Spain to pull all troops out of Iraq

[EricMM 0]

It's just that they could have picked a better time to do this.

 

This is going to be great recruiting material for extremeists.

 

Look, killing others effects global change!

 

Spain could have shown a little backbone, or should I say, SHOULD have, for everyone's benefit.

[Ripper 0]

It's just that they could have picked a better time to do this.

 

This is going to be great recruiting material for extremeists.

 

Look, killing others effects global change!

 

Spain could have shown a little backbone, or should I say, SHOULD have, for everyone's benefit.

like 4 months from now?

 

I mean geez, can someone explain to me why they shouldn't have their troops at home when they are being attacked at home.

[Guest Cerebus]

It's just that they could have picked a better time to do this.

 

This is going to be great recruiting material for extremeists.

 

Look, killing others effects global change!

 

Spain could have shown a little backbone, or should I say, SHOULD have, for everyone's benefit.

like 4 months from now?

 

I mean geez, can someone explain to me why they shouldn't have their troops at home when they are being attacked at home.

What's the point of having troops at all? It is clear that using force is not the answer to resolving the conflict with terrorists. Just ask Neville Chamberlain.

[Justice 0]

Question for Rob: If the Spainish pull out their troops, that likely means they won't help out with the UN Peacekeeping force that has to be placed there as well. Just because we are switching over control to the UN doesn't mean that the UN is going to suddenly start dropping Clone Troopers to garrison the area. They are going to have to have an international peacekeeping force, and now that Spain is going to pull out their troops, it looks like we are going to be comprising even more of that force.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

No comments about bin Laden's reference to Andalusia? They're settling 500 year old scores now?!

[Guest Cerebus]

No comments about bin Laden's reference to Andalusia? They're settling 500 year old scores now?!

There is a reason they keep using the word "Crusaders." In most of their messages they include historical events as if they happened yesterday. We'll be able to negotiate with these guys all right....

[Guest Brian]

It didn't help that at one point we were using the word 'crusade' for the fight against terror. Word doesn't get a whole lot of love in that part of the world.

[Guest MikeSC]

They're pulling out of Iraq, period, in June.

So, you acknowledge that America's promised transition on June 30th won't happen?

Even the U.N doesn't think Iraq will be ready for self-governance on 6/30.

 

I find this ironic: We liberate a country from under the brutal thumb of a dictator and the left believes that they should be COMPLETELY ready to govern themselves in under a year --- but got to give minorities, well, almost 40 years of preferences to get them "up to speed".

 

Iraq takes work. Lots of it.

Since that's the condition for the "eventual pull out" of Spanish troops and all.

Spain has announced a withdrawal regardless. Even if we "turned over power" on 6/30, peacekeepers would have to be there for YEARS.

 

And, let's be bluntly honest, terrorists see this as them caving into their demands. You can justify it all you wish --- the TERRORISTS view it as their tactics working.

The entire effort there was a "disaster". Iraqi dissidents have been recruiting Al Qaeda for a while now.

 

Cite please..

That Zarqawi (spelling is probably WAY off) note indicates something.

Again, when we were bombed, we toppled 2 evil regimes.

When they were bombed, they toppled themselves.

 

When we were "bombed", we lost 3,000 people. We also had a target to go after. We toppled the Taliban because they wouldn't hand over Osama bin Laden.

Our TARGET was TERRORISM. Al Qaeda is just but one group that has to be dealt with --- and, as usual, W. Europe doesn't want to lift a finger to help. They want the pretty garden, but none of the sweat and dirt required to make it so.

When they were bombed, they lost 200 people. And what do you expect them to do? topple the King of Morrocco?

Well, voting in a party of appeasers seems to be, quite possibly, the worst possible option --- but this is continental W. Europe. The best option doesn't tend to really be heeded over there.

First, there's no way they could react on the level of the US.

So you cower in fear? Good plan.

Second, their government botched the reaction to the attacks.

So the voters voted out of cowardice. "If we're NICE to them, they won't attack us."

Care to ask how long some Japanese soldiers fought AFTER World War II ended?

 

I'd say that's a biiiit different Mike. Alot of the soldiers who kept fighting were the ones who either didn't know the war was over, or refused to believe it. And it was over a larger area. Like with the single soldier on some island.

