Now, reactionary politics are never a good thing, especially when the politics happen to be so radically opposed. It's almost always a short-term solution to the problem facing the nation, and this is no real exception. This bothered me just slightly...but the more I thoguht about it, the less important it became, in favor of something considerably more disturbing:
What kind of message is this sending to terrorists around the world?
I can understand being against the war. I'm not entirely in favor of it myself. But simply put, this is downright dangerous. Whether you believe it was Al-Qaeda (almost certain) or the ETA (unlikely), the reasoning is the same: "we're striking back for your support of America's war against Islam." To make this point, to decry Spain's government and its policies, they bomb civilian targets, kill hundreds of innocent people, injure thousands more, rack up a huge property damage bill, strike at the very spirit of a nation--and how does Spain react?
By deposing their rule, disparaging the former leaders in public, and removing their support for the war in favor of protest.
What kind of incentive is this to every fucking kook on the planet with a gun and a beef with society?
[ 03-16-2004: Message edited by: nem-x ]
quote:
Leopold had this to say about Matthew Broderick:
CNN article. Basically, in the wake of the Madrid bombing, many people changed their votes and as a result, the ruling Conservative party has been ousted, and the Socialist party is now in the seat of power.Now, reactionary politics are never a good thing, especially when the politics happen to be so radically opposed. It's almost always a short-term solution to the problem facing the nation, and this is no real exception. This bothered me just slightly...but the more I thoguht about it, the less important it became, in favor of something considerably more disturbing:
What kind of message is this sending to terrorists around the world?
I can understand being against the war. I'm not entirely in favor of it myself. But simply put, this is downright dangerous. Whether you believe it was Al-Qaeda (almost certain) or the ETA (unlikely), the reasoning is the same: "we're striking back for your support of America's war against Islam." To make this point, to decry Spain's government and its policies, they bomb civilian targets, kill hundreds of innocent people, injure thousands more, rack up a huge property damage bill, strike at the very spirit of a nation--and how does Spain react?
By deposing their rule, disparaging the former leaders in public, and removing their support for the war in favor of protest.
What kind of incentive is this to every fucking kook on the planet with a gun and a beef with society?
read about it in hte subway this mourning and thought the exact same thing, "wow, how pathetic,folding so fast, now the terrorists can do this to the rest of europe
[ 03-16-2004: Message edited by: Zair ]
I have to agree it sends a band messece/sets a bad precedent for the future. Whats worse it wil likly bring them more greif becuse they have shown themselves to be soft
I doubt very much the ruling party would have stayed in power whatever happened.
The conservative party was leading with a margin before the bombings that was very well within the range in which polls can't be trusted fully, for example in the last Austrian elections all the polls taken before the vote were off by 5-10% with nothing at all happening in the last minute, the conservatives had a thin 5% lead in Spain iirc and that lead was due to promises of extra money for the elderly and a disorganized opposition afaik, the war in Iraq did not have the support of the people of Spain.
The war in Iraq was something that Spanish government entered into against the wishes of over ninety percent of it's population. This is an amount of public consensus that rarely happens anywhere on any issue, for the Spanish government to ignore it on something as important as sending soldiers into war is a slap in the face of the country. What would be a war that 90% of Americans would reject? Helping China invade Taiwan? Guess how that would turn out for the administration in charge of it.
If you go to war against the wishes of pretty much your entire constituency and because of your involvment in that war 200 innocent people get killed you are dead as a politician, simple as that. A government that asks it's population to fight in wars they don't want to fight for absolutely no gain to them and gets away with it is much, much more dangerous than any terrorist cell.
How does this effectively help the terrorists? Spain will pull out of Iraq which only means there will be more US forces in there to compensate. The new Spanish government will be under extra pessure to hunt down terrorists which doesn't really do them much good. The Spanish people will now support involvement in the war on terror internationally. The Spanish people will still not support the war in Iraq which got them into this mess and did fuck-all to hinder terrorism. Yes El Kaida can flog that as a victory for PR purposes but seriously, they have the whole West Bank / Gaza to recruit from where people's homes are being blown up / demolished daily in addition to Afghanistan that is currently occupied by the US, they don't need any PR about elections in Spain to get people to join up in the face of that.
