Spanish Prime Minister Azner and his right wing government defeated in Spanish elections. PM Azner supported Bush and the Iraqi invasion while 90 percent of the Spanish public opposed the invasion. Chickens coming home to roost. Should be interesting to see what happens in the Italian, Australian and Japanese elections considering the level of public opposition to the invasion ignored by their governments. Not to mention Bush coming up for re-election in Nov now that the American people realize they have been played for dupes. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3511280.stm
It's a sad thing that terrorist organisation seem to be able to have such an impact on any democratic election at all, but like jagger said, the chickens coming home to roost in this case. The irony is that the public would probably have forgiven Aznar his role in the iraq campaign and let him win the elections, but somewhere deep inside the public felt screwed over , but iraq is far away (its an ugly habit that we only start taking care of problems when problems find us at home). However with these bombings all these feelings and anger come back to bite aznar in the ass. ...Maybe it's time to sell my Halliburton stocks.
I think that this shows a contrast between Spaniards and Americans. If the USA is similarly attacked, even anonymously, on the eve of the next presidential election, American sentiment would characteristically swing in favor of perpetuation of the Neoconservative agenda, and in favor of further US reprisals against anyone easily villainized. Bravo, Espana.
One could very easily call this a victory for terrorists everywhere. The fallacy is to think that the results of this election will automatically place Spain on Al-Qaeda's "Do Not Bomb" list.
Spanish opinion had already soured on Partido Popular, and participation in the Coalition of the Wanting occcupying Iraq was very significant. Aznar would be out now with or without the Madrid bombings. There's no globally masterminded coordination of terrorism, as I think you understand, 15/19. I think that Spanish people know that there is no dialogue with murderers. The large crowds assembling to express Spanish emotion after these attacks certainly express no capitulation to terrorism. Viva Espana!
The War in Iraq had a very large role to play on the ppl of Spain. The argumentation is that this attack would not have happened if it wasn't for Aznar going into Iraq, in total and complete contradiction to his ppl's wishes. The country voted like a democracy should vote, if a politician breaks the social contract with the population, unilaterally doing something without the public who voted him into power supporting it, he should not have a second chance. I think many Spainairds, or westerners for that matter are truly sick and tired of having politicians doing things that the population totally does not agree with. I think the ouster of Aznar was an exercise in the democratic process that we all to often take for granted. This was not a victory for the terrorists; far from this was a victory for democracy. Now the Spanish ppl will get what they want their troops back home from the disaster that is Iraq, and America will lose yet another ally in what could be a wave in Europe.
The people of spain have spoken. Let this be a lesson to every democratic government. Listen to your people. They will not forget.
Exactly. The Spanish people, en masse, were strongly opposed to US policy regarding Iraq, and just as strongly opposed to being in a position of supporting that policy. This opposition precedes the bombing by about a year or so. This should be a reminder to Americans that they should be wary of supporting leaders that casually disregard lives elsewhere - it can be deadly. :m: Peace.
From PSOE's website: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! And the URL, please: http://www.psoe.es/
Hypewaders – About your first post above I was thinking the same thing exactly. Americans don’t realize they’re the primary cause of terrorism in the first place, what with their puppet states and support of oppression therein. The Spaniards got the message fast. Kudos to them.
Yes, in a way it is a terrorist victory. But if we continue with Bush’s cheap approach to fight terrorism, I have a feeling the terrorist will have many more victories to come. When in our country, the government withdraw important rights from people, the terrorist enjoy victory. Don’t forget that the moment you abuse and violate laws in the excuse of fighting terrorism, you have already lost. Spain (in general) wants a government that develops an intelligent approach at protecting its population without withdrawing their rights. They don’t give a shit about economic embargos from US as reprisal or political pressure. Head of countries should not take their jobs personal and instead show and exercise a professional and pragmatic approach to their responsibilities.
I love this quote (from Spain's leader: Iraq occupation a 'fiasco'): Makes Cheney & Powell look stupid for accusing Kerry of lying about foreign leaders wanting him for prez. Not that Republicans will notice since they don't read.
It doesn't matter. What matters is if terrorists see it as capitulation to terrorism and believe that they can now significantly impact Western governments. It can always be argued whether Spain, or any nation, should have sent troops into Iraq to begin with, but appearing to cut and run sends a dismal message.
