Confed999

So is OBL and KJI.

__________________
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

List

Correct me if I'm wrong, because I'm working from memory, but the Madrid attack had little to do with Spain pulling out of Iraq. As I recall, the vast majority of the Spanish people were against going to war in Iraq, even before the attack. Their government went to war without their approval, so it got booted from office and replaced by one that would pull out of Iraq.

Oh, found a quote, it refers to the decision to put troops in Iraq.

If 90% of Americans were against a certain military action, and their government went through with it anyways, that government would be voted out too. The Terrorist attack had little to do with it, and to expect Spaniards to re-elect a government they detested would be as silly as expecting them to capitulate to terrorist demands.

Confed999

But by doing one thing, they did the other. Do you think the terrorists see it as a victory? Their motives don't matter to the terroists, just the results of their actions, and their actions are getting people killed. They didn't even stay for the time of their commitment.

Praxus

There are two scenerios, one bad, and one really bad. The first is if Bush wins and the second is if Kerry wins.

Leader

The government that was in favor of the war fell that why the troops were pulled out. If the attack had not happened, the troops would still be there.

The prowar Spanish government was leading in the polls before the terrorist attack by a significant margin.

__________________

List

Yes, I'm sure they do. But then again, the Spaniards shouldn't re-elect a government they disapprove of just to send terrorists a message.

Who's commitment? It wasn't the commitment of the Spanish people. New governments constantly disassemble the work of previous administrations. Besides, the new government gained power in part by promising to remove troops from Iraq.

Maybe, maybe not. If the government hadn't sent troops to Iraq against the wishes of the vast majority of the Spanish people, they'd probably still be in office.
Let's not deal with counter-factuals.

I believe you, I'd still like to see a source though.

Leader

Confed999

They were over 5 points ahead, the day before the bombing.

Confed999

Their vote sent the terrorists a message of support. They may as well have turned their guns on the Coalition.

European

Another member wrote: "What you are missing is Americans don't blame other Americans for Terrorist attacks they blame the enemy. At least most Americans. Besides, you don’t prevent terrorist attacks by increasing homeland security. It is pointless. A person that is determined to kill himself is going to find a way. You have to stop this stuff at the source.[/quote]"

Yes, stopping it at the source is a good idea. But how? By attacking and occupying muslim countries and then trying to install puppet governments, by mistreating prisoners, by circumventing the Geneva Convention and international law, by forming alliances ("Coalition of the Willing") with some other ruthless dictators? Don' t think that will work.

Are Americans reallly more stupid than the Spanish? From the 50 percent or so who do attend elections, at least some should have an insight that it is precisely their present government's actions which contribute to an ever rising resentment against "America" worldwide. I am not arguing that it makes sense to pacify militant islamic fundamentalists, but it does make sense to demonstrate to the people from whom they recruit their supporters that the US is respecting them, i.e. is respecting international law and differences in culture. It would be good, for example, if the US could wise up on Saudi Arabia, which is almost as repressive as Iraq was and has for years funded islamic fundmentalism world wide, which is now coming back at it in a militant way. But that is probably the last thing the Bush-Chaney-Haliburten Conglomerate would consider.

The Aznar government lied to the Spanish people during the few days after the Madrid bombings. The Bush government is lying to the American people at least since September 11th, trying to convince them that it makes sense to redraw the world map, attack other countries, snub your allies and basically disregard any sensible international opinion, all in order to improve American security. The only success it had so far is to lead the US on the path to becoming an international pariah, or do you know anybody who during your childhood liked the biggest bully on the playground?

