Appeasement in Europe

>It seems to me

>>the Spanish people were unhappy at Aznar's decision to join

>>Bush by getting in the middle of this fight for no good

>reason

>>that anyone in Spain (or the US) seems able to articulate.

>People who peddle your view can keep ignoring this point but

>it doesn't mean that it will go away: polls uniformly

>showed Aznar's party winning the election in the week prior to

>the election itself.

As a matter of fact I'm told there was at least one poll showing that the two parties were tied within the margin of polling error. I heard that in an interview with a gentleman named Checa who is with the Kissinger-MacLarty Group and was an adviser to Zapatero during the campaign.

>Now you can agree or disagree with that view if you want, but

>you can't reasonably deny that it constitutes "appeasement,"

>since that behavior is the very definition of appeasement

>itself

>

>Al Qaeda made clear to the Spanish that they disliked the

>Spanish Government due to their involvement in the Iraq War.

>In response, the Spanish made the concession of electing the

>Soclialists in order to make peace with Al Qaeda. That is the

>definition of "appeasement." See Webster's above if you are

>still confused.

I think what's confusing is your statement that the Socialists plan to appease Al Qaeda when their real position is that they intend to confront Al Qaeda in ways they consider more effective, and to withdraw from the Iraq occupation which they do not consider effective. That can only be defined as a "concession" to Al Qaeda if we agree with you that the Iraq occupation is an effective means of combatting Al Qaeda. It should be clear that several of us don't agree with that.

>>The fact is that a number of European countries, especially

>>France, which the Right in this country has mocked as

>>"cheese-eating surrender monkeys" because they wouldn't join

>>Bush's war, . . . .

>Actually, I believe that term refers to the French behavior in

>World War II

Nope. It's a quote from right-wing commentator Joe Scarborough, who was talking about the French opposition to the Iraq war. I heard him say those words.

>when, surrounded by countries which valiantly

>resisted the Nazis, they stuck their white flags -- along with

>their assholes -- up in the air for Hitler.

Excuse me, but is there any European country attacked by the Germans during WWII other than Britain that did NOT capitulate at some point? Which countries surrounding France are the ones that did NOT surrender?

>I'm no fan of Europe, but even I wouldn't go so far as to

>accuse them, as you seem to, of being willing to harbor and

>abet Muslim terrorists or blocking our efforts to apprehend

>them unless we capitulate to their demands and construct our

>foreign policy in order to please them.

Excuse me, but you're the one who suggested we have no reason to pay attention to the views of Europeans on the issue of fighting terrorism. You did say that, right? Do I need to go get the quote? I fail to see how we can have any effective cooperation with the Europeans on fighting terrorism if our position is that we will ignore anything they have to say on the subject, which is what you seem to be recommending.

>As Machievelli said, it's better to be feared than loved,

Did he? And how did that strategy work out for him? Or for his "model prince" Cesare Borgia? Are you sure that's the example of brilliant statesmanship you want to quote?

>It is, however, striking how your world-view seems to be: "we

>better do everything that Group X wants (Europeans, Al Qaeda,

>whomever) - and we better not do anything to make them mad -

>otherwise they won't like us and will do mean things to us."

My world view is that it's pretty damn stupid to get involved in a fight between two groups, neither of whom shares our values or is willing to work with us except to the extent it's in their own interest to do so. Why could it possibly matter to us which of those groups wins? And if it doesn't matter, why spend a fortune in blood and treasure trying to make sure one group rather than the other wins? Are you going to deny that for years we have helped prop up a Saudi monarchy that not only does not share our values but has spent a huge amount of money backing people who preach hatred of Jews, Christians and the West? So far as I can tell the only difference between them and Bin Laden's gang is their shoe sizes. So why the fuck are we fighting their enemies for them? Because you'll accuse us of appeasement if we don't?

>As a matter of fact I'm told there was at least one poll

>showing that the two parties were tied within the margin of

>polling error. I heard that in an interview with a gentleman

>named Checa who is with the Kissinger-MacLarty Group and was

>an adviser to Zapatero during the campaign.

