The Spanish vote was decided by the high turnout. The outgoing governments vote actually went down only by 700,000. What won it for the Socialists was that more left-wingers went out to vote than last time (up 3 million).
The desire to "affirm democracy" led to a higher turnout which traditionally favours the left-wing who have more trouble getting their vote out.
My particular take on this is not so much that Spanish left-wingers think they can opt out of the terrorism problem but that they simply want a government of their own stamp to deal with it.
Which goes back to memories of General Francos fascist dictatorship and a visceral fear of right-wing "security" clampdowns.
They know security clampdowns will be necessary but they dont really trust the right-wing yet with those sorts of powers.
Better, from their point of view, to have left-wingers in charge of things in moments of crisis.
When the Socialists ruled from 82-96 the then Prime Minister Felipe Gonzalez set up the GAL (clandestine police squads that assassinated ETA terrorist leaders) so theres no reason to think the Socialists will be exactly soft on terror.
Full Version: Conservative candidate concedes defeat in Spain
QUOTE
PhillyFan:
You people have no back bone.
Hello pot, meet kettle.
You people have no back bone.
Two things from this article were telling:
Turnout increase
The young generally indicate future trends in their voting patterns when they vote at all and nothing motivates them like the thought of being sent to a war they totally disagree with.
It will be interesting to see how, or if, voting patterns of young people will be affected in the US presidential elections.
I wonder if there will be greater fear of being sent to war or greater fear that war will come to them if they don't go there. Or will there be hopeless apathy about the whole situation?
Turnout increase
QUOTE
Two hours before polls were to close, 63 percent of registered voters had cast ballots, a 7.5 percent increase over four years ago, Spain's electoral commission said.
and especially among the youngQUOTE
The electorate of 34.5 million included about 1.9 million mostly young voters added to the rolls since the 2000 general election.
.The young generally indicate future trends in their voting patterns when they vote at all and nothing motivates them like the thought of being sent to a war they totally disagree with.
It will be interesting to see how, or if, voting patterns of young people will be affected in the US presidential elections.
I wonder if there will be greater fear of being sent to war or greater fear that war will come to them if they don't go there. Or will there be hopeless apathy about the whole situation?
It's true that when the Socialists were last in power they took a firm hand with ETA.
I'm not suprised that Rodriguez Zapatero is going to pull out of Iraq, but as I said, Spain is still going to have to combat Islamic terrorism, because the country has a growing Muslim population that has become increasingly radicalized in the last few years, and because of its historical context vis-a-vis Islam.
At this point, nothing is going to appease Al Qaeda; whether they gain control of a government, as the Taliban did in Afghanistan, or whether they keep blowing people up, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, their thirst for destruction and death is insatiable. As the fanatic in the videotape said, the Europeans want "life," while he and his fellows want "death." So the only response is to root them out. What the right-wingers on this board cannot admit to themselves is that as bad as Saddam was, he and his dictatorial state were not affiliated with Al Qaeda, or Afghanistan and Mullah Omar.
But W cast the dice in Iraq anyway, so even if Spain flies out of there, the US, whether led by Kerry or W, will have to 1) complete the task of ending the war there, because it's ongoing ("Mission accomplished"), and helping to rebuild what is a shattered nation on the verge of civil war; and 2) continue the ongoing war, from which critical resources were diverted, of fighting AL QAEDA and its copycats. The two are separate issues, but at this point, the US least of all can go back on either one.
I'm not suprised that Rodriguez Zapatero is going to pull out of Iraq, but as I said, Spain is still going to have to combat Islamic terrorism, because the country has a growing Muslim population that has become increasingly radicalized in the last few years, and because of its historical context vis-a-vis Islam.
At this point, nothing is going to appease Al Qaeda; whether they gain control of a government, as the Taliban did in Afghanistan, or whether they keep blowing people up, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, their thirst for destruction and death is insatiable. As the fanatic in the videotape said, the Europeans want "life," while he and his fellows want "death." So the only response is to root them out. What the right-wingers on this board cannot admit to themselves is that as bad as Saddam was, he and his dictatorial state were not affiliated with Al Qaeda, or Afghanistan and Mullah Omar.
But W cast the dice in Iraq anyway, so even if Spain flies out of there, the US, whether led by Kerry or W, will have to 1) complete the task of ending the war there, because it's ongoing ("Mission accomplished"), and helping to rebuild what is a shattered nation on the verge of civil war; and 2) continue the ongoing war, from which critical resources were diverted, of fighting AL QAEDA and its copycats. The two are separate issues, but at this point, the US least of all can go back on either one.
re: "What the right-wingers on this board cannot admit to themselves is that as bad as Saddam was, he and his dictatorial state were not affiliated with Al Qaeda, or Afghanistan and Mullah Omar."
