NationStates Jolt Archive

From: www.bbc.co.uk

Rail line bomb 'matches Madrid'

The explosives found on a high-speed rail track on Friday were of the same type and brand used in the Madrid train blasts, Spain has confirmed.
But Spanish Interior Minister Angel Acebes said it was still too soon to draw any conclusions about who planted the unexploded device.

Army vehicles and helicopters are patrolling key parts of the Spanish rail network following Friday's alert.

The line between Madrid and Seville has re-opened after a search of the tracks.

Mr Acebes said the bomb found on Friday contained an explosive called Goma 2 Eco - the same Spanish-made dynamite used in the 11 March bombings which killed 191 people and injured hundreds.

Mr Acebes, part of the outgoing Spanish Government, said it was not yet certain whether the detonator attached to the unexploded bomb was the same as those used in the Madrid blast.

But in both cases, the detonators appeared to be devices commonly found in the mining industry, he told reporters.

The unexploded bomb was found on the train line at Mocejon, in the Toledo area, about 60km (40 miles) south of Madrid.

Bomb disposal experts found between 10 and 12kg (22-24lb) of explosives, which were connected to a detonator with a 135m cable.

Mr Acebes said the bomb had failed to explode because it had no trigger - suggesting that those responsible may have been scared off by security guards as they were planting the bomb.

On Friday, a Spanish judge brought provisional charges against a 15th suspect in the Madrid bombings.

Otman El Gnaout, a Moroccan, is accused of collaboration with or membership of a terrorist organisation.

The judge also released four men on Friday, two of them Syrians, one a Moroccan and one a Spaniard.

'Stunned'

The BBC's Katya Adler, in Madrid, says despite a call by Mr Acebes for people to avoid rushing to conclusions, much of the Spanish press and the general public have decided that Islamic extremists planted this latest bomb.

She says Spaniards have reacted in stunned disbelief at the news of another attempted attack.

Our correspondent adds that trains and motorways are packed across the country at this time of year as millions of families set off on their Easter holidays.

Several newspapers reported on Saturday that the Spanish embassy in Egypt had recently received a letter signed by the Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades threatening to attack Spanish embassies and Spanish interests in north Africa and the southern and eastern Mediterranean region.

The letter warned that the attacks would go ahead unless Spain withdrew its troops from Iraq and Afghanistan within four weeks, El Mundo reported.

On Friday, Nato foreign ministers agreed a series of measures to fight terrorism, including more sharing of intelligence.

And in Washington, security officials warned that the Madrid bombings had increased the level of concern about a possible attack on US soil.

The FBI and the department of homeland security said extremist groups might try to bomb buses and rail lines in the US, hiding explosives in luggage and carry-on bags.



It only goes to prove the obvious: appeacement won't work. The more you give them, the more they demand. Spain gave in to terrorist blackmail and agreed to withdraw their troops from Iraq- now bombs will go off because terrorists think Spain isn't doing it fast enough. After that, it will be "justified revenge" for the time Spanish troops were there, gradually transforming into a jihad for reclaiming Andalusia and other lands that were Muslim in 16 century.
First rule of blackmail and terrorism: NEVER pay off.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3596455.stm

cool...Now let's see you link the bombings in Madrid to the war in Iraq...Why don't you show me some link between Iraq and terrorism while you're at it?

cool...Now let's see you link the bombings in Madrid to the war in Iraq...Why don't you show me some link between Iraq and terrorism while you're at it?

you can certainly show a link between iraq and palestinian terrorism, both secular and radical islamist(of course the problem is you can show a link between that and virtually every arab and most islamic regimes)

cool...Now let's see you link the bombings in Madrid to the war in Iraq...
Well, the terrorists seemed to think there was a link. At least that was what they said when they took responsibility for the bombings. Re-read the article, its there as well.


Why don't you show me some link between Iraq and terrorism while you're at it?
Well, there's tons of evidence of Saddam supporting Palestinian terrorists, tons of evidence of Al-Qaeda being behind much of the "resistance operations"- what else do you need, pray tell? Their confession? There's plenty of it as well.

the withdrawal of spanish troops has nothing to do with appaecement. The socialist party that won the elections promised to withdraw them if they won, long before the bombs exploded. And the spanish people didn't agree with attacking iraq and sending troops in the first place. It has nothing to do with the war on terrorism. But it is true that appeacement doesn't work with al qaeda etc. But iraq is not the place where the war on terrorism should be fought, so let the americans clean up their own mess.

cool...Now let's see you link the bombings in Madrid to the war in Iraq...Why don't you show me some link between Iraq and terrorism while you're at it?

you can certainly show a link between iraq and palestinian terrorism, both secular and radical islamist(of course the problem is you can show a link between that and virtually every arab and most islamic regimes)

Yes...Hitler was a christian, therefore all of europe and the USA are nazis...

cool...Now let's see you link the bombings in Madrid to the war in Iraq...
Well, the terrorists seemed to think there was a link. At least that was what they said when they took responsibility for the bombings. Re-read the article, its there as well.


Why don't you show me some link between Iraq and terrorism while you're at it?
Well, there's tons of evidence of Saddam supporting Palestinian terrorists, tons of evidence of Al-Qaeda being behind much of the "resistance operations"- what else do you need, pray tell? Their confession? There's plenty of it as well.

Any sources? Any of the evidence?
(note: whatreallyhappend and newsmax aren't sources)

cool...Now let's see you link the bombings in Madrid to the war in Iraq...Why don't you show me some link between Iraq and terrorism while you're at it?

you can certainly show a link between iraq and palestinian terrorism, both secular and radical islamist(of course the problem is you can show a link between that and virtually every arab and most islamic regimes)

Yes...Hitler was a christian, therefore all of europe and the USA are nazis...

no but most of christianity supported the crusades in the middle ages, unfortunately it doesn't seem a great many people in islam has grown out of this mindset.

You have no idea of the provenance of the bomb attacks yet already jump to conclusions about appeasement.

Though to a large extent I agree with your overarching message (ie., appeasement = bad,) it can work as a very useful delaying tactic and should never be discounted off hand.

cool...Now let's see you link the bombings in Madrid to the war in Iraq...Why don't you show me some link between Iraq and terrorism while you're at it?

