A More Rational View of Spanish Elections

[barman]

http://maxspeak.org/mt/archives/000225.html


includes this solid summation:

"Fear would describe when you roll over for fear of attack and submit to oppression, but failure to support the adventures of G. Bush does not equate to fear of Al Queda. It simply equates to good sense. If anything, mostly-Christian Spain has more reason than the U.S. to be wary of fundamentalist Islam. Imagine if we had to worry about Mexican terrorists. Perhaps proximity engenders more wisdom as well, as far as picking and choosing your fights. Spain has shown no reluctance and I gather little incapacity to crack down on Basque terrorists. Why should they be more afraid of Islamists?

The worst of which you could accuse the Spanish is acting in their own national interest, something nations are wont to do. Such behavior is often inadequate in light of the world interest. For that reason we have an organization called the United Nations which is able to produce decisions that can command respect, if arrived at by open, democratic means. The task of leadership is advancing the world's interest effectively in that body.

That is the most miserable of the Bush Administration's miserable failures. Military strength notwithstanding, it is losing its favorite war out of political ineptitude. Why? Because it is trying to appease Americans who still haven't figured out how the U.S. lost the war in Viet Nam."

 

[Sodium Pentethol V]

includes this solid summation:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>"Fear would describe when you roll over for fear of attack and submit to oppression, but failure to support the adventures of G. Bush does not equate to fear of Al Queda. It simply equates to good sense.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really? Think voting out a leader that was solidly in bed with the only super power on earth in favor of a party that almost bankrupted the country, good sense? Yea that be why you an idjit and write for a fringe publication like maxshit.com



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If anything, mostly-Christian Spain has more reason than the U.S. to be wary of fundamentalist Islam. Imagine if we had to worry about Mexican terrorists. Perhaps proximity engenders more wisdom as well, as far as picking and choosing your fights.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Another excellent point, they are in your backyard and we are fighting your battles, because the entirety of the world would rather choose the path of least resistance, something has been proven failure for the last 200yrs.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Spain has shown no reluctance and I gather little incapacity to crack down on Basque terrorists. Why should they be more afraid of Islamists?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Duh, anyone that even poses such a stupid question should be paid by no one for their thoughts.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The worst of which you could accuse the Spanish is acting in their own national interest, something nations are wont to do.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

REally, how about implicit support of terrorists, I would consider that the worst, but hey I am not an agenda ridden scumbag like you, so objectivity is not a foreign word in this guy's vocabulary.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Such behavior is often inadequate in light of the world interest. For that reason we have an organization called the United Nations which is able to produce decisions that can command respect,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Alomost but not quite as much respect as your inane drivel. So much respect that Hussein bowed to UN resolutions and we didn't have to invade. Good one moron.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>if arrived at by open, democratic means. The task of leadership is advancing the world's interest effectively in that body.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Idjit says what? The Spanish people effectively voiced the opinion of Al Qaeda in their latest election and we are supposed to appluad it as the will of the people? Phucking agenda ridden scumbag moron.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>That is the most miserable of the Bush Administration's miserable failures. Military strength notwithstanding, it is losing its favorite war out of political ineptitude. Why? Because it is trying to appease Americans who still haven't figured out how the U.S. lost the war in Viet Nam."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey jackass the continental US was attacked twice in the last ten yrs, phucking ignorant piece of crap agenda ridden scumbag.

 

[PatPatriot]

Stupid fxckin Europe is really going to get hammered by the terroist now...easy and they roll over...Insted of goiing along with us and making this shit a world wide effort...they go out of their way to try to sabotage Bush more than they do Al Queda...well fxck em...Europe clean up your own shit FOR A CHANGE...and when the Eiffel tower is on its side don't blame the US.

 

[Mr NJ Sports]

re title this thread

"A more pacifist wuss view of Spanish Elections"

Spain is saying " Oh we got bombed so obviously the US is wrong and all of the terrorists must be right. Lets get out of Iraq because we do not want to get hit again."
When they do get hit again I hope they do not come crawling back to us looking for help.

