16-03-2004 21:17									#121
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: 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.

"Poor precedent"-so you should waste huge recources simply for "precedent"? Sorry, but that is a waste, since "precedent" lasts only as long as the toher guys decides it lasts.

The problem here is the notion Spain just gave in-the fact is the PSOE had stated before the elections they would pull out, and if anything, tempered their response prior to the election. The events of last week made many Spaniards rethink their coutnries policy in Iraq. I still find it absurd to think that the voters of Spain had to decide who would govern them for the next 4 years based solely on whether it would set a precedent for a third party, specially given the questions they now had about the abiltiies and trusrtworthiness of their government.

Let me add for the record, I do not see this as "appeasement" of AQ by Spain under any circusmatnces, under the standard biased defintion or mine. Voters made a choice of their won government based on the events of the last few days and months. That is not appeasement. After all, the new Spanish government said they would remain in Iraq if a UN mandate was given. That is not appeasing AQ. The issue is one of the legitimacy of the occupation. If the Bush admin decides to set up a Un mandate in June, which is after all when the transition of power occurs, then Spain remains in Iraq, which is hardly what AQ wants.

	16-03-2004 21:19									#122
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by GePap 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.

As I posted earlier, if 80% of the voters oppose the war and 37% voted PP then a substantial number who voted for the PP must have been in the group who also oppose the war.

quote: 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"?

Zapatero made a campaign pledge to pull the troops out of Iraq unless the US turned over the government to the UN. Any reasonable reader of the (understandable) US antipathy to the UN would understand that is not going to happen. Therefore a reasonable assumption is that a vote for the socialists is a vote to remove the troops from Iraq.

BTW: you have an interesting take on 'personal viewpoints' (as being somehow fraudulant). All data analysis done by humans includes such viewpoints. I can point out yours if you like

	16-03-2004 21:22									#123
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

GePap, correct me if I'm wrong, but it is my understanding that the coalition is already operating under a UN mandate.

	16-03-2004 21:24									#124
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Ned GePap, correct me if I'm wrong, but it is my understanding that the coalition is already operating under a UN mandate.

the US (because we all know it's not really a coalition) is violating UN resolutions by using depleted uranium... oh wait, but we attacked Iraq because they were violating UN resolutions...

hypocrisy

	16-03-2004 21:29									#125
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by SpencerH As I posted earlier, if 80% of the voters oppose the war and 37% voted PP then a substantial number who voted for the PP must have been in the group who also oppose the war.

And this says nothing to back your contention that understanding the reasons for the war by itself makes you support the PP. Another just as valid theory is that there are people in Spain for whom the social and economic policies of the PP, or its stance on the Basque question, ie. internal issues, are more valid and important to them than the war on Iraq. Imagine Ben Kenobi, who, as a pacifist, would vote for Bush without question, becuase his main issue is abortion.

quote: Zapatero made a campaign pledge to pull the troops out of Iraq unless the US turned over the government to the UN. Any reasonable reader of the (understandable) US antipathy to the UN would understand that is not going to happen. Therefore a reasonable assumption is that a vote for the socialists is a vote to remove the troops from Iraq.

Ah, so the ultimate reaosn for Spain no longer staying in Iraq is the inability of the Bush amdinistration to create and international mandate in Iraq in order to bring in more nations solely for its ideological issues against the UN-yes, a reasonable reader can see that very clearly. one could hope the Bush admin. would prove them wrong.

quote: BTW: you have an interesting take on 'personal viewpoints' (as being somehow fraudulant). All data analysis done by humans includes such viewpoints. I can point out yours if you like

While all annalysis includes bias, one is able to see bias and deal with it. I am honest with my bias. I know what it is, I know when I can and can't empathize, and don;t make claims like those you did. So wink all you want- I know when I am biased and will be honest about it-you on the other hand have yet to show this possible.

	16-03-2004 21:33									#126
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Ned GePap, correct me if I'm wrong, but it is my understanding that the coalition is already operating under a UN mandate.

The SC gave recognition to the interim government- tepid recognition to the authority of the transitional authority. But in June the US has stated it will hand over sovereignty to the Iraqis-which will end the transtional authority and thus change the staus of the occupational forces. What mandate will they be under when that change happens? The new government says they will pull out by June-ie, they are making a statement about what role the UN will have once soverignty in theory returns to an Iraqi government.