You mean like the terrorist training camps to the North of Baghdad and Saddam giving money to widows of Palestinian suicide bombers?

The FBI and the department of homeland security said extremist groups might try to bomb buses and rail lines in the US, hiding explosives in luggage and carry-on bags.

*keeps fingers crossed*

*keeps fingers crossed*

I hope your fingers are crossed that it won't happen...

*keeps fingers crossed*

I hope your fingers are crossed that it won't happen...
:lol:

cool...Now let's see you link the bombings in Madrid to the war in Iraq...Why don't you show me some link between Iraq and terrorism while you're at it?

You mean like the terrorist training camps to the North of Baghdad and Saddam giving money to widows of Palestinian suicide bombers?

source?

How does this link the bombings in madrid to Iraq?

See...Palestinians only attack Israel...

cool...Now let's see you link the bombings in Madrid to the war in Iraq...Why don't you show me some link between Iraq and terrorism while you're at it?

You mean like the terrorist training camps to the North of Baghdad and Saddam giving money to widows of Palestinian suicide bombers?

source?

No idea what your political leanings are, so:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,84291,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,976360,00.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/17/iraq/main549754.shtml
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/abuabbas_04-16-03.html
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/08/1049567687869.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2846365.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,779359,00.html

How does this link the bombings in madrid to Iraq?

It doesn't, since I wasn't attempting to draw any links. However:

1. Spain advocated the war in Iraq and currently has peacekeepers in the region. The government that was involved in Iraq was led by the Popular Party, which consequentally happens to be the one that was recently voted out of the majority.

2. A number of people arrested by the Spanish government for owning, altering, or placing the mobile phones that were being used to detonate the bag o' bombs (among other things,) belong or used to belong to Muslim terrorist groups, have contemporary ties with al-Qaeda, and al-Qaeda admitted to it, unlike the Eta (which is unusual for the Eta since they tend to admit to things regardless of whether or not they've actually done it.)

cool...Now let's see you link the bombings in Madrid to the war in Iraq...Why don't you show me some link between Iraq and terrorism while you're at it?

You mean like the terrorist training camps to the North of Baghdad and Saddam giving money to widows of Palestinian suicide bombers?

source?

No idea what your political leanings are, so:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,84291,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,976360,00.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/17/iraq/main549754.shtml
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/abuabbas_04-16-03.html
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/08/1049567687869.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2846365.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,779359,00.html

How does this link the bombings in madrid to Iraq?

It doesn't, since I wasn't attempting to draw any links. However:

1. Spain advocated the war in Iraq and currently has peacekeepers in the region. The government that was involved in Iraq was led by the Popular Party, which consequentally happens to be the one that was recently voted out of the majority.

2. A number of people arrested by the Spanish government for owning, altering, or placing the mobile phones that were being used to detonate the bag o' bombs (among other things,) belong or used to belong to Muslim terrorist groups, have contemporary ties with al-Qaeda, and al-Qaeda admitted to it, unlike the Eta (which is unusual for the Eta since they tend to admit to things regardless of whether or not they've actually done it.)

Thanks for the sources.

1. Still no link, can't say it's "appeasement"
2. So they are muslims...even Al-Qaeda. The problem is that Al-Qaeda can't be linked to Iraq.
I don't know if there are any spanish troops in Afghanistan...

2. So they are muslims...even Al-Qaeda. The problem is that Al-Qaeda can't be linked to Iraq.

Except for the fact that both statements from al-Qaeda claiming responsibility for the attacks noted that the attack was an act of revenge on Spain for sending troops to Iraq.

cool...Now let's see you link the bombings in Madrid to the war in Iraq...Why don't you show me some link between Iraq and terrorism while you're at it?

you can certainly show a link between iraq and palestinian terrorism, both secular and radical islamist(of course the problem is you can show a link between that and virtually every arab and most islamic regimes)

Yes but neary to Al QAEDA. And thats what most people care about.

It only goes to prove the obvious: appeacement won't work. The more you give them, the more they demand. Spain gave in to terrorist blackmail and agreed to withdraw their troops from Iraq- now bombs will go off because terrorists think Spain isn't doing it fast enough. After that, it will be "justified revenge" for the time Spanish troops were there, gradually transforming into a jihad for reclaiming Andalusia and other lands that were Muslim in 16 century.
First rule of blackmail and terrorism: NEVER pay off.

Because Israeli heavyhandedness has worked wonders to stop terror :roll: . Heavy handedness hasn't worked either. Look at how the EU and Ireland worked together to stop bombings there. They improved the economy. They didn't bomb Northern Ireland, or just pull out, or build a wall or any other response the US, Spain or Israel has had to terror. They actually improved the lives of the people who supported those that tried to kill them, thereby destroying the ability of radical groups to provide social aid after the government became powerless.

Ann coultier reckons heavy handeness works wonders. But only if you have no pesky "Democrats" undermining your actions.

It sounds like the work as the Basque separarists. Sure, they may have had help from al-Qaeda, but, I think a lot of this looks like inside work. I don't think it was all al-Qaeda. It has their mark, but, somehow, it doens't seem like their style... After all, why would there be a second imminant attack, if Spain already said it was going to withdraw? It sounds to me like it's the Basque at work...

Question for Womblingdon:

Did you support Israeli withdrawal from South Lebanon?

so when a country considers dropping out of a war that can only be consider ágainst' terrorism with considerable mental gymnastics, which this country never particularly supported anyway, that's appeasement?

Iraq was not about terrorism, and the Bush administration has virtually admitted as much.

so when a country considers dropping out of a war that can only be consider ágainst' terrorism with considerable mental gymnastics, which this country never particularly supported anyway, that's appeasement?

Iraq was not about terrorism, and the Bush administration has virtually admitted as much.

How does this link the bombings in madrid to Iraq?
You must have missed this bit of the article:

Several newspapers reported on Saturday that the Spanish embassy in Egypt had recently received a letter signed by the Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades threatening to attack Spanish embassies and Spanish interests in north Africa and the southern and eastern Mediterranean region.

The letter warned that the attacks would go ahead unless Spain withdrew its troops from Iraq and Afghanistan within four weeks, El Mundo reported.
Abu Hafs al-Masri is the same Al-Qaeda linked organization that claimed responsibility for the Madrid bombings in a videotaped message (or did you miss that one, too?)

