| Josuè 14.03.2004 17:21 |
Laborist party PSOE "Partido Socialista Obrero Español" has won the general elections of Spain, having as this José-Luís Rodriguez Zapatero as the new Spain President instead of José María Aznar. PSOE (I guess) will have to ally with two or more laborists party to finally rule Spain. I think, a goverment formed by three political forces would be better than one, cause if you have three points of view you can work the things out better for everyone. PP, the party of Aznar, was ruling Spain with no more forces, they were alone and they were able to do what they wanted (they took us to a war we didn't want to go, and more things I won't put here). By my part, today is a great day and people has changed their mind after the Al-Qaeda (eventually) terrorist attack, realising at last that Aznar put us into the war (but Spain people didn't want to go to the war) and punished Aznar giving away the votes. Spain will be ruled by a Laborists forces and that's great by my part. A new, clear, sane administration is ready to aim Spain to a new future, a new relationship with Europ and a less hate situation inside Spain. I'm happy. :D |
| Josuè 15.03.2004 03:20 |
All is going on well here and people is happy!! YAY! We'll have a good President!! |
| The Mir@cle 15.03.2004 04:42 |
Socialism rulez!!! |
| Penetration_Guru 15.03.2004 13:15 |
Interesting that turnout went up (most likely) due to the terrorism. In which case terrorism has been good for democracy...surely not what they intended. Nice one, Spain... |
| Flashman 15.03.2004 13:31 |
Just what we needed - another bunch of wet lefties making the world a more miserable place. That's the golf course in Marbella on the market first thing in the morning. |
| Josuè 15.03.2004 14:37 |
LOL @ Flashman! Good one there, you just are so right! WE WON! FASCISTS ARE OVER! |
| Sir Archie 'Tiffany' Leach 15.03.2004 14:40 |
Terrorists 1 Democracy 0 |
| iron eagle 15.03.2004 14:55 |
i agree Sir Archie Leach |
| Josuè 15.03.2004 16:51 |
I must tell you, this is an insult to me. |
| Daburcor? 15.03.2004 16:54 |
Uh-oh... I see another argument coming up VERY soon... |
| Josuè 15.03.2004 17:10 |
I won't argue for such an idiot thing. Making jokes about terrorist attacks, dying people, democracy and all this stuff makes me sick, but I won't argue. |
| iron eagle 15.03.2004 17:16 |
then your taking it the wrong way(at the very least my comment) no one is slamming you or the way your country voted or even minimizing the tragedy that befelled Spain last week. |
| Mr Mercury 15.03.2004 18:00 |
Josuecifu, I have every sympathy for your countrymen what happened there was an atrocity on an equal par (in my veiw at least) with America's 9/11. The Spanish people probably thought what I had thought all along and that is the war on Iraq shouldnt really have happened. But having said that, I think that there is just a modicum of truth in what PG said. In tonight's ITN news shown here in the UK Michael Portillo said, "The terrorists, I’m afraid, will think that they’ve scored success, they have got rid of a pro American government. And then the fear is that if the terrorists think that on this occasion, then in other elections in Europe they can also interfere with a terrorist outrage before polling day, hoping to change the result of the election" Welcome to the world of Terrorist Politics I'm afraid... |
| Penetration_Guru 15.03.2004 18:09 |
The new Spanish PM has already said he'll pull the Spanish troops out of Iraq. Now, even if that was his stated policy beforehand (and apparently it was), shouldn't he have kept quiet on the subject, given the context in which he got elected? I'm not saying don't pull them out, but don't announce it on day one when the whole world sees the terrorists win... |
| Saffron Caribou 15.03.2004 18:33 |
I had been watching the coverage of the elections this weekend on the TVE channel. I'm glad that the socialists won, it signifies a change of government. The reason of the outcome, as I've seen and heard, has nothing to do with Al Qaeda. Most Spaniards believed that the reason for the 3/11 attack was the conservative involvement in the War of Iraq last year. Remember that most Spaniards weren't pro war when it started last year, and Aznar was attacked by it. Last Thursday's unfortunate massacre was the last nail on the coffin because of Aznar's decision to join Bush and Blair in the Iraq conflict. Therefore, extreme Islamic fundamentalists weren't that happy with the war from the beginning, and they had vowed to terrorise all of the US's allies of the Iraq war. The new P.M., Zapatero, has vowed to keep fighting terrorism in his country, and I believe he will rise to the ocassion. Also, he promised to bring the Spanish troupes home from Iraq by June, which is great. As for ending ties with the US and the UK, because of the terror attack last Thursday? That remains to be seen. PD Josue, mis condolencias por lo que ha pasado en su nación. |
| D.Blythe 15.03.2004 21:20 |