So, Saddam was plenty bad, but not bad enough to take out? And he was reliable enough that we should have trusted him not to funnel money and arms to other terrorists the way he sent money and arms to Palesinian terrorists? We should have been confident that it was beyond the realm of possibility for him to realize that he had something in common with al-Queda (hated the U.S.)? And that al-Q would have realized that Iraq could, after they were ousted from Afghanistan, be a good cover for them (as opposed to some African nation where Saudi Arabian terrorists on the lam can't exactly blend in the way they can in Iraq)? That we should ignore that Saddam made it clear he was overjoyed over 9/11? And that the U.S., not having evidence of direct links, should have waited until they had actually made an alliance before attacking him?
Yes, there was no connection and no possibility of a connection. Al-Queda bombed those Spanish trains just for the fun of it.
And when the Spanish govt sentences the suspects they caught to life imprisonment, al-Queda will bomb them once again for the fun of it, knowing full well that the 'please don't hurt us" people of Spain will march to demand that they be set free. Just like they made sure they rid themselves of a govt that had courageously committed itself to what is clearly a world war waged by a bunch of cowardly, scum-sucking demons. Good luck Spain! Let us know when your balls have dropped.
So, Saddam was plenty bad, but not bad enough to take out? And he was reliable enough that we should have trusted him not to funnel money and arms to other terrorists the way he sent money and arms to Palesinian terrorists? We should have been confident that it was beyond the realm of possibility for him to realize that he had something in common with al-Queda (hated the U.S.)? And that al-Q would have realized that Iraq could, after they were ousted from Afghanistan, be a good cover for them (as opposed to some African nation where Saudi Arabian terrorists on the lam can't exactly blend in the way they can in Iraq)? That we should ignore that Saddam made it clear he was overjoyed over 9/11? And that the U.S., not having evidence of direct links, should have waited until they had actually made an alliance before attacking him?
Yes, there was no connection and no possibility of a connection. Al-Queda bombed those Spanish trains just for the fun of it.
And when the Spanish govt sentences the suspects they caught to life imprisonment, al-Queda will bomb them once again for the fun of it, knowing full well that the 'please don't hurt us" people of Spain will march to demand that they be set free. Just like they made sure they rid themselves of a govt that had courageously committed itself to what is clearly a world war waged by a bunch of cowardly, scum-sucking demons. Good luck Spain! Let us know when your balls have dropped.
QUOTE
sportinlife:
The young generally indicate future trends in their voting patterns when they vote at all and nothing motivates them like the thought of being sent to a war they totally disagree with.
Yet another reason why the minimum voting age in this country should be at least 30. The young generally indicate future trends in their voting patterns when they vote at all and nothing motivates them like the thought of being sent to a war they totally disagree with.
Too many young-in's are just naive fools looking at the world through rose-colored glasses. They rarely have any concept of reality.
90 percent of Spain already did not agree with the war in Iraq. Al-Quaeda only cared about Spain because they were a coalition partner. They want us to lose our allies. They probably could care less about Spain now and will target the British and Australia. The goal of the terrorist organization is to advance their ideology, like Jihad in the case of Al-Quaeda, to bring down the world super-power and infidels. The goal of a dictatorship is to keep total control and power over the country, Al-Quaeda would probably work better with other terrorist organizations. We would probably find out when and if they ever did make any sort of alliance with Saddam, and then could take action, but we cant go around the world attacking every dictatorship because we fear they might make an alliance with Al-Quaeda.
QUOTE
MIB:
Yet another reason why the minimum voting age in this country should be at least 30.
Too many young-in's are just naive fools looking at the world through rose-colored glasses. They rarely have any concept of reality.
That's right...if YOU don't agree with something another person does, take away his or her rights. Typical republican bullshit logic! BTW, I had no idea you are under 30!
Yet another reason why the minimum voting age in this country should be at least 30.
Too many young-in's are just naive fools looking at the world through rose-colored glasses. They rarely have any concept of reality.
[quote]CnSEA:
[quote]William1865:
[QUOTE] Normally, I wouldn't care, but those who live in glass hauses shuddn't throe stonez. [/quote]hauses? What are we having a spelling bee? I guess when your arguments are stupid and cant be backed up you must resort to being a critic of one's spelling. And start throwing stones a glass hauses
Lets all hear it for William! He knows how to spell! We are so proud of you William. [/quote]My point was that those who can't manage to spell relatively simple words such as "ally" and "tragedy" should be careful when calling other people stupid. Normally I wouldn't care. I'm not even going to get into how the whole last part of my post was a mockery of your spelling skills. Did you notice the three other misspelled words? Who knows, perhaps you thought they were spelled correctly.
