Spain Succumbs

[Trent 0]

Quote

So nations should base policy on perception and not what is best for their nation?

In politics, perception IS everything. If I'm doing something for the interest of my country and I need other nations' approval to do it, I need to give them the perception that it is good for them too.

If you point a gun at me and say "Lie down!", and I do it... but not because you told me to, but because I was tired and wanted to do it anyway, I've given you and witnesses the perception that you made me lie down.

The point here is not whether Spain gave in to the threats, but that it really LOOKS like they did. I'm sure that terrorist organizations will claim that they made Spain give in so they look more powerful to the uneducated pieces of shit that join their ranks.

Whether or not it was gonna happen anyway, their timing is awful and it gives terrorists a dangerous glimmer of hope.

Oh, hello again!

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

However, the framework of a Federal Republic (US) allows for a far better "democratic tradition" than a Constitutional Monarchy (Spain).

Bull shit, not many western consitutional or parliamentary monarchies where the candidate with the minority vote can become the leader, unlike a Federal Republic I know.

Having a monarch, in whatever capacity, is tied to what democratic tradition? None that I can think of.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[TheAnvil 0]

Good thing they're appeasing those terrorists. That way things like this won't happen anymore:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/04/19/spain.body/index.html

Sons of bitches.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Well, only that you did put a major spin on things. For most people a system where parliament and government are elected by the people in free elections with constitutionally secured freedom rights is a democratic system. Saying that systems that do not exactly match the original definitions are not democratic is just shit stirring.

I'm not putting a spin on anything, nor am I trying to stir sh*t. A monarchy, in all its forms, does not have any ties to democracy. By electing representatives to a Congress or Parliament, the voters are, by proxy, extending their "power" to their elected representatives. It's no different here in the US.

Quote

You were mixing issues and implying some UK control over Australian matters in an previous post, but that does not really matter. I see you have looked up some facts…. Well done.

Thanks. My intent was not to imply UK rule or control per se. More to note that the relationship is more than simply diplomatic. This, in my perception, is because of the history of the British Empire.

And, I agree with you that countries that adopt a constitution allowing its populace to elect its government through the various branches are democratic in practice. Noting my first paragraph though, where the voters elect legislators to act on their behalf is a primary differentiator.

A true success story for democratic development is Costa Rica.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 3,120]

>Regardless, a terrorist organization has now both influenced national
> elections of a sovereign nation . . .

Bush is currently doing everything he can to make sure the 9/11 attacks influence the next presidential election. From holding the RNC convention in Manhattan for the first time in 150 years, to using images of Arab terrorists in his ads, to trumpeting his response to 9/11, he's playing it for all it's worth.

>Pathetic.

Agreed, but also politics as usual.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

THE SPANIARDS DID WHAT AL QUAEDA TOLD THEM TO DO. AL QUAEDA BEING EMBOLDENED BY THIS RESPONSE IS A GUARANTEED FACT.

The Spaniards did what they said they wanted to do before the bombings and before AQ made any demands. See my hamburger example above. Just because you tell me to do something after I've already declared my intention to do so doesn't mean you made it happen. You're right, AQ will probably be emboldened by it, just like they have been emboldened by our failure to get Bin Laden and out invasion of Iraq. Since when are they rational?

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Good thing they're appeasing those terrorists. That way things like this won't happen anymore:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/04/19/spain.body/index.html


Sons of bitches.

That is truly disturbing. But once again, you're making false statements. How is "killed in a raid on suspected Islamic terrorists " appeasing the terrorists?

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Having a monarch, in whatever capacity, is tied to what democratic tradition? None that I can think of.

Here is was thinking about the current, sounds like you are dipping into history. Western Monarchy have developed quite a bit and in many cases seem to be far more democratic than the US where only two party have enough clout to buy win an election.

If only put in historical cotext then yes, the monarchies of yesteryear are not very democratic.

[bch7773 0]

Ok i saw your cheeseburger analogy. but its not really true in this case. most people agree that aznar was ahead before the bombings, or at least he had about 50% in the polls.
After the bombings, he suddenly loses very very badly. It was an upset, Caused by the bombings.

a better analogy would be:

"Gee, I can't decide what to eat... a cheeseburger or a sandwhich. Boy what a tough choice, both look tasty."

An AQ guy runs in, kicks you in the shins, and shouts "Eat the cheeseburger, or ill kick you some more"

"Wow, i suddenly decided that the sandwhich isn't good at all. That cheeseburger suddenly looks tasty. I'll have the cheeseburger, but it wasn't because of that AQ guy... i uhhh wanted the cheeseburger all along, but didn't say so."

MB 3528, RB 1182

[billvon 3,120]

>An AQ guy runs in, kicks you in the shins, and shouts "Eat the
> cheeseburger, or ill kick you some more"

>"Wow, i suddenly decided that the sandwhich isn't good at all. That
> cheeseburger suddenly looks tasty. I'll have the cheeseburger, but
> it wasn't because of that AQ guy... i uhhh wanted the cheeseburger
> all along, but didn't say so."

So all Al Qaeda has to do to make you aquiesce to their demands is to kick you and tell you to do the opposite of what they want? Didn't know you were such a pushover!

[PhillyKev 0]

Now you are missing the reason for the change in votes. It wasn't because Zapatero would go along with the AQ demands. It's because he said he would fight terrorism more vigorously than Aznar.

