Us 'appeasement' Warning To Spain [Archive]

leftism

03-18-2004, 07:12 PM

This confirms the suspicions I have raised in other threads concerning the Madrid train bombings.

Originally posted by BBC

US 'appeasement' warning to Spain

Two senior US officials have warned against "appeasement" in the wake of last week's train bombing in Spain, in which 201 commuters were killed.

The attacks contributed to the surprise election victory of the socialists, who have promised to withdraw Spanish troops serving in Iraq.

The most senior Republican in the US Congress, Dennis Hastert, accused the Spanish people of appeasing terrorists.

The top US military officer warned that weakness was likely to invite attacks.

The BBC's Justin Webb in Washington says Mr Hastert has stepped into a diplomatic minefield not caring much where he treads.

Analysis: Election and terror
Our correspondent adds that the leader of the Republicans in the House of Representatives - who is third in line to the presidency - has expressed publicly the view that many Republicans have held privately.

"Here's a country who stood against terrorism and had a huge terrorist act within their country and they chose to change their government and to, in a sense, appease terrorists," Mr Hastert said on Wednesday.

His views will not be backed by the White House, which is hoping for some continuing alliance with Spain, but they capture the mood of America, our correspondent says.

Even Democratic Party presidential candidate John Kerry - a strong critic of administration's policies on Iraq - has called on the new Spanish government not to pull its troops out.

'Provocative weakness'

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen Richard Myers, also expressed concern on Wednesday.

He did not criticise the new Spanish government, saying every country had to make its own decision about how it supports the war on terror.

But he added that this was not a conflict where neutrality was an option.

"If you look back through history and you look at situations that require people... to stand up and lead and be counted against various threats, appeasement just hasn't worked," he said.

"Weakness is provocative," Gen Myers added.

Spanish police believe last Thursday's attacks on packed trains in Madrid were carried out by Moroccan militants linked to al-Qaeda.

Prime Minister-elect Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero has said his position on Iraq is unchanged despite an appeal from Mr Bush not to withdraw Spain's 1,300 troops there.

He insists he will do so unless the UN intervenes in Iraq.

source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3522032.stm)

The question I would like answered is this.

Are these accusations of appeasement a cynical political ploy to discredit the decision of the Spanish, because it damages the imagery of the "Coalition of the Willing" and casts doubt on the decision to go to war in the first place (i.e it makes the US look bad) ?

Or do the people who are making these accusations genuinely not understand that for most people in Europe the war on terror and the war in Iraq are not the same thing?

Whichever it is we can be sure of one thing. There is a huge gulf between the USA and Europe on this issue and considering the world we live in today I think this is an extremely dangerous state of affairs.

If Bin Laden aimed to "divide and conquer" he must be a happy man because phase 1 of that plan is going very well indeed.

hobbes

03-18-2004, 09:31 PM

Originally posted by leftism@18 March 2004 - 20:12

If Bin Laden aimed to "divide and conquer" he must be a happy man because phase 1 of that plan is going very well indeed.

Bin Laden has to be ecstactic. First 9/11, then we topple his enemy Saddam, then his Al-queda boys move in to keep Iraq in chaos, then they bomb Spain and in an emotion driven election, an American ally is lost.

Certainly any break in solidaritary indicates that the killing of civilians is how they should execute their agenda. Certainly more will be planned to follow.

At this point Al-queda and Iraq are really one thing. So any loss in cooperation in Iraq will also be a loss in the war against terrorism, as you stated yourself:

The only positive aspect that Iraq brings to the war on terror is that Al-Queda is currently allocating much of it's resources to bombing the Iraqis and trying to start a civil war there.

Iraq no longer exists and we certainly cannot leave now as it will be just another Afghanistan. The strongest ethnic group will probably assume control and deal with the others much as Saddam did, mass graves. They, obviously, will be anti-American and will still be sitting on all that oil. Leaving Iraq now, is not an option and the removal of Spainish troops will only escalate matters as coalition resolve is becoming suspect.

Iraq needs to be stabilized and removing Al-Queda's influence is a good place to start.

As for the feelings of US citizens about Spain, we all feel that they have the right to chose their own government. We are disappointed that terrorists were able to manipulate them into chosing to remove an ally both in Iraq and for intelligence on the WOT.

Obviously the election should have been delayed a month or so to allow emotions to cool after such a shocking event. A similar situation occurred in the US in regard to the "Patriot Act" signed after 9/11. Many here have claimed it was emotionally driven and was inappropriately invasive and powerful. The situations are quite analogous.

I know you, Lefty, believe that it was the handling of the "bombing" and not the "bombing", itself, that caused the election result, but Al-Queda likely has found a rather effect tool to divide and conquer.

The comments from US aides reflects dissappointment on our part, a desire for continued cooperation, and an appreciation that the Muslim world will see this victory as a sign of weakness.

We do not think that the Spanish are cowards or that Spain has committed heresy. General Myers explained that pretty clearly.

He did not criticise the new Spanish government, saying every country had to make its own decision about how it supports the war on terror.

Authors note: Due to spam block I was unable to edit the thread and therefore I think this post is going to be full of mistakes. Down with spam guard!

mrcall1969

03-18-2004, 11:12 PM

Originally posted by leftism@18 March 2004 - 20:12
The attacks contributed to the surprise election victory of the socialists, who have promised to withdraw Spanish troops serving in Iraq.

Just one small point on this, I have never seen it said anywhere that Spain would pull it's troops out unconditionally. I believe that the newly elected President said he would withdraw the troops if Iraq wasn't returned to UN control by June or July.

I think this is totally acceptable.

Source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3512144.stm)

leftism

03-18-2004, 11:35 PM

edit: @hobbes

I agree with much of what you say and I'm sure Al-Queda will incorrectly perceive the Spanish result as a success.

I have to differ on at least one point though.

You see I believe this break up of solidarity happened a long time before Al-Queda bombed Spain. Thus I do not believe that Al-Queda manipulated Spain into voting the way they did. I think the handling of the bombings was the final straw, but the foundations for this result were laid when Aznar ignored his electorate and joined the US in Iraq.

Aznars government was behind the US but 80-90% of the population weren't. The situation "on the ground" was similar to varying extents all round the world, regardless of whether the governments in power at the time agreed to join the US.

Now again "staying on the ground" if you compare this situation to the one just before we went into Afghanistan the differences are amazing.

During the military action in Afghanistan there was a solidarity between the US and Europe that we haven't seen for a long time. No protests, no acrimony. Even France was behind the US all the way :smilie4:

How on Earth did we end up in this situation with Europe and the US disagreeing on even the most fundamental strategy to counter terrorism, not to mention France and the US almost engaging in some kind of Cold War!?

I'm going to try and put this as delicately as possible because I'm sure it will anger some people.... but

I think a large proportion of the blame has to go to the US Gvts attitude in dealing with the rest of the world. I believe this recent warning about appeasement (General Meyers also said " appeasement just hasn't worked," and"Weakness is provocative,".) is another symptom of this attitude. I'm doing really badly trying to explain this without causing offence so if Biggles doesn't mind I'm going to plagiarise him because he put it far more elegantly than I ever could.

