Spain's Mistake

[Black Dog]

Yes, appeasement. Do what the terrorists want, give in to them, do not do anything to enrage them, do not resist them.

Indeed? is that "what the terrorists want"? After the Madrid bombings I saw millions of Spaniards take to the streets to give voice to their outrage that these attacks happened and at Anazar's regime for making Spain a target. I saw signs saying "No to war, no to terror". And I saw a people who refuse to buy into the false and childish "with us or against us" dichotomy. Which is what you're presenting.

Aznar was elected to do what he thought was in the best interests of his people. He went to war with Iraq because he believed that was in the best interests of his people, however, the people disagreed so vehemently that he was voted out of office. We on the right don't have contempt for democracy, we just understand what representative democracy is, and we agree with Mr. Aznar on Iraq.

Thank you Hugo. At least you're honest. But when I see criticism of people's democratic choices being couched in neggative terms as appeasement, I can't help but think that there are those who will only support democracy so long as it suits their needs or beliefs.

[KrustyKidd]

But when I see criticism of people's democratic choices being couched in neggative terms as appeasement,

BD, you have me pegged wrong. As far as I am concerned, thesee guys can vote in the Cat in The Hat or the Dali Lama for all I care, if they pull out their troops, it is appeasement. No matter if the majority, minority, or a unanamous vote does it, it's still appeasement.

[Black Dog]

BD, you have me pegged wrong. As far as I am concerned, thesee guys can vote in the Cat in The Hat or the Dali Lama for all I care, if they pull out their troops, it is appeasement. No matter if the majority, minority, or a unanamous vote does it, it's still appeasement.

Then you haven't the faintest idea what appeasement means. What concessions are the Spanish people granting terrorists? Iraq and Al Qaeda were not even connected until Bush and his cronies decided to make it into a terrorist's rallying cry. Now, because of their nation's participation in Bush's adventure (again, against the will of the people), the Spanish people find themselves a target.

Let me give you the scenario by which the terrorists "win". Spain keeps its troops in Iraq. More Spaniards die as a result. Repeat.

[KrustyKidd]

What concessions are the Spanish people granting terrorists?

One of the key methods of defeating terrorism is to remove the support of the people from their cause. the middle east is a good base for terrorists as it has many unhappy people. The reasons for this are poverty, political enslavement, lack of freedom and a ferverent beleif in a religion that has little or no room to work with the realities of the modern world. By modern world, I mean, increased population and the obvious needs that they have. Using the same teqniques as a thousand years ago will not feed, house or clothe these ever increasing numbers at present much less a decade from now using a restrictive system. Hence, a lot of disatisfaction. A mood that is played for all it is worth by terrorists in order to gain power.

Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism proper. With a little to be missed dictator in charge, a legal reason to invade, a moral reason to be played up, natural resources enough to rebuild it with style, it was a perfect place to invade and install a government that would work for the people, one that was elected by the people with modern needs in mind.

Something that would break the cycle of Middle Eastern political stagnation. Providing the opportunity to give people a reason to live, prosperity and exportable sucess and hope for a future where they and their families would not be slaves to anything other than their own self determination. You have to admit, in the Middle East, there is not much freedom, and people have a natural desire to be free. Even Chomsky related humans to wild animals, who, when in cages will injure themselves severely trying to gain it.

Is it any wonder then why terrorists find willing recruits in the Middle East? If America did not exist, or Israel, it would be something else or someone. The purpose of action in Iraq is to provide a base where people are living for their own reasons, and export their new lives to their nighbors via economic and cultural trade. It won't be immediate, it may take decades but it is a start. terrorists know this, if Iraq succeeds then they will likely begin a process of being irrelevent. That is why they go there in droves, attacking Iraqis themselves, religious leaders, UN workers and people who are trying to help the Iraqis themselves. For them, Iraq cannot succeed, that is their biggest threat at this moment, not the US occupation.