	16-03-2004 21:33									#127
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by GePap The problem here is the notion Spain just gave in-the fact is the PSOE had stated before the elections they would pull out, and if anything, tempered their response prior to the election. The events of last week made many Spaniards rethink their coutnries policy in Iraq.

Isnt that what I've been arguing and you've been denying? I

quote: I still find it absurd to think that the voters of Spain had to decide who would govern them for the next 4 years based solely on whether it would set a precedent for a third party, specially given the questions they now had about the abiltiies and trusrtworthiness of their government. Let me add for the record, I do not see this as "appeasement" of AQ by Spain under any circusmatnces, under the standard biased defintion or mine. Voters made a choice of their won government based on the events of the last few days and months. That is not appeasement. After all, the new Spanish government said they would remain in Iraq if a UN mandate was given. That is not appeasing AQ.

I agree that this describes the majority of the pro-PSEO voters, but not those that switched. I think it likely that the switch voters believe that AQ attacks on Spain are less likely to occur if Spain does not support US policy and in that respect it is an 'appeasement vote'.

	16-03-2004 21:35									#128
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

If the U.S. tosses out Bush (and hopefully sends him to prison where he and his belong), would you acuse us of appeasing the terrorists?

	16-03-2004 21:36									#129
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Probably.

	16-03-2004 21:38									#130
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

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

No. I'm refering to a strategy in which a state aims to modify the behavior of an aggressor by conceeding it power in the hope that the gesture will make the aggressor feel more secure, thus removing the motive for its aggression. I think its an ineffective and dangerous strategy because it allows the balance of power to shift against the threatened state.

	16-03-2004 21:39									#131
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by SpencerH Isnt that what I've been arguing and you've been denying?

What a short memory you have. You said you could not understand how voters could have changed thier votes due to the attack- I agreed with you, I said you could not understand due to your position on the Iraq war (in my first post I said this whole debate is just another proxy debate for the Iraq war).

quote: I agree that this describes the majority of the pro-PSEO voters, but not those that switched. I think it likely that the switch voters believe that AQ attacks on Spain are less likely to occur if Spain does not support US policy and in that respect it is an 'appeasement vote'.

And is this a false assumption? If AQ won;t attack Spain anymore, then it is the correct assumption to make. If AQ will keep attacking Spain anyway, then it is the wrong assumption-BUT that says nothing about whether keeping troops in Iraq in any ways lower the chances of further inveitbale AQ attacks vs Spain now does it?

	16-03-2004 21:40									#132
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Saint Marcus Yes they do. The main reason Spain was attacked, and not, say, Germany, is because of Aznars pro-Bush stand concerning Iraq (eventhough 80+% of the Spaniards opposed the Iraq war). I for one am very glad to see the PP out of office. The Spanish people made a good and sensible vote.

Finally, a lefty who acknowledges the reality of why Spain was attacked!

	16-03-2004 21:42									#133
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by GePap quote: 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. "Poor precedent"-so you should waste huge recources simply for "precedent"? Sorry, but that is a waste, since "precedent" lasts only as long as the toher guys decides it lasts. The problem here is the notion Spain just gave in-the fact is the PSOE had stated before the elections they would pull out, and if anything, tempered their response prior to the election. The events of last week made many Spaniards rethink their coutnries policy in Iraq. I still find it absurd to think that the voters of Spain had to decide who would govern them for the next 4 years based solely on whether it would set a precedent for a third party, specially given the questions they now had about the abiltiies and trusrtworthiness of their government. Let me add for the record, I do not see this as "appeasement" of AQ by Spain under any circusmatnces, under the standard biased defintion or mine. Voters made a choice of their won government based on the events of the last few days and months. That is not appeasement. After all, the new Spanish government said they would remain in Iraq if a UN mandate was given. That is not appeasing AQ. The issue is one of the legitimacy of the occupation. If the Bush admin decides to set up a Un mandate in June, which is after all when the transition of power occurs, then Spain remains in Iraq, which is hardly what AQ wants.

Just to be clear, I've never accused the Spanish of appeasement. I got into the discussion of appeasement, but not to try and pin that accusation on Spain.

Precedent is pretty damn important. You say it only lasts as long as the other side decides it lasts. EXACTLY. It's all about the other sides perception of your actions. If you give in when they demand things, they will see their demands were rewarded, and demand something more important. So the precedent is not meaningless at all.