Originally posted by Biggles

The new Socialist Government anticipates having a central partnership with France and Germany and intends to co-ordinate with them on anti-terror tactics. There is more than one way to skin a cat. The result and the acceptance of the result by the PP shows why democracy works and why it is integral to our way of life. I despair of the "democracy is ok as long as you vote the way we want" argument. Indeed the very route AQ would take us if they were in power.

The US administration has adopted a particular approach to this struggle (I prefer the word struggle over war for some reason I think it is more indicitive of the long haul we face) and for whatever reason is clumsy and inarticulate in accommodating the opinions and approaches of others who are actually on their side in this matter.

I honestly think that if the US Gvt had toned down their approach and been a little more patient in gathering support from Europe, Spanish troops would not be on their way home soon, because they would not just have had support from the Spanish Gvt, but also from the Spanish people. I also think that with a little more time the UN would have been on board. As it turned out the need to attack Iraq wasn't particularly urgent or as some would argue, not necessary at all.

It's easy to say "what if" at this point in time and as you rightly pointed out we're in Iraq now and it has to be dealt with. What I'm trying to say is that unless there is a significant, groundbreaking change in the way the US deals with the rest of the world i.e "you do it our way or we do it alone", we're going to end up with a complete fracture between two sides who should, by rights, be joined at the hip.

There has been a lot of talk about winning hearts and minds in Iraq, but I think that the US now needs to focus on winning the hearts and minds of the Europeans.

mrcall1969

03-18-2004, 11:46 PM

Originally posted by leftism@19 March 2004 - 00:35
There has been a lot of talk about winning hearts and minds in Iraq, but I think that the US now needs to focus on winning the hearts and minds of the Europeans.
I agree with most of what you're saying Leftism, but what the US does is not my main concern. What the UK does is more important to me. I don't think there can ever be a proper justification, in this country, for the war in Iraq. There has been too much lies, deceit and spin to convince me.

leftism

03-18-2004, 11:51 PM

Originally posted by mrcall1969
I agree with most of what you're saying Leftism, but what the US does is not my main concern. What the UK does is more important to me. I don't think there can ever be a proper justification, in this country for the war in Iraq. There has been too much lies, deceit and spin to convince me.

I agree with you about the spin in relation to Iraq, but when it comes to terrorism on a global scale, Europe and the US need to be side by side.

If we aren't... it's going to cost more innocent lives. :(

mrcall1969

03-19-2004, 12:02 AM

Originally posted by leftism+19 March 2004 - 00:51--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (leftism @ 19 March 2004 - 00:51)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-mrcall1969
I agree with most of what you're saying Leftism, but what the US does is not my main concern. What the UK does is more important to me. I don't think there can ever be a proper justification, in this country for the war in Iraq. There has been too much lies, deceit and spin to convince me.

I agree with you about the spin in relation to Iraq, but when it comes to terrorism on a global scale, Europe and the US need to be side by side.

If we aren't... it's going to cost more innocent lives. :( [/b][/quote]
I don't think we can be side by side when most of Europe has a different plan on how to deal with terrorists. As much as we don't like it, the war in Iraq has now been taken up by terrorists as a "cause", why is that? is it because we maybe got involved in something too soon, or too late?

Terrorism is disgusting and a threat to every decent persons way of life, but I really think we reap what we sow.

hobbes

03-19-2004, 01:14 AM

As far as "terrorism", I think the game of "reap what you sow" is thrown a wildcard when you concider those people who are motivated by irrational thoughts.

How different the Middle East and the world would be if we were all unified under one religion or philosophy. Then the playfield would be more level, and more true to your prediction.

Alex H

03-19-2004, 02:47 AM

No offence to Spain, but with the amount of troops they have in Iraq, their actual contiribution is f***-all. Their only "weakness" is going against what the US government wants them to do.

The Australian contingent in Iraq is the same. There are only a handful of Australian troops over there and we keep being told how wonderful they are, getting the Yanks out of scrapes and such, but for full-scale occupation and peace-keeping you need large numbers of of very visible troops on the ground, like the US has.

When the US went into Iraq and made a big deal about the UN being "weak" for not acting quickly, they ran around and rallied support to get the Coalition of the Willing. Well, now that we all know that Iraq wasn't the huge threat that Bush et al said it was, who can blame the Spanish government if they are not as "willing" as they were?

The US and UK governments lied to the rest of the world about Iraq. If you don't accept that I'm sure you will agree that they could have done a bit more research about the WMD they said were there. (Government press statements are not like news articles. If a newspaper makes a report, they have to be able to prove it's true!)

So now that Australia has been targeted by the Bali bombings and Spain has had the Madrid bombings, perhaps the rest of the world is starting to think that the US is not necissarily a good friend to have. Sure they are good to trade with, but let's face it: half the world hates them. And maybe telling the world that your country is best mates with America because you gave them a few thousand soldiers to go invade some place is going to do more harm than good.

3RA1N1AC

03-19-2004, 05:22 AM

Originally posted by hobbes@18 March 2004 - 13:31
We do not think that the Spanish are cowards or that Spain has committed heresy. General Myers explained that pretty clearly.

He did not criticise the new Spanish government, saying every country had to make its own decision about how it supports the war on terror.
i don't think there is a "we" as far as opinions on the matter go. myers said he respects the rights of the spanish to vote as they please, but dennis hastert's comments absolutely are a criticism against spain and against democracy. hastert's comment reflects the politically shrewd notion that democracy is acceptable only to the extent that the people vote how they're "supposed" to. it's pretty idealistic to suppose that all people and representatives of the u.s. are sympathetic to democracy just for democracy's sake.

also, i kinda think the appeasement accusation is a low blow. a bait & switch argument. an either/or guilt trip, if you will. because in order to buy the accusation's logic, you have to accept the premise that the invasion of iraq and the war on terror are one & the same. maybe the spanish people just don't wanna be involved in the occupation of iraq. could it be that simple? no, it can't be that simple, according to the bureaucratic voice. the bush administration and much of congress just won't stop pushing this manipulative premise: to be against the iraq invasion/occupation is to be in favor of international terrorists.

junkyardking

03-19-2004, 05:44 AM

Originally posted by hobbes@18 March 2004 - 21:31

As for the feelings of US citizens about Spain, we all feel that they have the right to chose their own government.  We are disappointed that terrorists were able to manipulate them into chosing to remove an ally both in Iraq and for intelligence on the WOT.

From what i heard the Spanish didnt vote for the peoples party because of the terrorist bombing, but because the government (peoples party) tried to blame the whole thing on ETA as to distract from the Iraq war - terroist bombing link...