[quote]William1865:
[QUOTE] Normally, I wouldn't care, but those who live in glass hauses shuddn't throe stonez. [/quote]hauses? What are we having a spelling bee? I guess when your arguments are stupid and cant be backed up you must resort to being a critic of one's spelling. And start throwing stones a glass hauses
Lets all hear it for William! He knows how to spell! We are so proud of you William. [/quote]My point was that those who can't manage to spell relatively simple words such as "ally" and "tragedy" should be careful when calling other people stupid. Normally I wouldn't care. I'm not even going to get into how the whole last part of my post was a mockery of your spelling skills. Did you notice the three other misspelled words? Who knows, perhaps you thought they were spelled correctly.
QUOTE
TomFord:
So, Saddam was plenty bad, but not bad enough to take out? And he was reliable enough that we should have trusted him not to funnel money and arms to other terrorists the way he sent money and arms to Palesinian terrorists? We should have been confident that it was beyond the realm of possibility for him to realize that he had something in common with al-Queda (hated the U.S.)? And that al-Q would have realized that Iraq could, after they were ousted from Afghanistan, be a good cover for them (as opposed to some African nation where Saudi Arabian terrorists on the lam can't exactly blend in the way they can in Iraq)? That we should ignore that Saddam made it clear he was overjoyed over 9/11? And that the U.S., not having evidence of direct links, should have waited until they had actually made an alliance before attacking him?
TomFord, come on, now. You and I both know you're presenting counterfactuals and future possibilities here, rather than the reality--as it is--that Saddam, while being a horrible dictator, was NOT AFFILIATED with Al Qaeda. He had no WMDs to speak of (though you and others were adamant he did). His main target of support was the radical Palestinians who, despite his being toppled, have continued to bomb Israel and destroy the possibility for a peace settlement. (They slaughtered a group of Israelis yesterday.)So, Saddam was plenty bad, but not bad enough to take out? And he was reliable enough that we should have trusted him not to funnel money and arms to other terrorists the way he sent money and arms to Palesinian terrorists? We should have been confident that it was beyond the realm of possibility for him to realize that he had something in common with al-Queda (hated the U.S.)? And that al-Q would have realized that Iraq could, after they were ousted from Afghanistan, be a good cover for them (as opposed to some African nation where Saudi Arabian terrorists on the lam can't exactly blend in the way they can in Iraq)? That we should ignore that Saddam made it clear he was overjoyed over 9/11? And that the U.S., not having evidence of direct links, should have waited until they had actually made an alliance before attacking him?
The war in Iraq was a diversion from the war against Al Qaeda and Islamic terrorism. The main reason that W has started to focus on getting Osama bin Laden now is that he was unable to do so last year, because so many troops were diverted to Iraq. Influential Saudis also applauded the 9/11 attack (as did other leaders). Are we going to invade their countries too? The wife of Saudi Arabia's ambassador was sending money to people linked to 9/11. Is she in jail? On trial? Why did W fly influential members of the Saudi government, as well as bin Laden family members, out of this country, right after 9/11, when flights were grounded? What about Pakistan, which has admited to giving nuclear technology NOT TO IRAQ but to North Korea, Libya, Iran, and who knows else (but NOT IRAQ)? The ex-dictator there just pardoned the man who was responsible for sending this WMD technology around the world. WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH IRAQ? NOTHING.
The fact remains that W's War in Iraq was not fought for the purposes of terrorism; Islamic terrorism provided a cover, as Paul Wolfowitz basically admitted, for a war that has been waged for other reasons, some of them now proved to be utterly false (WMDs) or sketchy at best (the Iraq-Al Qaeda links). If you are suggesting that the U.S. now send in troops to every nation where a future link to Al Qaeda is a possibility, then we'll be sending troops to quite a few nations, especially Islamic-leaning ones, in the world, which will only have the effect of inflaming these fanatics even more. (And wasn't W courting the damned Taliban not long before 9/11???)
Spain has a right to its own sovereignty. As a democracy, it has the right to change its government according to its constitution and laws. It's a testimony to the voters there that they were fed up and changed the government. I hope that the voters HERE, who have more than enough reasons to clean the slate, will do the same. In either case, IT WILL NOT END the battle against Islamic terrorism.
[ March 16, 2004, 10:15 AM: Message edited by: fantomas ]
NY Times: Blix on W
QUOTE
\"Sorry to say it doesn't look that way,\" he said. \"If the aim was to send a signal to terrorists that we are determined to take you on, that has not succeeded. In Iraq, it has bred a lot of terrorism and a lot of hatred to the Western world.\"
Speaking more assertively on \"Today\" about the Iraq war than he does in \"Disarming Iraq,\" his new book, Mr. Blix charged the Bush administration with invading Iraq as retaliation for the terrorism strikes on the United States, even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attackers.
