Elections in Spain

[rikzilla]

Agreed on the point that A-Q will do its thing regardless. That's why the timing of Spain's withdrawal will have a negative consequence in terms of giving A-Q encouragement.
I assume this means you were exaggerating with the "dancing in the streets" comment elsewhere.
As far as "war on them" if that's a reference to Iraq its hard to see that its done much good as far as the threat from A-Q.
Here's fark.com's quip:
"Spain's new prime minister: "The war in Iraq was a disaster, the occupation of Iraq is a disaster". Troop withdrawal to ensue, terrorists win."

Perhaps "dancing in the streets" was a bit harsh. Usually those folks don't dance unless they see actual flowing blood.

Bush did what he thought was the right thing in Iraq, had the courage of his convictions. Many others the world over had these same convictions, yet not the courage to address them in any meaningful way. GWB gets my vote based on national security,...simply because he earned it. Taxes, the economy, jobs, GWB's questionable National Guard record....are all secondary and less important issues. One minute of watching those doomed New Yorkers waving for help that would never come. It puts those other issues in perspective. Al Qaeda will not get WMD's from Iraq...this much we know is true. WMD's are not, however, a big joke. Anyone who thinks Al Qaeda would not use such a weapon if/when they get their hands on one, is just kidding themselves.

Of course I will support Kerry if he is elected....but I don't think taking the pressure off terrorists will make them less dangerous. This is why GWB still gets my vote.

Next time maybe it will be someone on our little forum who's wife or kids or themselves who get blown up. (Something "Demon" should consider while he, and his "cosmopolitan" friends wait in excited anticipation for the pre-election bombs to go off in London.)

Terrorism has been called a "tactic",...and as such many people on this board have snickered at the folly of making war on a "tactic". The really sickening thought about this is that if it IS merely a tactic, and there is no real defense against it,...will ALL sides start using it?? Sounds alot like the end of civilisation, doesn't it?

-z

 

[Mr Manifesto]

Maxspeak

Jeff Jarvis intuits that terrorists influenced the election. Rumor has it that in the past, terrorism has influenced U.S. elections as well. The difference is that in Spain the influence did not work in the direction JJ hoped. Spaniards failed to deduce that a terrorist attack means they should return the ruling party to power, a party that endorsed Bush's war over the objections of the people.

Democracy's expression notwithstanding, we hear it's "bad day for the forces of civilization," from Blogistan's chief hack. If you don't vote the way I like, the terrorists have won! Lordy. I would have thought that the day of the massacre of innocents was the bad day. The exercise of democracy -- with increased voter turnout -- that would be the good day.

Speaking as someone who lives in a country where the conservatives were returned to power -despite lagging considerably in the polls- just after 9/11, I can relate to this.

 

[richardm]

You're talking about the actions of individuals in the U.S. vs. the leader of a country. Are you saying that if the U.S. government had evidence of one of it's citizens providing aid to the I.R.A., that it wouldn't prosecute? That would be wrong.

To the best of my knowledge, they didn't do much about NORAID, even though the DoJ made them register as agents of the IRA.

 

[Luke T.]

An attack on this country would guarantee Bush's re election.

That may not be a known given outside the U.S. If Al Queda was behind the attack in Spain, and the papers are all reporting that turned the election (which we really don't know for sure), then we are talking about a possible perception on the part of Al Queda that the same forumla could work in the U.S.

So it doesn't really matter on what the actual result would be on American elections. What matters is what Al Queda thinks would happen. And that thinking may lead to an attack before the election.

 

[Skeptic]

I'm in Madrid, and I know a lot of people have changed their vote because I've seen it. You can argue about how the initial surveys had an error margin and how the Spanish people didn't like the government before the attacks, but I tell you the bombs have chaged the elections.

What I'm not clear on is the following:

In your opinion, is the vote against the government due to the bombing based on:

1). The belief that if it appeased Saddam it wouldn't have been bombed; or

2). The belief that the government botched security (by not stopping the bombing) and/or the post-bombing investigation (by blaming the ETA without good evidence)?

