16-03-2004 19:56									#91
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Read closely, I refered to the voters who switchedtheir support to the socialists, not to those who were socialists to begin with.

No difference. 80%-90% of Spaniards opposed the Iraq war-assuming the 10-20% that always backed it stayed with the PP, that means that the vast mayority if not entirety of those that might have switched their support from the PP to PSEO (and given that turnout was far higher than expected, the PSOE could have simply been carried to victory by people who had not been likely voters when the polls were taken) must have bene opponents of the war.

	16-03-2004 19:57									#92
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten quote: As far as I can tell, the Spanish voted PSOE was because the PP government lied about the attack in Madrid. Why don't you read the Washington Post article I linked to (and then copied and pasted)?

Kagan did not address the issue of why the vote went the way it did. He just made certain assumptions without even trying to substantiate them.

	16-03-2004 19:58									#93
	Got spare money?

quote: Kagan did not address the issue of why the vote went the way it did.

I linked to more than one article, genius. The one in question was the very first one...

quote: I see drake has yet to address any of the points I made: see what happens when you waste your time posting long posts DT?

Sorry. I was just letting you drone on, as usual. I'll chime in if I notice a point worth dealing with in the deluge.

	16-03-2004 19:58									#94
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by dannubis yes, but in this case negotiation led to the fact that no bombs fell ...

Yes, but that needs rational actors on both sides. MAD caused both sides to act rationally, since otherwise they would not have survived. However, those fundies (not all muslims fortunately, but these fundies are our problem now) act rational only within their ideology - when the belief is that our lifestyle is decadent, and that infidels deserve death, then it is within their logic to kill us. And surviving does not seem their main concern, also because of their ideology. As long as they don't change that, there is no room for negotiations, because we would need to sacrifice our beliefs, eg. our basic understanding of a modern society, to please them.

quote: and with negotiation i ment negotiating in a broad way... supplying means for education giving people a chance to a better life rooting out situations which are actually degrading

Certainly nothing wrong with that from my POV. It will however not change the mindset of fundies that are already there, and there is still a chance that a certain number of muslims sees what we call education and better life only as means of western Imperialism.

	16-03-2004 20:02									#95
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten quote: Kagan did not address the issue of why the vote went the way it did. I linked to more than one article, genius. The one in question was the very first one...

Your own words:

quote: Why don't you read the Washington Post article I linked to (and then copied and pasted)?

You implied Kagan addressed the issue in the article you copied and pasted.

	16-03-2004 20:07									#96
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by GePap I will look for good examples. In the meantime, I can give you an example were appeasement would have worked-Iraq.

I don't thin either of these cases fall under the standard definition of appeasement as far as I can tell. In the first case, Iraq was the agressor and Bush I was simply demanding they leave the lands they conquered. In the second case, Iraq could have avoided the war by living up to the commitments they made after having thier arse kicked 6 ways from Sunday the first time. I don't really have any idea how that one qualifies as appeasement.

I'll have to look at the example of Muscovy though. Russian history isn't my strong suit.

	16-03-2004 20:07									#97
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Why doesn't anyone believe the Spanish voters? The ones who voted PSOE say they switched because the government lied. The ones who wanted the PP to win say that Spain has surrended. Sour grapes and and the conservaties in the US like suckin' on 'em.

	16-03-2004 20:12									#98
	Put an end to popups!

quote: You implied Kagan addressed the issue in the article you copied and pasted.

*sigh*

I know your English isn't that great, so I'll be nice...

I copied and pasted three pieces from the Washington Post. One is an "opinion column" by Robert Kagan. They call Kagan an "opinion columnist" because he writes "columns", not "articles". If I had wanted you to read Kagan's column, I would've told you to read a column, not an article.

I also wouldn't have told you to read an "editorial", which is what the second Washington Post piece I linked to was, because "editorials" and "articles" aren't the same thing.

Now, considering that only one of the three pieces I copied and pasted was an article, wouldn't it make sense that you read the sole article when I ask you to read the "article"? I don't know, but it certainly makes more sense than claiming that I implied you read Kagan's column instead in a pathetic attempt to avoid the issue at hand...

Thank you.

	16-03-2004 20:18									#99
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc Can you point out a situation where where such a strategy actually worked?

Appeasing the US is generally safer than confronting it.

	16-03-2004 20:20									#100
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Appeasement tends to make more sense when you're weak. A weak nation (let's say Muscovy) can appease a powerful one (the Mongols) until such time as the balance of power shifts.

Appeasement doesn't make much sense when your opponent is comparable to you, or weaker than you.

-Arrian

	16-03-2004 20:21									#101
	Get a bigger avatar today!

The Kagan piece was tripe.

	16-03-2004 20:21									#102
	Full PM-box? Change here!

That doesn't really answer the question, che. BC and GePap made a better effort than that.

	16-03-2004 20:25									#103
	Support Apolyton

I head an interesting thing on PBS last night. The only reason the PP government admitted that they were looking at AQ on Saturday was because the PSOE found out about the evidence linking AQ and informed the government if they didn't tell the truth, the PSOE would. The PP lied, and tried to continue lying and cover up its lies. Right before an election.