Confed999

Glad you agree.
A friendly government is a puppet government? For a puppet government they do alot of things the US doesn't like. Wasn't Saddam supposed to be a European puppet? Germany, France and Russia were supporting him right?
There are bad people everywhere, it's a fact of life. It's something you should get used to.
Exactly what laws were broken?
Personally I don't like it either, but I understand it, when the people that are supposed to be your friends leave you in the lurch one tends to go looking for new friends.
The actual motives huh? If you Europeans cared so much how could you allow 5000 people a month, according to the liberal organization UNICEF, to die in Iraq without doing something about it?
Proof?
Funny, last I checked they were trying not to redraw the maps.
Afghanistan for harboring terrorists and Iraq for breaking their ceasefire. Not only do I not have a problem with that, it should have been done long ago.
Who promised support, and then it turns out was actually supporting the enemy durring sanctions?
We're still waiting on that option, haven't heard one yet, but I'm thinking it might be too late. We could try it next time, that is if anyone ever tells us about this miracle international option.
Your nick name is European right? How many European countries were directly supporting Saddam illegaly even though they had voted for sanctions? Saddam was a major bully so Europe must like bullys huh? BTW, bullies don't wait 12 years for an international option, do they?

European

I guess we are not totally in agreement about many issues, Confederate. Instead of answering your queries one by one, I confine myself to some observations.

After September 11th the whole civilised world was behind the US. The invasion of Afghanistan was politically and militarily supported by most European countries. There are still thousands of German troops there trying to rebuild a shattered country (together with troops from many other UN countries, while American troops are still mainly "hunting" Bin Laden). By doing so, it is hoped that this country will not provide a base for terrorists in the future, which is probably futile.

However, then (or rather parallel to that) the US-leadership got the idea to take out Saddam as well. Why? He had weapons of mass destruction which can be launched within 45 minutes? Where are they? He was harbouring terrorists? Possibly, but so did and do dozens of other countries, some best friends of the US. He had something to do with September 11th? A simple lie! The American government has lied to the world and the British government has supported it in this effort.

Iraq was a country suffering from a ruthless dictatorship but it was no threat to anybody. Sure, European government had some good contacts to Iraq, especially the French, and strong economic ties but so had the US; why would Rumsfeld go to Iraq in the 80s and give Saddam areal reconnaissance for his Iran-War; why was the US silent when he gassed the Kurds? Because he was an ally. A monster, but "our monster".

I call it sensible that no European populace and only a few European governments (among them semi-fascist Berlusconi from Italy) supported the invasion of Iraq. What can be gained from that? Absolutely nothing. Bringing democracy to the Middle East? That was a reason AFTER no weapons of mass destruction could be presented to the world. It still remains to be seen whether the Iraqis are better off without Saddam than with him. My hunch is that several years of a bloody civil war are lying ahead of them. And at the moment life there is infenitely worse than before the invasion, mainly because the US had no plan for the time after the regime was removed.

It was clear that in military terms this would be small beer. But it was equally clear to most Europeans (probably not so much for Americans who have to rely mostly on a coward and commercialised media) that it would be impossible to win the peace. Even if the US would have managed to turn Iraq in to a Switzerland of the Middle East in six months (and does it look like Switzerland now?), it would have still created more terrorists, simply by invading and occupying "muslim soil". Al Quaida does not need any more recruiting offices (if they ever had any). The US military is doing the job for them, driving scores of would be martyrs into their arms.

Oh, about rewriting international law. What is Guantanamo then? Is that lawful by any means? Or sending captives to "friendly" countries which have more ruthless interrogation tactics. Why is the White House seeking legal council on circumventing the Geneva Convention. Why is Washington striking separate agreements with many states that its soldiers can not be prosecuted, if they break the law on a mission?

And the mistreatment of prisoners. Do you really believe that this was the work of some rotten apples? That is naive. These things always at least trickly down from the top, if they are not executed because of specific orders and any real investigation would certainly prove this, but how can you expect that to happen, if you leave the investigation to the investigated? I don't really want to know what is happening to people in Guantanamo.

Finally, coming back to the original topic of this forum. The American public should be wise enough to get rid of Bush and his puppetmasters. I do not know whether Kerry is a really good alternative, but anything is better than this half wit who is primarily serving the interests of several industries and the super-rich, while completely disregarding any responsibility for the weaker members of American society and for really important world issues, such as environmental care.

eMGee

At least Schröder is democratic, LOL!