I haven't heard of this poll, but even assuming this poll was correct (and I believe the majority of polls had the Socialists clearly behind), there was still nonetheless a significant shift away from Anzar's party subsequent to, and due to, the Madrid attacks. The electoral results therefore can't be blamed on his participation in the war in Iraq, because even if you use your poll, there was still a sizable shift away from Aznar in that last week.

>I think what's confusing is your statement that the Socialists

>plan to appease Al Qaeda when their real position is that they

>intend to confront Al Qaeda in ways they consider more

>effective, and to withdraw from the Iraq occupation which they

>do not consider effective. That can only be defined as a

>"concession" to Al Qaeda if we agree with you that the Iraq

>occupation is an effective means of combatting Al Qaeda. It

>should be clear that several of us don't agree with that.

No, whether Iraq is effective in fighting Al Qaeda is irrelevant to whether the Spanish are guilty of appeasement. What matters is that Al Qaeda was viciously opposed to the war in Iraq - and viciously opposed to Spanish involvement there. They made that quite clear when they attacked the Madrid trains. Thus, REGARDLESS of whether occupying Iraq is an effective means of fighting Al Qaeda, what matters is that Al Qaeda wanted the Spanish out of Iraq (gee, I wonder why? could it be because our being there undermines Al Qaeda?), and Al Qaeda thus threatened the Spanish with further attacks if they did not comply, and the Spanish then complied quite obediently.

That's called appeasement. Indeed, it defines appeasement.

>>Actually, I believe that term refers to the French behavior

>in

>>World War II

>

>Nope. It's a quote from right-wing commentator Joe

>Scarborough, who was talking about the French opposition to

>the Iraq war. I heard him say those words.

I have no doubt that he and others used that phrase when discussing France's refusal to enforce the UN resolutions against Iraq. But its genesis is from WW2. The French behavior recently simply reminded everyone of their national character as reflected in WW2.

>Excuse me, but is there any European country attacked by the

>Germans during WWII other than Britain that did NOT capitulate

>at some point? Which countries surrounding France are the

>ones that did NOT surrender?

It's not a question of whether a country ultimately capitulates. It's what they do on the road to surrender. France's surrender, particularly for a country of its size and military might, was quick, obsequious and pitiful.

>Excuse me, but you're the one who suggested we have no reason

>to pay attention to the views of Europeans on the issue of

>fighting terrorism. You did say that, right?

Yes, I did.

Do I need to go

>get the quote?

No, you described it perfectly.

>I fail to see how we can have any effective

>cooperation with the Europeans on fighting terrorism if our

>position is that we will ignore anything they have to say on

>the subject, which is what you seem to be recommending.

One has nothing to do with the other. We can cooperate with the Europeans in capturing terrorists who live in Europe and cooperate with their law enforcement agencies in trying to detect terrorist threats. This does not mean that we have to formulate our response to terrorism with the intent of conforming to what they think we should do, which is what you had suggested in your prior post. You did say that, right? Do I need to get the quote?

We cooperate with lots of countries with whom we have significant policy differences. Turkey, the Phillipines and Indonesia are but a few examples. I don't know where you got the idea in your head that unless we construct our foreign policy so as to please the Europeans, then we can't cooperate with them on a law enforcement level, but such a notion is demonstrably false.

>My world view is that it's pretty damn stupid to get involved

>in a fight between two groups, neither of whom shares our

>values or is willing to work with us except to the extent it's

>in their own interest to do so.

Uh . . . you may not have heard, but the reason that we are fighting one side in that dispute is becasue that side attacked us some time in September a few years ago. That's why we're fighting that side, not because we thought it would be fun to choose sides.

> Are you going to deny

>that for years we have helped prop up a Saudi monarchy that

>not only does not share our values but has spent a huge amount

>of money backing people who preach hatred of Jews, Christians

>and the West? So far as I can tell the only difference

>between them and Bin Laden's gang is their shoe sizes. So why

>the fuck are we fighting their enemies for them? Because

>you'll accuse us of appeasement if we don't?

Uh, the difference between bin Laden's "gang" and the Saudi government is that bin Laden's "gang" planned and implemented a vicious, deadly attack on our country, and the Saudi government did not. Unquestionably, the Saudi Government - like so many other states who are being dealt with - did things to fuel it. But the reason we have sided with the Saudi Government over Bin Laden is because the former is not dedicated to the destruction of our society whereas the latter is.

