" and pictures of Aznar, Blair, and Bush where the caption says, "This picture cost us 200 lives?" The only thing that caused Spain to lose 200 lives was the fanaticism of an evil sect of Islam. It seems the West, particularly Western Europeans, always like to blame themselves first. |
|
|
| YaleTrance |
| quote: | Originally posted by imokruok
That's certainly been said in Spain, mostly by the protesters who went out and voted Socialist. Haven't you see the signs about "Aznar's 200 deaths" and pictures of Aznar, Blair, and Bush where the caption says, "This picture cost us 200 lives?" The only thing that caused Spain to lose 200 lives was the fanaticism of an evil sect of Islam. It seems the West, particularly Western Europeans, always like to blame themselves first. |
Yes, I know it's been said in Spain. But I thought he was referring to the anti-PP people in this thread, and I would never say that Aznar killed those people. Maybe his misguided actions and policies incited terror, but of course that only the fanatic monsters of Al Qaeda "killed" 200 Spaniards. Those are two very different accusations. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by Vesa
Unlike in the US, if this were said to an especially temperamental European audience, their first thought would not be to stop his re-election after four years, but rather to lynch him on the spot for treason. Remember that during the last millennium, there were many city states in Europe where only weapons and popular support kept the leader alive. If the leader had betrayed the majority and admitted it openly to an audience, that would have been the utmost provocation, raising the mob's bloodlust to record levels. There are few if any such reports in European history because even the most stupid leader understood that one can't get away with it. |
Thats nice.. so your politicans can never admit to any mistake in thought or policy?
Even when the facts are clearly against them???
You guys got a hell of a system over there;) |
|
|
| YaleTrance |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
Thats nice.. so your politicans can never admit to any mistake in thought or policy?
Even when the facts are clearly against them???
You guys got a hell of a system over there;) |
What mistakes? All the mistakes that the PP did to get itself into this mess, including joining the Coalition of the Willing?
The PSOE has not assumed power just yet. The only fact is that a terrible tragedy occurred and the terrorists have to be held responsible. Leaving troops on Iraq won't aid that cause, it would only cause the PSOE to violate an old campaign promise supported by an absolute majority of Spaniards. Democracy my dear, democracy. Is that too hard of a concept to grasp? Apparently is not you're preferred system of government, which saddens me really. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by YaleTrance
When did I say anything about my school affiliation? |
I would assume YaleTrance is somehow related to Yale, though I won't fortune a guess. If it was a faulty assumption, it was an honest mistake.
| quote: | | So if you're trying to make a point that the American Left is against the PSOE I'm not convinced with that at all. |
No--that's not the point I was trying to make, though I can understand how it could be misconstrued that way. I was simply pointing out that op-ed pieces from both sides of the fence are saying that Spain's elections were clearly influenced by the attacks just 3 days prior. I didn't say that the attacks changed the outcome, just that they had an effect(I don't think that's a large stretch of any imagination), and consequently that is something that strengthens the group(s) that were behind the attacks, as it reinforces their belief that what they're doing is effective. |
|
|
| YaleTrance |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
I would assume YaleTrance is somehow related to Yale, though I won't fortune a guess. If it was a faulty assumption, it was an honest mistake. |
It is related, but that's irrelevant in this thread. As I said, if I seem arrogant in this thread it is due to my Spanish background, not my school affiliation.
| quote: | | No--that's not the point I was trying to make, though I can understand how it could be misconstrued that way. I was simply pointing out that op-ed pieces from both sides of the fence are saying that Spain's elections were clearly influenced by the attacks just 3 days prior. I didn't say that the attacks changed the outcome, just that they had an effect(I don't think that's a large stretch of any imagination), and consequently that is something that strengthens the group(s) that were behind the attacks, as it reinforces their belief that what they're doing is effective. |
I think we can all agree that the attacks had some influence one way or the other. Didn't 9-11 skyrocket Bush's approval rating for a long time? Everything has an effect on emperical measurements of politics, but there's a long stretch in saying "influenced" and "terrorism has won". I still don't see the other side of the fence saying that terrorism has won. David Brooks will definitely vote for Bush in 2004, he does not represent the other side of the fence. |
|
|
| UnBracKo |
| quote: | Originally posted by YaleTrance
Very true. Zapatero said that his government will be the most Europeísta (pro-European)and multilateral government that Spain has ever had. |
I like that. It's necessary more cooperation with our European friends, mainly with France and Germany cause with the support to the war the relations Spain - France and Spain - Germany, are very strained.
| quote: | | 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 |
Who is the dumb who have said this stupid and false comment???
I'm white with blue eyes :conf:
Oh and just a correction a person from Catalunya is not spelled Catalunyan.
Català in catalan ;)
Catalán in spanish
Catalan in english |
|
|
| YaleTrance |
| quote: | Originally posted by UnBracKo
Who is the dumb who have said this stupid and false comment???
I'm white with blue eyes :conf: |
fue este cabrón ;) :
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
4) Ethnicity - Spanish, Arabs they all look the same.
6) Hey its Europe, almost!
|
| quote: | Oh and just a correction a person from Catalunya is not spelled Catalunyan.
Català in catalan ;)
Catalán in spanish
Catalan in english |
oh i didn't know how to say it in English. Catalán it is for me then. :p |
|
|
|
|
