0
   

Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

 
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Mar, 2004 11:52 am
Quote:
"If you're keeping score at home, so far our war in Iraq has created a police state in that country and socialism in Spain.

So, no democracies yet, but we're really getting close..."

-- Jon Stewart, on The Daily Show, 3/15/04
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Mar, 2004 11:53 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Quote:
But a long-standing friend of the US, the German Christian Democrat Freidbert Pflueger, told BBC Radio that the new Spanish government was engaged in "appeasement" of terrorism.

Yes, our conservatives are nice.

Well, at least I've gotten you to acknowledge that you do not speak for every German, much less every European. :wink:
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Mar, 2004 12:28 pm
Scrat wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
"Revising our positions on Iraq after terrorist attacks would be to admit that terrorists are stronger and that they are right," (Polish Prime Minister Leszek) Miller told reporters in Tarnow.


This would mean then that in order to defeat the terrorists, we must not self evaluate and make changes. We must continue with our own mistakes because we don't want anyone to get the idea that we think we can improve or might have made a mistake. We must "support" a government that has made devastating mistakes and will continue to make them if re-elected. That's a nice, convenient idea for the Bush admin. You can see how that works. We must not question the policies of our government because if we do the terrorists will think they're right and be encouraged. That's short sighted and down right silly reasoning.

What the terrorists think is what they think. It's our allies we need to be concerned about. Those countries that want responsible world order must be communicating with each other respectfully. And our present administration has not been respectful. They've been bullying, secretive, deceitful and arrogant. You can see how this makes our would-be allies feel all co-operative. I will suggest that it's not the terrorists who put the socialist party in power in Spain, but George Bush himself.

The Bush administration's policy of unilateralism is horribly faulty. We must put them out of office and elect a candidate who knows how to play fairly with our friends.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Mar, 2004 12:34 pm
Lola wrote:
Scrat wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
"Revising our positions on Iraq after terrorist attacks would be to admit that terrorists are stronger and that they are right," (Polish Prime Minister Leszek) Miller told reporters in Tarnow.


This would mean then that in order to defeat the terrorists, we must not self evaluate and make changes.

No, it does not mean that. It means that we must not take the actions of terrorists into account when evaluating the efficacy of our actions, or we validate the actions of terrorists. Outside of that very limited exclusion, we should always be evaluating our actions and making changes as appropriate.
0 Replies
 
firstthought
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Mar, 2004 01:26 pm
This looks like fun can anyone join in?

Hi, CI, Lola, blatham, Walter.........


ft.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Mar, 2004 04:09 pm
Bush Plan for World Domination Unpopular
Quote:
Many Think U.S. Wants World Domination
By WILL LESTER

WASHINGTON (AP) - A majority of people living in Jordan, Morocco, Pakistan and Turkey say they believe the U.S. is conducting its campaign against terror to control Mideast oil and to dominate the world, according to an international poll released Tuesday.

The governments in all four Muslim-majority countries have strong ties with the U.S. government.



A sizable number of people in France, Germany and Russia also have these suspicions about the campaign against terror, according to the Pew Global Attitudes Project.

The polls were taken in February, before the train bombings in Spain that claimed the lives of at least 200 people.

In a surprise defeat, Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar's conservatives on Sunday became the first government that backed Washington in Iraq to be voted from office.

When people in the nine countries - including Britain and the United States - were asked if the campaign against terrorism was a sincere effort to reduce international terrorism, majorities in France, Germany and the four Muslim-majority countries felt it was not. Almost half in Russia felt it was not, while majorities in Britain and the United States said they believe the campaign is a sincere effort to fight terrorism.

The surveys found considerable cynicism and anger among the Muslim-majority countries a year after the U.S. invasion of Iraq. And they found a growing desire among European countries for a balance of power between the European Union and the United States.

``Europeans want to check our power,'' said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. ``There's considerable support for making the European Union as powerful as the United States.''

Europeans in those countries are eager to set up security arrangements independent from the United States.

People in the surveyed Muslim countries remain angry about U.S. policies, and even supportive of Osama bin Laden, the Saudi terrorist who took credit for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the United States.

Almost two-thirds of the people in Pakistan say they view bin Laden favorably - a significant finding because U.S. troops are trying to find bin Laden in the mountainous region on the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan. More than half of those in Jordan and almost half of those polled in Morocco had a favorable view of the Saudi terrorist.