That's a pretty significant difference. At least more significant than the difference in their shoe size, don't you think?

>No, whether Iraq is effective in fighting Al Qaeda is

>irrelevant to whether the Spanish are guilty of appeasement.

Not at all. If the newly elected government fulfills its promise to confront Al Qaeda more vigorously than ever, then it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to term the election of that government as a "concession" to Al Qaeda.

>I have no doubt that he and others used that phrase when

>discussing France's refusal to enforce the UN resolutions

>against Iraq. But its genesis is from WW2. The French

>behavior recently simply reminded everyone of their national

>character as reflected in WW2.

>

>>Excuse me, but is there any European country attacked by the

>>Germans during WWII other than Britain that did NOT

>capitulate

>>at some point? Which countries surrounding France are the

>>ones that did NOT surrender?

>It's not a question of whether a country ultimately

>capitulates. It's what they do on the road to surrender.

It is? What did Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark and Norway do "on the road to surrender" that distinguished them from France? I think you and your right-wing pals are simply revising history because you're mad at France for failing to support Bush. Didn't the Netherlands surrender to the Germans with hardly a shot fired? So why are they not "surrender monkeys"? Because they've supported the Iraq war?

>>I fail to see how we can have any effective

>>cooperation with the Europeans on fighting terrorism if our

>>position is that we will ignore anything they have to say on

>>the subject, which is what you seem to be recommending.

>One has nothing to do with the other. We can cooperate with

>the Europeans in capturing terrorists who live in Europe and

>cooperate with their law enforcement agencies in trying to

>detect terrorist threats. This does not mean that we have to

>formulate our response to terrorism with the intent of

>conforming to what they think we should do, which is what you

>had suggested in your prior post. You did say that, right?

I did. And it makes absolutely no sense to suggest that we can work closely with these countries while simulataneously ignoring their views about how that work should be done. For example, if we want to extradite a terror suspect arrested in Germany and prosecute him for an offense that carries the death penalty here, how do you propose we "ignore" the Europeans' policy of refusing to extradite unless the death penalty is off the table?

>I don't know where you got

>the idea in your head that unless we construct our foreign

>policy so as to please the Europeans, then we can't cooperate

>with them on a law enforcement level, but such a notion is

>demonstrably false.

I didn't get that idea from anywhere. It's something you made up.

>Uh . . . you may not have heard, but the reason that we are

>fighting one side in that dispute is becasue that side

>attacked us some time in September a few years ago. That's

>why we're fighting that side, not because we thought it would

>be fun to choose sides.

I hope you're not going to pretend we weren't propping up secular tyrants in the Muslim world for years prior to 9/11 or that our support for those tyrants is not the reason we were attacked. No one is going to believe it's just a coincidence that ALL of the 9/11 hijackers came NOT from countries whose governments we have feuded with like Iraq and Syria but from countries where we have propped up undemocratic regimes opposed by Islamists. The question is, why did we choose to take sides in that dispute in the first place?

>Uh, the difference between bin Laden's "gang" and the Saudi

>government is that bin Laden's "gang" planned and implemented

>a vicious, deadly attack on our country, and the Saudi

>government did not. Unquestionably, the Saudi Government -

>like so many other states who are being dealt with - did

>things to fuel it. But the reason we have sided with the

>Saudi Government over Bin Laden is because the former is not

>dedicated to the destruction of our society whereas the latter

>is.

Again, you choose to ignore the fact that we supported the Saud family and other dictatorial regimes in the region for many years prior to 9/11. And during those years the Saudis funded Islamic terror groups throughout the Muslim world, including groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad that have killed American citizens. One of the African embassy bombers, for example, was trained in a Saudi-funded madrassa in the Comoros Islands. So I'm afraid the distinction you keep claiming exists between the Islamists and their foes simply isn't real. Your lot gets us involved in this quarrel between two equally repugnant groups, and then when the side we didn't take attacks us, you tell us we have to be involved in the quarrel because we were attacked. A better example of circular reasoning I've never seen.

>Uh . . . you may not have heard, but the reason that we are

>fighting one side in that dispute is becasue that side

>attacked us some time in September a few years ago. That's

>why we're fighting that side, not because we thought it would

>be fun to choose sides.