And this is different from Iraq in what way? Care to explain these differences?

Care to cite any big attacks on the US by Japanese holdouts after the Japanese surrender?

The press, THANKFULLY, did not do a lot of reporting on that. But if you for one moment believe that attacks did not happen, you're hopelessly naive.

Oh yeah Mike.. you'll need to add Honduras onto the list of "EVIL NATIONS"

 

source

 

Like Spain, Honduras to pull troops from Iraq

 

BY FREDDY CUEVAS

ASSOCIATED PRESS

 

TEGUCIGALPA, Honduras — Honduras plans to follow the lead of Spain and withdraw its 370 troops from Iraq by the end of June, Defence Secretary Federico Breve said today.

 

The decision marked an about-face from a day earlier when President Ricardo Maduro said Honduran forces would stay.

 

Today's announcement "coincides with the decision of the prime minister-elect of the Spanish government," Breve said.

 

Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, the Socialist candidate who won Spain's elections Sunday, described the Iraq invasion as an error and said he would recall Spanish troops from Iraq by June 30 unless the United Nations assumes control of multinational military operations there.

 

As suspicion mounted that Al Qaeda was behind Thursday's terror attacks in Madrid that killed 201 people and wounded 1,600, there was mounting criticism of outgoing Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar for being too closely allied to the United States and making Spain a terrorist target.

 

Honduras, El Salvador and Nicaragua all have sent soldiers to the Spanish-led Plus Ultra Brigade to do humanitarian and peacekeeping work.

 

Salvadoran Defence Secretary Juan Martinez said today that his country would keep its troops in Iraq no matter what.

 

"We have to follow through with what our government decided," Martinez said.

 

Honduras sent its first contingent of 370 soldiers to Iraq in August, and replaced it with a second group of the same size last month. The country had said from the beginning it would only commit its troops for a year.

 

El Salvador sent its first group of 360 soldiers to help the Ultra Plus Brigade last August. A replacement group of 380 soldiers arrived last month, and is scheduled to stay until this August.

 

Whether additional troops are sent after that may depend on the outcome of Sunday's presidential elections.

 

Current Salvadoran President Francisco Flores has stressed that the help it sent to Iraq is in thanks for the international community's backing of the 1992 peace accords that ended El Salvador's 12-year civil war.

 

Nicaragua sent about 115 soldiers, mostly sappers and medical personnel, last September to join the brigade. Those troops have since returned, and the government announced last month that it could not afford to send a second contingent.

 

All three countries announced Monday that they were tightening security at major ports, airports and several embassies that might be vulnerable to attack

Not evil.

 

COWARDLY.

 

They are cowards. But, lucky for them, they have us to protect them. Even though we should not do so, we always do.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

The column also implies that if Bush is not re-elected then it's a victory for the terrorists.

Well, Bush would be pulling from FDR's playbook if he said that.

-=Mike

[EricMM 0]

Because, ripper, having an army at home isn't really that effective in preventing suicide bombings and the like.

 

CONVERSELY, pacifying Iraq is bad for terrorists, AND NOT buckling to terrorists after one attack is definitely bad for terrorists.

 

Imagine if the U.S. had pulled all troops out of Arabia and all funds out of Israel post 9/11. Do you think Anti-US terrorism would stop?

[Guest Cerebus]

Because, ripper, having an army at home isn't really that effective in preventing suicide bombings and the like.

 

CONVERSELY, pacifying Iraq is bad for terrorists, AND NOT buckling to terrorists after one attack is definitely bad for terrorists.

 

Imagine if the U.S. had pulled all troops out of Arabia and all funds out of Israel post 9/11. Do you think Anti-US terrorism would stop?

Considering Osama is still concerned about the "the tragedy of Andalusia" (i.e. the loss of Muslim rule in Spain) in 1492, they might consider letting bygones-be-bygones by, say, 2600 or so.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

I find this ironic: We liberate a country from under the brutal thumb of a dictator and the left believes that they should be COMPLETELY ready to govern themselves in under a year --- but got to give minorities, well, almost 40 years of preferences to get them "up to speed".

 

Then again.. unless the Left controls US foreign policy, then it seems that the US (Bremer, Powell, others) made that promise for June 30th.