Anger toward the United States in these Muslim-majority countries remains very high, Kohut said, though the intensity has dropped a bit since last May.

While seven in 10 in the United States feel their country takes into account the interests of other countries when making international policy decisions, few in the other countries shared that view.

Majorities in all the countries except Pakistan, and almost half there, felt the United States doesn't make much of an effort to consider the interests of other countries in its policy decisions.

At least two-thirds of people living in France, Germany, Russia and Turkey thought it would be a good thing if the European Union becomes as powerful as the United States. Turkey and Russia are not currently members of the European Union.

A majority of those in Britain, France, Germany, Russia and Turkey think Western Europe should take a more independent approach to security and diplomatic matters.

In other key findings:

While support for the war on terrorism has dropped in many of those countries, it has increased in Russia - 73 percent approve - and is almost as strong there as in the United States.

About half in Pakistan said suicide bombings carried out by Palestinians against Israelis and against U.S. troops in Iraq can be justified. Two-thirds or more in Jordan and Morocco say it can be justified in both situations.

A majority of the people in Pakistan and Jordan say Iraq will be worse off now that Saddam Hussein has been removed from power.

A solid majority of those in France, Germany, Russia, Pakistan and Jordan believe United States President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair lied about the weapons of mass destruction they claimed were in Iraq.

Ratings for the United Nations are relatively high in European countries, and low in the Muslim countries. Just over half in the United States, 55 percent, gave a favorable rating to the U.N.

``In America, the ratings of the U.N. are much lower than elsewhere,'' said Kohut, referring to the European countries. ``Historically we're at a low point.''

The polls were conducted between Feb. 19 and March 3. They have margins of sampling error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points in Jordan, Morocco, Pakistan, Russia, Turkey and the United States. Polls in Britain, France and Germany have a margin of error of plus or minus 5 percentage points.

How the international survey was conducted:

Results for the surveys in nine countries are based on telephone and face-to-face interviews in those countries. Telephone interviews were conducted among a nationwide sample of 1,000 adults in the United States, 500 in Great Britain 503 in France and 500 in Germany.

Face-to-face interviews were conducted among a nationwide sample 1,000 adults in Jordan, 1,002 in Russia and 1,017 in Turkey. In Morocco, 1,000 face to face interviews were conducted with 1,000 adults in four major cities and in Pakistan, 1,220 face-to-face interviews in largely urban areas.

The interviews were conducted between Feb. 19 and March 3.

In countries where the sample size was more than 900 - (the United States, Russia, Jordan, Turkey, Morocco and Pakistan - the margin of sampling error was plus or minus 3.5 percentage points. In the countries where the sample was about 500 - Britain, France and Germany - the margin of error was plus or minus 5 percentage points.

On the Net:

Pew Research Center - http://www.people-press.org


How long before Bush introduces his 1/8 size clone? I wonder if he has foul tempered carp with lasers in the oval office?
0 Replies
 
firstthought
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Mar, 2004 04:15 pm
Paul Krugmans article in today OP-ED NYtimes
firstthought wrote:
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Mar, 2004 04:43 pm
Welcome firstthought. Anyone can contribute here. Good to see you.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Mar, 2004 04:53 pm
Hi firstthought, Nice to see you! I've posted many Krugman articles on A2K. They speak for themselves. Somebody in Spain finally realized the futility of fighting the battle on terrorism in Iraq as the wrong action. Maybe, the British will come to that realization pretty soon! They started to secure their underground system with more police after Spain's train was bombed, and killed almost 200 of their people. Common sense should eventually rule.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Mar, 2004 08:29 pm
Georgeob1,

A lot of the points you make in your expose are worthwhile and correct.

I find it a bit ironic, however, that you should subsequently admonish Walter that "It would be more persuasive if [he] would in any way attempt to address the argument I laid out", considering how your own expose was apparently meant as your answer to a post of mine - even though it didn't actually seem to address any of the points I made, whatsoever.

If we can step away from the birds eye view of a century of history for a moment, we may recall that you proposed a numbered list of reasons for attacking Iraq. In my post, I went through them one by one. To be painfully honest, some of them were downright silly.