Getting caught lying about a major catastrophe the day before an election is generally not condusive to victory in the polls. Had the Spanish not thrown them out, they would have been condoning ineptness and lying by the government. That is the greater crime.

It is sad the PP weren't punished even more greatly.

	16-03-2004 20:26									#104
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc That doesn't really answer the question, che. BC and GePap made a better effort than that.

Mr one-liner cannot complain about one-liner responses.

	16-03-2004 20:28									#105
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

I think we can all agree that it would have been better for all concerned if the government had not said anything of substance about who did it the first day.

	16-03-2004 20:29									#106
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc I don't thin either of these cases fall under the standard definition of appeasement as far as I can tell. In the first case, Iraq was the agressor and Bush I was simply demanding they leave the lands they conquered. In the second case, Iraq could have avoided the war by living up to the commitments they made after having thier arse kicked 6 ways from Sunday the first time. I don't really have any idea how that one qualifies as appeasement. I'll have to look at the example of Muscovy though. Russian history isn't my strong suit.

"standard definition of appeasement"? You mean using the word in a derogatory manner, invariable refering back to the Nazi's, right?

Appeasement as a strategy has nothing to do with who is the "aggressor", Appeasement is deciding that confrontation at a point is destined to lead to a worse outcome in the end than not confronting the problem. When Iraq invaded Kuwait it expected no significant international opposition. Having met significant international opposition, deciding to give in to international pressure, as opposed to confronting it, would have allowed Saddam to stay in power. That is appeasement.

Inserting "moral" or value-laden words into discussion fo strategy is not my bag.

As for BC's exmaple-very good one-paying tribute: deciding that cash payments to X other there is better than tax levied by X when he rules you after having beaten you. That is appeasement again-deciding confrontation is the worse of two options.

	16-03-2004 20:31									#107
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Mr one-liner cannot complain about one-liner responses.

Mr one-liner was only curious about that one point and relly didn't care about the rest of GePap's long post. He also feels that if you didn't have an answer to the question asked then you shouldn't have annoyed him by foisting your wierd political opinions on him.

	16-03-2004 20:32									#108
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by GePap [QUOTE] No difference. 80%-90% of Spaniards opposed the Iraq war-assuming the 10-20% that always backed it stayed with the PP, that means that the vast mayority if not entirety of those that might have switched their support from the PP to PSEO (and given that turnout was far higher than expected, the PSOE could have simply been carried to victory by people who had not been likely voters when the polls were taken) must have bene opponents of the war.

Yes, those that switched were likely opponents of the war. So what? The socialists took roughly 42% of the vote and the PP 37%. By your numbers that must mean that a substantial number of voters who opposed the war voted for the PP.

The polls may have been incorrect, but if not, there was a swing in vote from PP to PSEO that occurred after the bombing.

EDIT: Che's comment about the reason for the switch is the most credible i.e. the government lies, but I still find the 'logic' hard to understand.

	16-03-2004 20:36									#109
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Arrian Appeasement doesn't make much sense when your opponent is comparable to you, or weaker than you. -Arrian

In tersm of strategy, no "rules" are certain. If two sides are the same in strength- and once side demands something of low value to the other side-it makes no sense to waste immense strength fighting (since a war between equals is bound to end in a bloody stalemate) for something you might value far less than the other side.

So whether to "appease" when confronted by an equal is completely based on the aim of each side, and the value to them of the thing at the heart of the confrontation.

Ditto for the strong vs. the weak-though I will ask you if you buy Fez's arguement that no Spanish government could have done anything to stop this attack?

	16-03-2004 20:39									#110
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by SpencerH Yes, those that switched were likely opponents of the war. So what? The socialists took roughly 42% of the vote and the PP 37%. By your numbers that must mean that a substantial number of voters who opposed the war voted for the PP. The polls may have been incorrect, but if not there was a swing in vote from PP to PSEO that occurred after the bombing.

You said you could not understand them: i agreed with you, and stated hat the reaosn you can't is becuase you supported the war on Iraq while those that switched did not. It then comes down to a belief whether the war in Iraq has trully served any purpose in the war on terror, or whether Spain's participation in that war was a mistake. As someone who personally always supported that war, I am not surprised that you are unable to understand the decisions of people's with different opinions.

	16-03-2004 20:41									#111
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: 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?

	16-03-2004 20:41									#112
	Got spare money?

Is Mr Funning considered less annoying now?

	16-03-2004 20:43									#113
	Increase Your PM Length

Its about as annoying as people ignoring good points.

	16-03-2004 20:46									#114
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

thread... I'm sick and tired of the retarded excuses... AZNAR LOST!DEAL WITH IT! and stop blaming his faults on the terrorists...

morons

	16-03-2004 20:50									#115
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Using the best strategy to fight al-qaeda is important, but at least equally important is the fact that they are going about trying to and maybe succeding in affecting our elections. I'm very pissed off about that, and I hope that voters will not support any ***** ass parties that don't really have a strategy to fight al-qaeda, but who just want to cover their own ass.