 

As for giving 40 years of preferences. Eh, no. First, remember the minority in Iraq is the Sunnis. The Shiites, the majority, were the ones out of power for decades.

 

Spain has announced a withdrawal regardless.

 

"Monday, in his first remarks to reporters since his victory, Zapatero criticized the American occupation as "a great disaster," and said the Spanish troops would be withdrawn unless they were put under United Nations control by the end of June" - Baltimore Sun

 

Uh huh Mike..

 

Even if we "turned over power" on 6/30, peacekeepers would have to be there for YEARS.

 

Ooooh.. years.

 

"Under the Nov. 15 agreement, Boucher said, "on June 30 you have an Iraqi interim government and the coalition authority is no longer the authority in Iraq."" -Washington Times, 12/23

 

"Some of the questions the Bush administration is now considering include the status of the U.S. forces in Iraq after the June 30 transition. One of the possibilities is to reach an agreement with the interim Iraqi government which would fix the status and the duration of stay for U.S. The other option is to wait and see how the situation develops once the interim government is formed and then decide how long would the U.S. forces stay in that country and what would be their status"

 

And, let's be bluntly honest, terrorists see this as them caving into their demands.

 

Like how the US withdrew troops from Saudi Arabia?

 

You can justify it all you wish --- the TERRORISTS view it as their tactics working.

 

*smirk*

 

I'd have better luck arguing that with a brick wall. Obviously I missed the memo. (You think that the Terrorists are supporting the transition of power too? )

 

That Zarqawi (spelling is probably WAY off) note indicates something.

 

"Despite the lack of connection between Saddam's regime and 9/11, Administration officials continue to insist there are links between Al Qaeda and Iraq. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has said that there is "bullet-proof" evidence of links between the terrorist group and the Iraqi regime. However, the Al Qaeda members who are based in Iraq are in Kurdish Iraq, a region outside of Saddam's control patrolled by the US Air Force, which is in turn controlled by...Donald Rumsfeld. When President Bush made his keynote speech on Iraq in October, the most compelling evidence he gave of Al Qaeda's links to Saddam was the story of "one very senior Al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year." It has been widely reported that the name of this "very senior Al Qaeda leader" is Abu Musab Zarqawi, who, curiously, is so important that he does not appear on the FBI's list of the twenty-two most wanted terrorists. Indeed, key US investigators tell me that Zarqawi is not a significant player in Al Qaeda. (In fairness, European officials believe that Zarqawi has played an important role in Al Qaeda operations in Europe.)" - The Nation, 12/18/02

 

As for spelling, there's numerous ways to spell Arab names. Don't worry about it.

 

Our TARGET was TERRORISM.

 

OKAY. I recalled that. (Granted, do you know when we could say we've defeated terrorism?)

 

Al Qaeda is just but one group that has to be dealt with --- and, as usual, W. Europe doesn't want to lift a finger to help. They want the pretty garden, but none of the sweat and dirt required to make it so.

 

Any other terrorist groups you care to mention as being ones that will be dealt with?

 

(The IRA? The ETA?)

 

I've heard a bit linking JI and Abu Sayyaf and all those groups to AQ. So, it's not like they're completely autonomous.

 

Do you know when a war on an action is won?

 

Well, voting in a party of appeasers seems to be, quite possibly, the worst possible option

 

And the PP won the trust of Spain after the attacks by claiming it was the ETA and suppressing news of Al-Qaida involvement.

 

But then again.. I guess they're the only choice.

 

but this is continental W. Europe. The best option doesn't tend to really be heeded over there.

 

Yeah.. god forbid they distrust a party.. just for lying to them and trying to spin an attack to help them politically. Bastards.

 

So the voters voted out of cowardice. "If we're NICE to them, they won't attack us."

 

(Note: I'm pretty sure Socialist social policies won't mix well with AQ's idea of society. None the less)

 

Come on. Cite Please.

 

And this is different from Iraq in what way? Care to explain these differences?

 

Here's a few differences.

 

#1 - The Iraqi Army crumbled in a month

 

#2 - Segments of that army weren't stranded in remote areas, left to occasionally attack people

 

Misc note - If It's the Iraqi army who is doing this, that might contradict all the claims that the AQ and foreigners are behind the bombings

 

#3 - The people behind the attacks aren't operating under the mindset that the war is still going on and that their government is in power. Look up the stories of the Stranded Japanese. They thought the war was still going on. One even surrendered after a higher officer came to the island to relieve him of duty.

