From this morning's WashPost, an excellent op-ed piece by a Spanish politician related to the recent bombings and Radical Islamic Terrorism...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Mar20.html
Printable View
From this morning's WashPost, an excellent op-ed piece by a Spanish politician related to the recent bombings and Radical Islamic Terrorism...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Mar20.html
The US does not need the coalition to provide military resources and personnel in Iraq. The US military would have been perfectly capable of invading and policing Iraq on its own. The purpose of the coalition is to provide a veneer of legitimacy to the American occupation. Spanish forces only make up a miniscule proportion of the occupation force in Iraq. It's not the loss of troops that wil hurt the US, it's the fact that it has lost a major supporter of the war in Iraq (note: NOT the war on terror). Given that the war was done unilaterally and outside the framework of the UN, I don't see this as a bad thing.
Could you quote the article here please (if it's not too long, but you can make the text size smaller too) - unregistered users at the site can't see anything :pQuote:
Originally posted by DocFrance
From this morning's WashPost, an excellent op-ed piece by a Spanish politician related to the recent bombings and Radical Islamic Terrorism...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Mar20.html
Bah. You suck, man.
Quote:
The Terrorism Debate
Sunday, March 21, 2004; Page B06
THE RECENT wave of bloody terrorist bombings, from Madrid to Baghdad, underlines the special importance of the war on terrorism as an issue in this year's presidential campaign. It is vital that voters hear a robust debate between President Bush and Sen. John F. Kerry about how the war has been conducted since Sept. 11, 2001, and how best to manage it in the coming four years. But that argument should convey a message of fortitude and not weakness to America's enemies -- especially the Islamic terrorist groups that may dream of reversing U.S. policy with a single, traumatizing blow. That, sadly, could be the outcome in Spain, where the winner of last weekend's election, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, has responded to his upset victory with a message of retreat from Iraq that the authors of the Madrid train bombings will claim as a success.
By that measure, President Bush's national security address Friday, and the earlier exchange of broadsides between the Bush and Kerry campaigns last week, offered a good beginning to the American debate. The rhetoric may have been tough and some of the charges overheated. But both Mr. Kerry and Mr. Bush started from a common point: The United States must not shrink from the challenge, either in Iraq or elsewhere. Though he condemned what he described as a failed policy, Mr. Kerry declared in a speech Wednesday that "having gone to war, we have a responsibility to keep and a national interest to achieve in a stable and peaceful Iraq." And though Mr. Bush might perceive a benefit in promising to wind down the mission, he sent the opposite message: "We will never turn over Iraq to terrorists who intend our own destruction," he said. "We will not fail the Iraqi people, who have placed their trust in us. Whatever it takes, we will fight and work to assure the success of freedom in Iraq."
That there are irresponsible alternatives to these positions has been demonstrated by both Republicans and Democrats in recent days. The Democratic version came from former Vermont governor Howard Dean, who implied that Mr. Bush was somehow responsible for the terrorist attacks in Madrid. Mr. Kerry, who had unwisely recruited Mr. Dean as a surrogate spokesman, quickly and rightly repudiated him. A couple of days earlier, Vice President Cheney charged, not for the first time, that Mr. Kerry advocated returning to the pre-9/11 policy of treating terrorism primarily as a problem of law enforcement. The implication was clear: A vote for Mr. Kerry would be a vote against a war on terrorism. The claim was missing from the vice president's subsequent and broader assault on Mr. Kerry on Wednesday, and appropriately so: It simply isn't true, as Mr. Kerry's own speech made clear.
That there is much to legitimately disagree about was manifest in the week's speeches. Mr. Kerry argued that Mr. Bush overstated the Iraqi threat, that he failed to build a strong alliance for the war or prepare for its aftermath, that he sent too few troops and then did not give them the body armor they needed. He promised an expanded army, an expanded alliance in Iraq and a long list of benefits for soldiers, reservists, veterans and their families. The essence of the Bush offer, as Mr. Cheney described it, is to stay the course; the suggestion is that Mr. Kerry might not. The vice president pointed to the senator's shifts of position on Iraq and his past opposition to weapons systems and mocked his stance on alliances, saying only those countries who oppose the United States seem to have Mr. Kerry's respect. There are real differences here. As Mr. Cheney said, Americans may have the clearest and most meaningful choice on national security in any presidential election during the last 20 years. But that choice should be about how the United States can win the crucial battles now underway -- not whether they should be fought.
I can't really blame Spain for backing out. It's favouring its people over anyone else, and why wouldn't it? Maybe they're "cowardly" or whatever you'd like to call it, but they're saving lives of their own citizens by preventing terrorist attacks. I wouldn't want my house bombed if I could avoid it. It's not a global threat. It's not imperative that the US has support. I can see why it would upset people though. It's not good to lose an ally. And it is losing an ally.
Hm, if you think of Spain and its leaders like a mother and children, it makes it easier to understand. If some of your children are killed because you're supporting another family you don't know that well, are you going to keep fighting, or take your remaining children and run? Like that only... not. And political.
