Spain may withdraw Iraq troops

[Zar]

Spain may withdraw Iraq troops

Spain has more than 1,300 troops in Iraq
Spain's Socialist Party prime minister-elect says he will pull troops out of Iraq - unless the UN takes charge.
Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero said: "The war in Iraq was a disaster, the occupation of Iraq is a disaster."

--
Another of the "bigger" european leaders (in a month) to turn against George Bush and his poodle Blair. I like this guy already!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3512144.stm

[Intrepid00]

I already knew what you where going to say after I read the title.

[NEWSBOT3]

does anyone else want to shoot these hippy anti war types ?

[LHC]

no no they should leave them there to shoot the trigger happy american rednex!

[NEWSBOT3]

lets just shoot everyone.

[Stew]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Bring it on.

Are you gettin all socialist/hippy (they're pretty much the same really aint they!) cos ur leaving Tony and feeling brave?

[wu_trax]

i dont think thats such a clver thing to do from spain point of view.
sure, that socialist gy said all the time during his election campaign that he would withdraw the spanish forces if they dont get an un-resolution, but now it will look like they gave in to one terrorist attack. that will only encourage the terrorists to bomb more.

[Scoot951]

I've never seen someone give in to terrorism so quickly. I mean, they don't even know if they were middle eastern terrorists yet.

[roadrunner_0]

'i know, lets give the terrorists exactly what they want and then they will leave us alone and not come back the next time they disagree with our foreign policy'

not to mention that ETA must indeed be looking at this and going 'ah, so thats where we went wrong we didnt kill enough people!'

[wu_trax]

maybe it looks that way, but it isnt. as i said that socialist guy said all the time that he wants un-controll in iraq or the troops are out. he said that before the election aswell.

[acropolis]

Originally Posted by Scoot951

I've never seen someone give in to terrorism so quickly. I mean, they don't even know if they were middle eastern terrorists yet.

"give in to terrorism" means not voting for the party that lets terrorists blow your country apart? apparently rope-a-dope is the only possible anti-terrorism policy.

in terms of whodunnit, colin powell was more than willing to declare immediately that ``The United States stands resolutely with Spain in the fight against terrorism in all its forms and against the particular threat that Spain faces from the evil of ETA terrorism,'' when there was no evidence whatsoever (besides the obvious).

but as soon as tapes come out with al queda taking credit and the ETA denied it, he decided there was no reason to jump to any conclusions.

POWELL: Essentially what the Spanish know, and that is that they can't yet place responsibility. ETA is still a candidate for responsibility, but now with these new developments of the arrests of the Moroccans and the Indians and the tape, I know that the Spanish authorities have to consider that it might have been another group, perhaps Al Qaida. But we really don't know yet.

[roadrunner_0]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

maybe it looks that way, but it isnt. as i said that socialist guy said all the time that he wants un-controll in iraq or the troops are out. he said that before the election aswell.

and the bombing was three days before the election why?????

(i am actually anti war, but i really think that the new pm shouldn't have done this the way he has, perhaps a slow withdrawl, by stages, and keeping it quite would have been a hell of a lot better)

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by roadrunner_0

and the bombing was three days before the election why?????

(i am actually anti war, but i really think that the new pm shouldn't have done this the way he has, perhaps a slow withdrawl, by stages, and keeping it quite would have been a hell of a lot better)

what else could he do? change his opinion as soon as he won the election and lose all his credability even before he is actually in the office?

edit1: besides its quite a while until july. by then most of the people will have forgotten that there was any relationship between terrorism and the withdraw

edit2: without troops in iraq spain wont be a target anymore anyway. i mean, why should al quaida or whoever attack them after that? there is no good reason.

[Stew]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

edit1: besides its quite a while until july. by then most of the people will have forgotten that there was any relationship between terrorism and the withdraw.

Pretty sure Spain will not forget the events of March 11th and March 14th.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Stew

Pretty sure Spain will not forget the events of March 11th and March 14th.

certainly not, but will the rest of the world remember that they withdraw their troops in 6 month because of that?

anyway, the situation for spain is like this:
they got troops in iraq which makes them a target for al quaida. if they withdraw those troops they aint a target anymore and they dont lose anything, because they didnt get much benefit out of the whole thing anyway. so why should they stay?

[roadrunner_0]

yes, but what happens the NEXT time that someone wants to influence their policies
and, as i said, eta must be thinking right now 'my god, we just need to kill a couple of hundred people at once and they will listen to us!