 

#4 - I'd say the fighting attitudes of the two armies are different. The Japanese would have rather died than surrendered. Most of the Iraqi army crumbled (as noted in #1)

 

The press, THANKFULLY, did not do a lot of reporting on that.

 

But.. we're to believe that somewhere.. they happened.

 

Uh huh.

 

But if you for one moment believe that attacks did not happen, you're hopelessly naive.

 

Between the surrender of their emperor, and two atomic bombs, the situation in Japan was probably nowhere near the same as the situation in Iraq.

 

Then again, using your POV, you'd find small attacks and try to compare it to bombings in Baghdad.

 

It's not the same.

 

COWARDLY. They are cowards.

 

Yeah, i'm really burnt up about Honduras doing that too.

 

Ya know, cowardly withdrawing their 300+ troops after a year. And only committing for a year too. Punks.

 

But, lucky for them, they have us to protect them. Even though we should not do so, we always do.

 

Thanks to America, Tegucigalpa is safe from Al-Qaeda.

 

Well, Bush would be pulling from FDR's playbook if he said that.

 

I recall FDR was more of the "Don't switch horses" type, and not the "If I am not re-elected, Hitler will dance" type.

[Guest SideFXs]

Just when you thought it was safe to respect Spain for standing with America to fight terrorism. Way to go, Spainish socialists, for sending the message that terror pays.

 

Where are the Spainish knights we you need them...732 AD, 1492 AD anyone? Charles the Hammer, come back to us!

ST has brought up a very good point. George Bush is the modern day ‘Charles the Hammer.’ A policy of appeasement only invites violence, from Muslim terrorists. Communists, in Spain, liberals the world over, and the U.N. are sighting Bush’s policies as the reason for the attack in Spain. Well of course they would. The reasons? Its either a political power taking move or they are against Bush’s policies, in Iraq, because they have something to hide, such as being corrupted by Saddam (oil for food). I have some news for you. Islamic terrorists hate ‘INFIDELS.’ They attacked us in 1993 and 1998, too. Did anyone blame Clinton for those attacks?

 

Now Swift Terror spoke of the Christian crusades to take back Spanish territory from the Islamic invaders. Don’t you think that is the reason for the train attacks, in Spain? It is against Muslim law to attack Muslim territory, requiring Muslims to lay down their lives to avenge the infidels.

 

Why is it so many are looking for a reason to blame Bush, when it is Al Qaeda that has caused all these deaths. So many are trying to rationalize why terrorist are striking and believe it is our actions causing it. In fact it is Muslim fanaticism fueling the violence. All of us are considered infidels. That is the reason for their violence. It is that simple. Terrorism can only be dealt with by killing the bastards. You can’t negotiate with them. You can’t appease them. That gets you dead. Look what is happening now, in France, who thought they were safe from an attack.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...64633_2004mar16

 

Spain Campaigned to Pin Blame on ETA 

 

By Keith B. Richburg, Washington Post Foreign Service

 

MADRID, March 16 -- In the first frantic hours after coordinated bomb blasts ripped through several packed commuter trains Thursday morning, the government of outgoing Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar undertook an intense campaign to convince the Spanish public and world opinion-makers that the Basque separatist group ETA had carried out the attacks, which killed 201 people and wounded more than 1,500.

 

Beginning immediately after the blasts, Aznar and other officials telephoned journalists, stressing ETA's responsibility and dismissing speculation that Islamic extremists might be involved. Spanish diplomats pushed a hastily drafted resolution blaming ETA through the U.N. Security Council. At an afternoon news conference, when a reporter suggested the possibility of an al Qaeda connection, the interior minister, Angel Acebes, angrily denounced it as "a miserable attempt to disrupt information and confuse people."

 

"There is no doubt that ETA is responsible," Acebes said.

 

Within days, that assertion was in tatters, and with it the reputation and fortunes of the ruling party. Suspicion that the government manipulated information -- blaming ETA in order to divert any possible link between the bombings and Aznar's unpopular support for the war in Iraq helped fuel the upset victory of the Socialist Workers' Party in Sunday's elections. By then, Islamic extremists linked to al Qaeda had become the focus of the investigation.