Let me give you the scenario by which the terrorists "win". Spain keeps its troops in Iraq. More Spaniards die as a result. Repeat.

Let me tell you how Hitler wins. Everbody goes to war to stop him from taking over the world and we have soldiers killed.

Terrorists win by being the most viable choice for the population to follow. They won't win in Spain or anywhere else on earth by having the people oppose them. They win by having control over other's actions such as the reaction to their bombings in Spain.

That's why they are called TERRORISTS..

[Black Dog]

One of the key methods of defeating terrorism is to remove the support of the people from their cause.

Okay with you so far...

Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism proper. With a little to be missed dictator in charge, a legal reason to invade, a moral reason to be played up, natural resources enough to rebuild it with style, it was a perfect place to invade and install a government that would work for the people, one that was elected by the people with modern needs in mind.

Something that would break the cycle of Middle Eastern political stagnation. Providing the opportunity to give people a reason to live, prosperity and exportable sucess and hope for a future where they and their families would not be slaves to anything other than their own self determination.

Except, that's not how the invasion was viewed in the Middle East, which is the key audience. Rather than a great experiemnt in humanitarian intervention, it was and is seen by a (justifiably) cynical Arab population as yet another example of western imperialism. After all, it's hard to take western claims of alturism and interest in Arab success seriously when we continue to support regimes like those Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Egypt.

The purpose of action in Iraq is to provide a base where people are living for their own reasons, and export their new lives to their nighbors via economic and cultural trade.

I do wonder: why Iraq? Why not start this experiemnt with, say, Kuwait or Saudi Arabia, states that already have pliant regimes dependent on U.S. support. It seems far easier to use economic and political leverage to push for democtratic reforms than to spend billions of dollars, thousands of lives trying to pull democracy out of the barrell of a gun in Iraq. In that context, is it any wonder western motives are questioned?

In any case, your rationalization relies on accepting that the U.S.'s goals in Iraq are purely alturistic. I do not, nor do most people who oppossed the war, nor does much of the Arab world.

They won't win in Spain or anywhere else on earth by having the people oppose them. They win by having control over other's actions such as the reaction to their bombings in Spain.

And once again, you confuse rejection of Anazar's unpopular pro-war stance with capitualtion to terror. Try peddling that lline with someone from Spain and see how far that gets you. Flat on your arse, I imagine.

[Sarah]

Maybe Spain thinks its first mistake was joining the unwinnable war in the first place. There always has been & always will be terrorism, especially in & from the Mid East. A dent or two may be put in the AQ, but the war will never be won. Just like the war on drugs, as much as someone likes to think they are winning, they are not even close. Thats just the way it is

Jim

Spain is afraid, and so they should be, they have just invited terrorism permanently into their homeland.

As sad as it is true, thank you for such a wonderful post on the issue. Indeed they have invited terrorism into their homeland and that is what fears me about Canada! We have such an "open door" politically right now, its just a matter of time for our own 9/11...Plus our majority rule of hate for the USA is a good breading ground for such terrosists...its sad but true....

[MapleLeafMerc]

And once again, you confuse rejection of Anazar's unpopular pro-war stance with capitualtion to terror.

No, BD, No.

Please don't try to change historical facts on us, or confuse cause and effect in Spain. Let's review: Aznar was in fact headed for a victory. Spanish voters CHANGED THEIR MINDS en masse as a direct result of the train bombs. Giving up what you want in the face of physical threats is appeasement.

[Black Dog]

Please don't try to change historical facts on us, or confuse cause and effect in Spain. Let's review: Aznar was in fact headed for a victory. Spanish voters CHANGED THEIR MINDS en masse as a direct result of the train bombs. Giving up what you want in the face of physical threats is appeasement.