You imply the Spanish resolve is weak when it nothing of the kind, to boost your own ego and distract from the US failings in Iraq and international relations...... ;)

alpha

03-19-2004, 10:41 AM

Originally posted by hobbes@18 March 2004 - 22:31
The comments from US aides reflects dissappointment on our part, a desire for continued cooperation, and an appreciation that the Muslim world will see this victory as a sign of weakness.

It does not bode well for Islamic nations when intelligent people start to say things like that :o

Busyman

03-19-2004, 01:08 PM

Originally posted by junkyardking+19 March 2004 - 01:44--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (junkyardking @ 19 March 2004 - 01:44)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-hobbes@18 March 2004 - 21:31

As for the feelings of US citizens about Spain, we all feel that they have the right to chose their own government. We are disappointed that terrorists were able to manipulate them into chosing to remove an ally both in Iraq and for intelligence on the WOT.

From what i heard the Spanish didnt vote for the peoples party because of the terrorist bombing, but because the government (peoples party) tried to blame the whole thing on ETA as to distract from the Iraq war - terroist bombing link...

You imply the Spanish resolve is weak when it nothing of the kind, to boost your own ego and distract from the US failings in Iraq and international relations...... ;) [/b][/quote]
We could go back and forth about WHY the Socialist Party won in Spain.

THE BOTTOM LINE IS NO ONE REALLY KNOWS.

It could be because:

Aznar lied about the Al Qaeda connection

The people were against the war

The bombing

or any combination of those

What is definitely true is that it makes Al Qaeda look like they actually made a political difference.

hobbes

03-19-2004, 03:29 PM

Originally posted by junkyardking+19 March 2004 - 06:44--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (junkyardking @ 19 March 2004 - 06:44)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-hobbes@18 March 2004 - 21:31

As for the feelings of US citizens about Spain, we all feel that they have the right to chose their own government. We are disappointed that terrorists were able to manipulate them into chosing to remove an ally both in Iraq and for intelligence on the WOT.

From what i heard the Spanish didnt vote for the peoples party because of the terrorist bombing, but because the government (peoples party) tried to blame the whole thing on ETA as to distract from the Iraq war - terroist bombing link...

Not what I heard, and it doesn't really even matter what we think, it is what Al-Queda thinks, and they clearly think they won.

You imply the Spanish resolve is weak when it nothing of the kind, to boost your own ego and distract from the US failings in Iraq and international relations...... ;)

Defensive and completely unsubstantiated accusation. Look here and in the other threads on the subject and support this.

This is just annoying. No matter how hard you try to say that you have nothing against the people of Spain, people keep coming back with, "you're calling them cowards, you are saying their resolve is weak". Really makes me wonder if people are responding to what I say or to their own agendas and emotions.
[/b][/quote]

hobbes

03-19-2004, 07:06 PM

Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC+19 March 2004 - 06:22--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (3RA1N1AC @ 19 March 2004 - 06:22)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-hobbes@18 March 2004 - 13:31
We do not think that the Spanish are cowards or that Spain has committed heresy. General Myers explained that pretty clearly.

He did not criticise the new Spanish government, saying every country had to make its own decision about how it supports the war on terror.
i don't think there is a "we" as far as opinions on the matter go. myers said he respects the rights of the spanish to vote as they please, but dennis hastert's comments absolutely are a criticism against spain and against democracy. hastert's comment reflects the politically shrewd notion that democracy is acceptable only to the extent that the people vote how they're "supposed" to. it's pretty idealistic to suppose that all people and representatives of the u.s. are sympathetic to democracy just for democracy's sake.

also, i kinda think the appeasement accusation is a low blow. a bait & switch argument. an either/or guilt trip, if you will. because in order to buy the accusation's logic, you have to accept the premise that the invasion of iraq and the war on terror are one & the same. maybe the spanish people just don't wanna be involved in the occupation of iraq. could it be that simple? no, it can't be that simple, according to the bureaucratic voice. the bush administration and much of congress just won't stop pushing this manipulative premise: to be against the iraq invasion/occupation is to be in favor of international terrorists.[/b][/quote]
Again the same song and dance, do it our way or you're pro-terrorist.

The United States government is saying that we values Spain's support in our war on terror and the war in Iraq. As I previously stated, they are quite intertwined today, as Al-Queda is active in keeping Iraq from peace.

Not wanting troops there now is a symbolic chip in the resolve of the troops, and this blood will be smelled by the hounds. Certainly, it is clear that we cannot leave Iraq now, even those who opposed the war can see this, with Afghanistan being the example.

I see Hastert's and Myer's comments as being completely political. They want them to stay with us and our plan,so they are attempting to first insult them (don't fold to the wishes of the terrorists), then guilt trip them into "staying the course" (neutrality is not an option). Myers comment was to impress upon people the magnitude of the situation and how important we considered Spain's aide, if only symbolic.

I am so sick of hearing about how the US demands that everyone do it our way or they are pro-terrorist.

The US is facing a suprising and disappointing result in the Spanish election, from our perspective. They are attempting to goad the new regime into continuing to work with us by implying that "it's the right thing to do".

Hastert in no way criticised democracy. He was upset at the fact that terrorists killing civilians could sway public vote. That was his point, that election results "appear" to be an appeasment (as the favored party lost) and would signify weakness in the coalition. This weakness is like chum in the water for terrorists.

I see no comments against the "socialist" party, just disappointment at their policy of removing troops.

mrcall1969

03-19-2004, 08:30 PM

Originally posted by hobbes@19 March 2004 - 20:06
I see no comments against the "socialist" party, just disappointment at their policy of removing troops.
Does anyone know if the 'Socialist Party' included the withdrawing of troops from Iraq as part of their manifesto (agenda) while campaigning for the election??

I haven't seen anyone make this point or supply this information, but if they did then maybe that is one of the reasons they were voted into power.

3RA1N1AC

03-19-2004, 10:35 PM

Originally posted by hobbes@19 March 2004 - 11:06
Again the same song and dance, do it our way or you're pro-terrorist.

The United States government is saying that we values Spain's support in our war on terror and the war in Iraq. As I previously stated, they are quite intertwined today, as Al-Queda is active in keeping Iraq from peace.

Not wanting troops there now is a symbolic chip in the resolve of the troops, and this blood will be smelled by the hounds. Certainly, it is clear that we cannot leave Iraq now, even those who opposed the war can see this, with Afghanistan being the example.

I see Hastert's and Myer's comments as being completely political. They want them to stay with us and our plan,so they are attempting to first insult them (don't fold to the wishes of the terrorists), then guilt trip them into "staying the course" (neutrality is not an option). Myers comment was to impress upon people the magnitude of the situation and how important we considered Spain's aide, if only symbolic.

I am so sick of hearing about how the US demands that everyone do it our way or they are pro-terrorist.

The US is facing a suprising and disappointing result in the Spanish election, from our perspective. They are attempting to goad the new regime into continuing to work with us by implying that "it's the right thing to do".

Hastert in no way criticised democracy. He was upset at the fact that terrorists killing civilians could sway public vote. That was his point, that election results "appear" to be an appeasment (as the favored party lost) and would signify weakness in the coalition. This weakness is like chum in the water for terrorists.