 

Government officials insist that they never misled the public, and that they released in a timely manner all the information and evidence they had gathered. "We told the truth at all times to the Spanish people," Acebes said on Monday.

 

In retrospect, however, there were signs that the government was at least selective in releasing information about possible culprits. By 11 a.m. Thursday, police had already discovered an abandoned white van in Alcala de Henares -- a town where the bombed trains passed through -- containing seven detonators and a cassette tape with verses of the Koran recited in Arabic, officials said later. Sources familiar with Spanish intelligence services said the CNI, the National Intelligence Center, had suspected al Qaeda from the beginning.

 

The existence of a potential link to Islamic radicals was not revealed to the public until just before King Juan Carlos spoke on national television at 8:30 p.m.

 

Significantly, Spanish observers said, the king, in his solemn address, expressed confidence that "the criminals will be put in prison," but never mentioned ETA or any other possible culprit. Asked whether the king was satisfied with the way the government had handled information, the palace declined to respond, citing its customary refusal to comment on government matters.

 

The first bomb went off at 7:39 a.m., on a jam-packed commuter train at the Atocha station in central Madrid. By 7:42, 10 bombs had exploded -- seven at Atocha, two at nearby El Pozo station and one at Santa Eugenia. Although the initial figures put the death toll at about 20, authorities knew the number would rise dramatically and that this would be the worst terrorist attack in Spanish history.

 

That was when officials began their campaign to pin the blame on ETA, which the Aznar government has pursued vigorously and successfully.

 

The government had good reason to suspect ETA, whose initials in Basque stand for Basque Homeland and Freedom. The group has killed hundreds of civilians in terrorist attacks stretching back decades. Police reported on Christmas Eve having thwarted an ETA plot to set off two bombs at a Madrid train station. On Feb. 29, police arrested two ETA members near Madrid as they drove a van packed with a half-ton of explosives.

 

Immediately after Thursday's bombings, Foreign Minister Ana Palacio telephoned her British counterpart, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, to say that it was ETA, according to a British official, who added, "We had no independent evidence of our own that the Spanish were wrong." Less than two hours later, Straw was on television saying, "It looks to be an ETA terrorist outrage, and that is the information we've received from Madrid."

 

At the same time, the Spanish Foreign Ministry was sending instructions to its embassies, saying diplomats "should use any opportunity to confirm ETA's responsibility for these brutal attacks," according to a copy of the letter published in the Spanish daily El Pais. Spanish officials have confirmed that the instructions went out, but said they were only for "guidance."

 

Meanwhile, Arnaldo Otegi, head of the banned Batasuna party, which Aznar's government alleges to be ETA's political wing, condemned the attack, which experts on the Basque situation said was unusual. Otegi's condemnation was given wide coverage on radio stations outside Madrid. Between noon and 2 p.m. Thursday, Catalan radio was airing discussion programs exploring the possibility of al Qaeda involvement. On one Catalan station, 91.0 FM, Otegi said in an interview that the attacks were carried out by "the Arab resistance, possibly in retaliation for the Spanish presence in Iraq."

 

But in Madrid, radio stations were referring to "the ETA attacks" and carried none of the discussion about whether others might have been involved.

 

Managing the coverage of the disaster became a priority for the government, which contacted both the Spanish and international news media, stressing the official line that the bombings were the work of ETA.

 

El Pais, which was preparing a special edition on the attacks, received several calls directly from Aznar, its reporters confirmed. The editor of the Catalan-based paper El Periodico said Aznar called twice. Aznar "courteously cautioned me not to be mistaken. ETA was responsible," the editor, Antonio Franco, wrote in an editorial Tuesday. At a news conference on Friday, Aznar said he had called several newspapers, saying he wanted to explain the government's view.

 

The government spokesman's office at Moncloa, the prime minister's office, also placed calls to at least 10 foreign correspondents during the day, according to Steven Adolf, a Dutch reporter for NRC Handelsblatt and president of the foreign correspondents club here. Most of the calls were identical, journalists said.