\"So in a way, you could say that Iraq was perhaps as much punitive as it was pre-emptive,\" he said. \"It was a reaction to 9/11 that we have to strike some theoretical, hypothetical links between Saddam Hussein and the terrorists. That was wrong. There wasn't anything.\"
Mr. Blix said the Americans and British depended too much on defectors and exercised too little critical judgment in assessing their information. \"The C.I.A. certainly is very used to debriefing defectors, so they must have had a critical mind,\" he said, \"but they also knew what they wanted to hear at the top.\"
NY Times: Krugman--W: Weak on terror Speaking more assertively on \"Today\" about the Iraq war than he does in \"Disarming Iraq,\" his new book, Mr. Blix charged the Bush administration with invading Iraq as retaliation for the terrorism strikes on the United States, even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attackers.
\"So in a way, you could say that Iraq was perhaps as much punitive as it was pre-emptive,\" he said. \"It was a reaction to 9/11 that we have to strike some theoretical, hypothetical links between Saddam Hussein and the terrorists. That was wrong. There wasn't anything.\"
Mr. Blix said the Americans and British depended too much on defectors and exercised too little critical judgment in assessing their information. \"The C.I.A. certainly is very used to debriefing defectors, so they must have had a critical mind,\" he said, \"but they also knew what they wanted to hear at the top.\"
QUOTE
Polls suggest that a reputation for being tough on terror is just about the only remaining political strength George Bush has. Yet this reputation is based on image, not reality. The truth is that Mr. Bush, while eager to invoke 9/11 on behalf of an unrelated war, has shown consistent reluctance to focus on the terrorists who actually attacked America, or their backers in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.
This reluctance dates back to Mr. Bush's first months in office. Why, after all, has his inner circle tried so hard to prevent a serious investigation of what happened on 9/11? There has been much speculation about whether officials ignored specific intelligence warnings, but what we know for sure is that the administration disregarded urgent pleas by departing Clinton officials to focus on the threat from Al Qaeda.
After 9/11, terrorism could no longer be ignored, and the military conducted a successful campaign against Al Qaeda's Taliban hosts. But the failure to commit sufficient U.S. forces allowed Osama bin Laden to escape. After that, the administration appeared to lose interest in Al Qaeda; by the summer of 2002, bin Laden's name had disappeared from Mr. Bush's speeches. It was all Saddam, all the time.
This wasn't just a rhetorical switch; crucial resources were pulled off the hunt for Al Qaeda, which had attacked America, to prepare for the overthrow of Saddam, who hadn't. If you want confirmation that this seriously impeded the fight against terror, just look at reports about the all-out effort to capture Osama that started, finally, just a few days ago. Why didn't this happen last year, or the year before? According to The New York Times, last year many of the needed forces were tied up in Iraq.
It's now clear that by shifting his focus to Iraq, Mr. Bush did Al Qaeda a huge favor. The terrorists and their Taliban allies were given time to regroup; the resurgent Taliban once again control almost a third of Afghanistan, and Al Qaeda has regained the ability to carry out large-scale atrocities.
But Mr. Bush's lapses in the struggle against terrorism extend beyond his decision to give Al Qaeda a breather. His administration has also run interference for Saudi Arabia — the home of most of the 9/11 hijackers, and the main financier of Islamic extremism — and Pakistan, which created the Taliban and has actively engaged in nuclear proliferation.
This reluctance dates back to Mr. Bush's first months in office. Why, after all, has his inner circle tried so hard to prevent a serious investigation of what happened on 9/11? There has been much speculation about whether officials ignored specific intelligence warnings, but what we know for sure is that the administration disregarded urgent pleas by departing Clinton officials to focus on the threat from Al Qaeda.
After 9/11, terrorism could no longer be ignored, and the military conducted a successful campaign against Al Qaeda's Taliban hosts. But the failure to commit sufficient U.S. forces allowed Osama bin Laden to escape. After that, the administration appeared to lose interest in Al Qaeda; by the summer of 2002, bin Laden's name had disappeared from Mr. Bush's speeches. It was all Saddam, all the time.
This wasn't just a rhetorical switch; crucial resources were pulled off the hunt for Al Qaeda, which had attacked America, to prepare for the overthrow of Saddam, who hadn't. If you want confirmation that this seriously impeded the fight against terror, just look at reports about the all-out effort to capture Osama that started, finally, just a few days ago. Why didn't this happen last year, or the year before? According to The New York Times, last year many of the needed forces were tied up in Iraq.