One more time for the Republicanally impaired:

* Al Qaeda attacked us on September 11th, 2001.

* Al Qaeda had nothing to do with Iraq until Shrubya attacked Iraq.

* The war on terror and the war in Iraq are two separate conflicts that have nothing to do with each other.

* The MisAdministraion concocted a link between Iraq and AL Qaeda to pursue their own agenda which had nothing to do with the war on terror.

To retreat from the Iraq war has nothing to do with the war on terror. It means that the Spanish people are finally coming to their senses, as we will when we vote Shrubya out of office in November.

>* The war on terror and the war in Iraq are two separate

>conflicts that have nothing to do with each other.

Hey, imbecile - sadly, I already know all your primitive slogans, so there's really no need to repeat them every fucking day.

Instead, why don't you try thinking for yourself for once and answer these 2 questions:

(1) If Iraq is transformed from a brutal dictatorship under Saddam Hussein into a Western-style democracy, and Muslims throughout the world see that this is the effect of the U.S. efforts there, do you think that will (a) hurt, (b) help, or © have no effect on Al Qaeda's cause?

(2) If the war in Iraq has nothing to do with Al Qaeda and doesn't threaten Al Qaeda in any way, why did Al Qaeda just punish Spain for participating in that war??? If what we're doing in Iraq has no effect on Al Qaeda, why do they care one way or the other about that war?

>>No, whether Iraq is effective in fighting Al Qaeda is

>>irrelevant to whether the Spanish are guilty of appeasement.

>

>Not at all. If the newly elected government fulfills its

>promise to confront Al Qaeda more vigorously than ever, then

>it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to term the election

>of that government as a "concession" to Al Qaeda.

You're just wilfully ignoring the defintion of the term "appeasement." If your enemy says: "Do X and we will continue to hurt you; do Y and you will have peace," and you consequently do Y in response, then you have, by definition, appeased your enemy, regardless of what else is true.

Al Qaeda said to the Spanish: "Throw your government out of office because of their support for the war in Iraq or else we will hurt you." The Spanish, like good little slaves, complied. Regardless of what else is true, that is, by definition, appeasement.

I really don't understand why people who share your view try so hard to deny that you advocate appeasement. It's like that word has become so poisonous that you'd rather implausibly deny that it's what you're advocating rather than admit it and defend it as the best approach. Just becasue it didn't work for Neville Chamberlain doesn't mean that it will never work. Just have the courage of your conviction and say: "Yes, I do advocate appeasing Al Qaeda, like the Spanish did, because I think that will work."

But trying to deny that it's what you advocate - when what you advocate fits 100% within the dictionary definition of "appeasement" - is just pointless.

>It is? What did Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark and Norway do

>"on the road to surrender" that distinguished them from

>France?

You can't be serious in comparing the French's "stand" against the Germans to the stand taken by those 3 puny countries. Those 3 countries have a combined population less than 1/2 of France's, whose population size was roughly comparable to the Germans. Not only did they have a population size roughly equal to Germany's (unlike the 3 cute little play-nations to which you absurdly compared France), but it also had a huge military at the time, almost certainly as strong as Germany's.

Despite all of that, France surrendered, under the most humiliating terms imaginable, literally one month after Germany's attack. Who the fuck surrenders in one month?

Worse than all of that, after the surrender, the French were the most compliant and eager subservient slaves to the Germans as existed anywhere. Their collaboration, not just in rounding up their Jews but also in turning over any dissidents of any kind, is fucking legendary - probably the most efficient thing they've ever done. Why do you pretend this isn't so?

The behavior of the French since then hasn't exactly been exemplary. They have been in bed with almost every brutal dictator to sullen the Earth in the past 50 years, including Saddam Hussein right up until the very end, even in violation of the UN sanctions they claimed to support.

I will acknowledge that the French fought quite valiantly in World War I against the German Army - although they needed the British, and ultimately the Americans, in order to win - but that awful experience seems to have made them so fearful of conflcit that they have become convinced them that a toxic combination of cowardice and appeasement is the only option.