Oh and the terrorists are already out to attack America, they don't need more reasons to do it, what did you think a bunch of religious fanatics would have done otherwise? "Hey guys, we were out to defeat the great satan, but the Spanish voted conservative again, time to play Twister!"? [ 03-16-2004: Message edited by: Mod ]
*waves a flag sarcastically*
Anyway it's STILL stupid to rapidly elect a new government immediately after a crisis of ANY sort. You need continuity until the panic and adrenaline wear off, not creating more trouble with a "who do I report to" situation.
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
quote:
The logic train ran off the tracks when Ja'Deth Issar Ka'bael said:
Viva La Revolucion!
Viva El Franco!*waves a flag sarcastically*
Anyway it's STILL stupid to rapidly elect a new government immediately after a crisis of ANY sort. You need continuity until the panic and adrenaline wear off, not creating more trouble with a "who do I report to" situation.
Not if the crisis happened in part due to a failure of the current one.
quote:
Mod probably says this to all the girls:
Not if the crisis happened in part due to a failure of the current one.
It was far from a failure. It was a case of the goverment doing something that needed to be done even though they didn't have wide spread support. If people are to short sighted to realize this then it isn't the goverments fault.
quote:
Azizza had this to say about Robocop:
It was a case of the goverment doing something that needed to be done .
That is a pretty controversial assumption.
quote:
Mod had this to say about (_|_):
Not if the crisis happened in part due to a failure of the current one.
I disagree. You should never make snap decisions based on crises. That would be like if we'd ousted Bush over the 9/11 attacks. Political views or opinions of Mr Bush aside, it's NOT A GOOD IDEA to oust your leaders this soon after a crisis. Give it a few weeks then do it.
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
quote:
Azizza had this to say about Duck Tales:
It was far from a failure. It was a case of the goverment doing something that needed to be done even though they didn't have wide spread support. If people are to short sighted to realize this then it isn't the goverments fault.
Yes, had Spain not helped occupy Iraq it would have been wiped out by Saddam's vast arsenal of etheral nukes by now. It is also a good thing Iraq was taken out of the picture, otherwise Saddam may have broken with his habit of having no major connections to terrorism and funded a terrorist attack on Spain which was luckily prevented by the Spanish involvment in the Iraq war.
quote:
I disagree. You should never make snap decisions based on crises. That would be like if we'd ousted Bush over the 9/11 attacks. Political views or opinions of Mr Bush aside, it's NOT A GOOD IDEA to oust your leaders this soon after a crisis. Give it a few weeks then do it.
They didn't oust the government in some coup, those were scheduled elections and the conservative party lost, had they not voted them out they would have stuck around for years before the next chance to replace them, during that time they could have joined another war or god-knows-what.
Oh and I forgot to mention the whole thing about trying to misrepresent the nature of the attack and blame the ETA exclusively in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary to save their skin which might have cost the Spanish government some votes. [ 03-16-2004: Message edited by: Mod ]
Ask an Iraqui if they see os as liberators or an occupying force. A vast percentage woudl see us as liberators. They are now free from Hussein's terror. They have the freedome to do things they could only dream of a year ago.
And Saddam was proven to have ties to Terrorist. Mainly of Palestinian origins. He was promising money to the families of anyone who went and killed others.
You seem to think that anything you dissagree with is evil. Yeah maybe Spain would have joined another war, maybe they would not have. Either way they would have taken action knowing a hell of a lot mroe than you do.
Secondly, even though 90% of the Spanish public opposed the war, the government sometimes has to do what's right, not popular. Otherwise you end up with this wish-washy, Clintonian "government by opinion poll" and that's not good for anyone. You could make the argument that a large (although probably not 90%) segment of the American public was not in favor of Civil Rights legislation back in the 60s. None the less, Kennedy and LBJ pushed it through any way, even though Johnson suspected (rightly, it turns out) that it would cost the Democrats the South for the forseeable future. That, my friend, is STATESMANSHIP. Doing what you think is right, even when you know it's going to cost you politically.