Yes the Popular Party was polling well before the attacks (nowhere did I say otherwise). That doesn't mean his Anazar Iraq policy was not wildly unpopular (90 per cent of Spaniards were against it). So my facts are still correct. The only difference is the interpretation of the results. Whereas you and your ilk see it as a victory for terrorists (why that is, what "the terrorists gain" has yet to be demonstrated), I see it as a simple matter that the Spanish people chose to punish the Popular Party for making them a target. And they did so in droves (62% of the electorate voted, as opposed to 55% last time in 2000, with millions demonstrating against terrorism after the bombings ) And, last I checked, the decision to change one's mind was part of this whole thing we call "freedom".

[d4dev]

True. It seems like the Spanish people were opposed, but OK with Aznar's policy until it did not directly affect them. (No wonder they were opposed to the war, they might have had apprehensions about the terrorists striking them.) But after the terrorists proved them right, there was no way they could still keep Aznar in power.

[KrustyKidd]

I should be interested in knowing if the Bombings had an effect at all. I mean, some were against the Socialists but after the bombings might have been for. As well, those for may have chosen to then take the war to the Terrorists while staying Socialist.

in any case, the decision was democratic, I approve with accolades. It is the terrorists who reap the victory however, not the Socialists. They think they won, but did they, or did the terrorists?

[jccc]

KK

No one wins & no one ever will. How many times must this be said?? If you want to "beat" the terrorists, withdraw troops & CNN in the Mideast. Its a case of "ignore it & it will go away" The more troops & news cameras..the more acts of terrorism......no troops & cameras = little to no terrorism. The terrorists will always win cause they have nothing to lose!!!

Jim

[KrustyKidd]

If you want to "beat" the terrorists, withdraw troops & CNN in the Mideast. Its a case of "ignore it & it will go away"

Wow. What a statement. Terrorism has been around long before CNN and America is so many different forms and for so many different reasons that it is unfathomable. Vikings did it to strike fear in enemies and victims in order to lessen resistence, Romans the same, the Stern Gang to demoralize the British and frighten Palestinians. It does not go away until they have won what they want.

[jccc]

Terrorism has been around long before CNN and America is so many different forms and for so many different reasons that it is unfathomable.

& it is not going away either!!!

WOW!! Now you are finally starting to get it!! If Spain stays or leaves the war, terrorism will still be around. They have come to the conclusion that if they don't interfere with other peoples business, they won't be bothered by them!! Sort of how the Mafia works.

It does not go away until they have won what they want.

What the terrorists want is America to mind its own business trying to run the Mideast!!

WOW!! You may get it one day KK!!

Jim

[KrustyKidd]

What the terrorists want is America to mind its own business trying to run the Mideast!!

JCCC though, you said what they wanted was to be on CNN, now you add that all they want the US to mind it's own business? What other little farts of wisdom have you been holding back? Might they want the Spanish to get out of Iraq? Might they want to propegate radical Islam throughout the middle east, even if America left? How about the Basques? is their main purpose the same or are they different? What about the IRA? Red Brigade? Does it all hinge on America? How about Hamas and Israel?

As I said, terrorism has been with us for a long time. It's shape, form and reason change to fit the situation for both perpetrators and victims. Although you may not agree with the action the US has taken and, would have wished they had done otherwise is fine. To supply a better game plan is better, however, to simply accept terrorism on the basis that it is as normal as the sun setting or changing of the seasons makes me question your reasoning.

WOW!! Now you are finally starting to get it!!

WOW!! You may get it one day KK!!

Cute.

[jccc]

WOW!! You may get it one day KK

Glad you enjoyed that KK!! Thats another one of my

little farts of wisdom!!!

LOL, KK.....yer allllllrrrrriiiigggghhhtttttt!!!!!!!!

Jim

[jccc]

KK

lets get this straight. I do not condone terrorism or accept it. I even think Canada should have a large # of troops hunting Al-qaida members & trashing their training camps. I DO NOT however, agree with the war in Iraq & don't blame Spain for leaving. The war in Iraq & the war on terrorism are 2 different things. In Iraq they are looking for WMDs, so we were told. It almost seems the hunt for OBL is old news. If the US wants to get to the terrorists, they should be in SA, not Iraq. Just wanted to clarify these things with you because everyone seems to be getting a little off topic.

