Spain is just Spain

perhaps Spain is currently more interested in the problem of terrorism then "Bush's Iraq agenda"
In a move that might help muffle criticism of a Socialist pledge to pull troops out of Iraq, Spain's incoming prime minister is considering increasing the number of Spanish soldiers guarding the fragile peace in Afghanistan, sources in his party said Tuesday.

0 Replies

jer, the margin of error is 3%, considering the sample begets perfect probability.

This means that 95% of the samples err by less than 3%, and 68% of the samples err by less than 1.5%.

But perfect probability doesn't exist.

0 Replies

Sooo, the word (in an area of ME study that's getting a fair bit of CBC radio coverage lately) is that Al Quaeda wants Bush to win the election. So if Americans vote for Bush, they're giving Al Quaeda what it wants. Makes the greater battle easier as Bush will continue to bring Americans to them - easier fighting on home ground and all that.

Fascinating position to be in. Vote for Bush - Al Quaeda wins.

There were suggestions in some of the interviews I've been hearing lately that Al Quaeda will do what it takes to ensure a Bush re-election. Now I'm not so sure I want to live so near the U.S. border.

0 Replies

I'm not surprised that A-Q would want Bush to win - after all they will be famous like movie stars as long as he's the President. They will be in the spotlight.

0 Replies

fbaezer,

So the polls had the Popular Party polling at 3.4% ahead, prior to the bombing, and the margin for error was 3%.

Wouldn't that mean that the reality was a lead of between - .4% and 6.4%

If that was the reality, then it doesn't seem like very much of an upset for the Socialist party to win, and the arguments that A-Q changed the election have very little weight.

If you know stats really well or have other pertinent FACTS, please feedback on this as I'm trying to figure this out in my head.

Cheers.

0 Replies

Jer wrote:

I'm not surprised that A-Q would want Bush to win - after all they will be famous like movie stars as long as he's the President. They will be in the spotlight.

Man, if there was ever a statement that was on point, thats it.

Al Qaeda must LOVE Bush. He legitimized them (in a sense). When the leader of the biggest baddest country in the world can't stop talking about you, its like free advertising. They are contstantly in the spotlight, as Jer says.

Bush is not only drawing attention to Al Qaeda, but his directionless wars just create more widows, widowers and orphans who now want nothing more than for America to fall.

0 Replies

Quote:

If you were, hypothetically speaking, implicitly supporting a government that was occupying the land of your attackers friends and family. If you were bulldozing your attackers house, overthrowing his governement and killing his children.

You shouldn't be surprised that your attacker is attacking you.

When it comes to the Middle East, you have just chosen one side. Both sides are the "attackers". Both sides are using inhumane tactics and both sides have legitimate grievences.

ebrown,
You may have missed the thread where I expressed my opinion of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. So here it is:

"Revel,
I see your dilema. Both sides claim to be fighting for land they say is theirs, but consider this: How long has the term "Mid East Peace Process" been apart of our common vernacular? (all my life at least). From my observations, I think it is fair to say that Israel has exteneded the hand of peace on many occasions only to have that hand slapped by the Palestinian leaders. I truly think there are ordinary Palestinians citizens who want to live a peaceful life next to Israel. The Palestinian Leadership, however, does not. "

In other words ebrown, I understand the Palestinian plight. It's an unfortunate circumstance where both parties believe they are acting in self-defense. Let me ask you this. Do you think that the Israeli people and the Palestinian people want peace? I think so. Do you think the Israeli leadership wants peace. Again, I think so. Do you think the Palestinian leadership wants peace? You'd have a hard time making that case if you say "yes". SO WHAT DO YOU DO WITH SOMEONE WHO REFUSES TO MAKE PEACE WITH YOU? My beef is not with the Palestinian people, but with their murderous leadership.

Quote:

You have chosen to demonize one of the sides ... and thus you are a cheerleader for the bloodshed and violence.

Oh Please. Rolling Eyes

Quit trying to paint me as some uncaring bloodthirtsy monster.

Quote:

Both sides could leave this mess by stopping inhumane violence. But, both sides keep using the same rhetoric.

Perhaps. But as I said earlier, the Palestinian leadership does not want to stop the violence.

Quote:

But, to get back to the topic - Spain....

The Spanish public has chosen the third option. They don't want to be a part of our mess any more.