The Hitler analogy doesn't apply. For one thing, the comment about "if only the english and french had've fought". How could they have known that all that would've been avoided? For all they knew, Hitler could've beaten them and took over all of Europe just because they wouldn't yeild. Or maybe if they fought the war would've been over quickly. Who knows? We know what happened, but it would be impossible for them to know how their actions would affect things. Hindsight is 20/20, and all that.
The US is very not an empire. They're not trying to take over Iraq, they don't have territories that they've taken over. They're just not.
Who is to say that the terrorists won't keep attacking Spain? This is where the appeasement analogy does apply - France and England handed over the Sudetenland on the premise that Hitler would stay true to his word. Likewise, the Spanish people voted for a leader who would bring them out of the war on the premise at they wouldn't be attacked again. This time, though, they weren't even given a false promise that they wouldn't be attacked. They are afraid, and are thinking of their personal safety before their freedom. What is going to happen in Spain the next time terrorists attack, and the time after that?Quote:
Originally posted by Emerald Aeris
I can't really blame Spain for backing out. It's favouring its people over anyone else, and why wouldn't it? Maybe they're "cowardly" or whatever you'd like to call it, but they're saving lives of their own citizens by preventing terrorist attacks.
It is the will of the people, though. So be it.
I fear neither pain nor death, but I do fear a cage from which I can never escape; a cage where I will stay until I am old and empty and have come to accept it as my ultimate fate.
Spain was attacked because they supported the US. It's pretty logical to assume the attacks will stop now that they don't.
Sure, it may be logical, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they will stop attacking Spain. If a man holds a gun to your head and says "Give me all your money or I'll shoot," is there any guarantee that he won't shoot you after you give him your wallet? I wouldn't trust a terrorist with my life, or anything at all.
But if you don't give him your wallet, you're pretty much garanteed to get shot. Is your wallet and pride really worth that much?
The terrorists wouldn't want the wallet.. they get enough money from Saudi Arabia.
Take care all.
Quote:
If they go against the majority of the people, they are not representative.
If they don't do what they feel is right, civil rights and women's suffrage (along with many other things) would likely be fairy tales in the U.S.
Well, i think it really depends on the case. Gay marriage, for example: I can't see any rational justification against it, just religious reasons or the Glorious Argumentation of "can I marry a chair then?".
A war, on the other hand, involves pain and bloodshed, no matter how you look at it. Then probably the governor should listen to people crying they don't want to go to war.
AAAARGH, READ THE DAMN LONG POST I PUT IN THE FIRST PAGEQuote:
Likewise, the Spanish people voted for a leader who would bring them out of the war on the premise at they wouldn't be attacked again. This time, though, they weren't even given a false promise that they wouldn't be attacked. They are afraid, and are thinking of their personal safety before their freedom.
It should anwser to that.
Thank you.
:)
How the god is two major powers signing a treaty of non-intervention with a country that was an insanely large threat to the sovereignty of just about everyone even remotely similar to the people of a country voting in a different government due to the actions of anonymous die-hard extremists? Just because it involves the government withdrawing troops from another country (which is/was nowhere near as large a threat as the Third Reich?).Quote:
Originally posted by DocFrance
Then you might not know enough about pre-WWII history. Let me give you a quick lesson. Hitler wanted Czechoslovakia (the Sudetenland, in particular). Germany was ready to make a forceful invasion, but England and France wanted to prevent violence. So they held a meeting with Germany and signed a treaty that basically said that England and France would not intervene in the invasion of Czechoslovakia if Germany didn't invade any other countries. This was known as appeasement. Of course, Hitler never upheld the treaty and went on to invade Poland. England and France then finally pulled their heads out of their butts and decided to take a stand. If they had taken a stand earlier, a lot of bad things could have been prevented
Comparing that to appeasement is insane. Conservatives seem to jump at everything and call it "appeasement", as if there's anything remotely like Nazi Germany to appease here.
oh, I know that's late, probably been answered and completely off-topic by now. Probably.
haha, gotta love that. BECAUSE AN ANIMAL CAN SIGN A MARRIAGE CONTRACT, YOU KNOW.Quote:
Originally posted by Shadow Nexus
just religious reasons or the Glorious Argumentation of "can I marry a chair then?".
I don't see what's so insane about it. I think you're just choosing not to consider my analogy and labeling it as "insane." And who said anything about conservatives?Quote:
Originally posted by Duo
How the god is two major powers signing a treaty of non-intervention with a country that was an insanely large threat to the sovereignty of just about everyone even remotely similar to the people of a country voting in a different government due to the actions of anonymous die-hard extremists? Just because it involves the government withdrawing troops from another country (which is/was nowhere near as large a threat as the Third Reich?).
Comparing that to appeasement is insane. Conservatives seem to jump at everything and call it "appeasement", as if there's anything remotely like Nazi Germany to appease here.
I made that argument first. ^_^ I feel so pwoud.Quote:
the Glorious Argumentation of "can I marry a chair then?".
Want a medal? Or a permission to marry an inanimated object? I'd like to marry my books...Quote:
I made that argument first. ^_^ I feel so pwoud.