I see no comments against the "socialist" party, just disappointment at their policy of removing troops.
again, the same song and dance about "our" perspective. i'm sick of hearing about "our" perspective as if it's a perspective that ought to be shared by all of the citizens just because some advisors, speech writers, lobbyists, etc stick their collective hand up the asses of all the prominent ventriloquist dummies, and make them talk about what "our" perspective and "our" interests are. i was so sick of hearing "do it our way or you are pro-terrorist" on the very day that george w. bush said: "Over time it's going to be important for nations to know they will be held accountable for inactivity... You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror." here's us, here's the terrorists. you're with us or you're with them. there is no third choice, neutrality is not an option. either/or. you'd think that the president of the united states or at least somebody he passes on the way to the watercooler would be familiar with the old either/or fallacy, but there they go again... ivy league ain't what it used to be.

as for whether the "appeasement" accusation is a criticism against democracy. what this accusation does is to trivialize the interests of the spanish people, to trivialize any and all of their domestic & international issues aside from iraq & terrorism, and to boil the election of their government down to a vote to stand up against terrorists or a vote to back down from terrorists. it's an issue of whether spanish democracy is meant to serve the whims of its citizens or the whims of u.s. politicians, and whether casting such a dispersion on their election (for supposedly supporting terrorists ((appease: to gratify, to concede)) rather than the u.s. gov't) is arrogant & anti-democratic. if you can find any instance of me implying in my previous post that hastert is making it a left vs right issue, i'll eat a cockroach.

i am not addressing myer's comments, i am not addressing your ideals, and i am not gonna be distracted to address the nebulous "our" perspective. this post and my previous one are about dennis hastert's comment, and what it means. hastert does not say anything in that comment about appearance. he says "in a sense." that means a wholly different thing from appearance. it's not "they might appear to be choosing to appease." it's "they have chosen to appease." you mixed and matched bits from hastert, bits from myer, bits of your own ideals, and retroactively inserted a consensus between yourself and those politicians in place of what i was actually responding to. my topic wasn't whether "our" consensus perspective involves either/or demands. it was whether members of the u.s. gov't have spent the last couple of years issuing either/or propositions, such as bush's "with us or against us" proposition, and hastert's "occupy iraq or appease terrorism" proposition. you are not personally obligated to defend everything that our leaders say to the rest of the world... but to deny that they've even said it?

and of course it's purely political. nobody in his right mind would say such a thing and actually believe the words coming out of his own mouth. that's what separates politicians from mere mortal schlubs. the sheer, deadpan dishonesty and manipulativeness of everything they say.

hobbes

03-20-2004, 12:35 AM

Originally posted by mrcall1969+19 March 2004 - 21:30--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (mrcall1969 @ 19 March 2004 - 21:30)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-hobbes@19 March 2004 - 20:06
I see no comments against the "socialist" party, just disappointment at their policy of removing troops.
Does anyone know if the 'Socialist Party' included the withdrawing of troops from Iraq as part of their manifesto (agenda) while campaigning for the election??

I haven't seen anyone make this point or supply this information, but if they did then maybe that is one of the reasons they were voted into power.[/b][/quote]

Prime Minister-elect Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero has said his position on Iraq is unchanged despite an appeal from Mr Bush not to withdraw Spain's 1,300 troops there.

He insists he will do so unless the UN intervenes in Iraq.

From article in the opening post.

And that is why this is seen as such an "appeasement" to terrorism by some. It may be, it may not be, but it is the difference between the two parties on this issue that underscores this "accusation".

mrcall1969

03-20-2004, 12:41 AM

Originally posted by hobbes+20 March 2004 - 01:35--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes @ 20 March 2004 - 01:35)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by mrcall1969@19 March 2004 - 21:30
<!--QuoteBegin-hobbes@19 March 2004 - 20:06
I see no comments against the "socialist" party, just disappointment at their policy of removing troops.
Does anyone know if the 'Socialist Party' included the withdrawing of troops from Iraq as part of their manifesto (agenda) while campaigning for the election??

I haven't seen anyone make this point or supply this information, but if they did then maybe that is one of the reasons they were voted into power.

Prime Minister-elect Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero has said his position on Iraq is unchanged despite an appeal from Mr Bush not to withdraw Spain's 1,300 troops there.

He insists he will do so unless the UN intervenes in Iraq.

From article in the opening post.

And that is why this is seen as such an "appeasement" to terrorism by some. It may be, it may not be, but it is the difference between the two parties on this issue that underscores this "accusation". [/b][/quote]
Sorry Hobbes, but you miss understand me. What I meant was did in the run up to the election, even before the bombings, did the PSOE include withdrawing Spanish troops from Iraq in their manifesto? if they did and won votes because of this, then they are only fulfilling the pre-election promises.

hobbes

03-20-2004, 01:02 AM

Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC@19 March 2004 - 23:35
again, the same song and dance about "our" perspective.  i'm sick of hearing about "our" perspective as if it's a perspective that ought to be shared by all of the citizens just because some advisors, speech writers, lobbyists, etc stick their collective hand up the asses of all the prominent ventriloquist dummies, and make them talk about what "our" perspective and "our" interests are.  i was so sick of hearing "do it our way or you are pro-terrorist" on the very day that george w. bush said: "Over time it's going to be important for nations to know they will be held accountable for inactivity... You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror."  here's us, here's the terrorists.  you're with us or you're with them.  there is no third choice, neutrality is not an option.  either/or.  you'd think that the president of the united states or at least somebody he passes on the way to the watercooler would be familiar with the old either/or fallacy, but there they go again... ivy league ain't what it used to be.

as for whether the "appeasement" accusation is a criticism against democracy.  what this accusation does is to trivialize the interests of the spanish people, to trivialize any and all of their domestic & international issues aside from iraq & terrorism, and to boil the election of their government down to a vote to stand up against terrorists or a vote to back down from terrorists.  it's an issue of whether spanish democracy is meant to serve the whims of its citizens or the whims of u.s. politicians, and whether casting such a dispersion on their election (for supposedly supporting terrorists ((appease: to gratify, to concede)) rather than the u.s. gov't) is arrogant & anti-democratic.  if you can find any instance of me implying in my previous post that hastert is making it a left vs right issue, i'll eat a cockroach.

i am not addressing myer's comments, i am not addressing your ideals, and i am not gonna be distracted to address the nebulous "our" perspective.  this post and my previous one are about dennis hastert's comment, and what it means.  hastert does not say anything in that comment about appearance.  he says "in a sense."  that means a wholly different thing from appearance.  it's not "they might appear to be choosing to appease."  it's "they have chosen to appease."  you mixed and matched bits from hastert, bits from myer, bits of your own ideals, and retroactively inserted a consensus between yourself and those politicians in place of what i was actually responding to.  my topic wasn't whether "our" consensus perspective involves either/or demands.  it was whether members of the u.s. gov't have spent the last couple of years issuing either/or propositions, such as bush's "with us or against us" proposition, and hastert's "occupy iraq or appease terrorism" proposition.  you are not personally obligated to defend everything that our leaders say to the rest of the world... but to deny that they've even said it?

and of course it's purely political.  nobody in his right mind would say such a thing and actually believe the words coming out of his own mouth.  that's what separates politicians from mere mortal schlubs.  the sheer, deadpan dishonesty and manipulativeness of everything they say.
What a crazy convoluted rant, something about eating coachroaches with handpuppets.