I hope that the new Spanish P.M. can find a way to withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq without giving the terrorists new hope. I do not know if he can. Face it, no matter what the Spanish people say or what the political situation was in Spain before March 11th, if Spain pulls out of Iraq and backs away from an aggressive war on terrorism, the terrorists are going to consider themselves winners. I am not saying the Spanish should blindly follow the U.S. or align themselves with President Bush. Personally, I am pulling for John Kerry in November and I support Spain's right to do what is right for the Spanish people. However, the new Spanish government must look past the political kudos they may receive by pulling out of Iraq and think about the long term effects of unintentionally bolstering the pride of Al Quaeda. |
| iron eagle 15.03.2004 22:34 |
CNN also has obtained a document posted on an Internet message board analysts believe is used by al Qaeda and its sympathizers that spells out the terrorist group's plan to separate Spain from the U.S.-led coalition on Iraq. The strategy spelled out in the document, posted last December on the Internet, calls for using terrorist attacks to drive Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar's Partido Popular from power and replace it with the Socialists. That was expected to drive a wedge between Washington and Madrid and result in the withdrawal of Spanish military forces from Iraq. "We think the Spanish government will not stand more than two blows, or three at the most, before it will be forced to withdraw because of the public pressure on it," the al Qaeda document says. "If its forces remain after these blows, the victory of the Socialist Party will be almost guaranteed -- and the withdrawal of Spanish forces will be on its campaign manifesto." That prediction came to fruition in elections Sunday, with the Socialists unseating the Popular Party three days after near-simultaneous bombings of four trains killed 200 and shocked the nation. ***IF*** true it leads one to believe AQ may have know the reactions better then anyone.... |
| jorge 16.03.2004 02:08 |
The vote of punishment, by manipulating the slaughter in Madrid and the invasion from Iraq = Adiós Aznar! No nos falles! No nos falles! |
| Holly2003 16.03.2004 02:09 |
"CNN also has obtained a document posted on an Internet message board analysts believe is used by al Qaeda and its sympathizers that spells out the terrorist group's plan to separate Spain from the U.S.-led coalition on Iraq." Except the AQ website thing is complete bollocks imo. The idea that CIA hackers would let a genuine AQ website stay online is beyond belief, especially since most of them were hacked and closed down even before 9-11 (see whatreallyhappened.com for details). More likely, this is a CIA-run website that is being used to spy on and catch potential AQ recruits. That's how they caught that US national guard trooper who was attemting to contact AQ in Iraq. These "scoops" are fed to CNN by American sources in an ongoing propaganda and misinformation war. Don't believe everything you read. Use your common sense instead. Terrorist attacks rarely if ever lead to more liberal or enlightened attitudes. People usually want harsher and more conservative approaches to terrorism after an attack. I saw that in Northern Ireland over a period of 30 years. 9-11 led to the Patriot Act and war, it did not lead to a sudden rush to "understand" the terrorists or to vote in the Green Party! There's no reason to believe that Al-Queda would anticipate that their attacks would lead to a socialist govt. Quite the opposite. As for the "terrorists 1 democracy 0" bs, the assumption being made here is that voting for Spain's conservative govt (and also to follow the logic, Bush & Blair) is anti-terrorist, and voting for anyone else works to further terrorist aims. So voting for Kerry is a vote for terrorists too. I'm sure that hardened Fox News viewers would agree with you on that one, but I find it a ridiculous and offensive argument. Let's not forget, this was an elective war: the US did not have to invade Iraq, it chose to, for reasons that have been proved to be bullshit. They created an Al-Queda problem in Iraq that didn't previously exist. Now they have to deal with the consequences of that - "bring it on" said Dubya. Well they have, and 200 innocent Spanish civilians have paid a terrible price for Bush/Blair/and Aznar's war mongering and posturing. It's also a bit late to be defending democracy in the face of the decisions made by the new socialist Spanisg govt. If Dubya Blair Aznar cared about democracy they wouldn't have gone to war in the first place. After all, majorities in all those countries were against going to war in the first place. My condolences to the Spanish people. I remember Omagh, the Shankill bombing, Warrenpoint, Enniskillen etc. I wouldn't wish that on anyone. |
| Josuè 16.03.2004 05:45 |