You can try running someplace by catering to the whim of the moment, but I don't think I'd care to live in a place like that.
quote:
Azizza was naked while typing this:
Mod a word of advice. Wait till two brain cells get close enough to each other to work together before you post.Ask an Iraqui if they see os as liberators or an occupying force. A vast percentage woudl see us as liberators. They are now free from Hussein's terror. They have the freedome to do things they could only dream of a year ago.
And Saddam was proven to have ties to Terrorist. Mainly of Palestinian origins. He was promising money to the families of anyone who went and killed others.
You seem to think that anything you dissagree with is evil. Yeah maybe Spain would have joined another war, maybe they would not have. Either way they would have taken action knowing a hell of a lot mroe than you do.
We can all agree on the principle of democracy, right? The thing we're working here to preserve? People in the country voting for what politicians to represent them so that the politicians make decisions as close to what the majority wants as possible?
The VAST majority didn't want the war in Iraq. Thus the government stopped being representative of the people in a very major issue many people felt strongly about. Therefore, the government gets voted out to vote in one which is (hopefully) closer to the views of the people.
As soon as a democratic government (ANY democratic government) does something against the will of the vast majority, it stops being democratic. However 'stupid' you feel the decision is.
quote:
Callalron sez:
Secondly, even though 90% of the Spanish public opposed the war, the government sometimes has to do what's right, not popular. Otherwise you end up with this wish-washy, Clintonian "government by opinion poll"
I sort of agree with that.. But when it's such a major issue which the entire country felt very strongly about, it only goes with the democratic principle that they then get voted out.
The terrorists might see this as a victory but hell, they will turn everything into a victory for them or at least as something to drive for more support. Terrorists are not afraid about lying about ANYTHING as you said in your first sentence. So it would not make a difference either way on that side of the issue. [ 03-16-2004: Message edited by: Niklas ]
quote:
Niklas had this to say about Cuba:
We can all agree on the principle of democracy, right? The thing we're working here to preserve? People in the country voting for what politicians to represent them so that the politicians make decisions as close to what the majority wants as possible?The VAST majority didn't want the war in Iraq. Thus the government stopped being representative of the people in a very major issue many people felt strongly about. Therefore, the government gets voted out to vote in one which is (hopefully) closer to the views of the people.
As soon as a democratic government (ANY democratic government) does something against the will of the vast majority, it stops being democratic. However 'stupid' you feel the decision is.
Actually no it doesn't. You confuse Dempocracy and Republic.
Here is the deal. A goverment is elected to do what is needed to provide for and protect the people. The vast majority of people don't want to pay taxes so I guess by your point of view we should vote out any elected officials who dont' abolish taxes.
quote:
The logic train ran off the tracks when Azizza said:
Mod a word of advice. Wait till two brain cells get close enough to each other to work together before you post.Ask an Iraqui if they see os as liberators or an occupying force. A vast percentage woudl see us as liberators. They are now free from Hussein's terror. They have the freedome to do things they could only dream of a year ago.
And Saddam was proven to have ties to Terrorist. Mainly of Palestinian origins. He was promising money to the families of anyone who went and killed others.
You seem to think that anything you dissagree with is evil. Yeah maybe Spain would have joined another war, maybe they would not have. Either way they would have taken action knowing a hell of a lot mroe than you do.
You can fall back on how much the Iraqi that aren't fighting the US occupation love it but this does not in fact change the fact that the Spanish government did not have the moral authority to send their people into a war 90% of them opposed.
90% is not party-line bickering or a minor policy disagreement, 90% is a position shared by the vast majority of a nation, a government that does not even compromise between that and it's own personal position (In that case, for example, backing the US in the UN but not sending troops) but does the exact opposite of what the people they represent want at no gain to them whatsoever better be removed in a functioning democracy. Keep in mind this is not Social Security reform or a debate over income tax, this is a decleration of war, pretty much the biggest decision a government can make.
