1
   

Spain is just Spain

 
 
Fedral
 
Reply Mon 22 Mar, 2004 01:07 am
Spain is just Spain
Charles Krauthammer
March 19, 2004

WASHINGTON -- When confronting an existential enemy -- an enemy that wants to terminate your very existence -- there are only two choices: appeasement or war.

In the 1930s, Europe chose appeasement. Today Spain has done so again. Europe may follow.

One can understand Europe's reaction in the 1930s. First, it could almost plausibly convince itself that Hitler could be accommodated. Perhaps he really was only seeking what he sometimes said he was -- the return of territory, the unification of the Germanic peoples, a place in the sun -- and not world conquest.

Today there is no doubting the intentions of Arab-Islamic radicalism. It is not this grievance or that (U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia). It is not this territory or that (Palestine, Andalusia). The intention, endlessly repeated, is the establishment of a primitive, messianic caliphate -- redeeming Islam and dominating the world. They have seen the future: Taliban Afghanistan, writ large.

Moreover, Europe in the 1930s had a second excuse. The devastation of the First World War, staggering and fresh in memory (France and Germany lost a third of their young men of military age), had made another such war unthinkable. This does not excuse appeasement -- it cost millions more lives in the Second World War -- but provides context, and possibly humility. One has to ask oneself: Am I sure I would not have chosen the cowardly alternative?

Nonetheless, it was still the cowardly alternative. And today, Spain has chosen it -- having suffered not Europe's 20 million dead of the First World War, but 200 dead in the Madrid bombing.

The Socialist Party placed the blame for the attack not on the barbarians who detonated the bombs, but on the Spanish government that stood with the United States in its war against the barbarians. The Spanish electorate then voted into office the purveyors of precisely that perverse view.

Spain will now withdraw from Iraq, sever its alliance with America and, as Prime Minister-elect Zapatero has promised, ``restore magnificent relations with France and Germany.''

Nonetheless, Spain is just Spain. The really big prize is Europe. Which is why the most ominous development of the week was the post-Madrid pronouncements of Romano Prodi, the president of the European Commission.

``Clearly the conflict with the terrorists is not resolved with force alone.'' Sounds reasonable until you hear Prodi's amplification of the idea just two days earlier. ``We know that international terrorism wants to spread fear,'' said Prodi. ``Fear generates not so much justice, but rather vengeance, which chooses war to answer the need of security. ... We become prisoners of terror and of terrorists.'' In other words, making war on terror is unjust, fearful, mere vengeance, and ultimately a victory for terrorism.

If not war, then what? A centerpiece to Prodi's solution to terrorism: a new European constitution. I'm not making this up: ``to defeat fear we only have democracy and politics.... Today for us, politics means building Europe completely with its constitution and its institutions.... ''

This is beyond appeasement. This is decadence: Terror rages and we tend our garden.

Prodi is right that the war on terror is not resolved by force alone. How is it won apart from hunting down terrorists and destroying terrorist regimes? By reversing the Arab-Islamic world's tragic collapse into oppression, intolerance and destitution, in which popular grievances are cynically deflected by repressive regimes and clergy into the virulent anti-Americanism that exploded upon us on 9/11. Which means trying to give desperate and oppressed people a chance at the kind of freedom and prosperity that we helped construct post-World War II in Europe and East Asia.

Where on this planet is this project most engaged? Iraq, where, day by day, the U.S.-led coalition is trying to build a new civil order characterized by pluralism, the rule of law, and constitutional restraints. Even a modicum of success in this enterprise would constitute a monumental strategic advance, a historic change in the very culture of the Middle East.

Spain's response to this challenge? Abandon the effort.

So when Zapatero and, more importantly, Prodi speak of nonmilitary means to ``resolve'' the ``conflict with terrorists,'' they don't mean draining the swamp by gradually building free institutions. They mean buying off the terrorists, distancing themselves from America and seeking a separate peace.

Sure they will continue to track down individual al Qaeda terrorists. But that's no favor to anyone. They want to make sure there's not another Madrid, in case European appeasement is not quite thorough enough to satisfy the terrorists. But on the larger fight, the reordering of the Arab world that produced the terrorists, they choose surrender.

Link.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 4,689 • Replies: 86
No top replies

 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Mar, 2004 01:29 am
Voting out a government that was perceived to have practiced deceit about the attacks for political purposes is not "appeasement" of terrorists.

They did not vote to go easy on Al Quaeda but rather to dump a government they felt had let them down.

The government that they voted in has harsher rhetoric against terrorists.

But to many Americans appeasement is all they see, and the fact that the incoming government has no plans to "appease" terrorists is not a relevant factor when they accuse Spain of "appeasing terrorists".

It's not difficult to understand a rejection of what they perceived to be a government covering up or spinning an attack to win an election. But it seems that it's even easier for simplistic and self-serving rhetoric about "appeasement".