It is unclear to me how generalisations about the historic responsibility of various world powers provides any defense for the flaws that strike one in the numbered list you propose as justification for the war.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Mar, 2004 08:42 pm
Scrat wrote:
Lola wrote:
Quote:
"Revising our positions on Iraq after terrorist attacks would be to admit that terrorists are stronger and that they are right," (Polish Prime Minister Leszek) Miller told reporters in Tarnow.

This would mean then that in order to defeat the terrorists, we must not self evaluate and make changes.

No, it does not mean that. It means that we must not take the actions of terrorists into account when evaluating the efficacy of our actions

'Ccording to that logic - dont let the terrorists and their actions determine your decisions - the new Socialist government has done exactly the right thing.

The Socialists campaigned on getting Spain out of Iraq. After Aznar took the Spanish soldiers in there against the overwhelming majority of Spanish public opinion, this retreat had become almost the main plank of the Socialists' election platform.

Now that they've been elected, they did exactly what they said they would do before the terrorists attacked Madrid: retreat from Iraq.

In fact, if they had now suddenly decided to stay, that would have meant they would have let the terrorists' actions determine their decision. If they had now suddenly decided to stay in Iraq, it would have meant a 100% turnaround on their previous decision, purely on the basis of what the terrorists did this week.

Hence my submission that if you say that "we must not take the actions of terrorists into account when evaluating the efficacy of our actions", you should in fact applaud the fact that the Socialists did not take the actions of terrorists into account when they reevalueted the Spanish presence in Iraq - they decided to withdraw asap, just like they had planned to before "Madrid" happened.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Mar, 2004 08:46 pm
Just received this from a friend in the land down under.
*************

It must be said: Spanish voters have allowed a small band
of terrorists to dictate the outcome of their national elections.

-- Edward N. Luttwak, senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and
International Studies, writing in The New York Times, 16 March 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/16/opinion/16LUTT.html

Luttwak is wrong!

Spanish voters threw out a government that lied to them. The government tried to blame the local terrorist group ETA, even as all the evidence kept pointing to an Islamic terrorist organisation. Why? Because the Conservatives had insisted all along that its support for Bush's invasion of Iraq -- in the face of overwhelming popular opposition -- had not increased the level of terrorist threat to Spain.

In the lead up to the election, and prior to the attacks in Madrid, the Conservatives had been riding for an easy victory. Clearly, the Spanish
people had reluctantly accepted the government's "tough stance" in
supporting Bush. Even immediately following the attacks, the people
showed themselves to be strongly against terrorism and protested in their
millions against the perpetrators.

But when it became increasingly apparent that the government was
pretending the attacks were not the work of Al Qaeda, the people began to smell a rat. And that rat was the government itself. If the government was shown to have lied about the bombings, then surely it was fully capable of having lied about the reasons for supporting Bush.

In Australia, John Howard also refuses to admit that his determined
support for Bush's mad rush into Iraq has increased the chances of a terrorist attack in this country. While most people are sure that's the case, including terrorism experts, most of the electorate accepts the fact as a logical consequence of being opposed to terrorist madmen. Like me, they figure that's why we have government. But Howard is destroying his own credibility by refusing to admit the obvious and, by doing so he's
managed to back himself into a corner.

George Bush, too, insists that his simplistic "war on terror" -- which
has about as much chance of succeeding as stamping out quicksand -- has made the world a safer place. Clearly it has not. Yet he has convinced himself and he cannot understand why more and more people disagree with him every day.

Fortunately, the blind ignorance and sheer pigheadedness of Bush and
Howard are likely to result in them both flushing themselves down the dunny at the next election. (We pray.)
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Mar, 2004 11:01 pm
I get a little confused when some writer claims, as the Mr. Luttwak above has done, that Israel is a shining example of terrorism problem-solving. Though I do acknowledge that they are a shining example of claiming they are a shining example of it.

As noted by others here, the great majority of Spanish citizens (just like the great majority of citizens in every country other than the US) stood against the unilateral attack on Iraq.

And, as in Britain, those citizens became even less happy with their government as the last year has unfolded and it has become apparent that those governments (under the tutelage of the US) have lied or been complicit in lies as to the justifications for war on Iraq.

In Britain and in Spain, one can quite clearly see an increased sensitivity and alertness to government falsehoods, half-truths, and deceits. Aznar's behavior in pointing to Basque nationalists probably was an intentional deceit, but even if not, it was perceived as such by the citizens there, because of the deceits which have preceded.

