We Are All Spaniards

On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 05:21:28 GMT, Don Tuite
wrote:

Too simple. The Spanish have resisted the Basques for decades.

He's not talking about Basques. He's talking about Islamic terrorists,
who have just succeeded (as they will interpret it) in forcing Spain
to pull out of Iraq.

Of course the socialists might well have won without the bombing, and
would certainly have pulled out their troops, but nobody is going to
think of that. What they are going to think is this:

1) Spain joined the invasion of Iraq.

2) Spain got bombed by what seem to have been Islamic terrorists.

3) Spain pulled out of Iraq.

4) Bombing works, Q.E.D.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Hi Dan,

Of course the socialists might well have won without the bombing, and
would certainly have pulled out their troops, but nobody is going to
think of that. What they are going to think is this:

1) Spain joined the invasion of Iraq.

2) Spain got bombed by what seem to have been Islamic terrorists.

3) Spain pulled out of Iraq.

4) Bombing works, Q.E.D.

As much as I question the value of the military action in Iraq in terms
of the war on terror, I have to agree with you and Jay here. To pull
out as what must be seen by the terrorists as a reaction to the bombing
is a very bad thing.

regards,
Friedrich

--
for personal email, please remove "entfernen." from my adress

"Friedrich Ostertag" wrote in message
...
Hi Dan,

Of course the socialists might well have won without the bombing, and
would certainly have pulled out their troops, but nobody is going to
think of that. What they are going to think is this:

1) Spain joined the invasion of Iraq.

2) Spain got bombed by what seem to have been Islamic terrorists.

3) Spain pulled out of Iraq.

4) Bombing works, Q.E.D.

As much as I question the value of the military action in Iraq in terms
of the war on terror,

And an effective alternative is...what?

Hi Tom,

As much as I question the value of the military action in Iraq in
terms
of the war on terror,

And an effective alternative is...what?

better intelligence work could have prevented 9/11 for a start. Or
choosing our friends more wisely would be a good idea. E.g. not
supplying terrorists like OBL with weapons just because at the moment
they are shooting them at people we don't like.

Please note that I'm not ruling out military action as an option, if
there is reason to believe that possible future terrorist acts can be
prevented. Afghanistan was justified in my view, given that the taliban
openly supported OBL, only the job was not finished (yet again!). Iraq
was never really about terrorism, was it? Maybe the bush administration
was really that much mistaken about Iraqs capabilities to build WMDs, i
can't judge that. But Saddam was never harbouring terrorists, because
he hated islamic fundamentalists and they hated him. They both hated
the US, but for completely different reasons.

regards,
Friedrich

--
for personal email please remove "entfernen." from my adress

"Friedrich Ostertag" wrote in message
...
Hi Tom,

As much as I question the value of the military action in Iraq in
terms
of the war on terror,

And an effective alternative is...what?

better intelligence work could have prevented 9/11 for a start.

And what could we have done with that intelligence?

I would guess you realize it's not like in the James Bond movies, and for
information to be even moderately accurate is a bonus.

Or
choosing our friends more wisely would be a good idea. E.g. not
supplying terrorists like OBL with weapons just because at the moment
they are shooting them at people we don't like.

We supplied the Muhajeen with weapons to fight off the Soviets in
Afghanistan...that was a righteous fight. Oddly, we supplied the Soviets
with Lend-Lease equipment 40 yers earlier. using that formula, we'd never
had divorces between couple that once were in love but now want to kill each
other.

Who, under that measure, could we ever consider our "friends"?

Please note that I'm not ruling out military action as an option, if
there is reason to believe that possible future terrorist acts can be
prevented.

Prevented how?

Afghanistan was justified in my view, given that the taliban
openly supported OBL, only the job was not finished (yet again!).

What would "finish" that job in your view?

Iraq
was never really about terrorism, was it?

They supplied equipment, training, military intelligence, possibly funding.
Very likely they would have provided WMD's when developed. As for where WMD
were, remember what Saddamn did with his Air Force in the first Gulf War?
Sent it to Iran. Remember what he did with it during the current war? Sent
it to Syria. Remember the pictures in the papers (NY TImes IIRC) of the
convoy's heading to Syria just before the war? Remember the freighter saling
to North Korea (just before the invasion) that was traveling "dark" in
contravention of maritime law?


Maybe the bush administration
was really that much mistaken about Iraqs capabilities to build WMDs,

Well, the so was the rest of the world, and msot of the democrats. Get ahold
of the list of quotes by democras, including Bill and Hillarious Clinton,
making the point that Iraq had WMD and waere ready to use them.

i
can't judge that. But Saddam was never harbouring terrorists, because
he hated islamic fundamentalists and they hated him.

Funny, isn't it, that the Islamic terrorists were buddies with the
atheistic USSR? Odd how various ethnic crime gangs (Italian, Irish, Jewish
mafias) manage to cooperate when there's a benefit to be gained. Look how
much cooperation there was between the Soviets an the Nazis up until 1941.

They both hated
the US, but for completely different reasons.

For Iraq, the US was the hurdle to his domination of the region; for the
Islamic fundelemtalists, it was our open, free and "immoral, infidel"
society.

http://prophetofdoom.net/

Negotiation only works with rational people..adn stringiny such process out
over twelve years

Hi Tom,

And an effective alternative is...what?

better intelligence work could have prevented 9/11 for a start.