Did you support Israeli withdrawal from South Lebanon?
No I did not. Bad idea, awfully done. Withdrawal from South Lebanon should not have been unilateral, but negotiated, in context of withdrawing ALL foreign troops from Lebanon- including Syrian ones. The unilateral withdrawal created an absurd situation when Lebanon refuses to take control over a pretty big part of their own state "because it would serve Israeli interests if they did".

so when a country considers dropping out of a war that can only be consider ágainst' terrorism with considerable mental gymnastics, which this country never particularly supported anyway, that's appeasement?

Iraq was not about terrorism, and the Bush administration has virtually admitted as much.
When the country radically changes its policy shortly after a terrorist attack, and the new policy- surprise surprise- coincides with the demands of the terrorists- yes, this is definitely appeacement. Moreover, it is a blatant act of surrender.

Can't see there being any link between ETA and Al-Q.

Withdrawing troops from Iraq isn't appeasement.. and anyway, it is the will of the Spanish people.

No expert on terrorism, but I would think that the train bomb found in Spain is linked to the same people responsible for the Madrid bombings. I would suspect one or two small gangs. Its not Al-Q's modus operandi to launch full scale, multi-fronted assaults on one country, such as Spain.

You have to wonder if this is linked to the threats of bombing the French railways?

ETA may be responsible for the bomb on the train tracks, but if they aren't then I suspect ETA will be forced into a period of quiet, or a ceasefire, perhaps much like the IRA was forced into decommissioning after Sept 11.

Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorist Groups don't care what kind of government we have, and they would be attacking us even if we weren't involved in Iraq and probably still if we didn't support Israel.

And to anyone from Madrid or Spain, I hope you know the people of the UK are standing there with you. I saw an advert in the FT today that said 'the people of Madrid thank the people of Britain for their solidarity during these times'.

No thanks necessary.

so when a country considers dropping out of a war that can only be consider ágainst' terrorism with considerable mental gymnastics, which this country never particularly supported anyway, that's appeasement?

Iraq was not about terrorism, and the Bush administration has virtually admitted as much.
When the country radically changes its policy shortly after a terrorist attack, and the new policy- surprise surprise- coincides with the demands of the terrorists- yes, this is definitely appeacement. Moreover, it is a blatant act of surrender.
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

Of course appeasement doesn't work (usually) but as has already been said, the winning party had promised the Spanish (90% of whom opposed and oppose the Iraq war) that Spanish troops would be removed quickly. A fool would call a democratic election an 'act of surrender'. So you believe that if the US or UK voted for a party that promised to carry out a certain important act of foreign policy, that party should then retract its promise due to terrorists threats? That argument of yours works both ways.

You mean you can't count on a terrorist to keep his word? Who would've thunk it?

And appeasement has such a fine track record... just look at Munich in 1938. Surely that brought peace in our time, didn't it?

Well, the events in Madrid were indeed atrocities, regaurdless of who did it, but I think the reason Spain was attacked and not, say, the US or the UK (who spearheadded Iraq) is because of the differnce in government intellegence methods.

Truth be known, hundreds of attacks have been planned for both America and Britain, but the intellegence networks of these countries are incredibly effective for domestic defence (although, not as much when it comes to going to war.) So even though many have been planned, unfortunately, the only one that could succeed was in Spain.

Some one PLEASE telegram me if I'm wrong about this, because I'm curious to know, this is just my theory:

Spain and much of Europe (to my knowlege) does not have the massive intellegence agancies of other countries (like the CIA or FBI). Not because of lack of resources or technology, but by choice. I would beleive that most of Europe has had their fill of such agencies, and after such groups as the Nazi SS or the Soviet KGB, they are distrustful of any "secret information" orginization.

Even without Spanish support, the US invasion of Iraq would have continued, and maybe even if there was no coalition at all. Also, it is possible that Al-Q is not responsable for the attacks, but wants to remain in the spotlight, so they claimed responsability, knowing they would get more media attention in the West than the ETA.

Once again, if i'm mistaken, please telegram me. I would love to know.

"For those of you keeping score in our war on terror, we've created a police state in Iraq and a socialist government in Spain. No democracies yet, but we're getting close!" - John Stewart, The Daily Show

so when a country considers dropping out of a war that can only be consider ágainst' terrorism with considerable mental gymnastics, which this country never particularly supported anyway, that's appeasement?

Iraq was not about terrorism, and the Bush administration has virtually admitted as much.
When the country radically changes its policy shortly after a terrorist attack, and the new policy- surprise surprise- coincides with the demands of the terrorists- yes, this is definitely appeacement. Moreover, it is a blatant act of surrender.
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

Of course appeasement doesn't work (usually) but as has already been said, the winning party had promised the Spanish (90% of whom opposed and oppose the Iraq war) that Spanish troops would be removed quickly. A fool would call a democratic election an 'act of surrender'. So you believe that if the US or UK voted for a party that promised to carry out a certain important act of foreign policy, that party should then retract its promise due to terrorists threats? That argument of yours works both ways.
That does not disprove my point. You are simply shifting responsibility for the decision from the new Spanish government to the Spanish people in general- but the questionable nature of the choice remains.

[
That does not disprove my point. You are simply shifting responsibility for the decision from the new Spanish government to the Spanish people in general- but the questionable nature of the choice remains.
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

That's right, your point is not 'disproved'. We're talking opinion here, not harsh truth. My instincts are that if Bush and Blair are gonna bang on about bringing democracy to Iraq and the Middle East, we should have all sympathy for the people of Spain and respect their democratic decision. You either want democracy or you don't.

That does not disprove my point. You are simply shifting responsibility for the decision from the new Spanish government to the Spanish people in general- but the questionable nature of the choice remains.

The spanish people were ALWAYS gainst the war on Iraq (which incidentally has very little to do with terrorism at all, as has been discussed ad nauseum). Basically you're saying that, what, the spanish people's opinion shouldn't effect their foreign policy? Hell, I was against the war on Iraq and I still am- does think make me an advoacte of appeasement? Not in any meaingful way.