****s sake! STOP BURYING YOUR HEAD IN THE SAND wu_trax!

[Stew]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

certainly not, but will the rest of the world remember that they withdraw their troops in 6 month because of that?

anyway, the situation for spain is like this:
they got troops in iraq which makes them a target for al quaida. if they withdraw those troops they aint a target anymore and they dont lose anything, because they didnt get much benefit out of the whole thing anyway. so why should they stay?

Al Qaeda will remember as you say.
So will America.
I think the rest of Europe as well.
What did they get out of it - not a lot, 1700 troops isnt many in the grand scheme of things? Did the alliance with US get them much? Doubt it!

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Stew

Al Qaeda will remember as you say.
So will America.
I think the rest of Europe as well.
What did they get out of it - not a lot, 1700 troops isnt many in the grand scheme of things? Did the alliance with US get them much? Doubt it!

maybe, but what could al quaida possibly want from them? (and its not like they had much influence on the us, if any, so they dont lose anything their neither)

[acropolis]

Originally Posted by roadrunner_0

and the bombing was three days before the election why?????

and 911 was 14 months before an election why????

i dunno how their system works. do they have regular elections?

Originally Posted by wu_trax

edit2: without troops in iraq spain wont be a target anymore anyway. i mean, why should al quaida or whoever attack them after that? there is no good reason.

there is no good reason.

However, there is a reason. Item number 2 on bin Laden's list (after turkey) is Spain. He's mad about the christian reconquest of spain in 1492.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by acropolis

there is no good reason.

However, there is a reason. Item number 2 on bin Laden's list (after turkey) is Spain. He's mad about the christian reconquest of spain in 1492.

oh, please, dont you think his priorities are a little diffrent?

[ChubbyChecker]

The new Spanish PM is doing it for political capital. Also he knows full well that he's in power now because he was anti-war in the first place. I guess he just got carried away in the movement which is why he felt he had to make some grand gesture.

[roadrunner_0]

Originally Posted by acropolis

and 911 was 14 months before an election why????

i dunno how their system works. do they have regular elections?
there is no good reason.

However, there is a reason. Item number 2 on bin Laden's list (after turkey) is Spain. He's mad about the christian reconquest of spain in 1492.

WOAH there!
spain in coming up to an election, just to simplify things, say there are two sides, a (thee ruling conservatives) is with america, in the war, supporting it, and WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY ahead in all the opinion polls. b (the socialists) hates the war, and is vocal in its opposition to it
so, three days before their election, you blow up some ppl, saying, its because a supports the war against our opressed brethren (laying it on a bit thick i know but im trying to make a point here)
so, when it comes to the polls, who do you vote for, a, to leave your troops there, and possibly get bombed some more, or b, who will bring the troops home 'and then al-quaida will leave us alone forever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"£"%$£""1321'

blah, i know its a LOT more complicated than that, but you can see how people would think like that

[acropolis]

Originally Posted by roadrunner_0

WOAH there!
spain in coming up to an election, just to simplify things, say there are two sides, a (thee ruling conservatives) is with america, in the war, supporting it, and WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY ahead in all the opinion polls. b (the socialists) hates the war, and is vocal in its opposition to it
so, three days before their election, you blow up some ppl, saying, its because a supports the war against our opressed brethren (laying it on a bit thick i know but im trying to make a point here)
so, when it comes to the polls, who do you vote for, a, to leave your troops there, and possibly get bombed some more, or b, who will bring the troops home 'and then al-quaida will leave us alone forever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"£"%$£""1321'

blah, i know its a LOT more complicated than that, but you can see how people would think like that

i really doubt that anyone was thinking "Now that they've bombed our country I'll do whatever they want!"

the logic "party X was in charge of keeping terrorists from blowing stuff up in our country. terrorists blew stuff up in our country. i'm voting for party Y" seems to be pretty obvious. the alternative also encourages ruling parties to let terrorists blow stuff up.

Originally Posted by wu_trax

oh, please, dont you think his priorities are a little diffrent?

i'm sure his 'priorities' depend on his interests.

but he's put out a handful of lists of complaints, and spain was #2 on a recent one.