Going with the analogy again. I can't decide if I want to eat a hamburger or cheesburger. AQ kicks me in the shin and says eat the cheeseburger. I realize there is more protein in the cheeseburger and will allow me to beat them down harder when I retaliate. Even though it happens to be what they want, it will allow me to make sure I am better able to defend myself against any future kicking on their part. I eat the cheeseburger not because they said to. But because it will enable me to hit back harder.

[TheAnvil 0]

Ahhh...so you admit Al Quaeda will be emboldened by the actions of Senor Zapatero.

Zapatero, having a three digit IQ despite being a socialist (hard as that is for me to type), undoubtedly realizes this. He has options, such as delaying withdrawal, publicly telling A.Q. to 'Fuck Off' and delaying withdrawal, slowly reducing the force over there or maintaining its size while changing its structure - to 100% medical personnel for example, etc - in a prelude to withdrawal. Options other than complete withdrawal exist that would still allow him to keep his campaign promise. What does he do? Osama say jump, we say 'how high?' - that's not the true reason for his decision (I hope), but he's giving that impression and giving the bin Shithead followers more reason to believe their tactics can work against western nations.

Zapatero knows this. He's doing it anyway. Shame on him. His government owes the WORLD an apology.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[PhillyKev 0]

I'm confused. You're criticising him for following through with his campaign promise and not altering it because of terrorist actions. Seems to me if he changed his policy due to terrorist actions, than he would be giving into terrorism. Kind of like how I view certain aspects of the patriot act as giving into terrorism. The only thing I think he should apologize for is the previous administrations sheep-like actions of the US talling them to jump and them saying "how high" even though at least 80% fo the population was opposed to that action.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Ahhh...so you admit Al Quaeda will be emboldened by the actions of Senor Zapatero.

Yes, just like they have been emboldened by the actions of Bush.

[TheAnvil 0]

Doing what the terrorists desire is appeasing the bastards.

No false statements were made by me.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[TheAnvil 0]

Your confusion is your own problem. As for Bush emboldening terrorists, it never hurts to have a creative imagination.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[TheAnvil 0]

Bush running a campaign without mentioning the war on terror would be akin to FDR running for his fourth term without mentioning the war in Europe/Asia.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Doing what the terrorists desire is appeasing the bastards.

No false statements were made by me.

Well, AQ endorsed Bush. Do you plan to appease them?

Once again, if someone says you should do something that you were already planning to do, how in the hell do you consider that appeasing them?

[Gawain 0]

Here's the deal. Zapatero ran on the premise of taking Spain out of Iraq, right? So, when he came into office, he could've coordinated the withdrawal with the coalition.

With the bombings of 3/11 though, Zapatero should've reversed his position immediately. In the wake of 3/11 though, he can't avoid the appearance of "giving in".

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[TheAnvil 0]

AQ endorsed Bush? LMFAO.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Zapatero ran on the premise of taking Spain out of Iraq, right? So, when he came into office, he could've coordinated the withdrawal with the coalition.

With the bombings of 3/11 though, Zapatero should've reversed his position immediately. In the wake of 3/11 though, he can't avoid the appearance of "giving in".

So, you're saying that he should modify his policy as a result of terrorist actions. But that woudn't be giving in. Yes, if he yanked the troops the day he took power, I could see that rationale. Or even if he did it immediately following the second attack. But he said he would pull them out at the 6/30 transition of power that WE scheduled. And that's what he's still planning to do.

In other words, he had a plan, the terrorists attacked, his plan is the same. I just don't see how that can be considered giving in. Especially since the terrorists that attacked them didn't come from Iraq. He'd be better off directing resources to find those responsible for the attacks, as would we.

[rehmwa 2]

The real problem here is that now I'm hungry for a cheese burger.

I hope that Spain does go after terrorists. Those terrorists as defined by their definition.

As far as withdrawing, the timing is suspect, but if that's what the new admin decides, then so be it. I mean our action is about sovereignity, then they should also have the ability to make good and bad decisions as well in their interest.

But it does seem wrong to blast their previous leader for doing what he thought was right. How is it fair to say he was a puppet and the current admin isn't? Just because the first held a position that the vocal types disagreed with?

In any case, as far as I could tell, Spain was an excellent ally in the first part of this conflict, and I'm sure they'll be an excellent ally in the future, but in a likely different arena that they feel they can justify now.

stuff changes, we deal with it

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[PhillyKev 0]

Thank you. That's exactly what I've been trying to convay. They aren't giving into terrorists. They are modifying their tactics and goals. Their new leader had planned to do so all along. He is following through with his vision of what the right thing to do is DESPITE the terrorist attacks. I think that shows strength, resolve and conviction on his part. Not appeasement.

[billvon 3,120]

>Bush running a campaign without mentioning the war on terror would
> be akin to FDR running for his fourth term without mentioning the
> war in Europe/Asia.

Oh, he's not only using it, he's capitalizing on it. Between that and him trading US strategic plans with Saudi Arabia for an oil price cut just before November, he's got the election just about sewn up. Now if he can just get those bugs placed in democratic headquarters . . .

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Oh, he's not only using it, he's capitalizing on it. Between that and him trading US strategic plans with Saudi Arabia for an oil price cut just before November,

Now this I gotta read about...where did you hear this?

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!