The former is clearly a case of appeasement; the latter, not necessarily. Merely the fact that an election after event X turned out Y doesn't mean X caused Y, after all.

 

[rikzilla]

I'm in Madrid, and I know a lot of people have changed their vote because I've seen it. You can argue about how the initial surveys had an error margin and how the Spanish people didn't like the government before the attacks, but I tell you the bombs have chaged the elections.

What I'm not clear on is the following:

In your opinion, is the vote against the government due to the bombing based on:

1). The belief that if it appeased Saddam it wouldn't have been bombed; or

2). The belief that the government botched security (by not stopping the bombing) and/or the post-bombing investigation (by blaming the ETA without good evidence)?

The former is clearly a case of appeasement; the latter, not necessarily. Merely the fact that an election after event X turned out Y doesn't mean X caused Y, after all.

Saddam's in jail man,...I think you meant Osama, eh??

-z

 

[Cleopatra]

Let's sum up because I see the same arguments keep coming from Europe.

On the eve of the attack the polls showed that Partido Popular of Aznar would win the elections although he was the one drugged Spain into War. Within 2 days the climate changes so we have serious, really serious reasons to believe that it was the terrorist attack that changed the scenary. PERIOD.

Spain is one of less enthousiasts allies of the NATO about NATO. Spaniards traditionally are not in good terms with the Anglosaxons and forces in Spain ( meaning=the socialists) opposed severely to the country joining the Alliance.

NATO in the eyes of the majority of the Europeans is an Anglosaxonic Club and it's not very popular.

Ironically the man who leaded every opposition to NATO was Javier Solana...

The socialist party before the elections promised that if they were elected they would quit Iraq. Now they say that if until June the Americans won't leave the administration to the Iraquis they will leave otherwise they will stay...

In the States you don't know what euro-socialism means, it's a combination of childish attitude with Clintonism.

The fact that the newly elected PM said that he will quit Iraq says nothing to me.

 

[Skeptic]

What you achieve is the gratitude of tyrants and terrorists everywhere, because you sound like the commies of my youth who could only see the evil in their own society, not in that of their true enemies.

Of course, they didn't hate their own society enough to actually leave and go to one of those "paradise of the workers" places like the USSR or East Germany. Since it was only millions of people they didn't personally know who were suffering under communism, it didn't count.

Same here with "demon": he is all against the "corrupt and war-thirsty" west fighting the honest and good ancient civilization of Islam, but he won't go live in any of those places under any circumstances. He's far too comfortable in the "imperialistic and opressive" western world, thankyouverymuch.

All this talk about their "different but equal culture" and "who says the West is better anyway?" is just that--talk. Or, more precisely, it's really the latest "new age" feel-good therapy in the guise of "progressive political activism". If "Truth in Avdertising" laws applied to politics, the promoters of demon's position would have to advertise their views roughly like this on the radio:

(broadcaster's voice)

Greeting, protestor! Feel guilty that you're living in the comfortable, rich west while most of the world starves? But you still want that wide-screen TV and new car?

(dramatic music)

Here--take two Chomskys, three protest rallies, and 20 internet posts about the 'evils of imperialism'! You'll feel better then! You're doing your part!

(a shot of young people buying stuff in the mall, with a smile on their face, Chomsky's latest tract in their hand, and a 'NO GUILT' T-shirt on their body)

You can go buy that wide-screen TV now! You're on the side of the angels--unlike the evil imperialist capitalists who bought the TV WITHOUT going to the protest rally first!

REMEMBER: We guarantee NO MORE GUILT--or your money back!

(as the screen fades to black, the announcer's voice quickly reminds the reader of the possible side effects, as required by law, in a low voice: )

Side effects might include loss of contact with reality, indifference to the suffering of millions once you no longer feel guilty, and "so what?" shrugging when you are told of the horrors the latest "anti-imperialist" thug committed after you did your best to keep him in power. But what the hell do you care--it's your GUILT that matters, not the lives of people you don't know!

