Why wouldn't spain's attack be the government's fault?

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

This is exactly the same reasoning that kept us in Vietnam for so long.

This isn't Vietnam. This is about fighting terrorists - not a country. But if you find "Terroristland" on a map - let the gov't know and then let us know - OK?

CkG

It's about fighting more "ists" When I say we need to attack "Terroristland" then you can call me on it. This time it is terrorists. Then it was communists. The phrasing, rational and apparent message is precisely as with the VN war. Maybe your memory of the time is different than mine. You were around then right? Sure ya were.

And your solution is? It is to do nothing - right? As if that is going to stop terrorism and terrorist attacks.

Yep - more of this "better not do anything in the world - the terrorists may not like it and attack us".

CkG

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: InfectedMushroom

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

This is exactly the same reasoning that kept us in Vietnam for so long.

This isn't Vietnam. This is about fighting terrorists - not a country. But if you find "Terroristland" on a map - let the gov't know and then let us know - OK?

CkG

There was NO proof at all that Iraq had ties with Al Queda. So how was starting the war with Iraq fighting terrorism. It seems more like it encouraged it, and created plenty of recruits for them.
Right CAD?

Round and round we go. I suggest you read what I've posted before - we've gone over this, but anyway - what is your "solution" then? If you think that starting a War against Saddam encouraged the Al Qaeda(who supposedly hated him) and created plenty of recruits for them - then what is your solution? Ask them before we went in?
Let me guess - "we shouldn't have gone into Iraq" - right? As if that would have prevented Terrorism or Terrorist attacks Do we have to ask Terrorists before we do anything anywhere? You know - we might make them mad and they might attack us if we do X - so we better not do X

Give me a break

CkG

Slowly, but surely you are begining to get it!

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Slowly, but surely you are begining to get it!

And how exactly does that not prove my point? YOU people think that we shouldn't have gone into Iraq and that by doing so caused terrorist attacks. Well - it must be asked - if we hadn't gone into Iraq to get Saddam - would the Terrorists not attack?

So like has been said - we either have to ask permission of the terrorists or we shouldn't do anything - otherwise the terrorists might attack us - right?.

CkG

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I can plainly see the similarity between unending war against the communists and unending war against the terrorists. It's the new "cold war" that our gov't has been looking for. Cad just likes associating Iraq with AQ, even though there's nary a shred of evidence to support that theory. Guess he's just like Bush in that regard.

Wrong - your assesment is not based on what I have posted. Thanks for trying to say I'm saying something. Now run along.

CkG

So then why don't you tell us why we attacked Iraq again? What's the reason du jour Cad? While you're at it, why don't you elaborate on what effect you think military invasion and subsequent occupation of a country with a majority Muslim population has on terror groups and Islamists in general. Please keep in mind that occupation is the frequently cited cause of Arab/Islamic anger towards both Israel as well as the U.S.

 

[Phokus]

Lets see, Spain supports US war in Iraq ----> NINETY PERCENT OF THE SPANISH POPULATION IS AGAINST SAID WAR (aka 90% of spanish people of their heads on straight since the war has NOTHING to do with spain's security) ----> Spain gets attacked ----> Aznar and his bunch of "Popular Party" try to use the attack to bolster their support for re-election and their stance against the seperatists by blaming the ETA ----> Spanish people to PP, "SHUT UP YOU LIARS + WE F*CKING TOLD YOU SO"

Interventionism doesn't work. Although i don't like the fact that it LOOKS like they're 'bowing to the terrorists', it's more about punishing the imbeciles who put them in that position in the first place.

Again, the terrorists are at fault but you cannot say the Aznar and his "popular party" (not so popular anymore! LOLOLOL!) has no culpability.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: sandorski

Slowly, but surely you are begining to get it!

And how exactly does that not prove my point? YOU people think that we shouldn't have gone into Iraq and that by doing so caused terrorist attacks. Well - it must be asked - if we hadn't gone into Iraq to get Saddam - would the Terrorists not attack?

So like has been said - we either have to ask permission of the terrorists or we shouldn't do anything - otherwise the terrorists might attack us - right?.

CkG

No, you shouldn't have gone into Iraq. You should have gone after the terrorists, is it so hard to comprehend?

 

[DealMonkey]

Let me pre-empt Cad here:

1.) Should we ask the terrorists for permission before we do stuff?
2.) I thought Iraq and AQ weren't connected?
3.) Duh.
4.) Loop back to #1.

 

[tec699]

Originally posted by: Dari
Running from such a massive threat is an obvious sign of innate weakness. It would only lead to a more dangerous world.