There's a difference between supporting international terrorism (the likes of which hit Spain) and anti-Israeli. I'll stop that train of throught here to prevent the thread from being derailed into an I/P discussion. There is also a difference between making sure the widows of terrorists are cared for and arming or training them, one is in the realm of symphaty, the other is actually enhancing their ability to fight. Had Hussein wanted he could have just flat out paid the terrorists instead.
Stop that phantom knowledge act, if you have some information I missed to bring to the table do it, if not kindly discuss the points without appealing to the infinite wisdom of government, also you telling someone that they believe everyone who disagrees with them is evil is rather funny. What was that about Kerry the traitor? [ 03-16-2004: Message edited by: Mod ]
Oops. They're gone come next election.
Now that's democracy.
quote:
How.... Niklas.... uughhhhhh:
Note: 90% of the Spanish were against the war.I doubt very much the ruling party would have stayed in power whatever happened.
[edit] Mod said it all... but I'll still leave this here..
90% of the people might have been against the war, but pre-bombing polls had the ruling "conservative" government still well ahead of the "socialists" by something like 10%
Most observers thought it likely the conservatives would retain government, albeit with reduced majority.. [ 03-16-2004: Message edited by: Abbikat ]
Nevertheless, I'm not naive enough to think that the bombings had no influence on the elections.
quote:
Niklas Model 2000 was programmed to say:
Meh, I still say it was up in the sky. You don't really know what'll happen until it actually comes to the voting. (for example, the Labour victory over here in 1997. Polls showed conservatives by a slim majority, Labour won by a landslide)
Sounds like the state election here in '98. Conservatives lead by like 30-40 points going into the poll.. got severe ass-kicking, and the Labor party formed government with a trio of independants.
Downside, we've had so many "nanny-state" laws introduced since then, you cant even tell a good Irish joke on St Patrick's Day without some asshole trying to sue you for "racial discrimination".. 
quote:
Ja'Deth Issar Ka'bael enlisted the help of an infinite number of monkeys to write:
I disagree. You should never make snap decisions based on crises. That would be like if we'd ousted Bush over the 9/11 attacks. Political views or opinions of Mr Bush aside, it's NOT A GOOD IDEA to oust your leaders this soon after a crisis. Give it a few weeks then do it.
The thing is, the elections were pre-arranged to occur the weekend later or something like that.
Does any democratic country have the mechanisms in place to say the equivalent of "We are going to have elections on Date X" and then be able to say 5 days before that date "Because of event Y, we are cancelling elections."? (Serious question there). Even if there were the mechanisms in place, it would be an extremely tough call to make to delay the elections. What criteria would you use to make that call?
I'm not a politics expert, and Idon't even play one on TV, but other than a situation where the country is in open War with another, or if the disaster in question took out a significant portion of the candidates and/or the party leader, or a distaster occured which is ongoing long enough to significantly hinder the populace making an informed decision for their vote or even to vote; such as a hurricane, an accident that closed off a city, etc, would be grounds for a delay. (In fact, I'm surprised Prince Edward Island did not delay their provincial elections last winter since Election day occured the day after a major storm hit the island, but it's just PEI so no one cares about them anyways. 
This terrorist attack was a tragedy, there is no arguing that; but it would be a hard choice to make to see if it warrented delaying the elections. No matter what decision was made, people would find reasons to badmouth it.
If they keep it when it was scheduled, people say the victims weren't honored.
If they delay, people say the terrorists won by stopping the democratic process. (not to mention it gives all sides a chance to bring out the Public Relations to use the disaster towards their own ends)
If the opposition wins, people say it was backlash against the ruling party for not finding this out before hand, or for causing the problem that lead to this in the first place (as is the case now)
If the encumbant party wins, people say they only got in riding on the patriotic feelings from handling the disaster.
It's a lose/lose situation no matter how you cut it really.
In the end, I'd dare say that since no politicians/candidates were apparantly harmed in the explosions (I haven't followed close enough to know for sure), and no travel restrictions had been put in place (unlike 9/11 when airplanes were grounded), and the attack hadn't been TOO close to the elections, keeping them on schedule was probably one of the better things to do.
