Spain, Poland, Italy involvment in iraq

spect8or · Mar 17, 2004

Quote from gamalruach:

Again, your entire theory is based on presumption.

If everyone based their actions on preemptive strikes to "wipe out Evil" half the globe would be anniliated overnight.

Bad.

Sam

Dude, it's not about the "right" to a pre-emptive strike. Believe me man, you are living in a children's fantasy world.

America has the big guns and therefore the de facto right to do as it pleases. No one else is going to be allowed to claim this right to pre-emptive strikes without America's approval. Pretty simple really. Sucks? Maybe for you it does. And if someone like China was the big dog, it would probably suck for me. Still, for all but the most ideologically driven liberals and socialists, I see it is a major, major positive that America is able to dictate terms to the world. If it wasn't America, it would be someone else. Probably someone a lot, lot worse. Not the fairy tale wonderland that liberals love to pretend would exist. That's been the reality of planet earth since day one.

spect8or · Mar 17, 2004

Quote from Cheese:

Spaniards, weak as sh*t.

Forget the U.S. on this one, it will take years for Spain to be taken seriously again in international politics after caving in to terrorism like this .. same message to ETA: an invitation to bomb the sh*t out of the rest of Spain.

Fu*ked-up-to-hell socialists .. what can you expect?

Weak as piss. Most Europeans these days are a bunch of pussies. It's really quite sad.

Pabst · Mar 17, 2004

Quote from spect8or:

Weak as piss. Most Europeans these days are a bunch of pussies. It's really quite sad.

Agreed. Sadly here in the States too Danny.

If I tore down a building and dislocated a bunch of rats, I could look at it two ways. The liberal's take would be "If you'd let the building stand you wouldn't have rats running around." The constructionist would say "hey i'm glad that ratty old building is gone, now I can hunt down these rats and rid myself of the problem."

The liberal west thinks if they close their eyes, terror will be the bad nightmare that fades into a dream. Hardly. Worse yet are the libs who think we causeterror by being vigilant. it's the same BS argument as those who claim that buglers hit homes with guns so they can steal a firearm. sounds logical. The truth is, people like markets hit the least path of resistance.

gamalruach · Mar 17, 2004

Quote from TraderC:

MADRID, Spain - Spain's new leader intensified his criticism of the U.S.-led occupation of Iraq on Wednesday, saying it was "turning into a fiasco."

Prime Minister-elect Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero also refused to reconsider his pledge to pull his 1,300 troops out of Iraq by June 30, in a sharp break with the Bush administration.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=3&u=/ap/20040317/ap_on_re_eu/spain_bombings_2

Yeah, not only that, but Spain is rejecting the FBI's attempts to investigate, therefore openly showing their dissassociation with the entire USA anti-terrorism regime.

Zapatero is calling the Iraq war a "fiasco."

Quote:

"Democracy is taking root in Iraq and there is no turning back,'' said Scott McClellan, White House spokesman. "This is a time of testing, but the terrorists will not prevail.'' (source: http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/ap/ap_story.html/Intl/AP.V7486.AP-Iraq.html)

The problem here is the structure of Scott McClellan's statement. In the face of blatant terrorists prevailing, he comes across as cocksure, therefore loses credibility.

A better way to phrase that would be:

"Democracy MAY be taking root in Iraq and there is not... too much... turning back/desent among local tribal leaders, except among the insurgents, heh, who do not even know how to search 'young naked teen Iraqi pussy canals' on Google Images,'' said Scott McClellan, White House spokesman. "This is a time of testing. We are getting Ds and Fs SO FAR, but like Julie Andrews sings, [breaks out singing] tomorrow, tomorrow, there's ALWAYS tomorrow-whoa-whooooahhh... for dreams toooooo come true!" So it IS!

[an official runs up and whispers into his ear]: "Wait, wait, WHAT? That was not from The Sound Of Music?? Hm... excuse me people! So sorry about THAT one! But the terrorists will not prevail! Even though they have been kicking our ARSES so far! I mean, I HOPE they won't prevail! That is, I WISH they would STOP BOMBING US!!!!!!!!!"

"*ahem* ... what I mean is, um, eh, erm, oh.... nevermind. Carry on

"

gsr

catmango · Mar 17, 2004

Quote from spect8or:

Weak as piss. Most Europeans these days are a bunch of pussies. It's really quite sad.

I've asked this question before -- When has appeasement ever been successful at ending conflict? Every conflict in history has required some violent resolution with a clear victor. Despite two world wars, Europeans fail to acknowledge this truth and maintain optimism that appeasement and diplomacy is the best way to address anyone with clearly violent intentions.

Thing is, it's easy for Spaniards to recede from the front lines because they know that the US will take up the slack. I can understand their mentality -- Why draw attention to ourselves when we can sit back and let the Americans fight our fight? France took the same mentality when they pulled out of NATO in the 60's during the height of the Cold War, fully knowing that the US was going to maintain parity with the Soviets with or without their help. As weasily as it is, I can almost see their point.