Jim

[Hugo]

I DO NOT however, agree with the war in Iraq

Why? Do you feel that Saddam Hussein deserved the benefit of the doubt, and that a more valid pretext was needed to attack him - more valid, say, than his murder of 300,000-1,000,000 innocent people, torture chambers, aggression against neighbouring states, sponsorship of terrorism, use of weapons banned by the Geneva Convention, starvation of the Iraqi people to fund armament programs, etc.?

I'm serious. What pretext would have satisfied you? How can you defend and advocate the continued power of an inhuman butcher like Saddam Hussein? Have you no ethics at all?

[Black Dog]

Why? Do you feel that Saddam Hussein deserved the benefit of the doubt, and that a more valid pretext was needed to attack him - more valid, say, than his murder of 300,000-1,000,000 innocent people, torture chambers, aggression against neighbouring states, sponsorship of terrorism, use of weapons banned by the Geneva Convention, starvation of the Iraqi people to fund armament programs, etc.?

I'm serious. What pretext would have satisfied you? How can you defend and advocate the continued power of an inhuman butcher like Saddam Hussein? Have you no ethics at all?

Pretext: 1.An ostensible or professed purpose; an excuse.

2. An effort or strategy intended to conceal something.

"Ooops, the WMD pretext is inoperable. What now?"

"Just trot out the 'human rights' one."

"Yeah, but didn't we actually support Saddam during the period where he was conducting his worst atrocities?"

"Well, yeah, but that was when he was acting as a bulwark against radical Islam in Iran, see. So we could overlook his worst crimes. However, it no longer became practical to do so."

"Because he was a threat, right?"

"Well, no. Actually Saddam was at his weakest when we invaded."

"So it was because of human rights, then, like we said?"

"Well not really. See, it's been policy for a long time to cozy up with the worst criminals and thugs in the world, provided thay suit our national interest (which just so happens to be the interests of Halliburton, Exxon and the rest of our beloved campaign contributers. Heck, we do it today in places like Uzbeckistan, where our current best bud likes boiling his political opponents alive."

"But wait, isn't that -supporting inhumane regimes and interfering in the domestic affairs of foreign countries- the kind of thing that got us into this mess in the first place?"

"Well, yeah. But that won't happen again, honest. Besides, ignoring international law, squandering the good will of the world community, fanning the flames of anti-Americanism throughout the Arab world, misleading our own citizens as we send their children off to die is a small price to pay for a peaceful, democratic Iraq."

[Hugo]

So, basically, you feel that doing the wrong thing somewhere, at some time, disqualifies one from being allowed to do the right thing anywhere, at any time?

Or do you believe that because you cannot find the best time to start a job, then you should never start that job?

Do you still have a black-and-white television, BlackDog?

[August1991]

I'm serious. What pretext would have satisfied you? How can you defend and advocate the continued power of an inhuman butcher like Saddam Hussein? Have you no ethics at all?

Should the US be the world's policeman? Should it intervene (risking the lives of its own soldiers) merely because some country gets itself into a total mess? Should the US have intervened in Rwanda? Sri Lanka?

[Black Dog]

So, basically, you feel that doing the wrong thing somewhere, at some time, disqualifies one from being allowed to do the right thing anywhere, at any time?

Nope. Just pointing out hypocrisy. What I'm saying is is that the U.S. has about as much interest in the well-being of the Iraqi people as I do in aquiring the complete works of Celine Dion. Which is to say none. This war is about power, about maintaining the U.S.'s standing as the most powerful nation on earth. The talk of security, human rights, freedom and democracy are window dressing.

Should the US be the world's policeman? Should it intervene (risking the lives of its own soldiers) merely because some country gets itself into a total mess? Should the US have intervened in Rwanda? Sri Lanka?