Certainly, the incumbant party took a beating, and probably lost by more than they would have (from what I heard it would have been a close election no matter what happened), but the timing seems (from the outside) to give the populace enough time to get over the initial shock, gives the authorities enoguh time to get some explanations out, but did not give the parties enough time to really start capitalizing on the attacks (a good thing IMO, judging from those patriotic ads Bush is putting out for his campaign already).
In any case it was a very tough call to make (to hold the elections or not), and I do not envy the people who had to make it.
quote:
Abbikat painfully thought these words up:
[edit] Mod said it all... but I'll still leave this here..
90% of the people might have been against the war, but pre-bombing polls had the ruling "conservative" government still well ahead of the "socialists" by something like 10%Most observers thought it likely the conservatives would retain government, albeit with reduced majority..
IIRC the lead was 5%, which, especially in in systems with multiple parties isn't worth too much. Last Austrian elections had the Socal Democratic and People's Party up head to head with a SD lead in polls that was around 5-10% depending on whom you asked and ended up with the PP taking the election by 6%. Many people poll as voting for one of the smaller parties like greens or nutjob anti-immigration parties then end up voting 'safe' for one of the centrist ones instead.
Also before the attacks there wasn't really a huge price paid for the war in Iraq, it was something people disagreed with but purely an ideological issue, with the attacks it gained direct negative consequences for Spain and thus caused massive outrage. [ 03-16-2004: Message edited by: Mod ]
quote:
A December posting on an Internet message board used by al Qaeda and its sympathizers and obtained by CNN, spells out a plan to topple the pro-U.S. government."We think the Spanish government will not stand more than two blows, or three at the most, before it will be forced to withdraw because of the public pressure on it," the al Qaeda document says.
"If its forces remain after these blows, the victory of the Socialist Party will be almost guaranteed -- and the withdrawal of Spanish forces will be on its campaign manifesto."
quote:
Azizza obviously shouldn't have said:
Actually no it doesn't. You confuse Dempocracy and Republic.
Here is the deal. A goverment is elected to do what is needed to provide for and protect the people. The vast majority of people don't want to pay taxes so I guess by your point of view we should vote out any elected officials who dont' abolish taxes.
Sounds to me like a reasonable working definition of a republic, there, Azizza. Or is that what you were saying?
quote:
Azizza had this to say about Duck Tales:
Actually no it doesn't. You confuse Dempocracy and Republic.
Here is the deal. A goverment is elected to do what is needed to provide for and protect the people. The vast majority of people don't want to pay taxes so I guess by your point of view we should vote out any elected officials who dont' abolish taxes.
Azizza.. There's a big difference between asking for a tax raise (very few people will vote for that even though it may be necessary int he long run) and going to war. As Mod said, going to war is pretty much the largest decision a government can make. Sure, go ahead and do it but if the majority of your country disagrees with you, don't be surprised when you get kicked out during the next election.
Difference in scale, Az. An order of magnitude different.
[sorry for late reply, didn't see your post until now for some reason. I mean literally there was no post between mine and Mod's it looked like. Anyway, off to sleep I trot.]
quote:
The logic train ran off the tracks when Niklas said:
Azizza.. There's a big difference between asking for a tax raise (very few people will vote for that even though it may be necessary int he long run) and going to war. As Mod said, going to war is pretty much the largest decision a government can make. Sure, go ahead and do it but if the majority of your country disagrees with you, don't be surprised when you get kicked out during the next election.Difference in scale, Az. An order of magnitude different.
[sorry for late reply, didn't see your post until now for some reason. I mean literally there was no post between mine and Mod's it looked like. Anyway, off to sleep I trot.]
Yes there is a difference. However the point still stands that the goverment is there to act in the best interests of it's people. The Spanish goverment did just this. Did they see an imidiate threat from Iraq? Who knows. I doubt it. However they did see a potential threat and they saw that in backing the US they were cementing out ties even more. So they supported us.
[I am betting a Mod got blacklist happy or something *shrugs*] Glad you found it and replied though. Always up for a discussion with a damn dirty liberal. [ 03-17-2004: Message edited by: Azizza ]