Thank you people for your comments and opinions, they're always wellcome. "The new Spanish PM has already said he'll pull the Spanish troops out of Iraq. Now, even if that was his stated policy beforehand (and apparently it was), shouldn't he have kept quiet on the subject, given the context in which he got elected? I'm not saying don't pull them out, but don't announce it on day one when the whole world sees the terrorists win..." I understand what you mean, and yes, taking out the Spanish troupes of Iraq was a Zapatero promise in the case he became PM. Zapatero knew and knows what does exactly spanish people want, and wanted for the first moment: not to take part in the war. Even if it seems the terrorists won or not, the fact is that democracy WON, because people finally punished Aznar for pulling us through a war that eventually caused 200 kills more, this time inside Spain. In my honest opinion, wether the attack had happended or not, people would have punished Aznar as well. But I don't really know. I don't think terrorists have won anything, they just have not a clean game in this world, so they game is irrational, with no sense. What I really know, is that people here in spain is pacifist, and we don't want any war in the world. And we don't want a PM asshole who joins to insane Bush due to "rule" the world... We want a clear and good president. And that's what we now got. |
| Ray D O'Gaga 16.03.2004 11:24 |
"As for the "terrorists 1 democracy 0" bs, the assumption being made here is that voting for Spain's conservative govt (and also to follow the logic, Bush & Blair) is anti-terrorist, and voting for anyone else works to further terrorist aims. So voting for Kerry is a vote for terrorists too. I'm sure that hardened Fox News viewers would agree with you on that one, but I find it a ridiculous and offensive argument." Al Qaeda seems to think its better off with leftist governments than with rightist ones. Whether you think its ridiculous and offensive or not, the perpetrators of mass murder are rooting for left-of-center governments and the Spaniards, anguished and grief-striken though they may be, handed them precisely that. "Let's not forget, this was an elective war: the US did not have to invade Iraq, it chose to, for reasons that have been proved to be bullshit. They created an Al-Queda problem in Iraq that didn't previously exist. Now they have to deal with the consequences of that - "bring it on" said Dubya. Well they have, and 200 innocent Spanish civilians have paid a terrible price for Bush/Blair/and Aznar's war mongering and posturing." Didn't the Left tell us prior to the war that there was no connection between al Qaeda and Iraq? That Iraq was ruled by a secularist dictator who was at odds with al Qaeda and its Islamofascist world view? What, then, did Spain's support of the war in Iraq have to do with Al Qaeda? Again, its seems quite clear from the al Qaeda standpoint that their future and Iraq's future have been quite closely tied together. Iraq was an excuse. In al Qaeda's collective mind, there IS no difference between the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism. Al Qaeda's motivations in attacking Spain represent the larger goal of peeling off support for the war against *them*, and it's as plain as day that they succeeded, probably beyond their wildest imaginings. "And we don't want a PM asshole who joins to insane Bush due to 'rule' the world ..." This is the least credible and most ridiculous arguement. Those of you on the Left need to understand this - in the world al Qaeda has planned, the personal freedoms and pluralistic societies cherished by the Left won't exist anymore. They have proven that they have no qualms about killing the most people with the most lethal weapons they can get their hands on. They represent a ruthless social, cultural and political agenda that seeks to strip Western democracies of everything they hold dear. Hate Bush, Blair, and Aznar all you like, but they're standing up to the threat and attempting to change the dynamics of the cultural and political landscape of the region where the threat gestated. That's a lot bolder and more strategically advantageous than sticking your head in the sand and hoping the problem can either be bought off, appeased or will just go away on its own - and that is the tactic of the EU. That and blaming everything on the Jews - but that is, of course, a popular old saw in Europe. You Leftists out there need to understand this - there isn't going to be a negotiated settlement with al Qaeda and their ilk. Pulling out of Iraq isn't going to assuage them. Giving the West Bank and Gaza to the Palestinians isn't going to appease them. Pulling American troops out of Saudi Arabia didn't settle their alleged grievances. Western democracies stand in the way of the Islamofascist goals and the freedoms embodied there are a living and perpetual repudiation of al Qaeda's medieval religious beliefs and worldview. They want the world and they want it their way, and what's more, they'll kill every one of you to get it. That's the reality and the sooner the rest of you get your heads out of the sand and re-think your cherished socio-political orthodoxies, the better its going to be for all of us. I submit to you that the anger, condescention, moral and intellectual snobbery, venom, and invective which you direct at conservative governments is pointing |
| Josuè 16.03.2004 11:48 |