> Your lot gets us involved in this quarrel between two equally

>repugnant groups, and then when the side we didn't take

>attacks us, you tell us we have to be involved in the quarrel

>because we were attacked. A better example of circular

>reasoning I've never seen.

So it's "my lot" that got us involved in this quarrel? Funny, I recall Bill Clinton being President throughout almost all of the 1990s and yet I don't recall the withdrawl of American troops from Saudi Arabia, nor do I recall that happening under Jimmy Carter. That withdrawal occurred under George Bush. I also don't recall during either the Carter or Clinton Administrations a termination for our support of the Saudi Royal Family or any other tryannical government in the Middle East, including Egypt. Did I miss that?

The irony is, Geroge Bush has given numerous foreign policy speeches where he agrees with everything you say about this Middle East. He has made the point repeatedly that we have made a grave mistake over the last several decades - Democrats and Republicans - of being linked with authoritarian governments in the Middle East, and that it is necessary that this perception and this reality be reversed. That's one reason why people who have your view ought to be cheering the overthrow by the U.S. military of Saddam Hussein. Isn't that a reversal of the problem that you claim is the primary one - our support for oppressive, anti-democratic regimes there?

The reality is, all countries support other countries based not on the goodness of those other countries but based on self-interest. Our country began because your pals, the French, supported us - not because they liked us and were fans of our democratic ideals, but becasue they thought we'd weaken the British if we won.

In a region where we have an obviously vital interest (can you say OIL?, leaving aside whether Israel is a vital interest), it has been perceived as necessary that we support governments which will promote, rather than undermine, our interests. To suggest that our doing so is unique or evil is really naive in the extreme. Foreign affairs have been driven by exactly that consideration for as long as it's existed. Do you think the U.S. should be attempeting unilaterally to abandon self-interest in foreign policy and either have some pure morality guide us or just resort to isolationism? It certainly seems from what you say that you do think so.

>You're just wilfully ignoring the defintion of the term

>"appeasement." If your enemy says: "Do X and we will

>continue to hurt you; do Y and you will have peace," and you

>consequently do Y in response, then you have, by definition,

>appeased your enemy, regardless of what else is true.

It's the phrase "regardless of what else is true" that I have trouble with. If "what else is true" is that Spain will pursue an even tougher policy against Al Qaeda's activities in Europe, applying the term "appeasement" to its actions just doesn't make sense.

>I really don't understand why people who share your view try

>so hard to deny that you advocate appeasement.

As I said, it's because it simply doesn't make sense to talk of appeasing this group if Zapatero is really going to do his utmost to destroy them. Seems clear to me.

>But trying to deny that it's what you advocate - when what you

>advocate fits 100% within the dictionary definition of

>"appeasement" - is just pointless.

Nope, it makes perfect sense.

>>It is? What did Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark and Norway do

>>"on the road to surrender" that distinguished them from

>>France?

>You can't be serious in comparing the French's "stand" against

>the Germans to the stand taken by those 3 puny countries.

Sure I can. If those "puny countries" had combined their forces and acted in concert against the Germans they could have done quite a bit of damage. They chose not to do so, but to surrender instead. The Finns, if you will recall, managed to hold off the vastly larger and better equipped Soviet Army for months at about the same time.

>Worse than all of that, after the surrender, the French were

>the most compliant and eager subservient slaves to the Germans

>as existed anywhere. Their collaboration, not just in

>rounding up their Jews but also in turning over any dissidents

>of any kind, is fucking legendary - probably the most

>efficient thing they've ever done. Why do you pretend this

>isn't so?

I don't. But was their behavior any different from that of the British when they Germans took over the Channel Islands? The British citizens of those islands were also quite cooperative in rounding up Jews and in other ways. One could say the same thing about the collaboration of the occupied countries of Eastern Europe -- but we don't say the same thing about them because they are part of Rumsfeld's "New Europe" whose leaders are supporting the Iraq war (even though their people do not).

>The behavior of the French since then hasn't exactly been

>exemplary. They have been in bed with almost every brutal

>dictator to sullen the Earth in the past 50 years, including

>Saddam Hussein right up until the very end, even in violation

>of the UN sanctions they claimed to support.