[
That does not disprove my point. You are simply shifting responsibility for the decision from the new Spanish government to the Spanish people in general- but the questionable nature of the choice remains.
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

That's right, your point is not 'disproved'. We're talking opinion here, not harsh truth. My instincts are that if Bush and Blair are gonna bang on about bringing democracy to Iraq and the Middle East, we should have all sympathy for the people of Spain and respect their democratic decision. You either want democracy or you don't.
That would be a dogmatic position. Democratic decisions can be bad, just like any other decisions can be. I do not question the right of the Spanish to elect whatever government they like and the right of their elected government to conduct their foreign policy the way they see fit. At the same time, I have every right to see their decision from my perspective- as a potentially disastrous move that is likely to give a huge boost to terrorism worldwide, and especially in Europe. After all, nearly every European state has a homegrown terrorist group to worry about, and these groups are watching the actions of the Islamists and asking themselves: "If they get what they want, and we do not- what are they doing that we do not do?"

[
That would be a dogmatic position. Democratic decisions can be bad, just like any other decisions can be. I do not question the right of the Spanish to elect whatever government they like and the right of their elected government to conduct their foreign policy the way they see fit. At the same time, I have every right to see their decision from my perspective- as a potentially disastrous move that is likely to give a huge boost to terrorism worldwide, and especially in Europe. After all, nearly every European state has a homegrown terrorist group to worry about, and these groups are watching the actions of the Islamists and asking themselves: "If they get what they want, and we do not- what are they doing that we do not do?"
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

The US has a few terror groups too. Islaam does not equal terror. You do have the right to your opinion of the Spanish vote but the only opinion that really mattered was the Spaniards. They only recently regained democracy and I for one wouldn't dream of endangering it by suggesting that the Spanish should vote to suit foreign powers or terror groups.

[
That does not disprove my point. You are simply shifting responsibility for the decision from the new Spanish government to the Spanish people in general- but the questionable nature of the choice remains.
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

That's right, your point is not 'disproved'. We're talking opinion here, not harsh truth. My instincts are that if Bush and Blair are gonna bang on about bringing democracy to Iraq and the Middle East, we should have all sympathy for the people of Spain and respect their democratic decision. You either want democracy or you don't.
That would be a dogmatic position. Democratic decisions can be bad, just like any other decisions can be. I do not question the right of the Spanish to elect whatever government they like and the right of their elected government to conduct their foreign policy the way they see fit. At the same time, I have every right to see their decision from my perspective- as a potentially disastrous move that is likely to give a huge boost to terrorism worldwide, and especially in Europe. After all, nearly every European state has a homegrown terrorist group to worry about, and these groups are watching the actions of the Islamists and asking themselves: "If they get what they want, and we do not- what are they doing that we do not do?"

Equally, of course, one has to consider the real impacts of the invasion of Iraq.

Are we, or anyone actually less exposed to terrorist attacks as a result?

Or have we in fact only given the most extreme Islamists yet another "cause" and rallying point?

If the issue is about Weapons of Mass Destruction, should Israel be subjected to UN searches and disarmament as well as its neighbours?

Or do different rules apply?

That does not disprove my point. You are simply shifting responsibility for the decision from the new Spanish government to the Spanish people in general- but the questionable nature of the choice remains.

The spanish people were ALWAYS gainst the war on Iraq (which incidentally has very little to do with terrorism at all, as has been discussed ad nauseum). Basically you're saying that, what, the spanish people's opinion shouldn't effect their foreign policy?
No, I merely disagree with the opinion of the Spanish people and expect its practical implementation to result in the worst possible consequences.


Hell, I was against the war on Iraq and I still am- does think make me an advoacte of appeasement? Not in any meaingful way.
That depends on what you are suggesting instead. If your alternative boils down to retreating from here and there and giving them this and that - no matter under what rationale, "depriving them of the cause" sounds just as bad to me as "paying them off", as long as its practical effects are indistinguishable- yes, you advocate appeasement.

That depends on what you are suggesting instead. If your alternative boils down to retreating from here and there and giving them this and that - no matter under what rationale, "depriving them of the cause" sounds just as bad to me as "paying them off", as long as its practical effects are indistinguishable- yes, you advocate appeasement.

Is anyone retreating from Iraq? No. The Spaniards haven't left yet, and even if they do it will have no meaningful effect on that particular campaign, as their contribution was largely symbolic. I don't suggest withdrawing from Iraq, the damage is done at this point, but I do reject this particular action (the invasion) as extremely foolish, conterproductive and poorly thought through. Iraq is a total foreign policy disaster, IMO, and will do nothing to reduce international terrorism.

IMO, Iraq has done more to hurt the war on terrorism than any action prior or since. And I respect the will of a people who are no longer willing to support it morally through their presence.

I believe the main arguement, from internet fora and political pundits I've read, is that the PP (the party that Supported the Iraq war) was, according to the polls, supposed to win outside the margin of error of the polls, but then the terrorist attacks happened and the Socialists won. Of course this dosen't mean that the terrorist attacks were the sole reason for the sudden switch, the PP blaming ETA for it was also probably a factor.

* sigh *

Maybe the investigators missed one...

http://www.skytowerpoet.net/pics/100_15.gif

The Deadlines of Tuesday Heights (http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=skytowerpoet)

Ann coultier reckons heavy handeness works wonders. But only if you have no pesky "Democrats" undermining your actions.Ann Coulter should be put on the front lines, I hear she's a good shot.

Equally, of course, one has to consider the real impacts of the invasion of Iraq.

Are we, or anyone actually less exposed to terrorist attacks as a result?

Or have we in fact only given the most extreme Islamists yet another "cause" and rallying point?
This logic calls for a :roll: . Do you think they had a shortage of "causes" and rallying points? Come on, they are inventive people. They generate "causes" and rallying points with alarming speed. One more, one less...


If the issue is about Weapons of Mass Destruction, should Israel be subjected to UN searches and disarmament as well as its neighbours?
Or do different rules apply?
Yes. Please subject us to exactly the same treatment as the other two offenders in the region- Pakistan and India. We are not on the same status as Libya or Iraq, you see- if the rumors are right, we already HAVE the nukes, and its a whole new kettle of fish if we do. No country has ever been demanded to surrender already existing nuclear weapons.
Now if we go and nuke civilians in our own state or in the neighborhood, thus proving that we are not qualified to posess them- then we can talk disarmament.
As for inspections- I would allow them yesterday, if it was up to me. It only increases the deterrent capability of the nukes- provided we have ones, that is.