As for what Jefferson said, he may have been right 240 odd years ago. Put the world is getting smaller and more consolidated (unions abound everywhere). Alliances are an eventuality of that.

The problem is Europe has very large Muslim populatin so they need to tread very carefully. Spain, England and France have muslim people pouring into their countries just as we have Mexican people pouring into America. Has anyone given consideration to the location of Spain? Look how closely it borders near those musilm countires. It's very easy for any radical terrorist group to enter Spain at will and there is nothing Spain can do about this situation. I guess they could step up border patrols but it would be very costly.

I think Spain made the right choice.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
And your solution is? It is to do nothing - right? As if that is going to stop terrorism and terrorist attacks.

Yep - more of this "better not do anything in the world - the terrorists may not like it and attack us".

CkG

Your contention remains incorrect. The only one yammering about "doing nothing" is you. That you continue to repeat it after countless people have clearly, repeatedly explained why it is wrong demonstrates how dishonest you have become in your defense of King George. Please let us all know if you someday become interested in discussion instead of pointless diversionary arguments.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
And your solution is? It is to do nothing - right? As if that is going to stop terrorism and terrorist attacks.

Yep - more of this "better not do anything in the world - the terrorists may not like it and attack us".

CkG

Your contention remains incorrect. The only one yammering about "doing nothing" is you. That you continue to repeat it after countless people have clearly, repeatedly explained why it is wrong demonstrates how dishonest you have become in your defense of King George. Please let us all know if you someday become interested in discussion instead of pointless diversionary arguments.

Yes, Cad apparantly lives in an intellecutally dishonest world of (A) Do Nothing, or (B) Attack Everyone. Like Bush's foreign policy, there is no nuance, there is no middle ground, you're either with us or against us. No solutions exists between the extremes.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
And your solution is? It is to do nothing - right? As if that is going to stop terrorism and terrorist attacks.

Yep - more of this "better not do anything in the world - the terrorists may not like it and attack us".

CkG

Your contention remains incorrect. The only one yammering about "doing nothing" is you. That you continue to repeat it after countless people have clearly, repeatedly explained why it is wrong demonstrates how dishonest you have become in your defense of King George. Please let us all know if you someday become interested in discussion instead of pointless diversionary arguments.

Yes, Cad apparantly lives in an intellecutally dishonest world of (A) Do Nothing, or (B) Attack Everyone. Like Bush's foreign policy, there is no nuance, there is no middle ground, you're either with us or against us. No solutions exists between the extremes.

Again you are wrong. It isn't a "nobody" vs "everyone" question. It's a "do nothing" and "do something" question. There are people here who say our actions are the problem -but they forget that terrorist don't give a rats ass. They want to spread terror. Doing nothing because you might piss them off is not an option. It means they have already won - they control you by your fear.

CkG

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
And your solution is? It is to do nothing - right? As if that is going to stop terrorism and terrorist attacks.

Yep - more of this "better not do anything in the world - the terrorists may not like it and attack us".

CkG

Your contention remains incorrect. The only one yammering about "doing nothing" is you. That you continue to repeat it after countless people have clearly, repeatedly explained why it is wrong demonstrates how dishonest you have become in your defense of King George. Please let us all know if you someday become interested in discussion instead of pointless diversionary arguments.

Yes, Cad apparantly lives in an intellecutally dishonest world of (A) Do Nothing, or (B) Attack Everyone. Like Bush's foreign policy, there is no nuance, there is no middle ground, you're either with us or against us. No solutions exists between the extremes.

Again you are wrong. It isn't a "nobody" vs "everyone" question. It's a "do nothing" and "do something" question. There are people here who say our actions are the problem -but they forget that terrorist don't give a rats ass. They want to spread terror. Doing nothing because you might piss them off is not an option. It means they have already won - they control you by your fear.

CkG

Again Cad, you keep blabbering about these people who suggest we "do nothing" . . . please point them out to us because frankly I have no idea who you're talking about. Just because someone thinks attacking Iraq was the wrong course of action doesn't necessarily equate to promoting a policy of "doing nothing." You're making a connection that simply isn't there.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
And your solution is? It is to do nothing - right? As if that is going to stop terrorism and terrorist attacks.

Yep - more of this "better not do anything in the world - the terrorists may not like it and attack us".

CkG

Your contention remains incorrect. The only one yammering about "doing nothing" is you. That you continue to repeat it after countless people have clearly, repeatedly explained why it is wrong demonstrates how dishonest you have become in your defense of King George. Please let us all know if you someday become interested in discussion instead of pointless diversionary arguments.