And we have NOT been in bed with dictators? Do the names Somoza, Duvalier, Batista, Mobutu, Noriega, Pinochet, Pahlavi, Marcos and Saud ring a bell? Not to mention Saddam? Really, Doug, the hypocrisy of an American complaining that OTHER countries support dictators is quite outrageous

>> Your lot gets us involved in this quarrel between two

>equally

>>repugnant groups, and then when the side we didn't take

>>attacks us, you tell us we have to be involved in the

>quarrel

>>because we were attacked. A better example of circular

>>reasoning I've never seen.

>So it's "my lot" that got us involved in this quarrel?

Yup, it is. It certainly isn't the conservatives in either party who have been agitating for an end to our support for regimes in the Mideast and elsewhere that constantly trash every principle of human rights. It's the liberals who keep demanding that, remember?

>The irony is, Geroge Bush has given numerous foreign policy

>speeches where he agrees with everything you say about this

>Middle East.

Yeah? Well, it sure is a pity he refuses to do anything OTHER than talk. I note that his support for the tyrants in Saudi and Egypt continues unabated. And his reversal of our policy of distancing ourselves from the dictatorships in Pakistan and Central Asia certainly shows he doesn't really give a shit about human rights, doesn't it?

>Isn't that

>a reversal of the problem that you claim is the primary one -

>our support for oppressive, anti-democratic regimes there?

No, it isn't. The fact that Bush has now cozied up to a whole raft of other putrid dictatorships in order to accomplish his geopolitical goals shows that whatever his motives may be, love of democracy is not among them.

>In a region where we have an obviously vital interest (can you

>say OIL?, leaving aside whether Israel is a vital interest),

>it has been perceived as necessary that we support governments

>which will promote, rather than undermine, our interests. To

>suggest that our doing so is unique or evil is really naive in

>the extreme.

What I am suggesting, Doug, is that the policy you advocate of supporting tyrants and murderers who seem willing to work with us is a policy of surpassing stupidity which almost always backfires in one way or another.

Let's start with our support for Stalin and Mao during WWII and go down the list of other vicious tyrants and terrorists we've supported for the last 60 years. In nearly every case either the tyrant or terrorist has turned on us at some point or he's been overthrown by his people, who then hate us because of our history of supporting their oppressor.

Remember the Shah? Since he was thrown out the Iranians have hated us because we were in bed with him. We then supported Saddam, one of the world's most appalling tyrants, because he made war on Iran. Saddam came within an ace of losing that war, and it may be that without our help he would have lost. We helped him survive. Then he turns on us and we find ourselves fighting him. Brilliant! We support the mujahadeen in Afghanistan because they oppose the Soviets, and from that group comes Al Qaeda which we must now fight, according to you, because they seek to destroy our society. We support the Saudi tyrants because they sell us oil, and they turn around and use the money they get from us to subsidize hatred and terror against us. We support Musharraf because he helps us against Al Qaeda, and so we turn a blind eye to the efforts of his man A. Q. Khan to spread the means of making nuclear weapons to other enemies of ours. What happens when Musharraf falls? How often, Doug, how often do you have to fall into the same hole before you learn to take a different road?

>Hey, imbecile

Try answering this rephrased version of your question (which describes a distinct possibility):

If Iraq fails to be transformed from a brutal dictatorship under

Saddam Hussein into a Western-style democracy, and Muslims

throughout the world see that as the result of the U.S.

efforts there, do you think that will (a) hurt, (b) help,

or © have no effect on Al Qaeda's cause?

Your second question is specious. It's been acknowledged that Iraq had little or nothing to do with Al Qaeda before 9/11 and the invasion. But Bush handed Al Qaeda a glittering prize when he invaded an Arab nation, because now they're using it for all the propaganda it's worth. They're also succeeding, it seems, in winning over converts within Iraq, when they previously had little presence there. We can thank Bush for that. So does Al Qaeda, I'm sure, at prayers five times a day!

>Try answering this rephrased version of your question (which

>describes a distinct possibility):

TRANSLATION: I couldn't answer your first question, so I changed it instead.

>Your second question is specious.

TRANSLATION: I couldn't answer your second question. so I called it a name instead.