I think we're agreed on this (except with the "mess" part). I think the popular displeasure with the conservatives coupled with the deadly train bombings played a part in the election. I doubt only one issue was the deciding factor.

Quote:

I'm not surprised that A-Q would want Bush to win

Do you really believe that? I think it's a bluff. Half of AQ's leaders have been killed or captured. AQ plans are being discovered and thrawted on an almost daily basis. All complinents of Bush (and the Super Kick-Ass US Military). I really don't think AQ wants four more years of war with Bush at the helm.

0 Replies

CQ,

Your posts continue to be very one-sided. The fact is that the Government of Israel has not seriously pursued peace since Rabin was shot.

If the government of Israel were to pursue peace they would withdraw the settlements. These settlements have no security purpose, they are illegal under international law and there is no reason for Isreal not to withdraw them.

Israel also needs to offer the Palestinians a viable state. This means they should offer a contiguous land ares (i.e. no settlements). Logic dictates that this should be something very near the 1967 border.

If the Israeli government were serious about peace they would also stop doing the things that make the conflict more serious. You may be able to justify the assassinations of Hamas leadership (I am not), but one thing is clear. This is a step toward war, not peace. They would also stop demolishing houses and confiscating land and the other indignities that are part of Palestinian life.

I strongly support the "Geneva Accords" which is a movement by Israeli and Palestian people outside of their govrenments to reach a just solution. This effort has been opposed by both governments (which to me is all the more reason to support it).

0 Replies

Quote:

Your posts continue to be very one-sided.

Ok honestly, how so? I point out my position which seems pretty open to both the Isreali and Palestinian plight. If there was only one thing you couldn't accuse me of, it's one-sidedness.

Quote:

If the government of Israel were to pursue peace they would withdraw the settlements. These settlements have no security purpose, they are illegal under international law and there is no reason for Isreal not to withdraw them.

Ok, I'll agree with you here. The settlements do nothing but agitate the Palestinians.

Quote:

Israel also needs to offer the Palestinians a viable state. This means they should offer a contiguous land ares (i.e. no settlements). Logic dictates that this should be something very near the 1967 border.

Correct my history here if I'm wrong. In 1967, the neighboring Arab countries told the Palestinians to pull out of their territory because the Arabs were going to gang up and destroy Israel. The Palestininian do as requested and move out. The Arabs fail to destroy Israel, and Israel moves into the lands the Palastinians withdrew from. How correct am I on this?

Quote:

If the Israeli government were serious about peace they would also stop doing the things that make the conflict more serious. You may be able to justify the assassinations of Hamas leadership (I am not), but one thing is clear. This is a step toward war, not peace. They would also stop demolishing houses and confiscating land and the other indignities that are part of Palestinian life.

But the problem with that is that every time within the last couple few years that Israel starts to move toward peace (pulling out of Gaze, laxing security at checkpoints, etc), they are rewarded with more suicide bombings. At least that's the pattern I've seen.

Again let me ask you, do you think the Israeli leadership wants peace? The Palestinian leadership?

0 Replies

Quote:

Let me ask you this. Do you think that the Israeli people and the Palestinian people want peace? I think so. Do you think the Israeli leadership wants peace. Again, I think so. Do you think the Palestinian leadership wants peace? You'd have a hard time making that case if you say "yes". SO WHAT DO YOU DO WITH SOMEONE WHO REFUSES TO MAKE PEACE WITH YOU? My beef is not with the Palestinian people, but with their murderous leadership.

Quote:

Quote:

Your posts continue to be very one-sided.

Ok honestly, how so? I point out my position which seems pretty open to both the Isreali and Palestinian plight. If there was only one thing you couldn't accuse me of, it's one-sidedness.

Sure I can. I am accusing you of writing very one-sided posts.

The Israeli government is clearly taking very brutal actions against the Palestinian people. In addition to continuing to expand the settlements, they are using collective punishment, they are destroying houses, they are using torture and subjecting the ordinary Palestinian to grave indignities.

In addition they insist on using rocket attacks in civilian areas that inevitably kill civilians and confiscating Palestinian land to build their controversial fence.

It is clear that the Israeli government doesn't want peace. If they did, the first thing that they would do is remove the settlements. Then they would offer a viable (i.e. contiguous) Palestinian state in the West Bank.