It's now clear that by shifting his focus to Iraq, Mr. Bush did Al Qaeda a huge favor. The terrorists and their Taliban allies were given time to regroup; the resurgent Taliban once again control almost a third of Afghanistan, and Al Qaeda has regained the ability to carry out large-scale atrocities.
But Mr. Bush's lapses in the struggle against terrorism extend beyond his decision to give Al Qaeda a breather. His administration has also run interference for Saudi Arabia — the home of most of the 9/11 hijackers, and the main financier of Islamic extremism — and Pakistan, which created the Taliban and has actively engaged in nuclear proliferation.
Blix is a stupid Fat Euro Trash Pin Head.
Not like he's operating on his own agenda folks.
Not like he's operating on his own agenda folks.
It simply appears that the Spanish electorate realized that "fighting terror" the Bush way will get more civilians killed.
or they are a bunch of cowards who want to hide in the corner like the french.
QUOTE
PhillyFan:
or they are a bunch of cowards who want to hide in the corner like the french.
sort of like the punk ass chimp does when his credibility is called into question.
or they are a bunch of cowards who want to hide in the corner like the french.
No thats not what i heard from a different european leader... sorry but i cant tell you who it was... i wish i could.. just trust me.
QUOTE
PhillyFan:
No thats not what i heard from a different european leader... sorry but i cant tell you who it was... i wish i could.. just trust me.
Spoken just like a disciple of those who use weapons of mass diversion. You could give Scott McClellan a run for campaign...oops, I mean White House Spokesman.
No thats not what i heard from a different european leader... sorry but i cant tell you who it was... i wish i could.. just trust me.
No trust me they told me.. but i cant tell you who. But they are there. They told me. But i cant tell you, the american public, i trust the euro trash more...
QUOTE
PhillyFan:
No trust me they told me.. but i cant tell you who. But they are there. They told me. But i cant tell you, the american public, i trust the euro trash more...
...just like the punk ass chimp coundn't tell the American public the truth before hundreds of American soldiers died, too, eh?
No trust me they told me.. but i cant tell you who. But they are there. They told me. But i cant tell you, the american public, i trust the euro trash more...
QUOTE
PhillyFan:
or they are a bunch of cowards who want to hide in the corner like the french.
"Cowards who want to hide in the corner...."or they are a bunch of cowards who want to hide in the corner like the french.
Reminds me of a few of my buddies on Outsports.
Raze no personal attacks on fantomas please... you know the rules
This is a referendum on Shrub's policies, just like our referendum which is coming up on Nov. 2nd. Regime change!
It was directed to the chickenhawks.
"WAR! WAR! WAR!! (oh, but not me, Ill stay here all safe and snug)"
"WAR! WAR! WAR!! (oh, but not me, Ill stay here all safe and snug)"
QUOTE
RazorbackTX:
It was directed to the chickenhawks.
You mean bobby on a friday night? nevermind.
It was directed to the chickenhawks.
QUOTE
PhillyFan:
Im pretty sure you know who I mean.
QUOTE
RazorbackTX:
It was directed to the chickenhawks.
You mean bobby on a friday night? nevermind. It was directed to the chickenhawks.
Most normal sane people rarely know what you commies are ranting about... we just know you're a bunch of pansies who wont stand up and fight the good fight.
Maybe you guys can put together another hands across america thingy... why the crazy ******* are trying to put a bullet in ya'all's blind eye.
[Post modified for language. - Outsports moderator]
[ December 06, 2004, 04:22 PM: Message edited by: m1 ]
Maybe you guys can put together another hands across america thingy... why the crazy ******* are trying to put a bullet in ya'all's blind eye.
[Post modified for language. - Outsports moderator]
[ December 06, 2004, 04:22 PM: Message edited by: m1 ]
The general election should have been postponed. You shouldn't vote on emotion which is what the people of Spain did. What a bunch of cowards they are. Letting the terroists win is the wrong message to send the world. What do they think, that these terroists will just stop....they don't want democracy and look at everyone as infidels. Spain will not be spared just because they decide to pull their troops.
Also, the war in Iraq was necessary...it was the best possible way to distract the terroists from our country and bring them all in to Iraq. Fight the war on terroism over there and not here. The terroists can see they are slowly losing the war in Iraq....they are trying other means of stopping it now.
Also, the war in Iraq was necessary...it was the best possible way to distract the terroists from our country and bring them all in to Iraq. Fight the war on terroism over there and not here. The terroists can see they are slowly losing the war in Iraq....they are trying other means of stopping it now.
QUOTE
PhillyFan:
... we just know you're a bunch of pansies who wont stand up and fight the good fight.
You mean the way you do? behind your keyboard... we just know you're a bunch of pansies who wont stand up and fight the good fight.