I was able to understand the last paragraph and I agree. The problem, though, is that all politicians, in all countries are patently similar in this regard. But these men don't believe what they are saying, they are just trying to advance their agendas in a typically political manner to manipulate the their prey. Business as usual, every country does it. Once you understand the game, why let it upset you?

Hassert has no "occupy Iraq or appease terrorism" statement. He was fearing the philospohical change of the new regime and the loss of Spain as an ally. We don't need the 1400 Spanish troops, but we do appreciate their alliance. And this is far removed from your prior post:

the bush administration and much of congress just won't stop pushing this manipulative premise: to be against the iraq invasion/occupation is to be in favor of international terrorists.

Which states that to be anti-iraq occupation is to be Pro-terrorist, which is the only reason I responded to your first post. It is just not true.

Also, I wondered how the Beeb correspondant whipped this shit out:

His views will not be backed by the White House, which is hoping for some continuing alliance with Spain, but they capture the mood of America, our correspondent says.

Where the fuck did this guy get the pulse of America? What absolute bullshit, and sent back to the UK and published as fact. Unbiased my ass.

hobbes

03-20-2004, 01:13 AM

Mrcall,

I am no expert on the Spanish election, but my interpretation of the quote that he will not change his postion, indicated that it was long standing and well known.

Anyone who knows can correct me.

Given this stance, his party was still slated to lose. Well, up until the bombing, this is. So given this knowledge we can assume that people emotionally voted for him because of this stance. Hence the accusation that the result was an appeasement.

Even if his decision to withdraw troops came after the election, and was unknown to the voters, it still doesn't change matters in regard to "appeasement". People rejecting the known for the unknown.

As for keeping his promise, that is why you are hearing these "accusations", the US is trying to coerce Spain into keeping with the plan of the coalition. I'm not saying we are right, I am not supporting the invasion of Iraq, I am just reflecting on what the US government is attempting to do with this appeasement to terror stuff.

mrcall1969

03-20-2004, 01:27 AM

Originally posted by hobbes@20 March 2004 - 02:13
Mrcall,

I am no expert on the Spanish election, but my interpretation of the quote that he will not change his postion, indicated that it was long standing and well known.

Anyone who knows can correct me.

Given this stance, his party was still slated to lose. Well, up until the bombing, this is. So given this knowledge we can assume that people emotionally voted for him because of this stance. Hence the accusation that the result was an appeasement.

Even if his decision to withdraw troops came after the election, and was unknown to the voters, it still doesn't change matters in regard to "appeasement". People rejecting the known for the unknown.

As for keeping his promise, that is why you are hearing these "accusations", the US is trying to coerce Spain into keeping with the plan of the coalition. I'm not saying we are right, I am not supporting the invasion of Iraq, I am just reflecting on what the US government is attempting to do with this appeasement to terror stuff.
Yes Hobbes, I understand what you are getting at now, but we have heard so little about the "run up" to the election. I know for sure that some elections here in the UK have not gone the way the 'experts' predicted, even up until the last day of campaigning. I remember one in 1987 (I think) that the Labour party were, accordording to the surveys, guaranteed to win, but lost by an embarrassing margin.

It was a pretty close result in Spain, so maybe the polls were wrong, as they have been in lots of other elections.

Biggles

03-20-2004, 01:36 AM

:blink:

Hobbes

Call me old fashioned, but handpuppets are the only way to eat cockroaches in my book.

Nevertheless, I think the gist of what has been said appears to be coming round to some sort of common ground - that is, George Bush's assertion that it is 'his way or no way' cuts little ice with most observers - either at home or abroad.

I think someone suggested that GW was moving towards "a vote cast against me is a vote for terrorism". I would be surprised if his aides produced such an artless campaign, but if they do I would be even more surprised if anyone bought it.

Busyman

I agree with what you say (it had to happen :) ) The problem being, we should not let our preferred choices be dictated to by terrorists, regardless if those choices happen to please the bombers on the day they occur. (There is nothing to say they will like the new Spanish government any better than the old one next week).

If the US population feel that Mr Kerry will handle the economy better it would be perverse to choose Mr Bush simply because a handful of lunatics will take pleasure in his electoral defeat. Our lives and our chosen form of government has to be bigger and better than that, otherwise the terrorists are winning. The extent that we can conduct our lives as normally as possible is the measure of our success against them.

leftism

03-20-2004, 02:51 AM

Originally posted by hobbes
Where the fuck did this guy get the pulse of America? What absolute bullshit, and sent back to the UK and published as fact. Unbiased my ass.

So you can state without a shadow of a doubt that the mood in the US towards the Spanish election is that they aren't appeasing the terrorists by withdrawing from Iraq?

CNN, the Washington Times and the Houston Chronicle are all running stories about Spains 'appeasement'. They're taking a big risk with sales by going against the public mood if what you say is true.

The US may be divided on this but judging from what I''ve seen on various forums, and US news outlets a significant proportion of Americans seem to think it is appeasement.

By writing this off as "biased bullshit" on that claim alone it seems that your saying only a tiny minority in the US think it's appeasement .

latest:
"Republican, Congressman Henry Hyde, the chairman of the influential House International Relations Committee, added: "The voices of appeasement are being heard in Europe. But there are other voices that caution resistance, resistance to tyranny."

hobbes

03-20-2004, 02:52 AM

Originally posted by mrcall1969@20 March 2004 - 02:27
It was a pretty close result in Spain, so maybe the polls were wrong, as they have been in lots of other elections.
Lefty said as much in one of the other threads, when he stated that the appearance of an Al-Queda "victory" might merely be co-incidental to the actual will of the Spanish people to change regimes.

I agree polls have been wrong and I have no idea of the political temperament in Spain leading up to the election.

Who knows what would have been the outcome in that parallel universe?

hobbes

03-20-2004, 03:36 AM

Originally posted by leftism+20 March 2004 - 03:51--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (leftism @ 20 March 2004 - 03:51)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-hobbes
Where the fuck did this guy get the pulse of America? What absolute bullshit, and sent back to the UK and published as fact. Unbiased my ass.

So you can state without a shadow of a doubt that the mood in the US towards the Spanish election is that they aren't appeasing the terrorists by withdrawing from Iraq?

CNN, the Washington Times and the Houston Chronicle are all running stories about Spains 'appeasement'. They're taking a big risk with sales by going against the public mood if what you say is true.

The US may be divided on this but judging from what I''ve seen on various forums, and US news outlets a significant proportion of Americans seem to think it is appeasement.