 

[Peskanov]

Spain is one of less enthousiasts allies of the NATO about NATO. Spaniards traditionally are not in good terms with the Anglosaxons and forces in Spain ( meaning=the socialists) opposed severely to the country joining the Alliance.

Cleopatra, you are badly informed. It was the socialist party (PSOE) which made Spain enter the NATO, because they saw it as necessary to enter into the EU.
We had a referendum about that, and AP (currently PP, our conservative government until yesterday) asked their followers to vote blank.
About the socialist being childish: I don't know how socialism is in you country, but in Spain all parties are childish because the population is childish and missinformed, and that's the attitude you need to collect votes.

 

[Cleopatra]

Peskanov were the socialists pro NATO? In Greece they were against EU and now in the pre-electoral period they reminded us that we entered the EURO-zone because of them, this doesn't dismiss their anti-European past.

Also, ditto about the parties. People for the parties and the parties reflect the society.

 

[Peskanov]

Not, they didn't like NATO at all but they wanted to pay that price to enter into EU. BTW, most PSOE followers felt betrayed; antiamerican feelings tends to appear on lef wing parties here.
Politics in Spain are a curious theater. We have a strong bipartidism, left and right, but they exchange papers from time to time. Both parties make the same promises and acusations and hold the same positions, and both commit the same frauds. But never at the same time...

 

[Fendetestas]

What I'm not clear on is the following:

In your opinion, is the vote against the government due to the bombing based on:

1). The belief that if it appeased Saddam it wouldn't have been bombed; or

2). The belief that the government botched security (by not stopping the bombing) and/or the post-bombing investigation (by blaming the ETA without good evidence)?

The former is clearly a case of appeasement; the latter, not necessarily. Merely the fact that an election after event X turned out Y doesn't mean X caused Y, after all. [/B]

I don't think the belief that the government botched security has changed anything. Here in Spain, when terrorists kill people we don't usually think in these terms.

Blaming ETA without good evidence may have played a more important role, but, in my opinion, it's not the most important. The media in favour of the government (certain newspapers, TVE...) supported the ETA explanation and the media against the government (mostly radio station cadena Ser, El Pais...) supported the Al Qaeda explanation from the beginning. Cadena Ser cited officials from the CNI (intelligence service) as saying they were 99% confident that Al Qaeda was to blame, when apparently this wasn't true (the CNI said it wasn't true) and other media focused on the clues that pointed to ETA and dismissed the ones that pointed to Al Qaeda.

What I mean is that we didn't believe the government completely when it said it was ETA (I said in an earlier post in another thread that I wanted to believe it was ETA, for now painfully obvious reasons), so what mattered to the people was the thought that had we not participated in the war, this wouldn't have happened.

The government had done a lot of very very unpopular things, but until yesterday, nobody thought they would pay for them. I think that number 1) is the main reason for the result of the election. We didn't want the war then, the general feeling was that Saddam was a monster that shouldn't be in charge of anything, but that he wasn't the only one in the world and that war wouldn't make things better. But all of this was not enough to kick the PP out of power. The fact that 200 innocents died was, because in my opinion, most people are very childish and the general feeling is that nothing is worth war. Well, I don't think so. I think that the fact that 200 people died the 11M is a reason pro war, if anything and not a reason to avoid war. It's a reason to compromise more efforts to fight terrorism, not to back away and hope it won't get to us.

 

[ZeeGerman]

Americans are not like Europeans. I don't know why, we just are. If we're attacked we tend to come together in severe pissed-offed-ness.

Now, there's one silly generalization, if I ever saw one.
I guess you mean something like "Europeans are not like right wing Americans with a military background"? That would be correct then.

The Spanish have responded in a different way. I know I'm now, per my reputation, supposed to say something bad about Spanish courage, etc... I can't do it though. The Spanish have been victimized enough.

Be honest rik, if you think Europeans in general and Spaniards in particular are cowards, just say so. Don't hide behind PCness, it's so not you.

If Al Qaeda manages an attack on US soil prior to our elections it will certainly back fire on them.