 

[Mr NJ Sports]

PATRIOT
>and when the Eiffel tower is on its side don't blame the US.


We have one in Vegas , why should we care about theirs?

 

[UncleMoneybags]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Hey jackass the continental US was attacked twice in the last ten yrs, phucking ignorant piece of crap agenda ridden scumbag. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sodium Pentethal V,

I have to disagree with you. April 19, 1995 was one. December 31, 1999 (albeit they were caught before the real destruction was unleashed) was another. I would also put September 11 as 4 separate attacks instead of one attack. That's JMHO. There could be others that I can't remember at this time.

I still laugh when people get pissed because we're removing some of these a$$holes from positions of power yet they're the first ones to cast blame because the U.S. didn't enter WWII until late '41. They didn't attack us until then so what's the problem?

 

[PatPatriot]

Mr NJ....LMAO!!

 

[American]

The weaker the culture, the faster the submissive response to aggression. The only thing these weak cultures understand and respect is a gun pointed in their face. It's very disturbing.

 

[xpanda]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Patriot:
Insted of goiing along with us and making this shit a world wide effort...they go out of their way to try to sabotage Bush more than they do Al Queda...well fxck em...Europe clean up your own shit FOR A CHANGE...and when the Eiffel tower is on its side don't blame the US.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Shame on you, Patriot.

The US would still have the world on its side to fight terrorists with 100% support if they hadn't attacked Iraq. You bloody well know that a 'worldwide effort' only applies when the cause is Made in America.

 

[PatPatriot]

You got a point Buttercup...but you also had 17 UN resolutions that were not enforced on a guy that you would have to admit falls under the catagory of terroist...I mean the containment policy that most countries liked is OK so long that it is the US and Britains blood and money doing the containment,while it was France Russia and Germany involved in profitting for the food for oil program....Theres a lot of dirty hands in this.To blame the US just for ITS actions is either naive or disengenuius.

 

[Oceans11]

You fuxxed up by invading Iraq.

Squirm as much as you want, it was DUMB, and it was a dumbness of international history making proportions.

Now the international community has to try and pick up the pieces, and the repercussions will last for decades.

The sooner that "stoopid is as stoopid does" leaves the whitehouse the better.

 

[Sodium Pentethol V]

Yea you right eekie,

lotta guys lining up to be dragged from a hole by their hair.

your opinion is completely meaningless and therefore worthless.

we know the pacifistic bulls h i t save bandwidth, if up to you hitler would be ruling Europe and we would be speaking japanese.

the sooner y'all realize ignoring festering sores doesn't make them go away, the sooner you contribute rather than detract from the world.

 

[barman]

History demonstrates that in the past 200 years no 1st or 2nd world country has been able to invade, occupy and retain control of another country for any appreciable length of time.

The British Empire began to unravel during the 19th century.

The Germans two attempts to take Europe lasted less than seven years.

The Japanese effort to take over the South Pacific lasted less than a decade.

The North Korean and North Vietnamese both failed to take over the southern parts of their formerly unified countries.

The Soviets were unable to keep control of the Eastern Bloc for much past 30 years.

The Soviets attempts to hold Afghanistan failed.

The Iraqi attempt to take Kuwait failed to last.

Why does the U.S. believe that it can defy history by taking over Iraq and hoping to retain control?

The Spanish astutely note that they are all about fighting terror. But their current populace does not believe that supporting the takeover of Iraq does anything to help that cause. In fact, it distracts from and dilutes legitimate efforts to curb terrorism.

 

[BadBeat]

Why does the U.S. believe that it can defy history by taking over Iraq and hoping to retain control?

Why did the US take control of Japan after WW2? Why did the US control the Philipines? Why did the US take control of part of Berlin?

US history from the 20th century onwards is full of times when the US has been in control of a country or area militarily. The difference between us and your other examples is we do not attempt to retain control if the people do not want it. We just pack up our military and let our economy dictate, if that is the case.

Iraq will be run by Iraqis, not by the US. Sure, we hope its a much friendlier, not to mention saner, regime in charge.