[roadrunner_0]

Originally Posted by acropolis

i really doubt that anyone was thinking "Now that they've bombed our country I'll do whatever they want!"

a person is intelligent, people are stupid
of course the bombings affected the outcome of the elections

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by roadrunner_0

a person is intelligent, people are stupid
of course the bombings affected the outcome of the elections

is it really so stupid? i already asked: what coul al quaida possibly wnat from spain? (i doubt theyll start an invasion right now )

[acropolis]

Originally Posted by roadrunner_0

a person is intelligent, people are stupid
of course the bombings affected the outcome of the elections

of course they affected the elections. the point is that letting terrorists blow up people in your country should hurt you at elections.

you'd think that would be the most obvious concept in the world.

[roadrunner_0]

Originally Posted by acropolis

of course they affected the elections. the point is that letting terrorists blow up people in your country should hurt you at elections.

you'd think that would be the most obvious concept in the world.

your not getting what i am saying, the bombings DID affect the outcome, in the way that they were meant to, thats why the conservatives lost :/
do you condone this?????????
does anyone with a SCRAP of intelligence condone this?

if anything, the bombings would have made me MORE likely to vote conservative (now theres a line i never thought i would hear)

[LHC]

yeah they should have voted conservative that would have shown the terrorists what a democracy is made of

[acropolis]

Originally Posted by roadrunner_0

your not getting what i am saying, the bombings DID affect the outcome, in the way that they were meant to, thats why the conservatives lost :/
do you condone this?????????
does anyone with a SCRAP of intelligence condone this?

if anything, the bombings would have made me MORE likely to vote conservative (now theres a line i never thought i would hear)

i know exactly what you are saying.

but the statement "we bow to the will of terrorists that attack us" isn't nearly as dangerous as "we vote for leaders that let terrorists attack us"

anyway "i do the opposite of whatever conservatives tell me the terrorists who attacked us want" is the absolute worst possible logic for a voter to have.

[roadrunner_0]

Originally Posted by acropolis

i know exactly what you are saying.

but the statement "we bow to the will of terrorists that attack us" isn't nearly as dangerous as "we vote for leaders that let terrorists attack us"

anyway "i do the opposite of whatever conservatives tell me the terrorists who attacked us want" is the absolute worst possible logic for a voter to have.

i personally would say, that the first statement would be the single worst possible thing for you to say, and, its not like the leaders of the country had a ****ing choice over the attack, they didnt let the terrorists attack the country thats why it was a terror attack

its doesnt matter how many precautions you take, look at israel for instance, it still has suicide bombers attack it on a regular basis

the government can do NOTHING about suicide attacks, and very little apart from raise awareness about terror attacks in general

[MrL_JaKiri]

I don't think Israel are a shining example of how to reduce terrorism.

[roadrunner_0]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

I don't think Israel are a shining example of how to reduce terrorism.

that wasnt what i was going for, all i was pointing out was, no matter how secure a state is, you can still do very little about terror attacks

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by roadrunner_0

that wasnt what i was going for, all i was pointing out was, no matter how secure a state is, you can still do very little about terror attacks

Surely that's an argument for avoiding them as much as possible?

And Israel (as a state) isn't very secure, even with The Big Wall.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

I don't think Israel are a shining example of how to reduce terrorism.

Israel is a good example actually. Leaving morality issues aside, Israel has been very soft on terrorism, and as such as seen the levels of it slowly increase over time. The Spain situation is difficult, but this does seem like a pretty bad move. I'm not sure though. Most people in Spain were against the war anyway - if they had been pro-war and then decided to withdraw because of a terroritst attack the situation would be a lot more clear cut and it would be easier to condemn them.

I do think that the Spanish capitulation does increase the liklihood of a terrorist attack in Britain or America during the run up to the next election though.

[roadrunner_0]

ok, i will start again, the whole thrust of my point is:
saying that it is the governments fault that they got bombed is taking the blame from the culprits here: the terrorists, and giving the terrorists their own way isnt going to make them go away

it is not, was not, and never will be the fault of the government that some religious nutjobs feel that they can get away with blowing up innocent people to get their own way.

there, that clearer?

[MrL_JaKiri]

It is pretty much down to the americans though.

[roadrunner_0]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

I do think that the Spanish capitulation does increase the liklihood of a terrorist attack in Britain or America during the run up to the next election though.

thank you, this is part of what i have been trying to get at!

[Nodrog]

I think we need to seperate moral responsibility and casual responsibility. The terrorist attacks were (possibly) caused by the governments actions regarding the war. Whether this makes them morally responsible is debatable, but it certainly happened as a result of their actions (assuming it was al queda etc)

[roadrunner_0]

ah, but that still doesnt mean that it is the governments fault, as you cannot blame the actions of psychopaths (in this case, religious fundamentalists) on anyone apart from themselves.

