 |
| |
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:34
|
|
Ah, the good old appeasement stupidity-always a goody when it is brought out.
Appeasement is as likely to work as confrontation-did the US appease Japan in 1940-41? Nope, the US took a strong line, and after Japan took Indochina, instituted a possibly crippling embargo on oil and scrap metal. Did stading strong vs Japan teach them a leason? No. They attacked the US and sought to secure their resources by war. Appeasement, like confrontation, is a strategy-whether it works or not is based on the eventual aims of the opponent.
Are the Japanese appeasing AQ? The only people who believe it are those that support Iraq. In short ladies and gentleman, this is a by proxy discussion, yet again, of Iraq. IN general, those that supported the Iraq war most stridently are the ones speaking about Spain appeasing AQ- people like Kagan and the WP. But they work on the assumption that Iraq is and always was central to the battle against AQ. Well, maybe BY invading Iraq this has a rign of truth now-but then, of course, 80% of Spanirds opposed going to Iraq in the first place, and supposedly this war is about freedom and democracy. Everyone remember what Rummy said about the looting? Freedoms can be messy. Rely on a "ccolition of the willing", and you pay the consequences, specially if many of the willing joined you not becuase they craed about Iraq at all, but becuase they cared about their relations with the US.
Lets look at that WaPo story-and see the truth underneath: Aznar did not go into Iraq becuase he gived a damn about the people of Iraq, and given there was no AQ there to begin with, certainly not to fight them. He went becuase Bush said with us or against us, and Aznar believed Spain should be with the US, and if that means joining with a token in Iraq, well, why not? But the people of Spain never agreed with that (if the PP was going to win, it was going to win on voter support for its internal policies, not any agreement with the actions in Iraq). Well, after all that happened in Iraq, staying with the US -or better said, with the Bush administration, no longer seemes something worthwhile to Spain's voters. So they booted out the PP government.
Did AQ want such an outcome? probably. BUt then again, I have asked before, and I will ask again, why should the people of Spain vote on THIER future based on what AQ, or Bush, or anyone outside of Spain, want?
In another thread, Fez said there was nothing the PP could have done to stop this attack from happening. If so, then what service did the war in Iraq serve Spain's security? If being with Bush does not make Spain safer-why should the Spanish electorate stay with that boat? People make the claim AQ's aims are univesalist-world domination and all that blather-well, if after 1 year in Iraq and 2 in Afghanistan Fezzie is right and there was nothing a government like Spain's do to stop a massive terrorist attack like the one in madrid, then what has been the point? And if Fezzie is wrong and the PP government, with different priorities, could have stopped the attack-why re-elect a government that failed in securing Spain?
And then there is the real question- the Spanish government has called for the US to return to the UN-WaPo and likeminded folks call the UN ineffectual and worse-but the fact is, democracy means other people disagreeing with you, and if there is no international mandate for a mission, no international mission, no imprint of legitimacy to the act-then free people's are free to leave at any point-a coolition of thw willing is based only on the desires of people to stick with something, and only if they believe the policy embarked upon has actually given them any benefit. Could Aznar point to a single benefit for the Spanish voter that his unpopular approach in Iraq had brought? He could argue about the future, but of course, he had done that before, and been proven wrong.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BeBro
|
 |
of the Krauts
Mar 2000
time: 06:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by dannubis
the fact that you ask this question is the very reason you cannot comprehend that negotiation is actually the only way to root out terrorism. Because, like has been demonstrated, brute force doesn't help a thing. It only appeases the minds of the hatefull....
|
An ideological conflict is usually not negotiable. It may be under certain circumstances (east - west under the MAD threat) but that does not lead to a compromize in ideological beliefs either.
Last edited by BeBro on 16-03-2004 at 19:28
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
16-03-2004 18:48
|