By writing this off as "biased bullshit" on that claim alone it seems that your saying only a tiny minority in the US think it's appeasement .

latest:
"Republican, Congressman Henry Hyde, the chairman of the influential House International Relations Committee, added: "The voices of appeasement are being heard in Europe. But there are other voices that caution resistance, resistance to tyranny."[/b][/quote]
I live here, I don't need a fecking poll, to tell me what people around me think.

Anyway, the point was "bias". He made a sweeping statement about an entire country for which he provided NO objective evidence. An objective reporter might have worded this differently, had he chosen. Now you want me to prove that it is NOT the case? You have to prove it is first! Burden of proof and all. You don't seem to require this guy to back up his statement that we are with "several polls show", but feel certain that I must prove beyond a shadow of a doubt we aren't. That is absurdly unfair.

The point is not whether he is right or wrong, the point is that he failed to substantiate his claims and demonstated his bias.

The BBC's Justin Webb in Washington says Mr Hastert has stepped into a diplomatic minefield not caring much where he treads.

And this line, re-enforcing the image of America as a buffoon stomping the sand castles of little children.

Certainly, "Mr. Hastert was rather forthright in his statements in a rather delicate political situation", is much more objective.

How does he know that he doesn't care where he treads, maybe he was being deliberately terse for a specific objective.

Anyway, the bias is obvious, more portayal of Americans as bully idiots.

Our correspondent adds that the leader of the Republicans in the House of Representatives - who is third in line to the presidency - has expressed publicly the view that many Republicans have held privately.

Oh, third in line to the President, how dramatic. Can you read between the lines, I can. That was an intentional remark. And if "many Republicans" are holding this view privately, how the feck does this reporter know this? What does private mean?

It is slanted journalism.

He then followed this statement with the opening comment that this Beeb correspondant could capture the mood of the American people.

He is insinuating that the government and people of America are in lock-step over our opinions about Spain. Painting us again as arrogant, ignorant, bullies.

His article should be the "facts", not his sweeping generaliztions.

I'm just saying that the wording of those line caught my eye as a bit "nonobjective". And I am in no way saying or implying that only a small majority view the move in Spain as appeasement. I am saying that sweeping generalizations without objective supporting evidence (at the time of writing and in the article) indicate a bias by the author.

As for your comments on CNN and the Washington Times, I found an editorial and a commentary which are completely different than "reports". I'm wondering about your honesty, you should know the difference. Couldn't find the Houston article, but it is of little concern.

And, controversy does not stop sales, it stimulates it.

Washington Times editorial (http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040316-085119-1686r.htm)

Top CNN link to a COMMENTARY (http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/c-e/daley/2004/daley031704.htm)

I have no interest in exchanging "google" searches, just giving my thoughts on the way the article was worded.

leftism

03-20-2004, 05:07 AM

Before I tackle this I'd just like to point out that it isn't being presented "as fact". That would be "Mr Hastert has stepped into a diplomatic minefield not caring much where he treads."

Instead it is being presented as one man's opinion.

"The BBC's Justin Webb in Washington says Mr Hastert has stepped into a diplomatic minefield not caring much where he treads."

Originally posted by hobbes+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I don't need a fecking poll, to tell me what people around me think.[/b]

Originally posted by hobbes+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Anyway, the point was "bias". He made a sweeping statement about an entire country for which he provided NO objective evidence. The point is not whether he is right or wrong, the point is that he failed to substantiate his claims and demonstated his bias[/b]

With all due respect hobbes I think you've just contradicted yourself with these 2 statements.

Until a poll with a representative sample of the whole US is carried out there is no objective evidence to prove his point. The correspondent gauges the attitudes of the people around him(in this case Washington DC) in exactly the same way you do.

Now if his statement were untrue then that would be blatant bias. Surely the truth of his statement is the most fundamental point of all in deciding if he's biased? Following your argument to it's logical conclusion, the correspondent should not make any comment on the mood of the people as there is no objective evidence to back it up. Of course this raises the question of what would count as "objective evidence" in relation to such a nebulous concept as the mood of the people?

<!--QuoteBegin-hobbes@
The BBC's Justin Webb in Washington says Mr Hastert has stepped into a diplomatic minefield not caring much where he treads.

And this line, re-enforcing the image of America as a buffoon stomping the sand castles of little children.[/quote]

He's making a comment on one man, not on the whole of America. If you include the next bit

His views will not be backed by the White House, which is hoping for some continuing alliance with Spain, but they capture the mood of America, our correspondent says.
.

It clearly credits the Bush Gvt as being slightly more tactful than "a buffoon stomping the sand castles of little children". Again notice the phrase "our correspondent says". If this were being presented as cold solid fact as opposed to one mans opinion, that phrase would not be there.

<!--QuoteBegin-hobbes

Our correspondent adds that the leader of the Republicans in the House of Representatives - who is third in line to the presidency - has expressed publicly the view that many Republicans have held privately.

Oh, third in line to the President, how dramatic. Can you read between the lines, I can. That was an intentional remark.?[/quote]

Is it that dramatic? I thought the intent was to point out that Hastert isn't a political maverick on the fringes of US politics. If he were, you would want the correspondent to say so, wouldn't you?

Now I'm not saying that this piece is a text book example of unbiased journalism, but as long as it's not untrue, and you haven't said it is, then I don't think it's anywhere near as bad as your making out.

I certainly didn't get the impression that he was trying to make out that the whole population of America are arrogant ignorant bullies at all. Perhaps a few high ranking Republicans but thats not the same thing.

As for sales in relation to the news media, news outlets tend to tell people what they already agree with and/or what they want to hear. I don't buy the Daily Mail because I disagree strongly with the "editorials" and "commentary" it gives. I'm pretty sure j2k4 doesn't buy Living Marxism either for the same reason ;)

hobbes

03-20-2004, 05:40 AM

Lefty,

It actually is being presented as fact. The word "has" is in the indicative mood, not the subjunctive.

"Justin Webb reports that the building WAS blown up by a tank." is different from "Justin Webb states that the building MAY HAVE been blown up by a tank".

In addition, the line is not prefaced by, "in the opinion of 1 Beeb reporter".

It is stated as fact from a Beeb correspondant.

My points are not contradictory.

If I am removed from a country, all I can garner about that country is what is reported to me. If I am told that Americans think "x", I have no way of examining the merit of this information, unless it is supported in some objective way.

As an American, I can walk the streets, talk to co-workers, and actually be part of the American reaction myself. I have endless opportunity to test this opinion by just talking to people.

So when I say that I don't need a poll, I mean that I am part of the process.

Those not part of the process and relying on information from correspondants should not receive the opinion of one man, but be given the most objective information possible, lest they fall prey to the issues of said correspondant.

When he states that it "captures the mood of the American people" it is averred as fact. It should be couched in, "in his experience" or "based on polls", not completely unsubstantiated.