Confed999

Firstly, all of this has allready been argued here, you need to read a little before you post, but since this is what I do for fun, here we go!
Europe is a confederation now isn't it? LOL, huh Confederate?
You should have answered the queries because your opinions mean very little.
No way, most of the world was playing it's hate America game. We saw the people of Europe, and other places, say the US deserved it. Maybe they aren't civilized then? My 2 cents: The civilized world is with us now, the Saddam supporters have dropped out.
No big money contracts, bribes and weapon smuggling there for Europe?
My hope has allways been that they might see a better life, even if it's just a little.
Yeah, we got that idea back in the 90's. Why did Europe oppose it so? Ahhhhh, I forgot, Saddam was their boy then.
You tell me. Europe provided tons of intel on that one. Sadly, you've been duped, the WMD argument wasn't made by Bush era intel, it was made on intel before his time, Kerry's party's time in fact.
He was harboring terrorists, Abbas for one, and isn't this a statement calling for more war? Anyway invading those un-named "other" countries, and there are aparently dozens of them, wouldn't have been legal would they? Is there any legal grounds for invading Iran, for example? And, shouldn't someone at least try to get them to reform the same way we did with Saddam and Gaddafi? Sorry, I won't excuse bad behavior by pointing to more bad behavior.
Prove the lie was told. Show me the transcript where Bush or one of his top people said Iraq was involved directly in 9/11. You can't do it can you? Just this one statement, something you should be able to easily proove, is something you can't prove, and that should tell you what you need to know about your media.
You can say that all you want, but without proof it's just more liberal foot stomping.
Wow, that is a sad statement. I guess it's true if you're living in your own little world. I don't think you are worth anymore than an Iraqi though, so I don't feel the same way. BTW, if you believe UNICEF, less people died in the last 16 months than Saddam starved in 3 months. Your belly is full though, so what do you care.
These continued durring sanctions.
Why would Germany build his bunkers? Sad thing is you guys kept supporting him.
Why was Europe? Why did much of Europe continue to support Saddam, even after the US had stopped? You guys just slower?
So that makes it ok? Maybe to you it is, not to me.
Funny part is, it's mostly governments recently freed from communism, caused by the attacks of... Germany.
It allways was a reason here, along with his slaughter of civilians, along with his payments to terrorists, along with his firing on UN aircraft, the WMD thing was for you "he only kills people in the Middle East" people. You need to pay more attention to the world before things happen, and not to the partisan rhetoric after.
By the numbers, this is a no brainer. They're better off without Saddam, just like your country was better off without Hitler.
If it happens it's because they didn't get enough support. Where is Germany? Don't they support a free Iraq?
Not by the numbers it isn't. In fact one has over 4x the chance of living through the month.
Actually we did. It was the same plan we allways have. The USA is the muscle, the rest of the world is the peacekeeper. You guys messed that up.
ROTFL! Your listing says you're in Germany right? The same country that doesn't allow people to speak ill of the dead? Our mainstream media is as biased as yours, check it out sometime.
They were allready on the fence, because good people don't blow up civilians on purpose.
The people in Gitmo are not POWs, the GC does not apply. There is no international law involved. The US government is trying to sort this out because it isn't covered in our laws either, it has nothing to do with the GC. Is this another example of the fantastic European media? If you think the GC applies, quote the section and subsection.
What? If they wanted to do that, they could create a federal law. Really, I have no idea what you are talking about.
Prove it then.
Then the truth will come out.
Like the UN huh?
So he should be a jack ass like you? A roll over and support tyrants kinda guy? I wouldn't cross the street to spit on you, because, from what I read, you think you are worth more than other people. (Remember you started with the insults)
You're funny.
Oh my, really? What disregard has he shown? You're just mad because we haven't let socialism destroy our economy, yet, wait for it, it will come.
Tyrants aren't important? Genocide, a term brought to the dinner table by your country, isn't important?
Oh the horror! What has Bush done against the enviornment?

ChrisF202

- France
- Russia
- Germany
- Spain
- The UN (such as Hans Blix, Kofi just seemed to ignore Saddam's mass murders