Spain.

[kanibaal]

It is all about tact. Spain used none and chose to dog some leaders in the process.

I hope and pray for Spain to be a safe place.

[coreyoli]

I haven't posted in the Steam Vent awhile, in fear that it would turn into a huge flame fest, but this one already has lol...

I can see both sides here... Spain gets a terrorist attack and decides to pull out of Iraq... Regardless of wether they considered doing this prior to the attack is irrelevant... Their timing could not be any worse... It SEEMS like they are thinking "shit, we better withdraw from this before we get more attacks." This may not be the case, but it SEEMS that way...

I would rather see them stick with it for a few more months and then withdraw, at least then the timing wouldn't have been so bad, and made it LOOK like the terrorist scumballs proved their point..

Just my 2 cp's...

[Trith]

Pulling out of Iraq doesn't have anything to do with terror.

It has everything to do with it.

[kanibaal]

I agree with Coreyoli, that is about how I feel.

[Veo]

It has everything to do with it.

Yup, because, as proven, capturing Saddam has stopped all terrorists attacks, and now OBL is sitting in a hut making origami swans.

[kanibaal]

AHH so there is just 1 magical leader we need to find and kill/stop to end terrorism.

[Strijder]

Spain's new leader was already probably intending to withdraw from Iraq before the bombing. While Spain has the right to withdraw, the new leader displayed extremely poor insight by announcing the withdrawal so soon after the attacks. I fear that this will be seen by most of the world as the terrorists driving Spain out, and will only serve to encourage more of the same. Spain may have won a temporary respite at the expense of encouraging attacks against allies.

For those that see the campaign against the ETA as being the same as against Al Qaeda, there are some similarities and some differences. While both groups use reprehensible tactics, ETA is a regional group native to Spain while Al Qaeda is active internationally. IF, and I mean IF, Spain also announces it will withdraw public support for pursuing Al Qaeda, it will mean that Spain has withdrawn from fighting against any terrorists that do not directly affect Spain... a very short-sighted decision in my opinion.

Regardless of what Spain does, I hope they can overcome their domestic terrorists and achieve peace, as long as it doesn't remain an illusionary one.

[Maximus Faticus]

Trith, maybe you can explain to me exactlly how? Be as specific as possible.

[chukzombi]

I understand his point, though i dont agree with it. He thinks spain wanting to pull out of Iraq after the bombing is a show of weakness becuase they want to back down. As i said the Spanish people were not with us on Iraq not ever, the former leadership was and now they have been voted out. The new guy wants to appease the masses. what the new leader's BIG fuckup was. he announced this shit right after taking office in the midst of a major terrorist bombings in Madrid. If he had said 2 or 3 weeks from now " i no longer feel the spanish people should fight the Iraq war and wish to pull them out" he would not be branded a coward. His timing was extremely bad in saying he wants to pull out now.

As i posted earlier, if Spain had any fucking balls whatsoever, they would have their leader stick up for his country and join up with the US and Britain on the war against terror only (IE Al Qeada, ETA etc) .

[Maximus Faticus]

I agree. I hope he at least does something with his troops he is pulling out.

[FanonFaythunder]

So basically, in order for Spain to have any balls, they need to launch an invasion on a middle-eastern country claiming that they're indirectly responsible for the attacks, ignore the nation's domestic problems, and use images of the Madrid bombings to promote the P.M.'s re-election campaign, right?

[chukzombi]

WRONG, read my posts please

[Xanthaar]

The new leader *has* already pledged to fight terrorism. That hasn't changed. The only thing that has changed is their stance on occupying Iraq. How many more times does it need to be said?

[Veo]

Originally Posted by FanonFaythunder

So basically, in order for Spain to have any balls, they need to launch an invasion on a middle-eastern country claiming that they're indirectly responsible for the attacks, ignore the nation's domestic problems, and use images of the Madrid bombings to promote the P.M.'s re-election campaign, right?

Isn't that what Bush did?

[Trith]

Isn't that what Bush did

Nope..he enforced UN resolution 1441 which was agreed upon unanimously by the international community. Haven't we been over this before or is it just that difficult of a concept for you guys on the left to grasp?

[FanonFaythunder]

Concept of Devil's Advocate > Some Peeps

[Lurikeen]

Originally Posted by Trith

Nope..he enforced UN resolution 1441...

Yeah,we have been over this before. Bush didn't enforce resolution 1441, nitwit. In order to enforce a resolution the UN must draw up a resolution clearly calling for war. Furthermore, if Bush was in Iraq under UN auspices, then the US wouldn't be footing the bill!! Why do you think the Bush administration is trying to get UN backing now?! For the money, you tard!