The will of the Spanish people was "appeased", they rejected a government that they considered to have covered up information about their greatest terrorist attack for political gain.

Al Quaeda will spin it how they will, to seem more relevant than they really are (all terrorist groups like to exagerrate their influence) and so will hawks stateside who will paint it in simplistic terms of appeasement.

Hawks are milking terrorism, 9/11 and Hitler for all it's worth and then some. Much like the hawks that are Al Quaeda milk their acts when striving for relevance.

May more reasonable mentalities prevail in the future.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Mar, 2004 10:33 am
Quote:
When confronting an existential enemy -- an enemy that wants to terminate your very existence -- there are only two choices: appeasement or war.


This is a false premise.
0 Replies
 
IronLionZion
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Mar, 2004 07:48 pm
Re: Spain is just Spain
Fedral wrote:
Spain is just Spain
Charles Krauthammer
March 19, 2004

WASHINGTON -- When confronting an existential enemy -- an enemy that wants to terminate your very existence -- there are only two choices: appeasement or war.


HA!

...further solidifying that the conservative establishment percieves the world in black and white terms, rather than recognizing it for the full color spectrum it is. Trying to build an efficacious foriegn policy based on such a premise is like trying to paint Van Gogh's 'Irises' with some black paint, some white paint, and a brush made out of George Bush's overgrown nose hair. Its impossible.

http://www.getty.edu/art/collections/images/l/00094701.jpg

Pray tell, Fedral, do you support the ideas espoused in the article? Does anybody?

In any case, a pointer for Mr. Krauthammer:

In the real world, there are cases when complete eradication is impossible, and reckless efforts to do so will only lead to the creation of more enemies.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Mar, 2004 07:15 am
Is there any doubt that if the bombings did not happen, the original gov't would have won the election? All indicators I have seen say they would have...
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Mar, 2004 07:20 am
Well, when these indicators have such a knowledge - why are there still elections?

Here, in Europe, even the rightest conservatib´ve (including the former Spanish government) think, have thought, they could have won.

We don't know the results before the elections, but get them somehow faster than on soma other places.

There, they know the result earlier - but it takes a much longer to confirm it.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Mar, 2004 08:26 am
McGentrix wrote:
Is there any doubt that if the bombings did not happen, the original gov't would have won the election? All indicators I have seen say they would have...


As i've mentioned elsewhere, history shows the Spaniard to have a conservative streak a mile wide--so yes, absent the bombings, or any other incident which demonstrated the casual willingness of Aznar's government to lie to the electorate, the conservatives likely would have won.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Mar, 2004 08:48 am
McGentrix wrote:
Is there any doubt that if the bombings did not happen, the original gov't would have won the election? All indicators I have seen say they would have...


So what.

In a democracy people choose the government they want based on the current circumstances. The bombings and the subsequent government reaction were all part of the decision making process.

That's how democracy works.

Do you have a better alternative?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Mar, 2004 09:01 am
I am saying that terrorism has now defined a government and by doing so may be emboldened to attempt the same in the future which would set a very bad precedent.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Mar, 2004 09:28 am
An' i'm sayin' yer full a horse apples . . .
0 Replies
 
ConstantlyQuestioning
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Mar, 2004 10:18 am
Quote:
Quote:
When confronting an existential enemy -- an enemy that wants to terminate your very existence -- there are only two choices: appeasement or war.


This is a false premise.


Which part is false? That we have an enemy who wants to terminate our existence, that there are only two methods in dealing with such an enemy, or both?

Quote:
further solidifying that the conservative establishment percieves the world in black and white terms, rather than recognizing it for the full color spectrum it is


When someone has made it perfectly clear they want to kill me, and have left out all room for compromise (which Al Queda has done) what other color of the spectrum should I be looking at other than black (I die) and white (I live)? If I look for another color for too long, I'll see plenty of red pouring from my dieing body.

Quote:
Voting out a government that was perceived to have practiced deceit about the attacks for political purposes is not "appeasement" of terrorists.

They did not vote to go easy on Al Quaeda but rather to dump a government they felt had let them down.


You may be right Craven, but I would wager that Al Queda sees it as a victory. Now that they know that blowing people up will influence an election, I'm sure they'll carry on that effective policy elsewhere.

But here's a kicker. We've been told that if we alter our way of life because of the terrorists, then they've won. So what if Spain was going to vote Socialist anyways, but voted conservative after the bombings for fear of more terrorism? It could also be claimed then that the terrorists won. What a pickle.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Mar, 2004 10:49 am
ConstantlyQuestioning wrote:
You may be right Craven, but I would wager that Al Queda sees it as a victory.


Al Quaeda sees almost everything as a victory, including their own deaths (martydom).

As fbaezer said "they're deranged".