There is no reason for them to continually expand the settlements and this in itself shows that the Israeli powers that be have no interest in peace.

If one were to not be one-sided, she would apply the same standards to the Israeli's and Palestinians. This would mean one of two things.

If the brutality of the Palestinians justifies the brutality of the Israelis a person who was not being one-sided would reason that the brutality of the Israelis justifies the brutality of the Palestinians.

The other alternative that a person who was not one-sided could take is that both take is that the brutal actions of both sides is unacceptable and should be condemned.

The first option leads us to the place we are now after 50 years of bloodshed. Regardless of what radicals on both sides say about being able to win the war - it will likely lead to 50 more years of the same.

The second alternative leads us to condemnation of the brutality, senseless violence and repression of both sides, and a call for a just peace.

I am strongly in favor of the second alternative, but to get this point we need to reject the one-sided rhetoric of both sides.

0 Replies

Quote:

If one were to not be one-sided, she would apply the same standards to the Israeli's and Palestinians. This would mean one of two things.

I am. That's why I'm not saying that the Palestinians are amoral, lawless, murderers. I apply the standard of force to both sides. Both believe they are acting morally (ie in self-defense). Now obviously this is a problem. We can go back and forth debating on the proper means of solving this problem, but don't go and call me one-sided because I don't completely agree with your particular ideas on how to solve the problem. Now I've agreed that Israel could do more (mainly in the way of stopping the building of the settlements), but I still think the Palestinian leaders could do even more (like maybe not blowing up civilians intentionally- I know that's a lot to ask).

0 Replies

If you were not one-sided, you would realize that Israel is blowing up citizens as well. Shooting missles into civilian areas causes civilian casualties not matter what your stated target was.

In this last "assassination", 7 people died.

0 Replies

Quote:

If you were not one-sided, you would realize that Israel is blowing up citizens as well. Shooting missles into civilian areas causes civilian casualties not matter what your stated target was.

I realize all that.

0 Replies

And if you were not one-sided, you would be able to see the difference in attacking a military target hiding in a cooperative citizenry and blowing up a civilian bus of women and children.

0 Replies

um, just thinking of Dresden. But then, I am one sided.

0 Replies

That doesn't work, Dys, there were no military targets in Dresden, we were just bombing the bejeezus out of them because they were German, and it was beautiful city they didn't want to have bombed--hence, the lack of any military target.

0 Replies

Quote:

And if you were not one-sided, you would be able to see the difference in attacking a military target hiding in a cooperative citizenry and blowing up a civilian bus of women and children.

Beautiful. Just beautiful.

0 Replies

ConstantlyQuestioning wrote:

Quote:
And if you were not one-sided, you would be able to see the difference in attacking a military target hiding in a cooperative citizenry and blowing up a civilian bus of women and children.

Beautiful. Just beautiful.

Yeah Beautiful.

Trying to call an old blind man in a wheelchair leaving a religious service hiding a "military target" is stretching one-sidedness to a ridiculous level.

What do you want? Any Palestinian on Israel's death list should stay out in the open where they can make an easy kill?

The term "cooperative citizenry" is shared by you and the Hamas supporters who justify suicide attacks against Israel citizens who are "complicit" with the government attacks. You, like them, are saying the citizens who are killed are responsible for the actions of those who are killiing.

My side is with the people who condemn the inhumanity and brutality of both sides. We are sad because we know that either side could pursue peace, but neither is.

You can say I am one-sided - but that kind of puts you on the same side as Hamas, doesn't it.

0 Replies

Quote:

Trying to call an old blind man in a wheelchair leaving a religious service hiding a "military target"

When that old blind man in a wheelchair plans, approves, encourages the bombing of civilians, he is most certainly a military target.

Quote:

You can say I am one-sided - but that kind of puts you on the same side as Hamas, doesn't it.

No it doesn't. Your idea to solve the problem is admitedly the ideal, but it's not going to happen. Neither side will accept a peace at the point of a gun being held by the other side. Israel will not seek peace while suicide bombing continue. Palastine will not accept peace as long as Israel military occupations are continuing.

Now given that your idea (while probably the most humane idea) will not work, what else do you suggest be done?

0 Replies

I would propose a WALL, installed fairly and equitably and manned by UN peacekeepers followed by equitable economic treatment to both sides of the wall.

0 Replies

Spain is just Spain

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know