Bush used 1441 as an excuse to launch a unitlateral first strike against Iraq. EVERYONE knows that, except for a few c0ns with Bush's dick in their ears.

[Maximus Faticus]

nm

[Trith]

I was right...it's obviously a concept too difficult for some of you grasp.

[Misty]

Trith the UN did not ratify the decision to send military force to Iraq. It got vetoed by Germany and France in the Security Council, vascillating or something.

Members of the UN famously determinated to go to Iraq under their own flags with WMD because Saddam's regime breached the U.N. WMD inspections procedural agreement. That common agreement listed the shit that could happen if Iraq failed to comply to U.N. terms post-Desert Storm. Roughly speaking, U.N. malefactors must disprove the justification for our probable cause-type insertion. Which would be contrary to their own ceasefire and withdrawal agreement ending the original war. The real potatoes for persistent malefactors is finding a sunset clause against attendant forces resuming engagement with Iraq, in the U.N. agreement, it's probably missing one. If so then technically war may be re-invoked anytime over an indefinite period, up until the regime was brought down.

So far the alliance are not looking great on actual WMD but the technicality of non-compliance is still a valid paper fight. Meantime shots are being fired.

[Kerryn]

Politicians are not an elite breed of people who have the right to command their citizens as they please. They are elected by the people to speak for them and organise their country in a manner in which the majority see fit.

Yet despite this, as in the UK, over 90% of the electorate were against any war or occupation in Iraq. When are the politicians going to learn that they cannot get away with going against their entire supporting base?

As it happened opinion polls had Zapatero winning anyway with 45%+ of the people stating that they would actively vote against the ruling party, but the bombings simply reinforced that. For those of you who don't follow recent history Zapatero had made it a mainstay of his election policy that if he was voted into power he would recall troops from Iraq.

So whilst it's certainly true that terrorist attacks helped the vote it's impact is arguable and it's certainly not responsible for changing the will of the people.

We're due an election over here next year and the general consensus is that we'll either see an end to labour party ruling, or a new Prime Minister elected in Blairs place. With his political wrangling over Iraq, the whitewash of the Hutton report into the investigation of weapons inspector David Kelly's death and his questionable ideal of internal security his trust rating is so far in the negatives it's not real. Add that to a fiscal policy of borrowing before an election to tax after it and a poor public spending attitude and you've got a recipe for disaster.

So if/when we vote them out next year, three days after we get bombed, rest assured, we never cowered before terrorists. Both spain and the UK know all about terrorism thank you very much.

[Misty]

Kerryn said:
"Politicians are not an elite breed of people who have the right to command their citizens as they please. They are elected by the people to speak for them and organise their country in a manner in which the majority see fit.

Yet despite this, as in the UK, over 90% of the electorate were against any war or occupation in Iraq. When are the politicians going to learn that they cannot get away with going against their entire supporting base?" (excerpt)

I agree wholeheartedly, the political leadership fabricate their own social rank with all manner of public status above the term of the actual Parliament and their total sitting days 'in office'. The nearest one recalls any constitutional authority for politician X's setting of the public agenda is that somebody has to actually manage day-to-day navigation of the affairs of state between Parliamentary sitting days. You'd think the bureaucrats and public service managed that burden without all the social posturing and gravy.

The big wheels are sponsoring their own agendas and there are not enough cogs supporting an electoral program on the ground.

[korast]

Originally Posted by Lurikeen

Furthermore, if Bush was in Iraq under UN auspices, then the US wouldn't be footing the bill!!

Actually we would be.

Secondly to destroy terrorism you must destroy its base. base terrorism comes from countries which actively support it and have a learning system built around training people to be prepared to hate america and become terrorists. Though leaders are important figure-heads, they serve just as well as martyr's to the cause.

[Lurikeen]

Korast, you missed the point, which is that the US wouldn't be funding the war. Funding would go through the UN and yes, the US is one of the largest financial supporters of the UN.

Bush has been seeking UN financial support for a year now.

BTW, "destroy its base" is vague. Does "terrorism" have a base? Is there a central location for "terrorism"? This so-called "war on terror" is very etheral. In order to really defeat an enemy, you have to put a face on them. The US lost VietNam precisely because the enemy didn't have a "face". You can't blow up ideals.

[korast]

Originally Posted by ME

Secondly to destroy terrorism you must destroy its base. base terrorism comes from countries which actively support it and have a learning system built around training people to be prepared to hate america and become terrorists.

Originally Posted by Dumbass

BTW, "destroy its base" is vague. Does "terrorism" have a base?

wtf dude, are you that stupid.