I know two people who are in Iraq, 2 people who had the balls to go..... they are fighting the good fight.
oh wait, one more thing....the best was the far left liberal on Bill O'Reilly who thought the best way to handle the terroists is to meet with them and discuss ways to resolve our problems...hahahhahaha.....hey, lets invite them over for some tea and crimpets and than afterwards we can all play a game of charades. What is wrong with these people.
QUOTE
RazorbackTX:
I know two people who are in Iraq, 2 people who had the balls to go..... they are fighting the good fight.
OK then, if we go by your thinking, since you are not there... you have zero right to bitch about it...
QUOTE
PhillyFan:
... we just know you're a bunch of pansies who wont stand up and fight the good fight.
You mean the way you do? behind your keyboard... we just know you're a bunch of pansies who wont stand up and fight the good fight.
I know two people who are in Iraq, 2 people who had the balls to go..... they are fighting the good fight.
QUOTE
BillyBones:
... All I hear today are words like \"cowards\", \"weasels\", \"surrender\", \"cut & run\", etc. Amazing how empathy for Spain after these hideous attacks can so quickly turn into scorn...
I feel terribly for the people of Madrid who lost loved ones. I knew two people killed on 9/11 and many others who were witnesses to the destruction and mayhem. I don't hold any scorn for them, but I think the people of Spain did the wrong thing. Aznar's party was leading in all the polls as the election approached. If Iraq was a major issue, the polls would have reflected that.... All I hear today are words like \"cowards\", \"weasels\", \"surrender\", \"cut & run\", etc. Amazing how empathy for Spain after these hideous attacks can so quickly turn into scorn...
Had there been some knowledge of security lapses which resulted in this blast, I could see holding the Aznar government accountable (and would argue that Bush should be held to the same standard should any terrible event take place here). Absent that, the results of this election show that the Spaniards are retreating.
Israel pulled initially pulled back when the intifada started, which only emboldened Hamas. I am afraid that the Spaniards just reinforced the same notion via this election.
QUOTE
PAdallascowboy:
What is wrong with these people.
I don't know what's wrong with them, but I'll hazard a guess: These are people who've never really lived in the real world or dealt with people like these criminals. All they know they've learned from books, or to the extent they've ever actually lived among these people, they did so in insulated programs or enclaves "designed to teach them about how citizens in other nations live," with a specific, usually multicultural, anti-American and permissive, thrust behind what they're there to learn. In short, they've been indoctrinated and, lacking the "truly diverse experiences" they're so fond of parrotting as the cure-all for the world's problems, simply don't know what the hell they're talking about. THAT'S what's wrong with 'em and the last thing I want is ANY of these people having control over how my country is run or how I lead my life.What is wrong with these people.
Great post, aquaman; I agree 100%.
Just a reminder that this US administration (THIS one mind, not Clinton, not Carter) has just negotiated and done a deal with Libya.
(I have no problem with that if it removes one threat but presumably some of you do because it wasnt a total victory and set a bad precedent).
(I have no problem with that if it removes one threat but presumably some of you do because it wasnt a total victory and set a bad precedent).
QUOTE
PhillyFan:
Uh, PhillyFan, that makes no sense, even for you.QUOTE
RazorbackTX:
I know two people who are in Iraq, 2 people who had the balls to go..... they are fighting the good fight.
OK then, if we go by your thinking, since you are not there... you have zero right to bitch about it... QUOTE
PhillyFan:
... we just know you're a bunch of pansies who wont stand up and fight the good fight.
You mean the way you do? behind your keyboard... we just know you're a bunch of pansies who wont stand up and fight the good fight.
I know two people who are in Iraq, 2 people who had the balls to go..... they are fighting the good fight.
See I was AGAINST the war, so why would I go.
You were/are FOR the war, and there you sit in AZ behind your keyboard.
Carry on!
Ah, no there buddy... you see, i'm not allowed to support the war because i'm not there... so really... who are you to bitch about it? It's not like you are there either.. so what does it matter to you?
QUOTE
PAdallascowboy:
Letting the terroists win is the wrong message to send the world.
This is similar to the same sort of crap we are hearing from some in the US, and we will hear more of it as the election gets closer. If W. isn't re-elected (or re-selected) the terrorists win.
Letting the terroists win is the wrong message to send the world.
QUOTE
fantomas:
NY Times: Krugman--W: Weak on terror
Polls suggest that a reputation for being tough on terror is just about the only remaining political strength George Bush has. Yet this reputation is based on image, not reality. The truth is that Mr. Bush, while eager to invoke 9/11 on behalf of an unrelated war, has shown consistent reluctance to focus on the terrorists who actually attacked America, or their backers in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.