You mean you can't count on a terrorist to keep his word? Who would've thunk it?

And appeasement has such a fine track record... just look at Munich in 1938. Surely that brought peace in our time, didn't it?WW2 was won on a knife edge. Many historians say that appeasement was vital for Britain to have had time to re-arm. Say that it was wrong... and you can line up a bunch of very intelligent people who'd disagree.

How does this link the bombings in madrid to Iraq?
You must have missed this bit of the article:

Several newspapers reported on Saturday that the Spanish embassy in Egypt had recently received a letter signed by the Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades threatening to attack Spanish embassies and Spanish interests in north Africa and the southern and eastern Mediterranean region.

The letter warned that the attacks would go ahead unless Spain withdrew its troops from Iraq and Afghanistan within four weeks, El Mundo reported.
Abu Hafs al-Masri is the same Al-Qaeda linked organization that claimed responsibility for the Madrid bombings in a videotaped message (or did you miss that one, too?)

Soooo, is the newspaper saying that this letter was circulated amongst the voting public prior to them casting their ballots?

Nope.

So what you are suggesting is that they voted based on things they had no knowledge of.

Makes no sense at all...

You may not like the way the spaniards voted, and if the government hadn't tried to pin the attack on ETA despite no clear evidence therof (not to mention compelling reasons to assume that it WAN'T ETA), then perhaps they would have kept power.

They voted them out for good reason, and decided to elect in a government that was not going to keep spending security dollars overseas in an unpopular occupation of dubious benefit to the elimination of terrorism, and instead focus on the domestic issues at hand - including rooting out terror cells and destroying them.

Perhaps the idea that homeland security begins at home is unnatural to you, but it makes a lot of sense to many of us.

But this BS statement that this is "appeasement" of Al Qaeda makes as much sense as it is accusing GW of appeasing Osama because he has shifted the troops out of Saudi Arabia and into Iraq at a time when the removal from Saudi was the topmost demand of al qaeda.

-Z-

That depends on what you are suggesting instead. If your alternative boils down to retreating from here and there and giving them this and that - no matter under what rationale, "depriving them of the cause" sounds just as bad to me as "paying them off", as long as its practical effects are indistinguishable- yes, you advocate appeasement.

Is anyone retreating from Iraq? No. The Spaniards haven't left yet, and even if they do it will have no meaningful effect on that particular campaign, as their contribution was largely symbolic. I don't suggest withdrawing from Iraq, the damage is done at this point, but I do reject this particular action (the invasion) as extremely foolish, conterproductive and poorly thought through. Iraq is a total foreign policy disaster, IMO, and will do nothing to reduce international terrorism.

IMO, Iraq has done more to hurt the war on terrorism than any action prior or since. And I respect the will of a people who are no longer willing to support it morally through their presence.
Well, so far everything you say boils down to what NOT to do. What do you suggest be done?

Well, so far everything you say boils down to what NOT to do. What do you suggest be done?

Integration and increased funding for law enforcement agencies, primarily. Rather than spending some 100 billion on Iraq, we could have increased the already very high level of internal security- while in the last month alone several agencies have thwarted terrorism domestically (in England, Spain and Canada) I have yet to see this kind of concrete reduction from invading Iraq- lets be honest, we haven't caught a single terrorist there, much less an Al-Qaeda or similar operative!

Military actions are appropriate as well, in certain cases- Afghanistan was a much more legitimate target, IMO, as it was well-known to openly support terrorism, their locations were known, and it, I believe, seriously DID reduce the effectiveness of terrorists.

Higher levels of cooperation among allied nations to put pressure on non-democratic, hostile powers is also a good idea. I would support sanctions, trade and otherwise, on nations supporting terrorists (like Pakistan or Saudi Arabia).

Finally, extra-judicial and extra-territorial attacks and captures of terrorist leaders, as long as obviously effective and no civilian deaths are incurred, would be acceptable.

Soooo, is the newspaper saying that this letter was circulated amongst the voting public prior to them casting their ballots?

Nope.

So what you are suggesting is that they voted based on things they had no knowledge of.

Makes no sense at all...

You may not like the way the spaniards voted, and if the government hadn't tried to pin the attack on ETA despite no clear evidence therof (not to mention compelling reasons to assume that it WAN'T ETA), then perhaps they would have kept power.
A straw man argument. I don't recall saying that the Spaniards voted wrongly. I care not what government sits in Spain. If Aznar took the same decision, I would not approve on it any more than I do now. The Spaniards can vote for whoever or whatever they feel like voting. It is the move their new government is planning to take that I am concerned about- because, the way I see it, it may have an indirect impact on my country too.


Perhaps the idea that homeland security begins at home is unnatural to you, but it makes a lot of sense to many of us.
No. What seems unnatural to me is the idea that defense against an external threat should be limited to homeland security only.


But this BS statement that this is "appeasement" of Al Qaeda makes as much sense as it is accusing GW of appeasing Osama because he has shifted the troops out of Saudi Arabia and into Iraq at a time when the removal from Saudi was the topmost demand of al qaeda.
Bush moved troops from one place to take action in another. If the Spanish troops withdrawn from Iraq will be stationed in Afghanistan to combat the remaining Al-Qaeda and Taliban insurgents, I will take my accusation of appeasement back. So far I see no such intention.

Perhaps the idea that homeland security begins at home is unnatural to you, but it makes a lot of sense to many of us.
No. What seems unnatural to me is the idea that defense against an external threat should be limited to homeland security only.


But was Iraq an external threat in any serious, meaningful way? Or, if you prefer, was it the greatest threat? I don't think it was.

Well, so far everything you say boils down to what NOT to do. What do you suggest be done?

Integration and increased funding for law enforcement agencies, primarily. Rather than spending some 100 billion on Iraq, we could have increased the already very high level of internal security- while in the last month alone several agencies have thwarted terrorism domestically (in England, Spain and Canada) I have yet to see this kind of concrete reduction from invading Iraq- lets be honest, we haven't caught a single terrorist there, much less an Al-Qaeda or similar operative!
Well, that is certainly a good idea- though it would stumble on people's reluctance to surrender some of their liberties for the sake of security and fear of the emergence of a "police state". Sounds familiar? :wink:


Military actions are appropriate as well, in certain cases- Afghanistan was a much more legitimate target, IMO, as it was well-known to openly support terrorism, their locations were known, and it, I believe, seriously DID reduce the effectiveness of terrorists.
Did you support the Afghanistan invasion when it started?