	16-03-2004 20:50									#116
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Sava, don't you understand. Rejecting Bush has to do with Spanish cowardice, not Spanish integrity. To accept that the Spanish had a valid reason to toss out their Bush supporting government means that maybe supporting Bush isn't the God ordained faith based obligation they want it to be. Better to rage about cowardice than let an independent thought disturb their brains.

	16-03-2004 20:54									#117
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by GePap You said you could not understand them: i agreed with you, and stated hat the reaosn you can't is becuase you supported the war on Iraq while those that switched did not. It then comes down to a belief whether the war in Iraq has trully served any purpose in the war on terror, or whether Spain's participation in that war was a mistake. As someone who personally always supported that war, I am not surprised that you are unable to understand the decisions of people's with different opinions.

Its not a question of opposing viewpoints wrt support vs no support of the war. If the spanish voters who switched did so because of distrust of the government (the straw that broke the camels back etc). That I can understand. But if that was not the reason, then what was?

For example, a voter may not support the war but may generally understand the reasons why it took place and therefore support the PP (or perhaps for other reasons). Your country is then attacked by the same terrorists that the war is purportedly trying to eliminate and your choice is to switch your vote to a party that will no longer support external action against the terrorists?

Do you believe that would occur here or in Britain if AQ succesfully attacked either country?

	16-03-2004 20:55									#118
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Sava, don't you understand. Rejecting Bush has to do with Spanish cowardice, not Spanish integrity. To accept that the Spanish had a valid reason to toss out their Bush supporting government means that maybe supporting Bush isn't the God ordained faith based obligation they want it to be. Better to rage about cowardice than let an independent thought disturb their brains.

and what's really sad is the dopey right can't admit Aznar FAILED and couldn't protect his people.

	16-03-2004 21:03									#119
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by SpencerH For example, a voter may not support the war but may generally understand the reasons why it took place and therefore support the PP (or perhaps for other reasons). Your country is then attacked by the same terrorists that the war is purportedly trying to eliminate and your choice is to switch your vote to a party that will no longer support external action against the terrorists?

Sorry, but your response shows the problem-why do you associate understanding the reasons it took place to "therefore supports the PP"? That isd an asusmption based on your opinions, not hard facts. I understand the reaosns the Iraq war took place very well- I don;t support the War nor the Bush amdinistration. And take your second line-"the party that will no longer support external action against the terrorists" an utterly biased line based completely on your personal viewpoints. Is the war in Afghanistan "external action against the terorrists"? The PSOE said it would keep the troops in Iraq if a UN mandate was given-is this not "external actions against the terrorists"?

It is really not good to try to disprove an assertion of intellectual bias inhibiting empathy by posting an obviously biased response.

quote: Do you believe that would occur here or in Britain if AQ succesfully attacked either country?

Not in the US-due to how the war has been presented. Of course, a mayority backed the war in Iraq. Though as time goes by, we will see. In the Uk? Don't know.

	16-03-2004 21:08									#120
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by GePap In tersm of strategy, no "rules" are certain. If two sides are the same in strength- and once side demands something of low value to the other side-it makes no sense to waste immense strength fighting (since a war between equals is bound to end in a bloody stalemate) for something you might value far less than the other side. So whether to "appease" when confronted by an equal is completely based on the aim of each side, and the value to them of the thing at the heart of the confrontation. Ditto for the strong vs. the weak-though I will ask you if you buy Fez's arguement that no Spanish government could have done anything to stop this attack?

In your first example, you have 2 relatively equal powers, and one demands something trivial from the other. You say it makes sense to give it, rather than fight. My response to that is twofold: 1) why assume the demanding power will follow through with a threat and actually go to war; and 2) if you give in to a demand, even a trivial one, do you not set a poor precedent? If, via negotiation, both sides give something up, it is (IMO) a very different thing than one side just giving in.

As for "strong versus weak," well, let us take an extreme example in the current WoT:

USA trying to appease AQ. Think about what the US would have to do to actually appease those nutbars. We're not just talking about troop withdrawls here, folks. And for what? At the end of the day, while terror attacks are terrifying and horrible, AQ's effect on the US is like that of an irritating bug*. Absent nuclear weapons, AQ is weak in comparison to the US, so the US making huge concessions such as total withdrawl from the ME (political as well as military) and a change in our own values (anybody want to become a fundamentalist Islamic state?) doesn't make sense.

Finally, could a Spanish government prevented the attack? Of course, such a thing is possible, just like a US government that was more vigilant could have stopped 9/11. We all know that the US government was complacent, both under Clinton and Bush. Whether or not the Spanish government was as well I don't know. Maybe, maybe not. The investigation is just getting going.

-Arrian

* - in terms of how much they can kill and destroy. The other ramifications of AQ's attacks, like the Patriot Act and whatnot, are mostly of our own doing.