Nice point there I must admit. But I must disagree in the fact that we will sand our head to the terrorism. Specially our PM will fight the terrorism but not as Bush, Blair, Aznar want or wanted, they will 'really' fight againt it in a different way, I hope. I don't think wars are the answer to terrorism, but yes the investigation and elimination of those who really are terrorist, not the innocents. I know you feel the righties are more heavy against terrorism and they are effective, but I think things can be corrected in a different way. |
| Holly2003 16.03.2004 12:11 |
"Al Qaeda seems to think its better off with leftist governments than with rightist ones. Whether you think its ridiculous and offensive or not, the perpetrators of mass murder are rooting for left-of-center governments" On what grounds do you make that assumption? Which party is Tony Blair the head of? Right-wingers wrap themselves in the flag to hide the fact they created most of these terrorist problems in the first place (both AlQueda and Saddam are CIA constructs). Then they accuse the left of being soft on terrorism or unpatriotic. These arguments ARE dumb, offensive and in the end counter productive. "Didn't the Left tell us prior to the war that there was no connection between al Qaeda and Iraq? That Iraq was ruled by a secularist dictator who was at odds with al Qaeda and its Islamofascist world view?" Yes because it's absolutely true. Condoleza Rice said it also. "What, then, did Spain's support of the war in Iraq have to do with Al Qaeda? Again, its seems quite clear from the al Qaeda standpoint that their future and Iraq's future have been quite closely tied together." That's probably true, to a certain extent, at least. But the US invasion prompted this - it wasn't an Al-Queda tactic. We handed the opportunity to them on a plate. Like korea, "the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time." The rest of your post is a rant against a straw man you've set up to knock over. That's probably the intellectual level the next Presidential election will be fought at, if Bush has his way. |
| Holly2003 16.03.2004 12:50 |
and since we're talking about "head in the sand leftists," when is the right going to admit they were wrong, they were lied to, and that the ant-war movement was right all along? Or are you planing to brass neck it and hope everyone will forget about weapons of mass destruction, niger uranium etc... Excerpt from "Face the Nation": SCHIEFFER: Well, let me just ask you this. If they did not have these weapons of mass destruction, though, granted all of that is true, why then did they pose an immediate threat to us, to this country? Sec. RUMSFELD: Well, you're the--you and a few other critics are the only people I've heard use the phrase 'immediate threat.' I didn't. The president didn't. And it's become kind of folklore that that's--that's what's happened. The president went... SCHIEFFER: You're saying that nobody in the administration said that. Sec. RUMSFELD: I--I can't speak for nobody--everybody in the administration and say nobody said that. SCHIEFFER: Vice president didn't say that? The... Sec. RUMSFELD: Not--if--if you have any citations, I'd like to see 'em. Mr. FRIEDMAN: We have one here. It says 'some have argued that the nu'--this is you speaking--'that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent, that Saddam is at least five to seven years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain.' Sec. RUMSFELD: And--and... Mr. FRIEDMAN: It was close to imminent. Sec. RUMSFELD: Well, I've--I've tried to be precise, and I've tried to be accurate. I'm s--suppose I've... Mr. FRIEDMAN: 'No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world and the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.' Sec. RUMSFELD: Mm-hmm. It--my view of--of the situation was that he--he had--we--we believe, the best intelligence that we had and other countries had and that--that we believed and we still do not know--we will know. |
| iron eagle 16.03.2004 14:51 |
gee Holly i thought i ended that with *****IF***** that should be a indication that i in fact do not believe everything i read.... |
| Sir Archie 'Tiffany' Leach 16.03.2004 14:59 |
From the media reaction to the election results it would appear it was a surprise that the Socialist Party won. According to the BBC the (ex)government were 6/8 percent ahead in opinion polls a week before the general election. After the bombing, a larger than expected voter turnout and a government bungling of who to blame for the killings leads to the government being booted out. Quite probably al Qaeda hadn't expected such a result but maybe they did. As far as I'm concerned the election result was significantly affected by the terrorist strike. Why pick on Madrid (surely a more difficult target than Bali)? Or was it coincidence. Or perhaps the Popular Party had Neil Kinnock running their election campaign for the last week. |
| iron eagle 16.03.2004 17:45 |
though a murdoch holding- and pretty conservative- the commentator worked for Clinton and did negotiations in the past and i thought it may be interesting to some link |