It's been acknowledged that

>Iraq had little or nothing to do with Al Qaeda before 9/11 and

>the invasion. But Bush handed Al Qaeda a glittering prize

>when he invaded an Arab nation, because now they're using it

>for all the propaganda it's worth. They're also succeeding,

>it seems, in winning over converts within Iraq, when they

>previously had little presence there. We can thank Bush for

>that. So does Al Qaeda, I'm sure, at prayers five times a

>day!

If Al Qaeda has benefitted so greatly from the war in Iraq, why did they just punish Spain for participating in that war, and why are they trying to undermine the American efforts there? If, as you claim, they've benefitted so much from it, then you would think they would be happy the war started. But that is something that would occur to you only if you were engaged in reason.

>I've said this before and never really gotten an answer, but

>I'll say it again anyway. I don't see what "appeasement" has

>to do with not wanting to get into a fight between two equally

>repugnant groups -- the Islamists and the secular tyrants --

>about who is going to run the Muslim world. It seems to me

>the Spanish people were unhappy at Aznar's decision to join

>Bush by getting in the middle of this fight for no good reason

>that anyone in Spain (or the US) seems able to articulate.

>

The answer lies in the fact that opinion polls indicated Aznar was going to win prior to the Madrid bombings, and they clearly showed that the public flipped and put in the Socialist candidate BECAUSE of the bombings. I personally think that Bush Jr. is the worst President we've had since Herbert Hoover, that his invasion on Iraq was based on lies and stupidity, and that this invasion has and will continue to hurt the United States. Nevertheless, I think it was foolish for the Spaniards to flip the election in the direction that Al Qaeda wanted them to. Nothing can be dumber than to let terrorists choose your leaders.

>Instead, why don't you try thinking for yourself for once and

>answer these 2 questions:

Oh, all right. I'll answer them.

>

>(1) If Iraq is transformed from a brutal dictatorship under

>Saddam Hussein into a Western-style democracy, and Muslims

>throughout the world see that this is the effect of the U.S.

>efforts there, do you think that will (a) hurt, (b) help,

>or © have no effect on Al Qaeda's cause?

>

Well, we first have to acknowledge that the premise of the first question is fairly unlikely. Do you really think that "a Western-style democracy" will survive the departure of US and British troops? However, if we accept the premise, the effect on Al Qaeda is difficult to predict. Al Qaeda was probably more alligned to Iran and Syria than to Sadam. It certainly doesn't appear that Al Qaeda had a presence in Iraq BEFORE the US invasion, so it's hard to imagine that the invasion hurt Al Qaeda's cause. Since most Iraqis are Shiite, which have been more friendly than Suunis to Al Qaeda, I can certainly see how it could help Al Qaeda's cause.

>(2) If the war in Iraq has nothing to do with Al Qaeda and

>doesn't threaten Al Qaeda in any way, why did Al Qaeda just

>punish Spain for participating in that war??? If what we're

>doing in Iraq has no effect on Al Qaeda, why do they care one

>way or the other about that war?

The war just played into their hands. Al Quaeda doesn't give a rat's ass about the Iraqis, Palestinians, or anybody but themselves. What the war did was give them an excuse to flex some muscle and gain support from the Muslim community. I agree that the war had an effect on Al Quaeda. It just had the wrong effect.

>Hey, imbecile - sadly, I already know all your primitive

>slogans, so there's really no need to repeat them every

>fucking day.

The reason I have to repeat them, cuntbreath, is that your retention capabilities are suspect as you seem unable to retain factual information, only spin.

>Instead, why don't you try thinking for yourself for once and

>answer these 2 questions:

>

>(1) If Iraq is transformed from a brutal dictatorship under

>Saddam Hussein into a Western-style democracy, and Muslims

>throughout the world see that this is the effect of the U.S.

>efforts there, do you think that will (a) hurt, (b) help,

>or © have no effect on Al Qaeda's cause?

Right now, the war in Iraq has turned into a better recruiting program than Osama himself could have devised. The Arab world sees us invade a country that posed no threat to the US, no threat to its neighbors, had no WMD despite Bush lies to the contrary. It validates every rotten thing that Osama and AlQaeda ever said about us. This will be far worse than any gain that may happen ten years down the road, assuming that Iraq can ever handle a Democracy.