Yes, Cad apparantly lives in an intellecutally dishonest world of (A) Do Nothing, or (B) Attack Everyone. Like Bush's foreign policy, there is no nuance, there is no middle ground, you're either with us or against us. No solutions exists between the extremes.

Again you are wrong. It isn't a "nobody" vs "everyone" question. It's a "do nothing" and "do something" question. There are people here who say our actions are the problem -but they forget that terrorist don't give a rats ass. They want to spread terror. Doing nothing because you might piss them off is not an option. It means they have already won - they control you by your fear.

CkG

Again Cad, you keep blabbering about these people who suggest we "do nothing" . . . please point them out to us because frankly I have no idea who you're talking about. Just because someone thinks attacking Iraq was the wrong course of action doesn't necessarily equate to promoting a policy of "doing nothing." You're making a connection that simply isn't there.

OK - so you don't think that Iraq is a battle ground for terrorism then - right? Because if it is - then pulling out like Spain is doing is exactly the "not doing anything" I'm talking about. Sure - one could say that Iraq wasn't about terrorism and all that - that's a many many many other threads - but currently Iraq is about terrorism and the people of Spain think so too. Al Qaeda said this was about Iraq supposedly and attacked. The correlation here is hard to deny. Now if Spain pulls it's troops from Iraq and then shows it will go after Al Qaeda(who is currently in Iraq - no?) then I *may* amend my stance but at this point this retraction by Spain looks to be a HUGE win for terrorist. It all depends on how Spain chooses to respond - so far it doesn't look good.

CkG

 

[DealMonkey]

OK - so you don't think that Iraq is a battle ground for terrorism then - right? Because if it is - then pulling out like Spain is doing is exactly the "not doing anything" I'm talking about.

So let me get this straight Cad: A nation could fight terror vigorously in their own country and offer full cooperation with other nations in the WoT, however if they are not in Iraq fighting or occupying or whatever we're up to now, they're "doing nothing?!?"

I find it hard to believe that you're even suggesting that.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

OK - so you don't think that Iraq is a battle ground for terrorism then - right? Because if it is - then pulling out like Spain is doing is exactly the "not doing anything" I'm talking about.

So let me get this straight Cad: A nation could fight terror vigorously in their own country and offer full cooperation with other nations in the WoT, however if they are not in Iraq fighting or occupying or whatever we're up to now, they're "doing nothing?!?"

I find it hard to believe that you're even suggesting that.

There has been a changing of the guard in Spain - no? What is their first move? Like I said - I *may* amend my stance and judgment of their actions if they actively pursue those who perpetrated the attacks on them and help on the global front - but so far they pulled out of a current fight with terrorism

Meh - think what you may - it's only the internet.

CkG

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

OK - so you don't think that Iraq is a battle ground for terrorism then - right? Because if it is - then pulling out like Spain is doing is exactly the "not doing anything" I'm talking about.

So let me get this straight Cad: A nation could fight terror vigorously in their own country and offer full cooperation with other nations in the WoT, however if they are not in Iraq fighting or occupying or whatever we're up to now, they're "doing nothing?!?"

I find it hard to believe that you're even suggesting that.

There has been a changing of the gaurd in Spain - no? What is their first move? Like I said - I *may* amend my stance and judgment of their actions if they actively persue those who purpitrated the attacks on them and help on the global front - but so far they pulled out of a current fight with terrorism

Meh - think what you may - it's only the internet.

CkG

That's hardly the case Cad. Spain's new PM, Zapatero, has come out and said one of his first priorities is to fight terrorism. He said he will withdraw troops if the U.N. did not take over control of Iraq in June. From what I understand, the U.S. is supposed to hand over control to the Iraqi interim leadership in June anyway, so I guess the point is moot. Here are some quotes from Zapatero:

"I am going to fight the violence that also is attacking other nations in this world," he told reporters.

. . . and . . .

"I want to create an alliance against violence and all kinds of terrorism," he said. "I don't want to create my own war."

Zapatero said he wants to maintain his country's "cordial" relations with the United States, even though he did not support the U.S.-led war on Iraq.

You act like Zapatero's already pulled the 1300 troops out of Iraq. He's done no such thing. Depending on how the power transfer works out in June, they may even stick around. Who knows?

Yet, you sit there claiming Spain, or any nation, that didn't blindly follow Bush into Iraq and then continue to stick around indefinitely is effectively "doing nothing." I really don't understand how you can even say that.

 

[sandorski]

If it were even true, "doing nothing" is better than "doing anything".