Now I'm not saying that this piece is a text book example of unbiased journalism

That's all I was saying, it contained a few prickly points, in my view. Bias does not mean "lies", it just connotes a way to approach information. Certainly this is no John Pilger rant nor Fox News flagpole-up-the-ass report.

leftism

03-20-2004, 06:06 AM

Originally posted by hobbes
Fox News flagpole-up-the-ass report.

lmao! :lol: :lol: :lol: Great description!

3RA1N1AC

03-20-2004, 06:26 AM

"Here's a country who stood against terrorism and had a huge terrorist act within their country and they chose to change their government and to, in a sense, appease terrorists,"

He made a sweeping statement about an entire country for which he provided NO objective evidence.

[crazy rant]indeed. mr. hastert's statement was rather sweeping and subjective.[/crazy rant]

Painting us again as arrogant, ignorant, bullies.

"Over time it's going to be important for nations to know they will be held accountable for inactivity... You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror."

[more crazy rant]yes. it's all the fault of the media, that current american leaders are perceived as arrogant, ignorant bullies. it's all spin. if only they'd stop going to people like the president and members of congress for arrogant ignorant opinions, and instead ask people like hobbes what america is really all about...[/more crazy rant]

j2k4

03-20-2004, 06:27 AM

Originally posted by leftism@20 March 2004 - 02:07

As for sales in relation to the news media, news outlets tend to tell people what they already agree with and/or what they want to hear. I don't buy the Daily Mail because I disagree strongly with the "editorials" and "commentary" it gives. I'm pretty sure j2k4 doesn't buy Living Marxism either for the same reason ;)
:blink:

I have yet to find a media source that tells me anything whatsoever that I want to hear.

An egregious overstep, in my opinion, as well as in the opinion of the fellow looking over my shoulder.

I know this concretely, as he just told me so himself.

You are taking liberties with your right to expression as well as with your gratuitous appropriation of my nick in your unweildy attempt to make a point you are not equipped to make.

I guess this will be characterized as an attack upon you; c'est le guerre!

This post not to be construed as attempt to impinge upon lefty's first thread; it's all his fault.

Hobbes should not in any way be held to account for the fiasco visited upon the forum by the originator of this thread.*

*This post a product of j2CL Productions, Inc. All rights reserved. MMIV

hobbes

03-20-2004, 06:48 AM

Brainiac,

If you can't post clearly, concisely and articulately, why should anybody bother reading your "word bricks" that appear to phase in and out of coherence, with no regard to grammar or punctuation.

And for God sake, at least I have a sense of humor.

Just tell me what you object to and stop eating cockroaches.

3RA1N1AC

03-20-2004, 07:02 AM

is this your way of telling me that dennis hastert is going to retroactively acquire a sense of humor, soon?

hobbes

03-20-2004, 07:14 AM

Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC@20 March 2004 - 08:02
is this your way of telling me that dennis hastert is going to retroactively acquire a sense of humor, soon?
Dennis is a politician, not a mortal schlub, so we cannot raise our expectations too high on this front. :lol:

3RA1N1AC

03-20-2004, 09:40 AM

how about i try to be clear and concise, this time, replete with "decent" grammar? if forum members are discussing quotations from an article, it's confusing and distracting to reply with "that's not what we meant," and then go on to explain what "we" really intended. changing the subject from "him" to "we" allows other people's intentions to be assigned to his words, and his words to be assigned to other people. it pushes the thread off-topic, as the discussion ceases to be a face-value look at the words of specific people in the news, and it becomes a course in apologetics and insult.

as for the question of whether the u.s. government has based, and continues to base, its statements & policies regarding iraq and terrorism on false dilemmas, i believe that we are making great progress toward definitively answering that question. let's argue more about it, until we're in full agreement. or until you convince me of this wonderful thing called "hobbes' sense of humor" which, if it's anything as subtle as that moustachioed watermelon-smashing guy, might elude me up till now. :frusty:

[/word brick]

leftism

03-20-2004, 04:30 PM

Originally posted by j2k4
You are taking liberties with your right to expression as well as with your gratuitous appropriation of my nick in your unweildy (sic) attempt to make a point you are not equipped to make.

Off topic as usual. :rolleyes:

Unless you have something to say about the topic, I suggest you keep this sort of OT rubbish to PM's.

leftism

03-20-2004, 05:01 PM

UPDATE:

Looks like a leading UK politicians doesn't want to be left out of the "Spain bashing" either.

The leader of the Conservatives, Michael Howard, wishes to share this pearl of wisdom...

Originally posted by Michael Howard

"It would be a terrible thing indeed if last week's murders in Madrid led the terrorists to conclude that attacking America results in retribution, but attacking Europe results in victory," he said.

"Countries cannot insulate themselves from terrorist attack by opting out of the war on terror. We cannot buy ourselves immunity by changing our foreign policy. Apart from the moral cowardice of that position, it can never work in practice."

j2k4

03-20-2004, 05:47 PM

Originally posted by leftism+20 March 2004 - 10:30--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (leftism @ 20 March 2004 - 10:30)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4
You are taking liberties with your right to expression as well as with your gratuitous appropriation of my nick in your unweildy (sic) attempt to make a point you are not equipped to make.

Off topic as usual. :rolleyes:

Unless you have something to say about the topic, I suggest you keep this sort of OT rubbish to PM's. [/b][/quote]
Your own logic would dictate this should have found it's way to me via PM, then yes? ;)

Are you getting a hint of how it feels, sir?

leftism

03-20-2004, 06:12 PM

Originally posted by j2k4+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Your own logic would dictate this should have found it's way to me via PM, then yes?[/b]

Probably. But I wanted to make it clear to everyone reading this that your just trying to stir up trouble.

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4

Are you getting a hint of how it feels, sir?
[/quote]

If your referring to the other thread about Spain then... no. I attacked your sincerity and motivation in relation to the topic. Your comments here have nothing to do with the topic.

Are you going to give it a rest now or do I have to report you for thread hijacking? I'd rather not "tell tales" but you seem quite determined to ruin this thread.

If you really think me saying "j2k4 doesn't buy Living Marxism" is such a serious issue then I suggest you start a new thread about it.

j2k4

03-20-2004, 06:39 PM

Originally posted by leftism@20 March 2004 - 12:12

But I wanted to make it clear to everyone reading this that your just trying to stir up trouble.

I believe the 13th word in the preceding sentence is mis-spelled.

Please report me?

I haven't yet had the pleasure. ;)

Biggles

03-20-2004, 08:39 PM

Originally posted by leftism+20 March 2004 - 17:01--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (leftism @ 20 March 2004 - 17:01)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> UPDATE:

Looks like a leading UK politicians doesn't want to be left out of the "Spain bashing" either.

The leader of the Conservatives, Michael Howard, wishes to share this pearl of wisdom...

<!--QuoteBegin-Michael Howard

"It would be a terrible thing indeed if last week's murders in Madrid led the terrorists to conclude that attacking America results in retribution, but attacking Europe results in victory," he said.