>(2) If the war in Iraq has nothing to do with Al Qaeda and

>doesn't threaten Al Qaeda in any way, why did Al Qaeda just

>punish Spain for participating in that war??? If what we're

>doing in Iraq has no effect on Al Qaeda, why do they care one

>way or the other about that war?

Al Qaeda was not involved with and did not care about Iraq until we invaded and occupied. George W Bush brought AL Qaeda to Iraq.

But terrorists didn't choose Spain's leaders. Spaniards did. And the Socialists, when they were in power before Aznar, weren't friends of terrorists. In fact, one of the reasons they lost to the PP the last time around is because the Socialist government was accused of going too far in its pursuit of Basque terrorists, engaging in torture and other extra-legal tactics to destroy ETA. Hopefully they won't backslide now that they're back in power, but the new Socialist government certainly won't be a friend of terrorists, either domestic or imported.

The biggest reason the Spanish turned out the PP is because they massively opposed Aznar's involving them in Iraq from the beginning, and their instincts were proved correct: instead of Spain being made more secure by participating in the Iraqi occupation, it became less so. It's very unlikely that Spain would have become a target for international Muslim terrorism prior to its involvement in Iraq. Now the Spanish have to face not only the threat of home-grown Basque terrorism, but also threats from abroad. That's what Aznar got for supporting Bush, and that's what got him and his party defeated.

Read the newspapers. Aznar was leading in the polls until after the Al Qaeda bombings.

Anyone who doesn't think that the Spaniards voted based on the threats of the Al Qaeda terrorists in an act of pure appeasement, really needs to pull their heads out of the sand! Did you see that despite that cowardly act of appeasement, that more bombs were found on the Spanish trains this week? Well, BIG SURPRISE THERE, as once a pushover, always a pushover! IMO, it's kind of like getting FUCKED, once the cock head is up your ass, don't be surprised when the rest of the shaft shoves it's way all the way up your ass!

APPEASEMENT, PURE AND SIMPLE, NO FACTS, OTHERWISE, TO DISPUTE THAT! But just as with the Nazis, the cowardly, appeasing Europeans will once again, look to the HATED Americans to come pull their asses out of the fire! I can only hope that when they do so, our leaders say UP YOURS!

I do read the papers. Polls don't elect governments. Voters do. And 75% of the electorate voted in the most recent Spanish election, a much larger universe than ANY poll could survey. Evidently the polls were wrong! But I don't understand your point, Unicorn. Are you saying that people are only supposed to vote the way public opinion polls (flawed as they may be) say they should?

The point is that it was clear that the Spanish electorate switched its mind in the way Al Qaeda wanted it to. Actually, the invasion of Iraq just gave Al Qaeda more power (they thrive in regions with weak leadership and/or near-anarchy). Showing that they could kick Aznar out of power was just a way for them to flex their muscle and garner recruits.

I'd buy that argument if I thought the new Socialist government was going to be soft on terrorism. But there's no indication that they will be. As I mentioned earlier, one of the reasons they lost power in the last change of government was because they got a bit TOO aggressive in fighting ETA. Government forces engaged in torture and other extra-legal activities and lied about it. The voters in Spain didn't take kindly to that and chucked the PSOE out. Evidently Spanish voters don't much like being lied to, because that sealed Aznar's fate, too.

And just because the Spanish decided they could live without the PP for the time being doesn't mean that as a people they're soft on terrorism, either, because they aren't. They're just like everyone else; they want to live peacefully and quietly in a secure country. They're also not that different from Americans. They perceived that they didn't really have any business in Iraq, and that perception was confirmed when it became evident to everyone everywhere that the invasion was based on lies and deceit. Americans had similar doubts before the Iraq war began (which explains the elaborate campaign of deception the Bush administration engaged in to justify its actions) and at best have supported the invasion grudgingly, because Americans DO support our troops even when we don't support the policies that send them on misadventures. But Bush would be making a big mistake if he thinks that support for the troops translates into support for HIM! And as things spiral ever downward in Iraq, as they show every sign of doing, Bush is likely to find himself in the same boat as LBJ, who also lied to get us into a war nobody wanted. And Bush doesn't hold a candle to LBJ in terms of political savvy. . .