Higher levels of cooperation among allied nations to put pressure on non-democratic, hostile powers is also a good idea. I would support sanctions, trade and otherwise, on nations supporting terrorists (like Pakistan or Saudi Arabia).
Or Syria?


Finally, extra-judicial and extra-territorial attacks and captures of terrorist leaders, as long as obviously effective and no civilian deaths are incurred, would be acceptable.
Which mean they would not be acceptable in any case, because "obviously effective" is a nicely set trap. You can NEVER win a war by a single battle, and if the assassination will not immediately cripple the target group, its effectiveness will not be obvious to most. I see Yassin's assassination as obviously effective and inflicting irreversible damage on Hamas, but some people here use different logic. :roll:

Perhaps the idea that homeland security begins at home is unnatural to you, but it makes a lot of sense to many of us.
No. What seems unnatural to me is the idea that defense against an external threat should be limited to homeland security only.


But was Iraq an external threat in any serious, meaningful way? Or, if you prefer, was it the greatest threat? I don't think it was.
Perhaps not. But international terrorism IS an external threat, and you cannot fight it without fighting its hosts. Iraq was simply the weakest link among the many terrorist funding states.

Prior to the Madrid bombings, polls indicated that the Popular Party (Anzar's) had a clear advantage, but might not maintain a majority. Thus the timing of the bombings may have been intended to sway the voters to choose the opposing party, which intended to pull troops from Iraq. Had the polls shown that the Popular Party wasn't likely to win the election, the bombings might not have occurred at all.

The implication is that the terrorists were trying to sway the voting public. Perhaps the public was swayed by the bombings to vote the ruling party out, whether this was the intent of the bombers or not. If the bombs were set for this reason it would be because the terrorists prefer to have a party in power that would pull out of Iraq, and therefore show non-support for the US war. This would weaken the alliance.

It is not a case of the new ruling party trying to appease the terrorists. It is a case of that party following through on campaign promises that were clearly known to the listening world. It was no secret that the Iraq war was a major point of contention.

The real concern now should be that terrorists will see this as an effective tactic whether it actually swayed voters or not, and use this technique to attempt to control election results in other Alliance countries.

The bomb found Friday is, in my opinion, most likely planted by a different group. Why? The trains were not detonated with a connecting wired apparatus, as Fridays bomb was designed to be. Why would the original group change from a successful tactic to something comparatively primitive? They know there is no reason to have an operative that close to the blast. So, it is most likely Fridays bomb was setr by someone with less technical knowhow.

Todays explosions are a result of cornering suspects in the Madrid bombings (believed to belong to the Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group). As a result, one policeman and three terrorists are dead (and 11 others wounded). I would say the fact that Spain is aggressively tracking down the terrorists is a strong indication that they do NOT intend appeasement.

(Oy! For anyone who tried to read this before I fixed the typos and replaced the missing words, etc. I apologise. The server doesn't usually let me proof before posting, so I did so afterwards.)

Well, that is certainly a good idea- though it would stumble on people's reluctance to surrender some of their liberties for the sake of security and fear of the emergence of a "police state". Sounds familiar? :wink:
Actually, I don't think it necessarily would. Increased manpower, levels of integration (both internationally and domestically), combined with more effective surveillance equipment (easily affordable given the Iraq budget) could all increase effectiveness without reducing civil rights in any meaningful way.


Did you support the Afghanistan invasion when it started?
Yes, and I still do.


Or Syria?

Sure, though I don't believe Syrians are targetting the states particularly. Most terrorists, as far as I can tell, are from Saudi Arabia and Egypt. THis is what the FBI seems to be indicating anyways. Actually, I think we should be much, much harshers on all regimes that don't at the very least support basic human rights; I suspect that would include Syria?


Which mean they would not be acceptable in any case, because "obviously effective" is a nicely set trap. You can NEVER win a war by a single battle, and if the assassination will not immediately cripple the target group, its effectiveness will not be obvious to most. I see Yassin's assassination as obviously effective and inflicting irreversible damage on Hamas, but some people here use different logic. :roll:

Ok, but
a) his death cannot be shown to appreciable help fighting terrorism in any meaningful way.
b) civilians were also killed in the attack

I was thinking more along the lines of some of the 'black' operations the US did (or was proposing, I can't remember which) during the Bosnia conflict, where they effectively swooped in, captured Serbian leaders, and swooped out.

I think most of the techniques we've used against international crime in general are very helpful when discussing terrorism. I don't really think it should be viewed as a military problem but as a law enforcement problem.

But was Iraq an external threat in any serious, meaningful way? Or, if you prefer, was it the greatest threat? I don't think it was.
Perhaps not. But international terrorism IS an external threat, and you cannot fight it without fighting its hosts. Iraq was simply the weakest link among the many terrorist funding states.

Actually, Saudi Arabia had by far the weaker military force, and also was a much greater contributor to international terrorism. Moreover, I don't think Iraq WAS a meaningful host to terrorism, at least not in the same way Afghanistan was.

Soooo, is the newspaper saying that this letter was circulated amongst the voting public prior to them casting their ballots?

Nope.

So what you are suggesting is that they voted based on things they had no knowledge of.

Makes no sense at all...

You may not like the way the spaniards voted, and if the government hadn't tried to pin the attack on ETA despite no clear evidence therof (not to mention compelling reasons to assume that it WAN'T ETA), then perhaps they would have kept power.
A straw man argument. I don't recall saying that the Spaniards voted wrongly. I care not what government sits in Spain. If Aznar took the same decision, I would not approve on it any more than I do now. The Spaniards can vote for whoever or whatever they feel like voting. It is the move their new government is planning to take that I am concerned about- because, the way I see it, it may have an indirect impact on my country too.


Interestingly enough... there have been many people who claim that people like me can have no opinion of US politics as I am not American. Glad to see you accept that others have valid reasons for caring about actions of governments that may effect them even if they aren't ctizens.

But complaining about this ultimatum seems moot. Leaving Iraq was part of this party's platform. Them receiving a demand to live up to their platform is pretty non-newsworthy really.

