Abject surrender

"Jarg" wrote in message
om...
"Chad Irby" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
Alistair Gunn wrote:

So Al Qaeda *may* have influenced the result in the Spanish election,

Not "may."

Anyone who insists that the Spanish election wasn't heavily influenced
by the bombings is just fooling themselves.


Sadly, that is true. The Spanish electorate went belly up. You would
think
the repeated lessons of appeasment might have soaked in by now, but
apparently not.

al Qaeda endorses the new government in Spain
the new government in Spain endorses John Kerry
does al Qaeda endorse John Kerry?

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Jarg" wrote in message
om...
"Chad Irby" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
Alistair Gunn wrote:

So Al Qaeda *may* have influenced the result in the Spanish
election,

Not "may."

Anyone who insists that the Spanish election wasn't heavily influenced
by the bombings is just fooling themselves.


Sadly, that is true. The Spanish electorate went belly up. You would
think
the repeated lessons of appeasment might have soaked in by now, but
apparently not.

al Qaeda endorses the new government in Spain
the new government in Spain endorses John Kerry
does al Qaeda endorse John Kerry?



LOL. Reminds me of the witch test in Holy Grail!

To answer your question, no. I doubt al Queda endorses any current
government, but I am also sure their leadership is nonetheless quite
satisfied with the results. I'm still eagerly waiting for Sen. Kerry's list
of secret admirers.


Jarg

"Jarg" wrote in message
om...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Jarg" wrote in message
om...
"Chad Irby" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
Alistair Gunn wrote:

So Al Qaeda *may* have influenced the result in the Spanish
election,

Not "may."

Anyone who insists that the Spanish election wasn't heavily
influenced
by the bombings is just fooling themselves.


Sadly, that is true. The Spanish electorate went belly up. You would
think
the repeated lessons of appeasment might have soaked in by now, but
apparently not.

al Qaeda endorses the new government in Spain
the new government in Spain endorses John Kerry
does al Qaeda endorse John Kerry?



LOL. Reminds me of the witch test in Holy Grail!

Does John Kerry weigh the same as a duck?

To answer your question, no. I doubt al Queda endorses any current
government, but I am also sure their leadership is nonetheless quite
satisfied with the results. I'm still eagerly waiting for Sen. Kerry's
list
of secret admirers.

And so it goes ...

In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

al Qaeda endorses the new government in Spain
the new government in Spain endorses John Kerry
does al Qaeda endorse John Kerry?

North Korea likes him.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 09:11:54 -0000, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:




Which is ironic given the opinion poll published by the BBC which
shows that more IRAQI's are in favor of the invasion than
opposed it and 70% thought things would be better as a result.

Keith

I doubt anything less than a completely howling anarchy woudl be
worse than Hussein...
But-
Much of Europe including the spanish electorate is very leery of
"it turned out well" arguements for invasions. The U.S. sold it to
them, (or tried to) on the arguement of imminent threat, which didn't
appear to exist. If we'd found warehouses of chemical weapons, I
think the dynamic would have been far different.
The election appeared to be influenced by several factors:
1. Anger at the government for trying to pin it on ETA, which was,
rightly or wrongly, seen as a purely political move.
2. A feeling that the attack had come because the government, in
defiance of its own electorate, joined up with the U.S. for an
invasion that many still consider illegal.
3. A feeling that the U.S. doesn't value their alliance, which from
the U.S., I have to agree with. We've treated our allies *very*
poorly. The U.S. attacks on "old europe", the UN, and anyone who dared
disagree with us have come back to haunt us. The Neo-con disdain for
alliances was rather misplaced and definately destroyed some (not all)
of the good will existing between the U.S. and its allies.

One very interesting point however, is that this bombing didn't
change very many peoples votes, according to some exit polls, what it
did was get more people out TO vote. That's encouraging in one
respect-- in nations with a solid majority one way or the other, such
a bombing probably won't have the effect of shifting things. That
means even more so then before, the U.S. has GOT to do everything ti
can to get the people, not simply the government, on board.

In article ,
Charles Gray wrote:

Much of Europe including the spanish electorate is very leery of
"it turned out well" arguements for invasions. The U.S. sold it to
them, (or tried to) on the arguement of imminent threat, which didn't
appear to exist.

Actually, that's exactly the *opposite* of what was said. It was
repeated, time and again, that waiting until the threat was "imminent"
was a bad idea.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Tony Williams" wrote in message
m...
but also very much because his government
tried to pin the blame on ETA in a very heavy-handed way, and this
caused great outrage.

I remember only a couple of weeks ago the Spanish government anouncing that
a warning had been received that ETA was going to target the rail network
and they were going to have to check all 20,000(?) miles of track. I've not
heard mention of this warning since, or was I dreaming it? (If so, I'll let
you all know next time I have a similar dream!)

Si

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
om...
Actually, that's exactly the *opposite* of what was said. It was
repeated, time and again, that waiting until the threat was "imminent"
was a bad idea.

"45 minutes" not sound familiar then?

Si

"Simon Robbins" wrote in message
...
"Chad Irby" wrote in message
om...
Actually, that's exactly the *opposite* of what was said. It was
repeated, time and again, that waiting until the threat was "imminent"
was a bad idea.

"45 minutes" not sound familiar then?

Saddam believed he had WMD.

On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 21:00:20 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

In article ,
Charles Gray wrote:

Much of Europe including the spanish electorate is very leery of
"it turned out well" arguements for invasions. The U.S. sold it to
them, (or tried to) on the arguement of imminent threat, which didn't
appear to exist.

Actually, that's exactly the *opposite* of what was said. It was
repeated, time and again, that waiting until the threat was "imminent"
was a bad idea.

True-- I was unclear-- the whole idea of pre-empting imminent
threats was the one that brought some doubt from the Europeans. But
we did argue that Hussein was very close to having WMD's, and when
others contradicted us, we were in turns mocking and hostile...which
didn't play well when it turned out that they were *right*.