 

Henk Boom, another Dutch journalist, said he received a call from a spokeswoman at about 5 p.m. "She said she was told to tell foreign correspondents that there was one official version -- that ETA was responsible for the attacks, and only ETA," he said.

 

Reading from a text, the spokeswoman gave three reasons why ETA was the culprit, Boom said: No one had asserted responsibility, which followed ETA's style of not making claims for at least a week; the type of explosive was similar to that normally used by ETA; and there was no call beforehand warning of the attacks, another characteristic of ETA -- a point some journalists have disputed.

 

By Thursday night, with the announcement of the discovery of the van with the Arabic tape and the claim of responsibility on behalf of al Qaeda in a London Arabic-language newspaper, public doubt began to set in. The morning newspapers Friday ran side-by-side articles comparing the possibilities of al Qaeda and ETA involvement.

 

By Friday night, police found new leads -- the discovery of a sports bag containing undetonated explosives and a mobile telephone. At a news conference, however, Acebes continued to insist ETA was the main suspect. "How is it that after 30 years of attacks, they are not going to be the prime suspects?" Acebes said. Still, he said, "We haven't closed off any line of investigation."

 

At the makeshift shrines set up to honor the victims, young people gathering to light candles and lay flowers were starting to voice skepticism about the ETA claim.

 

On Saturday night -- hours before the polls opened -- the government announced the arrests of three Moroccans and two Indians, and the discovery of a videotape from a purported al Qaeda official asserting responsibility for the attacks. Thousands of Spaniards responded by taking to the streets, banging pots and pans in protests and denouncing the government.

 

That voter anger swept the Socialists back to power for the first time in eight years.

 

But.. you know voting against the PP only gave the terrorists what they wanted! Vote for the corrupt conservatives, or else!

 

Although this "Abu Hafs al Masri Brigade" seems to be a bit odd. They claimed credit for the bombing, and then called a truce against Spain.

 

I have questions about their credibility, since they took credit for that blackout last Summer in New York.

 

"We say to the criminal Bush and his valets among the Arabs and foreigners, in particular Britain, Italy, Australia and Japan: you will see the cars of death with your own eyes in the centre of the capital of tyranny," Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades, the al-Qaeda linked group, said in a statement emailed to the London-based Arab newspaper Al-Quds Al-Arabi.

 

It wouldn't stun me if Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades is being run by somebody else, for propaganda, or publicity, or whatever else.

[Guest MikeSC]

COWARDLY. They are cowards.

 

Yeah, i'm really burnt up about Honduras doing that too.

 

Ya know, cowardly withdrawing their 300+ troops after a year. And only committing for a year too. Punks.

Yes. They are falling for the European "Kill us last" mentality.

Well, Bush would be pulling from FDR's playbook if he said that.

I recall FDR was more of the "Don't switch horses" type, and not the "If I am not re-elected, Hitler will dance" type.

That, actually, is almost VERBATIM what his cronies said at the DNC that year (FDR did not attend, instead giving his speech from a naval base). A vote for the

Republicans was as good for Hitler as more divisions of his army. The GOP fought any measures to protect us from war leading up to WW II, etc.

 

Really, quite vitriolic stuff.

 

Which is why I laugh when people say THIS campaign will be the nastiest ever. As if there has EVER been a nice campaign.

-=Mike

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

That, actually, is almost VERBATIM what his cronies said at the DNC that year (FDR did not attend, instead giving his speech from a naval base). A vote for the

Republicans was as good for Hitler as more divisions of his army. The GOP fought any measures to protect us from war leading up to WW II, etc.

 

I searched.. and yep. That's pretty much right. Although, I don't think the Democrats really ran with that. They did mention it.

 

Which is why I laugh when people say THIS campaign will be the nastiest ever. As if there has EVER been a nice campaign.

 

The 1800 campaign is tops on my list of nasty campaigns.

 

Unless Kerry starts alledging that Bush is born out of wedlock, or Bush alleges Kerry to be a Papist. Then it won't be the nastiest.