This reluctance dates back to Mr. Bush's first months in office. Why, after all, has his inner circle tried so hard to prevent a serious investigation of what happened on 9/11? There has been much speculation about whether officials ignored specific intelligence warnings, but what we know for sure is that the administration disregarded urgent pleas by departing Clinton officials to focus on the threat from Al Qaeda.
After 9/11, terrorism could no longer be ignored, and the military conducted a successful campaign against Al Qaeda's Taliban hosts. But the failure to commit sufficient U.S. forces allowed Osama bin Laden to escape. After that, the administration appeared to lose interest in Al Qaeda; by the summer of 2002, bin Laden's name had disappeared from Mr. Bush's speeches. It was all Saddam, all the time.
This wasn't just a rhetorical switch; crucial resources were pulled off the hunt for Al Qaeda, which had attacked America, to prepare for the overthrow of Saddam, who hadn't. If you want confirmation that this seriously impeded the fight against terror, just look at reports about the all-out effort to capture Osama that started, finally, just a few days ago. Why didn't this happen last year, or the year before? According to The New York Times, last year many of the needed forces were tied up in Iraq.
It's now clear that by shifting his focus to Iraq, Mr. Bush did Al Qaeda a huge favor. The terrorists and their Taliban allies were given time to regroup; the resurgent Taliban once again control almost a third of Afghanistan, and Al Qaeda has regained the ability to carry out large-scale atrocities.
But Mr. Bush's lapses in the struggle against terrorism extend beyond his decision to give Al Qaeda a breather. His administration has also run interference for Saudi Arabia — the home of most of the 9/11 hijackers, and the main financier of Islamic extremism — and Pakistan, which created the Taliban and has actively engaged in nuclear proliferation.
You know, you really ought to stop citing the NYT. You seem to worship that publication, one that is now nothing more than a piece of trash. Its credibility, what little it even had since it's an extreme left-wing paper anyway, is shot. NY Times: Krugman--W: Weak on terror
Polls suggest that a reputation for being tough on terror is just about the only remaining political strength George Bush has. Yet this reputation is based on image, not reality. The truth is that Mr. Bush, while eager to invoke 9/11 on behalf of an unrelated war, has shown consistent reluctance to focus on the terrorists who actually attacked America, or their backers in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.
This reluctance dates back to Mr. Bush's first months in office. Why, after all, has his inner circle tried so hard to prevent a serious investigation of what happened on 9/11? There has been much speculation about whether officials ignored specific intelligence warnings, but what we know for sure is that the administration disregarded urgent pleas by departing Clinton officials to focus on the threat from Al Qaeda.
After 9/11, terrorism could no longer be ignored, and the military conducted a successful campaign against Al Qaeda's Taliban hosts. But the failure to commit sufficient U.S. forces allowed Osama bin Laden to escape. After that, the administration appeared to lose interest in Al Qaeda; by the summer of 2002, bin Laden's name had disappeared from Mr. Bush's speeches. It was all Saddam, all the time.
This wasn't just a rhetorical switch; crucial resources were pulled off the hunt for Al Qaeda, which had attacked America, to prepare for the overthrow of Saddam, who hadn't. If you want confirmation that this seriously impeded the fight against terror, just look at reports about the all-out effort to capture Osama that started, finally, just a few days ago. Why didn't this happen last year, or the year before? According to The New York Times, last year many of the needed forces were tied up in Iraq.
It's now clear that by shifting his focus to Iraq, Mr. Bush did Al Qaeda a huge favor. The terrorists and their Taliban allies were given time to regroup; the resurgent Taliban once again control almost a third of Afghanistan, and Al Qaeda has regained the ability to carry out large-scale atrocities.
But Mr. Bush's lapses in the struggle against terrorism extend beyond his decision to give Al Qaeda a breather. His administration has also run interference for Saudi Arabia — the home of most of the 9/11 hijackers, and the main financier of Islamic extremism — and Pakistan, which created the Taliban and has actively engaged in nuclear proliferation.
BTW, thank God Clinton and the Democrats were so forceful with Saudi Arabia.
QUOTE
Bill W:
It simply appears that the Spanish electorate realized that \"fighting terror\" the Bush way will get more civilians killed.
What a despicable comment or belief, Bill. Over 3000 civilians were killed on 9/11, many more by terorrists since then.It simply appears that the Spanish electorate realized that \"fighting terror\" the Bush way will get more civilians killed.
The cost of not going to war against terrorists far exceeds the cost of going to war.
QUOTE
PhillyFan:
Ah, no there buddy... you see, i'm not allowed to support the war because i'm not there... so really... who are you to bitch about it? It's not like you are there either.. so what does it matter to you?