[Nodrog]

The government were aware that supporting the war would increase the liklihood of Spain being targetted. Bear in mind that most Spaniards were against it, as far as I know.

[roadrunner_0]

true, but reduce this to two individuals, can you blame one of their actions on the other? both parties still have free will to do what they (should) see as right, i didnt support the war either, but i can see why it happened, but i cannot see in any way form or fashion how it is right to blow up civilians to try and get your own way?


EDIT: to include this: my first post in this thread, which i really do think sums it all up really

Originally Posted by roadrunner_0

'i know, lets give the terrorists exactly what they want and then they will leave us alone and not come back the next time they disagree with our foreign policy'

not to mention that ETA must indeed be looking at this and going 'ah, so thats where we went wrong we didnt kill enough people!'

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by roadrunner_0

ok, i will start again, the whole thrust of my point is:
saying that it is the governments fault that they got bombed is taking the blame from the culprits here: the terrorists, and giving the terrorists their own way isnt going to make them go away

it is not, was not, and never will be the fault of the government that some religious nutjobs feel that they can get away with blowing up innocent people to get their own way.

there, that clearer?

what could they possibly want from spain, now that their troops are out of iraq ?????
you dont start bombing for the fun of it, there has to be a political aim you try to archive. and in case of spain (and the rest of europe, except for uk) i dont see any such aim.

[Nodrog]

If I gave a machine gun to a madman and he shot up a shopping mall, Id be partly responsible; actions have consequences. Again, I'd say that moral responsibility is a different thing altogether.

[roadrunner_0]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

what could they possibly want from spain, now that their troops are out of iraq ?????
you dont start bombing for the fun of it, there has to be a political aim you try to archive. and in case of spain (and the rest of europe, except for uk) i dont see any such aim.

but what happens next time someone disagrees with their foreign policy though?

EDIT: its called appeasement, it didnt work against germany in the mid to late 30's and it wont work here against these terrorists now

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

what could they possibly want from spain, now that their troops are out of iraq ?????
you dont start bombing for the fun of it, there has to be a political aim you try to archive. and in case of spain (and the rest of europe, except for uk) i dont see any such aim.

There werent many countries supporting America's war originaly, and theres one less now - knocking a country out of the war seems like quite a good psychological victory, if nothing else. A message has been sent to the world that supporting America makes you a target, and Spain's reaction must certainly have been encouraging from the point of view of the terrorists.

edit: hmm, I think I misread your post

[Stew]

So should we pull out?

[queball]

Originally Posted by roadrunner_0

ah, but that still doesnt mean that it is the governments fault, as you cannot blame the actions of psychopaths (in this case, religious fundamentalists) on anyone apart from themselves.

It's murderous fundamentalists on both sides. Sure, "giving in to terrorism" is a bad policy. So is the opposite. The "correct" thing to do is obey no-one, but do what is right, and to know what is right by evidence, not by assumption. If someone wrongs you, but also makes you aware of what's right, you should do what's right and condemn theit wrongdoing. And it's perfectly consistent to do so. Even if the "white vs. black" pundits probably won't see it that way. You are proposing we be stubborn. That's ok, but the issue is not in any way simple.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

There werent many countries supporting America's war originaly, and theres one less now - knocking a country out of the war seems like quite a good psychological victory, if nothing else. A message has been sent to the world that supporting America makes you a target, and Spain's reaction must certainly have been encouraging from the point of view of the terrorists.

yes, probably, but it doesnt encourage them to attack spain again, now that they've got what they wanted, does it?

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by roadrunner_0

EDIT: its called appeasement, it didnt work against germany in the mid to late 30's and it wont work here against these terrorists now

The problem with this approach is that most Spanish people didnt originally support the war.afaik. It seems a bit perverse to say that they should now be supporting a war they didnt want because the unwanted war led to them being attacked.

[Dante Hicks]

Even ignoring the massive differences in power between terrrorists and Germany in the 30's, the situation is different. The Spanish troops in Iraq are not fighting the same people who blew up the trains in Madrid. Sure, the two might be linked in some sort of abstract "the same cause" sense, but it's a mistake to presume they are synonomous.

Unlike Europe in the 30's, a show in strength in Iraq will not stop terrorism. These terrorists aren't generally even from Iraq.