-Arrian

	16-03-2004 21:43									#134
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by GePap And this says nothing to back your contention that understanding the reasons for the war by itself makes you support the PP. Another just as valid theory is that there are people in Spain for whom the social and economic policies of the PP, or its stance on the Basque question, ie. internal issues, are more valid and important to them than the war on Iraq. Imagine Ben Kenobi, who, as a pacifist, would vote for Bush without question, becuase his main issue is abortion.

It is not my contention. Stop reading small parts of posts and jumping to conclusions. I used a hypothetical example of someone who opposed the war but supported the PP.

quote: Zapatero made a campaign pledge to pull the troops out of Iraq unless the US turned over the government to the UN. Any reasonable reader of the (understandable) US antipathy to the UN would understand that is not going to happen. Therefore a reasonable assumption is that a vote for the socialists is a vote to remove the troops from Iraq.

quote: Ah, so the ultimate reaosn for Spain no longer staying in Iraq is the inability of the Bush amdinistration to create and international mandate in Iraq in order to bring in more nations solely for its ideological issues against the UN-yes, a reasonable reader can see that very clearly. one could hope the Bush admin. would prove them wrong. While all annalysis includes bias, one is able to see bias and deal with it. I am honest with my bias. I know what it is, I know when I can and can't empathize, and don;t make claims like those you did. So wink all you want- I know when I am biased and will be honest about it-you on the other hand have yet to show this possible.

You must have a MPD to have written the last two paragraphs.

EDIT: fixed quote

	16-03-2004 21:45									#135
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc No. I'm refering to a strategy in which a state aims to modify the behavior of an aggressor by conceeding it power in the hope that the gesture will make the aggressor feel more secure, thus removing the motive for its aggression. I think its an ineffective and dangerous strategy because it allows the balance of power to shift against the threatened state.

The problem DD is who defines "aggressor". You have never been one to believe in the UN, so who has the right to make that definiton? Without a system to legitimately label a state "aggressor", your definition runs into all sortsof problems.

	16-03-2004 21:48									#136
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Arrian 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

I came to that same general conclusion aswell. Then I thought its not a question of relative strength, I think its more a question of who is on the ascendency. If a small or comparable nation is causing you trouble but will self-destruct by its actions then don't necessarilly confront it. Letting it self-destruct, stagnate or otherwise become no more of a problem may be a better idea. Of course what you shouldn't do is ignore it, but inaction doesn't necessarily mean you aren't aware of the problem..

	16-03-2004 21:48									#137
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor I suppose Prodi favors soft form of antiterrorism, i.e. not all out wars ("force"). And what is left after that is winning the battle of the minds: to prune the terrorists' idelogical and hence popular support. That's something you don't do at gunpoint; that's something you can only worsen at gunpoint.

These are words without substance. Can you put some flesh on these bare bones to understand what Europe would actually DO, other than erect "walls" around the "city."

	16-03-2004 21:49									#138
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: You must have a MPD to have written the last two paragraphs.

Do you think you are the only one who can use "anyone reasonable" to try to define the oppostion as "unreasonable".



Again SpenciePoo- never do I claim to be unbiased- clearly my post about "reasonableness" was biased-I even admit to be biased. What then is the problem in comprehension?

	16-03-2004 21:50									#139
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: I came to that same general conclusion aswell. But then I thought its not a question of relative strength, I think its more a question of who is on the ascendency. If a small nation is causing you trouble but will self-destruct by its actions then don't confront it, letting it self-destruct, stagnate or otherwise become no more of a problem may be a good idea.

That would be containment, or possibly simply ignoring them, not appeasement.

-Arrian

	16-03-2004 21:55									#140
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by GePap You have never been one to believe in the UN, so who has the right to make that definiton?

Oh, I believe in the UN. I just don't believe it has the ability to do what many of its backers believe it can: push states into cooperating with each other and end the anarchic state system we currently live in. I fail to see what that has to do with the post though.

I'm glad we've finally gotten past the rather juvenile "YOU"RE TALKING ABOUT THE NAZIS" claptrap.

	16-03-2004 21:58									#141
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Arrian That would be containment, or possibly simply ignoring them, not appeasement. -Arrian

Not necessarily. I don't want to get into an argument about Nazi appeasement, but you could argue that appeasing the Nazi's bought Britain time to prepare for a war.