I don't understand how ppl don't think that terrorists aren't winning against the US? The attacks on 9/11 have battered the US economy, decreased rights of the average American, and have created a huge budget deficit. With the right president, it has only been more poignant. In office he went into Iraq creating a terrorist haven not preventing one. This administration and its policy have made Al Q more now then just an organization, it has made it into a ideological movement which has proven to be deadly. Now you have fringe groups that are connected to Al Q ideologically not financially or otherwise. All those pundits on CNN are saying that this is a new more dangerous Al Q. I don't see how Americans think that they aren't losing this battle? They have given the terrorists not only excuses to expand but now the average American citizen lives in constant fear. Terrorism by definition is to scare the population, and remember terrorism is psychological more then militaristic. If the terrorists strike on Nov.4 for instance and the American ppl rally behind Bush, don't you think that is what they would want? Bush is the most effective form of propaganda the "terrorists" could ask for.
Implying the government change in Spain as a victory for terrorism is simple minded. War mongers see everything as a win or lose situation. "We must win and they must lose! We are good, they are evil!" -- Everyone is affected by terrorism and EVERYONE LOSES (one way or another) in terrorism and war. The people of Spain ousted their government because it did not represent the will (not going to war with Iraq) of the people. Up to the election, it tried to mislead its people into believing that the separatist group ETA was responsible. Would you rather have Spain re-elect its lying government for the sole purpose of showing solidarity against the terrorists? If it comes to that point, then I would say terrorism really has won!
What if terrorists significantly impact Western governments in a positive way? It is clear to me that is what happened in Spain. Instead of being for war, for deaths for oil, the new government is against that. I don’t believe terrorists simply love killing people. They are fighting for a cause, which seems to be an end to their oppression. The fight should go out of them when the cause is achieved. Cutting and running from a offensive battle is positive in my book.
The point is, while perhaps the new Socialist government in Spain may have planned on pulling its troops from Iraq if it won the election regardless of the bombings of the trains, as it claimed its intentions were, nevertheless since the fact they won the election at all was seen as an upset, meaning that regardlesss of who was actually responsible for the bombings, the apparent impact of the bombings on the elections won't go unnoticed. Which means that if various groups believe that they can indeed now influence elections, I suspect that it will become the rule. And it will no longer have to mean just because a terrorist organization believes a particular nation is involved in the Mideast. If could be in a nation like France, which opposed the war in Iraq, but has angered Muslims with the issue over the veil. A series of terrorist attacks in Paris during their elections could influence the French elections. Would the French government be inclined to reverse its thoughts on the veil issue in the face of the heightened threat? I fail to see anything positive coming from giving in to terrorism. They could have easily attacked government facilities in Madrid instead of hitting 3 packed trains. A good offense is the best defense.
They could have easily attacked government facilities in Madrid instead of hitting 3 packed trains. So it would have been just as easy to attack the legislature then attack a passenger train? Or how about bombing the Palacio Real? Let's be real, the attack was purposely done to inflict as much damage as possible on the civilian population. The whole point of terrorism is to create terror and what better way then to attack soft and frequently used targets? I don't think they actually enjoy killing ppl, but they recognize that they will have to do it since they believe terrorism is the only way.
The terrorism in question is in response to a real threat of subjugation from the West. The terrorists in this case are on the defense. While it is possible that cutting & running could lead to more grief from offensive terrorists, history shows that’s unlikely. There is ample evidence that peace begets peace. I do, and it’s very simple. Since this terrorism is a response to a threat, removing the threat (giving in) should end the terrorism. If that strategy worked better then why did the US choose a shock & awe campaign for Iraq that killed thousands of civilians? This has nothing to do with my comment you quoted. The West is not using its offense for defense. It’s using it for offense period.
That's true, and I'm not arguing differently, in this case. But what happened in Spain gives the impression that terrorism can effect the voting process enough to sway the results of an election, which sends a clear signal to any group with a grievance that terrorism can have results. I doubt that seriously. I think it sends a signal to the people of any 3rd world country that terrorism is a potent tool. I disagree. The Coalition forces could remove themselves from Iraq, and even Afghanistan, tomorrow, but the implications of what happened in Spain are clear. Any 3rd world people now knows how to get peoples' attention. Well, just to get it out of the way, I was against the war. But to your point, if the US could have put sleeper cells in Baghdad and taken out the entire Baathist party that would have been great, but hardly possible. However, you didn't see the Shock & Awe campaign in Iraq. There was minimal colateral damage considering. Shock & Awe would have reduced Baghdad to rubble. Wasn't my intent to misquote you, and I agree with you to a degree on what you're saying. I thought Iraq was a mistake from the beginning, however, I was for going after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, although I haven't been overall very pleased with this administration's handling of the effort, mainly because I think it got sidetracked in Iraq. So while I think going after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan was indeed the best defense, I agree with you that Iraq was an unncessary offensive.