Unfortunately for the US, there's noone to pick up the slack if we decide to back down. I think most Americans understand this and will keep this in mind come November.

fxtrading · Mar 17, 2004

Quote from Pabst:

it's the same BS argument as those who claim that buglers hit homes with guns so they can steal a firearm. sounds logical. The truth is, people like markets hit the least path of resistance.

hehe so hitting america is the path of least resistance?

gamalruach · Mar 17, 2004

Quote from catmango:

I've asked this question before -- When has appeasement ever been successful at ending conflict? Every conflict in history has required some violent resolution with a clear victor. Despite two world wars, Europeans fail to acknowledge this truth and maintain optimism that appeasement and diplomacy is the best way to address anyone with clearly violent intentions.

Thing is, it's easy for Spaniards to recede from the front lines because they know that the US will take up the slack. I can understand their mentality -- Why draw attention to ourselves when we can sit back and let the Americans fight our fight? France took the same mentality when they pulled out of NATO in the 60's during the height of the Cold War, fully knowing that the US was going to maintain parity with the Soviets with or without their help. As weasily as it is, I can almost see their point.

Unfortunately for the US, there's noone to pick up the slack if we decide to back down. I think most Americans understand this and will keep this in mind come November.

Other "conflicts" have been centralized with clear boundaries.

Terrorism is decentralized. There has never been anything like this, that, at least, has been successfully won against.

That is what sets this undertaking apart from all others. A military kills 1000s of innocents in order to (possibly) get one of the bad guys(?). With the price per head of a terrorist currently running at around $40 billion. A bit high in today's global fashion market, wouldn't you say?

Sam

cdbern · Mar 17, 2004

Terrorism is decentralized. There has never been anything like this, that, at least, has been successfully won against.

What was lost? I can't remember there EVER being anything like this.

A military kills 1000s of innocents in order to (possibly) get one of the bad guys(?).

we've killed 1000s of innocents?

With the price per head of a terrorist currently running at around $40 billion.

Where did you get that estimate?

A bit high in today's global fashion market, wouldn't you say?

Depends on how much value you place on life and liberty. Not just your own, but anothers as well.

catmango · Mar 17, 2004

Quote from gamalruach:

Other "conflicts" have been centralized with clear boundaries.

Terrorism is decentralized. There has never been anything like this, that, at least, has been successfully won against.

That is what sets this undertaking apart from all others. A military kills 1000s of innocents in order to (possibly) get one of the bad guys(?). With the price per head of a terrorist currently running at around $40 billion. A bit high in today's global fashion market, wouldn't you say?

Sure it has. Look at Britain with the IRA and Spain with ETA. Both goverments clamped down aggressively on violent acts while at the same time giving more political voice to the more moderate populaces. What happened? The carrot/stick approach mitigated the general populaces and aliented the more violent fringes. Sure there's still violence, but they don't get the same popular support that they used to.

Since the Middle East is full of autocratic dictators who wouldn't provide the carrot of greater political say (and instead deflected hatred towards them by inciting hatred of the West), we had to force democratic reforms upon them, starting with Afghanistan and Iraq.

Gringinho · Mar 17, 2004

Quote from catmango:

I've asked this question before -- When has appeasement ever been successful at ending conflict? Every conflict in history has required some violent resolution with a clear victor. Despite two world wars, Europeans fail to acknowledge this truth and maintain optimism that appeasement and diplomacy is the best way to address anyone with clearly violent intentions.

Weren't you born yet when the START-agreements were signed, and Reagan and Gorbachev met on Iceland ? And what "truth" are you talking about - a historic "truth" ? So you are stating obvious untruths, historically wrong, what can we deduct from your statements then ?

Thing is, it's easy for Spaniards to recede from the front lines because they know that the US will take up the slack. I can understand their mentality -- Why draw attention to ourselves when we can sit back and let the Americans fight our fight? France took the same mentality when they pulled out of NATO in the 60's during the height of the Cold War, fully knowing that the US was going to maintain parity with the Soviets with or without their help. As weasily as it is, I can almost see their point.

Unfortunately for the US, there's noone to pick up the slack if we decide to back down. I think most Americans understand this and will keep this in mind come November.

You need to remember yourself that it was the US who was pushing the Iraqi-immediate-threat scenario. The spanish population (over 90% anyways) and the french were opposed. So it really wasn't their fight. In fact there were several motions in the UN - in the months up to the US drumbeat for armed conflict - to actually lift sanctions and ease the hardships for the Iraqi population. It's recent history - it's almost impossible that you slept during those months, or didn't that news reach your braille-keyboard ?
Jeez, how many failed basic or discrete math and logic here ?