Us 'appeasement' Warning To Spain

[junkyardking]

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]

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

[Busyman]

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]

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 &#064; 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&#39;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&#39;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]

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 &#064; 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&#39;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&#39;s comments absolutely are a criticism against spain and against democracy. hastert&#39;s comment reflects the politically shrewd notion that democracy is acceptable only to the extent that the people vote how they&#39;re "supposed" to. it&#39;s pretty idealistic to suppose that all people and representatives of the u.s. are sympathetic to democracy just for democracy&#39;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&#39;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&#39;t wanna be involved in the occupation of iraq. could it be that simple? no, it can&#39;t be that simple, according to the bureaucratic voice. the bush administration and much of congress just won&#39;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&#39;re pro-terrorist.

The United States government is saying that we values Spain&#39;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&#39;s and Myer&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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]

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 &#39;Socialist Party&#39; included the withdrawing of troops from Iraq as part of their manifesto (agenda) while campaigning for the election??

I haven&#39;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]

Originally posted by hobbes@19 March 2004 - 11:06
Again the same song and dance, do it our way or you&#39;re pro-terrorist.

The United States government is saying that we values Spain&#39;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&#39;s and Myer&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;m sick of hearing about "our" perspective as if it&#39;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&#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." here&#39;s us, here&#39;s the terrorists. you&#39;re with us or you&#39;re with them. there is no third choice, neutrality is not an option. either/or. you&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;ll eat a cockroach.

i am not addressing myer&#39;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&#39;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&#39;s not "they might appear to be choosing to appease." it&#39;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&#39;t whether "our" consensus perspective involves either/or demands. it was whether members of the u.s. gov&#39;t have spent the last couple of years issuing either/or propositions, such as bush&#39;s "with us or against us" proposition, and hastert&#39;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&#39;ve even said it?

and of course it&#39;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&#39;s what separates politicians from mere mortal schlubs. the sheer, deadpan dishonesty and manipulativeness of everything they say.

[hobbes]

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 &#064; 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 &#39;Socialist Party&#39; included the withdrawing of troops from Iraq as part of their manifesto (agenda) while campaigning for the election??

I haven&#39;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&#39;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]

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 &#064; 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 &#39;Socialist Party&#39; included the withdrawing of troops from Iraq as part of their manifesto (agenda) while campaigning for the election??

I haven&#39;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&#39;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]

Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC@19 March 2004 - 23:35
again, the same song and dance about "our" perspective.&nbsp; i&#39;m sick of hearing about "our" perspective as if it&#39;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.&nbsp; 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&#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."&nbsp; here&#39;s us, here&#39;s the terrorists.&nbsp; you&#39;re with us or you&#39;re with them.&nbsp; there is no third choice, neutrality is not an option.&nbsp; either/or.&nbsp; you&#39;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&#39;t what it used to be.

as for whether the "appeasement" accusation is a criticism against democracy.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; it&#39;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&#39;t) is arrogant & anti-democratic.&nbsp; if you can find any instance of me implying in my previous post that hastert is making it a left vs right issue, i&#39;ll eat a cockroach.

i am not addressing myer&#39;s comments, i am not addressing your ideals, and i am not gonna be distracted to address the nebulous "our" perspective.&nbsp; this post and my previous one are about dennis hastert&#39;s comment, and what it means.&nbsp; hastert does not say anything in that comment about appearance.&nbsp; he says "in a sense."&nbsp; that means a wholly different thing from appearance.&nbsp; it&#39;s not "they might appear to be choosing to appease."&nbsp; it&#39;s "they have chosen to appease."&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; my topic wasn&#39;t whether "our" consensus perspective involves either/or demands.&nbsp; it was whether members of the u.s. gov&#39;t have spent the last couple of years issuing either/or propositions, such as bush&#39;s "with us or against us" proposition, and hastert&#39;s "occupy iraq or appease terrorism" proposition.&nbsp; you are not personally obligated to defend everything that our leaders say to the rest of the world... but to deny that they&#39;ve even said it?

and of course it&#39;s purely political.&nbsp; nobody in his right mind would say such a thing and actually believe the words coming out of his own mouth.&nbsp; that&#39;s what separates politicians from mere mortal schlubs.&nbsp; 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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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.