In England, the Blair administration is now dogged by a level of scrutiny and cynicism directly attributable to their behavior and statements related to Iraq. Blair, who was previously a very popular leader, will now, with near certainty, fall in the next election.

Bush too will likely fall in November, but that's by no means certain. There is no small irony here, in that the deceits regarding Iraq have originated in, and been orchestrated by, the US administration. And because that administration has displayed such a consistent facility with deceit - on reasons for the war, on schedules for the war, on costs of the war, on costs of medicare, on science issues related to global warming, etc etc.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Mar, 2004 11:13 pm
nimh wrote:
Scrat wrote:
It means that we must not take the actions of terrorists into account when evaluating the efficacy of our actions

'Ccording to that logic - dont let the terrorists and their actions determine your decisions - the new Socialist government has done exactly the right thing.

The Socialists campaigned on getting Spain out of Iraq.

That's a fair point, though they don't get the luxury of operating in a vacuum. If they aren't able to reconsider their intentions in the light of such an important event, they don't seem like folks I'd want in charge.

And while the newly elected PM may simply have been following through on his stated intentions, the election went decidedly different than expected, and that change seems to be the result of Spaniards changing their vote at the last minute.

One thing is certain: there is no doubt that the terrorists have been emboldened by these events, and I can't help but wish the election had gone the other way, for that reason alone.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2004 12:22 am
Has this election really done anything to help terrorists? Why does it help them that the conservative party in Spain has been defeated? Why is it assumed that a non-conservative party will muck it up? We've only been in this "war on terror" for about three years now, and all we've seen is the conservative way of doing things, which has now yielded another 9-11-style attack.

Maybe the answer is not to overthrow a non-involved middle eastern government. Maybe the answer is not to tell the world "You're either with us, or your with the terrorists."

Maybe it is time to try something different.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2004 12:31 am
If anybody remembers anything about Bush, I want people to remember his statement, "I'm a uniter, not a divider." He not only split this country, but also the world at large. He's even created a greater divide in Iraq, and they're trying to force a democracy on that country when the various tribes can't even trust each other! Rummy now says he's not sure about giving sovereignty to Iraq on June 30. Jeeesh, I could of told these numbskulls that!
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2004 12:34 am
Okay, be truthful: how many of you really believe that the US is going to turn over Iraq control to their new government? Please raise your hands.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2004 12:34 am
Kicky - It isn't about the conservatives being thrown out, it's about the perception--whether real or not--that the Madrid bombing altered the course of Spanish politics. If the terrorists think it did, and I suspect that they do, then they get to score a victory for terrorism and we can only assume this will embolden them to do more. Get it?
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2004 12:41 am
No I don't get it, Scrat. Do you really think the terrorists have any problems with being bold enough? They believe that their god wants them to do this, and that makes them as bold as can be, no matter what happened to Spain. If this hadn't had the effect that they desired on Spain, do you think it would have made them think twice about doing more?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2004 07:31 am
Scrat wrote:
Kicky - It isn't about the conservatives being thrown out, it's about the perception--whether real or not--that the Madrid bombing altered the course of Spanish politics. If the terrorists think it did, and I suspect that they do, then they get to score a victory for terrorism and we can only assume this will embolden them to do more. Get it?


Scrat

The predictable voices are claiming this is a 'win for terrorism'. What it more correctly ought to be described as is a 'loss for deceitful leadership', or a 'loss for spin', or a 'loss for the American neocon agenda', or all of those.

This is really the same sort of argument that was being made in the run-up to the war...anyone who spoke against the attack on Iraq (against its rationale, its strategy, its legality, its morality) was labelled by some as an appeaser, or un-patriotic and thus, a supporter of the enemy (god knows how many times that claim was made on these pages).

Or, go back to McCarthy, and the claims that any criticism of him was more correctly a support for the commies.

If al Qaeda is emboldened, that would be an unfortunate consequence. But it would be a consequence far less despicable and far less dangerous to democracy than tossing truth out the window for political expedience.

Extending your argument, it then becomes 'a win for terrorism' if any sitting government which backed the Bush administration on Iraq gets voted out given a terror attack or not. And Bush is trying to push exactly that idea. It's another deceit.
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
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 03/20/2025 at 09:13:52