And - as mentioned - I beleive that most Spaniards do not believe that Iraq represents the best place to be working to secure their own country.


Perhaps the idea that homeland security begins at home is unnatural to you, but it makes a lot of sense to many of us.
No. What seems unnatural to me is the idea that defense against an external threat should be limited to homeland security only.


I didn't say it should. That being said - I have always distinguished between Iraq and Afghanistan. Do you have some foundation to your implied premise that involving yourself in the occupation in Iraq is reducing Islamic militancy?



But this BS statement that this is "appeasement" of Al Qaeda makes as much sense as it is accusing GW of appeasing Osama because he has shifted the troops out of Saudi Arabia and into Iraq at a time when the removal from Saudi was the topmost demand of al qaeda.
Bush moved troops from one place to take action in another. If the Spanish troops withdrawn from Iraq will be stationed in Afghanistan to combat the remaining Al-Qaeda and Taliban insurgents, I will take my accusation of appeasement back. So far I see no such intention.

Then you haven't been paying attention. The government announced days ago that it would double it's troops in Afghanistan.

Prior to the Madrid bombings, polls indicated that the Popular Party (Anzar's) had a clear advantage, but might not maintain a majority. Thus the timing of the bombings may have been intended to sway the voters to choose the opposing party, which intended to pull troops from Iraq. Had the polls shown that the Popular Party wasn't likely to win the election, the bombings might not have occurred at all.

The implication is that the terrorists were trying to sway the voting public. Perhaps the public was swayed by the bombings to vote the ruling party out, whether this was the intent of the bombers or not. If the bombs were set for this reason it would because the terrorists prefer to have a party in power that would pull out of Iraq, and therefore show non-support for the US war. This would weaken the alliance.

It is not a case of the new ruling party trying to appease the terrorists. It is a case of that party following through on campaign promises that were clearly known to the listening world. It was no secret that the Iraq war was a major point of contention.

The real concern now should be that terrorists will see this as an effective tactic whether it actually swayed voters or not, and use this technique to attempt to control election results in other Alliance countries.

The bomb found Friday is, in my opinion, most likely planted by a different group. Why? The trains were not detonated with a connecting wired apparatus, as Fridays bomb was designed to be. Why would the original group change from a successful tactic to something comparatively primitive? They know there is no reason to have an operative that close to the blast. So, it is most likely Fridays bomb was setr by someone with less technical knowhow.

Todays explosions are a result of cornering suspects in the Madrid bombings believed to belong to the Moroccan Islamic Combant Group. As a result, one policeman and three terrorists are dead (and 11 others wounded). I would say the fact that Spain is aggressively tracking down the terrorists is a strong indication that they do NOT intend appeasement.You make several excellent points, all of which will go completely ignored by Womblingdon because he has a vested interest in linking the left to the word "appeasement."

Let's just get the real situation out in the open here--in the US, the Republican party has to make national security and the war on al-Qaeda (not on terror) the focus of the November elections because they have nothing else to run on. The job numbers from last month aside, the economy is still in the toilet and is careening toward meltdown thanks to deficit spending of 1990s Argentinian proportions. And thanks to the 9-11 commission and the administration's continual stonewalling, national security is slipping away from the Republican party. All they have left is name-calling. So anyone who disagrees with them for any reason is automatically labelled an appeaser or a profiteer or a traitor. They're in trouble and they know it, and these kinds of rhetorical flights of fancy are their last desperate act to retain power.

Well, that is certainly a good idea- though it would stumble on people's reluctance to surrender some of their liberties for the sake of security and fear of the emergence of a "police state". Sounds familiar? :wink:
Actually, I don't think it necessarily would. Increased manpower, levels of integration (both internationally and domestically), combined with more effective surveillance equipment (easily affordable given the Iraq budget) could all increase effectiveness without reducing civil rights in any meaningful way.
Oh yes it would. Frequent ID checks would have to become a standard procedure, and if you wanted to protect soft targets like malls and subway stations, you'd have to install metal detector gates at least (think a milder version of airport security). People find these things irritating. And the very fact of allocating some 80 billion dollars to law enforcement and secret services would drive the "police state" fearing crowd up the wall.


Sure, though I don't believe Syrians are targetting the states particularly. Most terrorists, as far as I can tell, are from Saudi Arabia and Egypt. THis is what the FBI seems to be indicating anyways. Actually, I think we should be much, much harshers on all regimes that don't at the very least support basic human rights; I suspect that would include Syria?
Well, I have nothing against sanctions on Saudis and Egypt. Mallberta for president! :D


Ok, but
a) his death cannot be shown to appreciable help fighting terrorism in any meaningful way.
I don't want to get into this here, but yes, it helped an awful lot. More than anything that's been done here over the last decade. You just aren't seeing the full picture.


b) civilians were also killed in the attack
I am not sure, the reports differ on this one- many say that the dead were all, or almost all, his bodyguards. But that is not the issue for people who condemned the assassination- it is the death of Yassin himself that bothers them. Check out the text of the vetoed Security Council resolution- not a word about collateral damage, only the "tragic assassination of sheykh Yassin".


I was thinking more along the lines of some of the 'black' operations the US did (or was proposing, I can't remember which) during the Bosnia conflict, where they effectively swooped in, captured Serbian leaders, and swooped out.
And how were they effective? Look at Serbia now, the war never ended for them.


I think most of the techniques we've used against international crime in general are very helpful when discussing terrorism. I don't really think it should be viewed as a military problem but as a law enforcement problem.
That is where we differ. I believe they are waging war on us, even if by the methods employed normally by criminals. I do not believe that we should only fight the methods.

Sorry people. 2.40 at night local time, and I can't keep up with a simultaneous discussion where I have to answer 3-4 posters at once. Will get back to it tomorrow, if I have the energy; work is going to be hell tomorrow, because of the holiday coming and all the new warnings. See you all around! :)

automatically labelled

Is the major problem in America's soundbite mentality. When we label things, it means we have ceased to actually consider them, reduced them to soundbites that ignore the nuances. Even reading these boards, it is evident that many reduce an entire thesis to one sentence and when asked to expand upon it, offer up the same sentence slightly reworded. Until we can get people to work out complete thoughts, we will continue to have a populus that is easily misled by the people we put in office. (Now all we need is a pithy little soundbite that will convince people that soundbite suck. :wink: )

Oh yes it would. Frequent ID checks would have to become a standard procedure, and if you wanted to protect soft targets like malls and subway stations, you'd have to install metal detector gates at least (think a milder version of airport security). People find these things irritating. And the very fact of allocating some 80 billion dollars to law enforcement and secret services would drive the "police state" fearing crowd up the wall.