Seriously, I'd not worry too much about what they think is victory. Terrorists almost always spin things as victories (or an act that makes them so fighting mad that 'victory' is just around the corner).

Quote:
Now that they know that blowing people up will influence an election, I'm sure they'll carry on that effective policy elsewhere.


Bush will be elected in the upcoming elections and there's no doubt in my mind that he would not have been had it not been for 9/11.

So I guess Bush shouldn't be the president so as not to allow them to have influenced the nation with 9/11?

Ultimately these acts are going to affect people, and there's not much to do about it (except spin it for pre-concieved political notions).

Quote:
But here's a kicker. We've been told that if we alter our way of life because of the terrorists, then they've won. So what if Spain was going to vote Socialist anyways, but voted conservative after the bombings for fear of more terrorism? It could also be claimed then that the terrorists won. What a pickle.


I've long considered the "terrorists won" arguments to be bankrupt. In almost every case I hear it it's hyperbolic metaphor.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Mar, 2004 10:56 am
McGentrix wrote:
I am saying that terrorism has now defined a government and by doing so may be emboldened to attempt the same in the future which would set a very bad precedent.


No. Spain is a democracy.

The government was defined by the votes cast by the Spaniards. The terrorists did not cast any votes.

Why do you have such a problem with democracy?
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Mar, 2004 11:03 am
ConstantlyQuestioning wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
When confronting an existential enemy -- an enemy that wants to terminate your very existence -- there are only two choices: appeasement or war.


This is a false premise.


Which part is false? That we have an enemy who wants to terminate our existence, that there are only two methods in dealing with such an enemy, or both?



It is false that there are only two choices. This represents a logical fallacy.

Clearly there are many more choices including

- Changing your enemies mind.
- Adapting a defensive stance to protect yourself in your own borders.
- Getting the support of the world to put pressure on your enemy to change.
- Attacking a sovreign third country with no ties to your enemy.
- and there are countless other options.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Mar, 2004 11:04 am
ebrown_p,

Yes, the terrorists DID cast votes. Why are you so blind to the fact that had the terrorists NOT attacked Spain, a different government would be in place?

Yes it's a democracy, Yes the Spaniards voted, Yes the Spaniards were influenced by terrorists.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Mar, 2004 11:05 am
The Spaniards were specifically influenced by the lying of Aznar's government about the bombings--you either are incapable of understanding the distinction, or unwilling to face up to it. Given that you support a regime which lies in the daily course of events, i do have to wonder which it is.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Mar, 2004 11:07 am
McGentrix wrote:
ebrown_p,

Yes, the terrorists DID cast votes. Why are you so blind to the fact that had the terrorists NOT attacked Spain, a different government would be in place?

Yes it's a democracy, Yes the Spaniards voted, Yes the Spaniards were influenced by terrorists.


Do you really think their perception that their government was trying to cover up information had nothing to do with it? Nor that their government pursued wildly unpopular policies?

Perhaps you are being blind to the very fundamental notion of democracy, the government did things the people found unacceptable. The people rejected the government.

The notion that terrorists voted is simplistic. If Bush wins the elections will you credit Al Quaeda for bolstering his popularity in the 9/11 attacks and giving him a platform?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Mar, 2004 11:12 am
are you suggesting that the terrorist event in madrid had absolutely NO bearing on the election?

All things being equal and no terror bombing, the previous administration in Spain would still be in power. I understand democracy just fine. I understand the the terrorists scared the people of Spain in to voting out the administration that was fighting Al Queda in hopes of alleviating any future attacks from Al Queda.

If bush wins, it's because the American people want the war on terror to continue. So, yes, we can blame the terrorists for that as well.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Mar, 2004 11:13 am
McGentrix wrote:
ebrown_p,

Yes, the terrorists DID cast votes. Why are you so blind to the fact that had the terrorists NOT attacked Spain, a different government would be in place?

Yes it's a democracy, Yes the Spaniards voted, Yes the Spaniards were influenced by terrorists.


So what. What's your point?

Are you saying that the votes of the Spaniards (who did vote out the old government) not be counted *because* you feel that they were "influenced" by the terrorsts?

If you are saying this, you are opposing democracy.

Or, are you saying that the Spaniards (who had just expereienced a terrorist attack) were wrong to vote out the old government?

If you are saying this, it is just idle whining. The Spaniards, as part of a democracy, have the right to vote for whomever they choose for whatever reason. You, as a US citizen have precious little to say about it.

So, really -- what are you suggesting?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Mar, 2004 11:15 am
No, you are willingfully choosing to characterize the results of the election in that manner. You are willfully ignoring what so many people have repeatedly told you--that the Spaniards voted out the conservatives because they felt they had been lied to, and decided to punish the conservative government for the lies. You refuse to acknowlede this, because it does not coincide with your dogmatic position.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Spain is just Spain
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 04/25/2024 at 06:21:15