What makes you so sure? Suppose WTC had happened AFTER the US invaded Iraq (the given reasons applied independently from 9/11, didn't they?) just before an election with majority forecasts similar to those in Spain. Don't you think that exactly the same thing could have happened?

The only real choice we have is to make war on these terrorists. Just because we cease to war on them doesn't mean they will stop warring on us. It just means they can war on us in a safer environment.

Here, I agree. The question remains, what are the suitable weapons in this war. Invading countries doesn't really seem to help. I guess, Al Quaida actually profited from the Iraq thing. They probably didn't get any WMD (because there apparently weren't any) but I don't want to know how many conventional explosives from Iraq got in the wrong hands before the coallition could secure them and how many skilled killers applied as new recruits for AQ.

The one thing that bothers me about the situation in Spain is the announcement of withdrawal from Iraq before the situation is stabilized. If the Spanish leave now, the Polish and and Italians are probably next, an attack in GB might bring down Blair as well and should the British troups leave Iraq, the US couldn't possibly keep things in order any more. What IMHO is needed right now is a major international envolvement in Iraq. The US government might not like it but they should swallow the pill and ask for international support through the UN asap.

Zee

 

[Chaos]

Zee

To clarify your last remark and forestall "But they´re doing that" remarks, let´s add:

"...and involve the UN in the decision-making process."

 

[Elind]

If the Spanish leave now, the Polish and and Italians are probably next, an attack in GB might bring down Blair as well and should the British troups leave Iraq, the US couldn't possibly keep things in order any more. What IMHO is needed right now is a major international envolvement in Iraq. The US government might not like it but they should swallow the pill and ask for international support through the UN asap.

Zee

How many troops are from these countries? Sure they save a small percentage of the US load, and it would cost, but to say the US "couldn't possibly" is simply not right. The fact is the US could and would because it has no choice.

As to the UN issue, when was the last time the UN actually went into a hostile environment with loaded weapons? (Don't say Korea.)

The UN solution would be to get out and damn the consequences (or leave them for the US to address).

It's amazing how fickle friends can be. I can remember driving in Spain as a young boy with my parents in an American car in the mid 1950s, and having Spanish workers on the roads yell "Americans Go Home". Then they called themselves communists, now they are socialists. Nothing much has changed it seems.

 

[Peskanov]

It's amazing how fickle friends can be. I can remember driving in Spain as a young boy with my parents in an American car in the mid 1950s, and having Spanish workers on the roads yell "Americans Go Home". Then they called themselves communists, now they are socialists. Nothing much has changed it seems.

You are joking, aren't you?
Spain was under Franco's fascist regime in 50's, pal. Communits were captured and jailed.
And yes, a lot of things have changed.

 

[Fendetestas]

It's amazing how fickle friends can be. I can remember driving in Spain as a young boy with my parents in an American car in the mid 1950s, and having Spanish workers on the roads yell "Americans Go Home". Then they called themselves communists, now they are socialists. Nothing much has changed it seems.

?? I don't know what to say about this... or do I?

Bienvenido Mr. Marshall
(Just taking advantage of a strange post to recommend a really funny film)

 

[Elind]

You are joking, aren't you?
Spain was under Franco's fascist regime in 50's, pal. Communits were captured and jailed.
And yes, a lot of things have changed.

No I'm not joking and it may have been a bit more like 1959 so you can tell me what the risks those people faced then were, but it happened and made an impression on me at the time. Hell, maybe they were Fascists. Is there really a behavioural difference?

 

[Elind]

?? I don't know what to say about this... or do I?

Bienvenido Mr. Marshall
(Just taking advantage of a strange post to recommend a really funny film)

Funny, and I'm thinking of a film called "The Mouse that Roared", I think, although I don't believe it was set in Spain. In that one the locals declared war on the USA so they could be conquered and given massive aid.

 

[hammegk]

And now the useful news.

Generalisimo Francisco Franco is still dead.


The difference between Fascists & Communists? Fascists admit there is only one maximum leader. Commies pretend otherwise.