Good questions. Quite simply, I don't believe the U.S. has the moral authority too anoit itself the world's policeman. A reformed and strengthened multinational body would be a better option.

[Hugo]

Nope. Just pointing out hypocrisy.

So what? The right thing has been done and Saddam is no more. That's a good thing. The justification for Gulf II is two words: "Saddam Hussein."

This is what leftists such as you fail to understand: the invisible hand and the democratic-capitalist idea of ethically imperfect motives leading to ethically good results. Individual greed creates an economy in which all prosper, and in parallel we can see that whatever the US motivation for Gulf II, we can all agree that the outcome - the removal of a brutal dictator and a chance at real freedom, human rights and democracy for the Iraqi people - is a good one.

So what we have here, BlackDog, is the typical leftist obsession with method over results. You don't care that the end result of socialism is tyranny or that the end result of a mixed economy is economic hardship, you care that the idea of capitalism seems wrong and so you condemn it in favour of the theoretically superior but empirically very, very inferior idea of socialism.

Similarly, you condemn the US for the methods and motivations you perceive her to have, but you ignore the fact that the US has guaranteed, preserved and saved the freedom of more people than any other nation, while the enemies of the USA - the USSR, the PRC, North Vietnam, Cambodia, Cuba, etc. - have been the biggest tramplers of freedom and of human rights and history's biggest murderers, tyrants and warmongers.

But all that doesn't matter. End results are meaningless, empiricism is meaningless, what matters to BlackDog are theories and empty ideas no matter how often actual events prove them wrong.

[Hugo]

Should the US be the world's policeman?

Ideally, no. But until we have an international body that actually respects peace, human rights and democracy, it's hard to see an alternative. The ideal would be to boot all undemocratic nations out of the UN, but that isn't going to happen.

[Black Dog]

This is what leftists such as you fail to understand: the invisible hand and the democratic-capitalist idea of ethically imperfect motives leading to ethically good results. Individual greed creates an economy in which all prosper, and in parallel we can see that whatever the US motivation for Gulf II, we can all agree that the outcome - the removal of a brutal dictator and a chance at real freedom, human rights and democracy for the Iraqi people - is a good one.

So what we have here, BlackDog, is the typical leftist obsession with method over results. You don't care that the end result of socialism is tyranny or that the end result of a mixed economy is economic hardship, you care that the idea of capitalism seems wrong and so you condemn it in favour of the theoretically superior but empirically very, very inferior idea of socialism.

Oh bollocks. Methods matter greatly. Despite your Stalisnst obessession with teh ends justifying the means, how one accomplishes its goals is equally as important. If one assumes that the end goal of the U.S. is to reduce terrorism and spread democracy, its methods are proving to be counterproductive to this goal. But that first requires an enormous amount of faith in the motives of one's leadership, faith which I do not share based on past and continuing hypocrisys.

As for the rest, it's all tautological jibber-jabber.

[Hugo]

Accuse me of being Stalinist (which is not the same - Stalinism is the belief that any act committed to further socialism is a moral act), and then totally misunderstand the point. Nice job.

If one assumes that the end goal of the U.S. is to reduce terrorism and spread democracy

Did I say that was the end goal? No. In fact, I said that it does not necessarily matter what the end goal is, thanks to the invisible hand. The end goal of capitalists and corporations is to get rich, but the end result is prosperity and wealth for everyone. Similarly, the end goal of US foreign policy is the perpetuation of US power and dominance, but because the values of the US are those of political, economic, social and religious freedom, perpetuation of US power is in itself good - so long as those values hold true, and relatively, they are. Take a look at what the rest of the world stands for, and tell me who you'd rather see dominant. Red China, where being Buddhist or Christian is grounds for imprisonment? Fascist Islam, where the penalty for religious conversion is throat-slitting?

Regardless, I see we're back to insults, foul language and refusal to engage in debate, which apparently is what passes for a concession from you as you've done it in several threads now where you have been shot out of the water, according to other participants and readers.