Cleary Ive hit a nerve...Ah, no there buddy... you see, i'm not allowed to support the war because i'm not there... so really... who are you to bitch about it? It's not like you are there either.. so what does it matter to you?
Way to be a man of your convictions.
QUOTE
jamesw:
Just a reminder that this US administration (THIS one mind, not Clinton, not Carter) has just negotiated and done a deal with Libya.
Oh? And just what deal is this? Perhaps you are referring to the deal whereby Libya would admit their role in the 1988 Pan Am bombing, etc.--a deal begun by President Clinton in the 1990's. Just a reminder that this US administration (THIS one mind, not Clinton, not Carter) has just negotiated and done a deal with Libya.
Or perhaps you're referring to the "deal" whereby Libya came clean on their nuclear build-up, agreeing to get rid of their bombs. In that case, it would seem that the good ole Colonel Khaddafi (or however you spell that kook's name) got a bit worried that President Bush might next invade Libya. As far as I'm concerned, if we're able to scare the shit out of some dictator into giving up such dangerous weapons, then that's a feather in our cap.
Just as i thought Razin... no comeback.
Carry On!
Carry On!
QUOTE
MIB:
The cost of not going to war against terrorists far exceeds the cost of going to war.
Except W didn't go to war against any f**king terrorists in Iraq, did he? They're there now.The cost of not going to war against terrorists far exceeds the cost of going to war.
Stupidity is "despicable."
[ March 16, 2004, 03:05 PM: Message edited by: Bill W ]
All this still leaves the question of how best to respond.
For example, would we British have been justified escalating the conflict by invading the Irish Republic because they harboured IRA terrorists.
We never did (beyond some clandestine in-and-out raids). Certainly we never sent our armed forces to bomb towns and villages across the border in Eire even after the worst IRA bombings and assassinations.
If we had done so, we could certainly have taken out some of the terrorists and destroyed their infrastructure.
What would have been the consequences though?Would Irish-Americans and Irish-Australians, seeing pictures of dead Irish villagers on their TV screens, have responded by donating more money to the IRA for example?
For example, would we British have been justified escalating the conflict by invading the Irish Republic because they harboured IRA terrorists.
We never did (beyond some clandestine in-and-out raids). Certainly we never sent our armed forces to bomb towns and villages across the border in Eire even after the worst IRA bombings and assassinations.
If we had done so, we could certainly have taken out some of the terrorists and destroyed their infrastructure.
What would have been the consequences though?Would Irish-Americans and Irish-Australians, seeing pictures of dead Irish villagers on their TV screens, have responded by donating more money to the IRA for example?
MIB, I agree its a good deal. That was my point.
I was responding to those who were saying you should never cut deals in any circumstances. Nothing short of a total defeat of the terrorists ( or terrorist-sponsoring state).
Some people seemed to think it was only "wussy" (is that the word?) leaders who would ever do such a thing.
[ March 16, 2004, 05:44 PM: Message edited by: jamesw ]
I was responding to those who were saying you should never cut deals in any circumstances. Nothing short of a total defeat of the terrorists ( or terrorist-sponsoring state).
Some people seemed to think it was only "wussy" (is that the word?) leaders who would ever do such a thing.
[ March 16, 2004, 05:44 PM: Message edited by: jamesw ]
The #1 terror-sponsoring nation of the last 50 years? The US of A.
I've had it with the Politics board here. Life is too short.
I've had it with the Politics board here. Life is too short.
GAWD man sucks to live in a country you HATE so much...
QUOTE
William1865:
Thanx so much Willy, nxet tmie I msut mkae shure to sepll crocetrly, I wlil rebmemer yuor avdice nxet tmie I witre a New Yrok Tmies atrcile. You make me proud William.QUOTE
My point was that those who can't manage to spell relatively simple words such as \"ally\" and \"tragedy\" should be careful when calling other people stupid. Normally I wouldn't care. I'm not even going to get into how the whole last part of my post was a mockery of your spelling skills. Did you notice the three other misspelled words? Who knows, perhaps you thought they were spelled correctly. [/QB][ March 16, 2004, 05:55 PM: Message edited by: CnSEA ]
QUOTE
Bill W:
The #1 terror-sponsoring nation of the last 50 years? The US of A.
I've had it with the Politics board here. Life is too short.
Thank God! One down, Lord knows how many to go. The #1 terror-sponsoring nation of the last 50 years? The US of A.
I've had it with the Politics board here. Life is too short.
QUOTE
Bill W:
I've had it with the Politics board here. Life is too short.
[Sound of door slamming]
I've had it with the Politics board here. Life is too short.
QUOTE
CnSEA:
You make me proud William.
Wow, thanks. I get that a lot.
You make me proud William.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.