Us 'appeasement' Warning To Spain

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.

Quote:

---

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.

: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.

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

"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."

---

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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 &#064; 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&#39;t appeasing the terrorists by withdrawing from Iraq?

CNN, the Washington Times and the Houston Chronicle are all running stories about Spains &#39;appeasement&#39;. They&#39;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&#39;&#39;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&#39;s appeasement .

latest:

Quote:

---

"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&#39;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&#33; Burden of proof and all. You don&#39;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&#39;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.

Quote:

---

The BBC&#39;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&#39;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.

Quote:

---

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&#39;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&#39;m wondering about your honesty, you should know the difference. Couldn&#39;t find the Houston article, but it is of little concern.

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


Washington Times editorial

Top CNN link to a COMMENTARY

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

Before I tackle this I&#39;d just like to point out that it isn&#39;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&#39;s opinion.

"The BBC&#39;s Justin Webb in Washington says Mr Hastert has stepped into a diplomatic minefield not caring much where he treads."

Quote:

---

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&#39;t need a fecking poll, to tell me what people around me think.[/b]

---

Quote:

---

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&#39;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&#39;s biased? Following your argument to it&#39;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&#39;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&#39;s making a comment on one man, not on the whole of America. If you include the next bit

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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&#39;t a political maverick on the fringes of US politics. If he were, you would want the correspondent to say so, wouldn&#39;t you?

Now I&#39;m not saying that this piece is a text book example of unbiased journalism, but as long as it&#39;s not untrue, and you haven&#39;t said it is, then I don&#39;t think it&#39;s anywhere near as bad as your making out.

I certainly didn&#39;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&#39;t buy the Daily Mail because I disagree strongly with the "editorials" and "commentary" it gives. I&#39;m pretty sure j2k4 doesn&#39;t buy Living Marxism either for the same reason ;)

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&#39;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.

Quote:

---

Now I&#39;m not saying that this piece is a text book example of unbiased journalism

---

That&#39;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.

Quote:

---

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

---

lmao&#33; :lol: :lol: :lol: Great description&#33;

Quote:

---

"Here&#39;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,"

---

Quote:

---

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

---

[crazy rant]indeed. mr. hastert&#39;s statement was rather sweeping and subjective.[/crazy rant]

Quote:

---

Painting us again as arrogant, ignorant, bullies.

---

Quote:

---

"Over time it&#39;s going to be important for nations to know they will be held accountable for inactivity... You&#39;re either with us or against us in the fight against terror."

---

[more crazy rant]yes. it&#39;s all the fault of the media, that current american leaders are perceived as arrogant, ignorant bullies. it&#39;s all spin. if only they&#39;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]