Us 'appeasement' Warning To Spain

[Biggles]

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&#39;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&#39;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]


As much as he tries to be soft and cuddly he just can&#39;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&#39;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&#39;t see it, was called Prime Minister Brown by Harriet Harman (Labour politician of some experience) on Question Time recently.

[mrcall1969]

How the Tories thought he would be the man to win them an election I don&#39;t know. He IS scarier than Ann Widdecombe

[Alex H]

If you&#39;re either with the US or against the US in the war on terror, what will happen to Switzerland?

[j2k4]

I&#39;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 &#39;appeasement&#39; warning to Spain

Two senior US officials have warned against "appeasement" in the wake of last week&#39;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&#39;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&#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," Mr Hastert said on Wednesday.

Dennis Hastert&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;s policies on Iraq - has called on the new Spanish government not to pull its troops out.

Surely not&#33;&#33;

A liberal would never utter such nonsense&#33;

&#39;Provocative weakness&#39;

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&#39; 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&#39;t worked," he said.

"Weakness is provocative," Gen Myers added.

Statements of fact and opinion, surely, but I&#39;m not hearing the predicate accusatory tone.

Spanish police believe last Thursday&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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.&#39;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]

j2k4, do you really expect anyone to take that post seriously? It&#39;s a joke.

Apart from attacking the BBC this is the entirety of your post. I&#39;ve replied to the only &#39;point&#39; worthy of the effort and translated some of your &#39;points&#39; 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&#33;&#33;

A liberal would never utter such nonsense&#33;[/b]

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&#39;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&#39;s carried out."

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@
The problem would certainly be resolved by the U.S.&#39;s consent to join the E.U. as a non-voting member, eh?[/quote]

Translation: "Theres only 2 choices folks&#33; We either continue to dictate, do as we please and lose all International support or we join the EU. as a non-voting member&#33; There&#39;s no middle ground on this issue&#33;"

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

Hasn&#39;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&#39;ve just displayed.

Btw, if you think Hastert wasn&#39;t trying to influence Spain with his innocent "observation of fact followed by an opinion" I&#39;ve got this bridge you might be interested in buying.

[mrcall1969]

Originally posted by j2k4@22 March 2004 - 14:02
I&#39;ll respond to the opening post, as that is, I believe, the only acceptable fashion.

No offence, but does that mean all your previous replies in this thread have been unacceptable?

[j2k4]

Originally posted by mrcall1969+22 March 2004 - 13:53--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (mrcall1969 @ 22 March 2004 - 13:53)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@22 March 2004 - 14:02
I&#39;ll respond to the opening post, as that is, I believe, the only acceptable fashion.

No offence, but does that mean all your previous replies in this thread have been unacceptable? [/b][/quote]
Actually, an admission that they were, as lefty has made so clear, off-topic.

I had allowed my posting to be responsive to him personally, rather than the content of his original post.

I am trying to get beyond this type of behavior.

[mrcall1969]

Originally posted by j2k4+22 March 2004 - 21:19--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 22 March 2004 - 21:19)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by mrcall1969@22 March 2004 - 13:53
<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4

@22 March 2004 - 14:02
I&#39;ll respond to the opening post, as that is, I believe, the only acceptable fashion.

No offence, but does that mean all your previous replies in this thread have been unacceptable?

Actually, an admission that they were, as lefty has made so clear, off-topic.

I had allowed my posting to be responsive to him personally, rather than the content of his original post.

I am trying to get beyond this type of behavior. [/b][/quote]
I guess everyone could learn from that.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by j2k4+22 March 2004 - 16:19--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 22 March 2004 - 16:19)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by mrcall1969@22 March 2004 - 13:53
<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4

@22 March 2004 - 14:02
I&#39;ll respond to the opening post, as that is, I believe, the only acceptable fashion.

No offence, but does that mean all your previous replies in this thread have been unacceptable?

Actually, an admission that they were, as lefty has made so clear, off-topic.

I had allowed my posting to be responsive to him personally, rather than the content of his original post.

I am trying to get beyond this type of behavior. [/b][/quote]
I&#39;ve ignored her entirely. It works for me.

[leftism]

Originally posted by Busyman
I&#39;ve ignored her entirely. It works for me.

lol, my post replying to this childish OT crap was deleted.

Looks like personal attacks are okay for some people but not for others...double standards.. nice