[Firestarter 0]

Let's get something straight. The point isn't that a lot of Spaniards are cowardly because they voted in a liberal government as opposed to a conservative. They are cowardly because they voted in a PRO-APPEASEMENT government as opposed to a government willing to fight to defend them from terrorism - after the terrorists had struck, and, in the opinion of more than one person, precisely because the terrorists had struck. THAT is what makes the election results so contemptible - not that they voted for or against conservatism per se. It's sad that ANY party sees appeasement as a viable option. If any conservative party were to take that position in any country, you'd better believe that conservative voters (and commentators) in this country would roundly condemn and excoriate it, no matter what its other positions on the ideological spectrum.

 

In England, PM Blair's party is the liberal party. Nevertheless they are staunchly on our side. I'll bet anything that the Tory party would be (if anything) even more firmly on our side if they won.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

They are cowardly because they voted in a PRO-APPEASEMENT government as opposed to a government willing to fight to defend them from terrorism

 

The thing with the appeasement is that the group claiming responsibility and citing Iraq is the same one who also claimed responsibility for the NY blackouts, and they're also endorsing George W. Bush for re-election. They may lack some credibility.

 

As well, what have you seen that makes you so sure that Zapatero is unwilling to defend Spain from attacks in their nation? And does that factor in when the police and the authorities under Aznar had failed to arrest the head Moroccan (who is a 'known terrorist'). That doesn't really do much when it comes to the credibility of the PP in their protection of the Spanish people from terror.

 

It's sad that ANY party sees appeasement as a viable option.

 

Have we heard any other claims from non-Abu Hafs al Masri Brigade sources in regards to the reasoning for the attacks. I know the "We caused that blackout" brigade claimed the Iraq war as a reason. Still, it could be some jackass who keeps bothering that one paper in England for all we know.

 

(There's also the video claiming responsibility, but did they go into the reasoning?)

[Guest Brian]

Couldn't the people of Spain have been looking at things and said, "This happened on these guys watch, and they obviously aren't doing their jobs right so let's give someone else a try."?

[NoCalMike 0]

ST has brought up a very good point. George Bush is the modern day ‘Charles the Hammer.’ A policy of appeasement only invites violence, from Muslim terrorists. Communists, in Spain, liberals the world over, and the U.N. are sighting Bush’s policies as the reason for the attack in Spain. Well of course they would. The reasons? Its either a political power taking move or they are against Bush’s policies, in Iraq, because they have something to hide, such as being corrupted by Saddam (oil for food). I have some news for you. Islamic terrorists hate ‘INFIDELS.’ They attacked us in 1993 and 1998, too. Did anyone blame Clinton for those attacks?

 

Now Swift Terror spoke of the Christian crusades to take back Spanish territory from the Islamic invaders. Don’t you think that is the reason for the train attacks, in Spain? It is against Muslim law to attack Muslim territory, requiring Muslims to lay down their lives to avenge the infidels.

 

Why is it so many are looking for a reason to blame Bush, when it is Al Qaeda that has caused all these deaths. So many are trying to rationalize why terrorist are striking and believe it is our actions causing it. In fact it is Muslim fanaticism fueling the violence. All of us are considered infidels. That is the reason for their violence. It is that simple. Terrorism can only be dealt with by killing the bastards. You can’t negotiate with them. You can’t appease them. That gets you dead. Look what is happening now, in France, who thought they were safe from an attack.

Great, but what does this have to do with fighting in a war with Iraq?

[Guest MikeSC]

That, actually, is almost VERBATIM what his cronies said at the DNC that year (FDR did not attend, instead giving his speech from a naval base). A vote for the

Republicans was as good for Hitler as more divisions of his army. The GOP fought any measures to protect us from war leading up to WW II, etc.

 

I searched.. and yep. That's pretty much right. Although, I don't think the Democrats really ran with that. They did mention it.

Umm, FDR'S campaign button had "I Remember Pearl Harbor" on it. They DRAPED themselves in it. Bush hasn't done squat in comparison to that.

 

Heck, David Broder had a long column on this last week.

-=Mike

[NoCalMike 0]

Couldn't the people of Spain have been looking at things and said, "This happened on these guys watch, and they obviously aren't doing their jobs right so let's give someone else a try."?

Or, how about, "the war in Iraq isn't really making a difference in the effort against "terrorism" so why should we be there"

 

I still am not quite feeling Spain's actions to leave Iraq since, once you agree to get in, you should stick with it during the bad time as well as the good times, but it's not like I couldn't find ANY reason they might want to get out.