"Countries cannot insulate themselves from terrorist attack by opting out of the war on terror. We cannot buy ourselves immunity by changing our foreign policy. Apart from the moral cowardice of that position, it can never work in practice." [/b][/quote]
:lol:

As much as he tries to be soft and cuddly he just can't keep those fangs in at the whiff of a vein of opportunity. It was one of his own fellow Ministers that said "there is something of the night about Michael" - ironic, considering her own nickname is Doris Karlof.

Although he might be more politically adept than Ian Dunkin Do-Nut he is no less the man that enforced the Poll Tax today than he was at the time (which is why they have chosen three different leaders between then and appointing him now). I think it was simply a case of "what the hell - things can't get any worse".

It is difficult to tell how good Tony Blair is, as he has never really had any credible opposition (apart from Gordon who I believe, although I didn't see it, was called Prime Minister Brown by Harriet Harman (Labour politician of some experience) on Question Time recently. :)

mrcall1969

03-21-2004, 01:36 AM

How the Tories thought he would be the man to win them an election I don't know. He IS scarier than Ann Widdecombe :unsure:

Alex H

03-22-2004, 01:21 AM

If you're either with the US or against the US in the war on terror, what will happen to Switzerland?

j2k4

03-22-2004, 01:02 PM

I'll respond to the opening post, as that is, I believe, the only acceptable fashion.

This confirms the suspicions I have raised in other threads concerning the Madrid train bombings.

QUOTE (BBC)

US 'appeasement' warning to Spain

Two senior US officials have warned against "appeasement" in the wake of last week's train bombing in Spain, in which 201 commuters were killed.

The attacks contributed to the surprise election victory of the socialists, who have promised to withdraw Spanish troops serving in Iraq.

The most senior Republican in the US Congress, Dennis Hastert, accused the Spanish people of appeasing terrorists.

The top US military officer warned that weakness was likely to invite attacks.

The BBC's Justin Webb in Washington says Mr Hastert has stepped into a diplomatic minefield not caring much where he treads.

Analysis: Election and terror
Our correspondent adds that the leader of the Republicans in the House of Representatives - who is third in line to the presidency - has expressed publicly the view that many Republicans have held privately.

"Here's a country who stood against terrorism and had a huge terrorist act within their country and they chose to change their government and to, in a sense, appease terrorists," Mr Hastert said on Wednesday.

Dennis Hastert's statement seems to me the be a observation of fact followed by an opinion based on that observation.

Even given his right to free speech, the statement is characterized as a "warning" in the lead to the article, followed by a reference to it as an accusation. The BBC correspondent ( Justin Webb) also volunteers his opinion, stating that, "Mr Hastert has stepped into a diplomatic minefield not caring much where he treads."

Haven't I read in various places and times (in this very forum) paeans to the journalistic integrity and lack of bias which accrues to the ("It's publicly funded, you know...") BBC?

Hmmm.

Seems to be a fly in the pudding, eh?

His views will not be backed by the White House, which is hoping for some continuing alliance with Spain, but they capture the mood of America, our correspondent says.

Even Democratic Party presidential candidate John Kerry - a strong critic of administration's policies on Iraq - has called on the new Spanish government not to pull its troops out.

Surely not!!

A liberal would never utter such nonsense!

'Provocative weakness'

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen Richard Myers, also expressed concern on Wednesday.

He did not criticise the new Spanish government, saying every country had to make its own decision about how it supports the war on terror.

But he added that this was not a conflict where neutrality was an option.

Sounds like an accusation to me, too, but it is a statement by Justin Webb which is apparently meant to sum up, or encapsulate, General Myers' statements, which are as follows:

"If you look back through history and you look at situations that require people... to stand up and lead and be counted against various threats, appeasement just hasn't worked," he said.

"Weakness is provocative," Gen Myers added.

Statements of fact and opinion, surely, but I'm not hearing the predicate accusatory tone.

Spanish police believe last Thursday's attacks on packed trains in Madrid were carried out by Moroccan militants linked to al-Qaeda.

Prime Minister-elect Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero has said his position on Iraq is unchanged despite an appeal from Mr Bush not to withdraw Spain's 1,300 troops there.

He insists he will do so unless the UN intervenes in Iraq.

source

The question I would like answered is this.

Are these accusations of appeasement a cynical political ploy to discredit the decision of the Spanish, because it damages the imagery of the "Coalition of the Willing" and casts doubt on the decision to go to war in the first place (i.e it makes the US look bad) ?

Just because the BBC characterizes these statements as accusations does not make it so.

The circumstance of Spain removing it's troops would damage the coalition, no doubt, but this idea apparently cannot be posited without the attendent characterization of any views questioning the wisdom of such a move as "a cynical political ploy to discredit the decision of the Spanish..." by the BBC's viewers.

Or do the people who are making these accusations genuinely not understand that for most people in Europe the war on terror and the war in Iraq are not the same thing?

"The U.S. should take into strict account the opinions of viewers of the BBC when formulating it's foreign policy; to do otherwise is crass.

Whichever it is we can be sure of one thing. There is a huge gulf between the USA and Europe on this issue and considering the world we live in today I think this is an extremely dangerous state of affairs.

The problem would certainly be resolved by the U.S.'s consent to join the E.U. as a non-voting member, eh?

If Bin Laden aimed to "divide and conquer" he must be a happy man because phase 1 of that plan is going very well indeed.

This (at least) would seem to be true; the operant question, though, would ask, very precisely, WHY?

leftism

03-22-2004, 05:46 PM

j2k4, do you really expect anyone to take that post seriously? It's a joke.

Apart from attacking the BBC this is the entirety of your post. I've replied to the only 'point' worthy of the effort and translated some of your 'points' to enhance the honesty.

Originally posted by j2k4+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Surely not!!

A liberal would never utter such nonsense![/b]

:sleep1:

Originally posted by j2k4+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>"The U.S. should take into strict account the opinions of viewers of the BBC when formulating it's foreign policy; to do otherwise is crass[/b]

translation: "The war on terror is the exclusive province of US foreign policy. Thats why everyone should do what we tell them"

"Oh yes one more thing, you Europeans are good enough to die in the war on terror, but not good enough to have any influence upon the way it's carried out."

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@
The problem would certainly be resolved by the U.S.'s consent to join the E.U. as a non-voting member, eh?[/quote]

Translation: "Theres only 2 choices folks! We either continue to dictate, do as we please and lose all International support or we join the EU. as a non-voting member! There's no middle ground on this issue!"

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4
This (at least) would seem to be true; the operant quest
ion, though, would ask, very precisely, WHY?[/quote]

Hasn't this question already been answered in this thread?

1. Of the 200 people killed in Spain, at least 160 of them disagreed with the war in Iraq i.e the reason why they were killed.

2. White House policy seems to be founded on the kind of attitude you've just displayed.

Btw, if you think Hastert wasn't trying to influence Spain with his innocent "observation of fact followed by an opinion" I've got this bridge you might be interested in buying.