And what could we have done with that intelligence?

arrest the would-be pilots before they board the plane?

I would guess you realize it's not like in the James Bond movies, and
for
information to be even moderately accurate is a bonus.

what are the various agencies there for, if not to provide information
enabling such arrests? I appreciate that it's not an easy job. Yet in
case of 9/11 it was found later, that such information was available.

Or
choosing our friends more wisely would be a good idea. E.g. not
supplying terrorists like OBL with weapons just because at the
moment
they are shooting them at people we don't like.

We supplied the Muhajeen with weapons to fight off the Soviets in
Afghanistan...that was a righteous fight. Oddly, we supplied the
Soviets
with Lend-Lease equipment 40 yers earlier. using that formula, we'd
never
had divorces between couple that once were in love but now want to
kill each
other.

It's not as if the Muhajeen had ever been in love with US or the West,
nor vice versa. They welcomed the weapons, but it was not so
unforseeable that they would just as well turn them against us.

Who, under that measure, could we ever consider our "friends"?

People who share our values, a common conception of human rights.

Please note that I'm not ruling out military action as an option,
if
there is reason to believe that possible future terrorist acts can
be
prevented.

Prevented how?

arresting (or killing) the terrorists.

Afghanistan was justified in my view, given that the taliban
openly supported OBL, only the job was not finished (yet again!).

What would "finish" that job in your view?

To be honest, I don't know. Support in establishing a stable form of
gouvernment and also development, I suppose. It is a very difficult
job, that's for sure, but noone said it would be easy.

Iraq
was never really about terrorism, was it?

They supplied equipment, training, military intelligence, possibly
funding.

Did they? I haven't read about any finds that back up that claim.
Wouldn't we know about that, given the short supply of WMDs as
justification for the war?

But even if this was the case: We should have much rather invaded Saudi
Arabia if that was our motivation.

For Iraq, the US was the hurdle to his domination of the region; for
the
Islamic fundelemtalists, it was our open, free and "immoral, infidel"
society.

Yes, I agree with that.

regards,
Friedrich

--
for personal email please remove "entfernen." from my adress

"Friedrich Ostertag" wrote in message
...
Hi Tom,

And an effective alternative is...what?

better intelligence work could have prevented 9/11 for a start.

And what could we have done with that intelligence?

arrest the would-be pilots before they board the plane?

I would guess you realize it's not like in the James Bond movies, and
for
information to be even moderately accurate is a bonus.

what are the various agencies there for, if not to provide information
enabling such arrests?

Who is the arresting officer? The World Police Department?


I appreciate that it's not an easy job. Yet in
case of 9/11 it was found later, that such information was available.

And if it was? Send the Iraqi Secret Police to make the arrests?



Or
choosing our friends more wisely would be a good idea. E.g. not
supplying terrorists like OBL with weapons just because at the
moment
they are shooting them at people we don't like.

We supplied the Muhajeen with weapons to fight off the Soviets in
Afghanistan...that was a righteous fight. Oddly, we supplied the
Soviets
with Lend-Lease equipment 40 yers earlier. using that formula, we'd
never
had divorces between couple that once were in love but now want to
kill each
other.

It's not as if the Muhajeen had ever been in love with US or the West,
nor vice versa. They welcomed the weapons, but it was not so
unforseeable that they would just as well turn them against us.

We gave aid and weapons to South Korea and it did us very well. It turned
against us with the USSR and France, but not England.

Very little is forseeable -- hindsight is 20/20.



Who, under that measure, could we ever consider our "friends"?

People who share our values, a common conception of human rights.

Please note that I'm not ruling out military action as an option,
if
there is reason to believe that possible future terrorist acts can
be
prevented.

Prevented how?

arresting (or killing) the terrorists.

Who's going to make the arrests?


Afghanistan was justified in my view, given that the taliban
openly supported OBL, only the job was not finished (yet again!).

What would "finish" that job in your view?

To be honest, I don't know. Support in establishing a stable form of
gouvernment and also development, I suppose. It is a very difficult
job, that's for sure, but noone said it would be easy.

Well, how do we begin to "establish a stable from of government"?

BTW, recall that it took 6-8 years to get Japan and Germany back on their
feet after WW2.

Iraq
was never really about terrorism, was it?

They supplied equipment, training, military intelligence, possibly
funding.

Did they? I haven't read about any finds that back up that claim.
Wouldn't we know about that, given the short supply of WMDs as
justification for the war?

It's out there...just not in the mainstream media.

For example, two of the 9/11 terrorists met with the head of Iraqi
Intelligence shortly before they came to the US.


But even if this was the case: We should have much rather invaded Saudi
Arabia if that was our motivation.

With the resistance we had going into an obvious target like Iraq, how much
more resistance would there have been going into Saudi Arabia?


For Iraq, the US was the hurdle to his domination of the region; for
the
Islamic fundelemtalists, it was our open, free and "immoral, infidel"
society.

Yes, I agree with that.

With all the hot air about 9/11 being based on various grievances about US
policy, it's "funny" that all their spokesmen said it was NOT the case. "You
worship life, while we worship death" doesn't sound like a policy gripe.

In short, they hate our liberty, our prosperity and our immorality --see the
thread about Brittany Spears :~)