You could likewise argue that letting nations get away with something, or actively giving them 'protection' money is a good way to deal with the problem. What is the US doing in N.Korea? Using a carrot rather than stick is every bit as appeasement isn't it?

	16-03-2004 21:58									#142
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by BeBro Then I would say Prodi hasn't sworn off force totally, but as ultimate means to end the terror. I would understand his statement so that force is an instrument to fight it back, but not to root it out, since its more and more an ideology, even "mass movement" as this CNN article cites US experts: http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast...nter/index.html I certainly here noone in Europe saying that we all should be nice to AQ. The problem is what means are most promising, and under certain conditions military means are just not useful.

BeBro, was a not you in another thread that suggested that the way end terrorism in the future was to bring good governments to the Islamic world, governments dedicated to democracy, to human rights and to economic progress. Governments that would give its people hope for the future. Only in such an environment will the the messages of the apostles of hate fall on deaf ears. But so long as the world of Islam is held in tight constraint by dictators and fundamentalists clerics who deny rights to all, and especially to women, the drumbeat of hatred hate of the West, the so-called Crusader states, will continue indefinitely.

If you accept this as been fundamentally correct, your opposition making Iraq and Afghanistan democratic is incomprehensible.

	16-03-2004 21:59									#143
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc Oh, I believe in the UN. I just don't believe it has the ability to do what many of its backers believe it can: push states into cooperating with each other and end the anarchic state system we currently live in. I fail to see what that has to do with the post though.

If no state has the legitimacy to define another as "aggressor", then how can you decide what is an is NOT "appeasement", becuase your defintion is based upon being able to label one side "aggressor".

	16-03-2004 22:04									#144
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Big Crunch Not necessarily. I don't want to get into an argument about Nazi appeasement, but you could argue that appeasing the Nazi's bought Britain time to prepare for a war.

That was the view of British policymakers at Munich because they believed the balance of power to the UK and France over time. In fact it shifted against them after Munich. They probably would have been beter off going to war over the Sudetenland rather than Poland.

	16-03-2004 22:05									#145
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc That was the view of British policymakers at Munich because they believed the balance of power to the UK and France over time. In fact it shifted against them after Munich. They probably would have been beter off going to war over the Sudetenland rather than Poland.

Probably true, but they could have been right and of course hindsight is 20:20.

	16-03-2004 22:05									#146
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by GePap What a short memory you have. You said you could not understand how voters could have changed thier votes due to the attack- I agreed with you, I said you could not understand due to your position on the Iraq war

What a short memory you have. I'll re post my answer for you

"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. "

quote: (in my first post I said this whole debate is just another proxy debate for the Iraq war).

Yes I saw your pronouncement. Do you have a point?

quote: And is this a false assumption? If AQ won;t attack Spain anymore, then it is the correct assumption to make. If AQ will keep attacking Spain anyway, then it is the wrong assumption-

I didnt say it was.

quote: BUT that says nothing about whether keeping troops in Iraq in any ways lower the chances of further inveitbale AQ attacks vs Spain now does it?

Again you circle back to the UN argument. It aint gonna happen (and for good cause).

	16-03-2004 22:07									#147
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

And DD, any opinion of NK? Is it appeasement?

	16-03-2004 22:08									#148
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Sava the US (because we all know it's not really a coalition) is violating UN resolutions by using depleted uranium... oh wait, but we attacked Iraq because they were violating UN resolutions... hypocrisy

Address my post, please. We are operating under a UN mandate today, AFAIK.

The mandate calls on the Coalition Authority to manage Iraq until a government takes power. That will occur on June 30, after which the UN mandate ends.

	16-03-2004 22:08									#149
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by GePap If no state has the legitimacy to define another as "aggressor", then how can you decide what is an is NOT "appeasement", becuase your defintion is based upon being able to label one side "aggressor".

If this is going to to be sidetracked into a semantic discussion, can we just agree to disagree because those annoy me to no end? However if we will eventually get back to the more interesting aspects of the discussion, would you mind telling me what would speed that process up?

	16-03-2004 22:13									#150
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara If the U.S. tosses out Bush (and hopefully sends him to prison where he and his belong), would you acuse us of appeasing the terrorists?

Che, it depends on Kerry's position on Iraq and the status of the polls just prior to the election.