I disagree; I think you are conflating domestic and international terrorism, which is quite understandable given Israel's truly bizarre position. Eliminating domestic terrorism is an entirely different procedure, but in the US at least it should be perfectly possible to stop terrorists at the border, almost entirely. If someone has a syrian passport, tag it and begin surveilance, unless there is good reason to suspect otherwise (i.e. it's an eighty year old blind women). We don't need to check everyone coming into malls every time, because we know in all likelyhood they will not be terrorists. The goal is to make sure they do not enter and move undetected, not to make sure NO ONE cannot move undetected.


I don't want to get into this here, but yes, it helped an awful lot. More than anything that's been done here over the last decade. You just aren't seeing the full picture.
Okay I respect that. I honestly don't know enough about the situation to really judge.


I am not sure, the reports differ on this one- many say that the dead were all, or almost all, his bodyguards. But that is not the issue for people who condemned the assassination- it is the death of Yassin himself that bothers them. Check out the text of the vetoed Security Council resolution- not a word about collateral damage, only the "tragic assassination of sheykh Yassin".

Which is truly shameful; I think it would have been more effective had the Israelies arrested and prosecuted him, either domestically or internationally (if he really was as bad a terrorist as he's made out to be, which I'm inclined to agree with). Collateral damage should not be a part of a war against terrorists- we're not at war with societies or cultures, merely the minorities who cause violence within them.


And how were they effective? Look at Serbia now, the war never ended for them.
I'm not sure the commando operations ever took place, merely that they were being considered as an option. These would be similar to what Israel is now doing against palestinian terrorists, though I would prefer them to be somewhat 'cleaner', if you know what I mean, and involving prosecution far more than extra-judicial executions. At the very least, these operations would ensure war criminals of the worst kind are brought to justice.

That is where we differ. I believe they are waging war on us, even if by the methods employed normally by criminals. I do not believe that we should only fight the methods.

nor do I, but I believe even from your own perspective, in the big picture, invading Iraq does not make very much sense. Like I said, some military actions are certainly necessary, but they should be focused and limited, not wholesale invasions are regional tinkering, especially against targets like Iraq which, IMO, and I think this is largely born out by reality, are not significant contributors to international terrorism.

cool...Now let's see you link the bombings in Madrid to the war in Iraq...
Well, the terrorists seemed to think there was a link. At least that was what they said when they took responsibility for the bombings. Re-read the article, its there as well.


Why don't you show me some link between Iraq and terrorism while you're at it?
Well, there's tons of evidence of Saddam supporting Palestinian terrorists, tons of evidence of Al-Qaeda being behind much of the "resistance operations"- what else do you need, pray tell? Their confession? There's plenty of it as well.
Could you please point to the "tons of evidence" of a link between Iraq and Al-Queda, prior to the bombing of Iraq.

cool...Now let's see you link the bombings in Madrid to the war in Iraq...
Well, the terrorists seemed to think there was a link. At least that was what they said when they took responsibility for the bombings. Re-read the article, its there as well.


Why don't you show me some link between Iraq and terrorism while you're at it?
Well, there's tons of evidence of Saddam supporting Palestinian terrorists, tons of evidence of Al-Qaeda being behind much of the "resistance operations"- what else do you need, pray tell? Their confession? There's plenty of it as well.
Could you please point to the "tons of evidence" of a link between Iraq and Al-Queda, prior to the bombing of Iraq.These are the kinds of rhetorical games the Bush adminstration plays--it is true that Hussein paid money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, and it is true that there is mounting evidence that al-Qaeda has now established a foothold in Iraq, so there's technically no lie in the above statement. It is misleading, however, because the inference is that both situations were happening at the same time, when in fact they weren't. It's that kind of linkage that is so disturbing, because it's part of the reason (along with the spreading of rumor as truth by the major media outlets) that a majority of Americans still believe Iraq had something to do with the 9-11 attacks.

Perhaps the idea that homeland security begins at home is unnatural to you, but it makes a lot of sense to many of us.
Makes perfect sense to me.

But this BS statement that this is "appeasement" of Al Qaeda makes as much sense as it is accusing GW of appeasing Osama because he has shifted the troops out of Saudi Arabia and into Iraq at a time when the removal from Saudi was the topmost demand of al qaeda.
Actually Al-Queda wants American troops out of ALL Arab lands, including Iraq. This would include the US bases still in Bahrain and Quatar

The latest news from MSNBC:

Powell no longer sure that Iraqi trailers were weapons labs.

Top U.S. diplomat concedes presentation to U.N. may have been wrong.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4654048/

From the same article:

Powell’s dramatic case to the Security Council that Iraq had secret arsenals of weapons of mass destruction failed to persuade the council to directly back the U.S.-led war that deposed the Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. But it helped mobilize sentiment among the American people for going to war.
It also failed to persuade several of Americas' allies to join the "coalition of the willing".

Time to withdraw before it gets worse?

because, the way I see it, it may have an indirect impact on my country too.
What country would that be ...Israel or America?

The latest news from MSNBC:

Powell no longer sure that Iraqi trailers were weapons labs.

Top U.S. diplomat concedes presentation to U.N. may have been wrong.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4654048/

From the same article:

Powell’s dramatic case to the Security Council that Iraq had secret arsenals of weapons of mass destruction failed to persuade the council to directly back the U.S.-led war that deposed the Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. [b]But it helped mobilize sentiment among the American people for going to war.
It also failed to persuade several of Americas' allies to join the "coalition of the willing".

Time to withdraw before it gets worse?[/quote]
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

No surprises there for some of us eh? I agree with the sentiment of your post but I disagree that it's 'time to withdraw'. Having invaded a country, killed thousands of innocents, destroyed an already fragile infrastructure, broken its already crippled economy, we have a duty to stay until law and order is restored, the infrastructure is rebuilt, and a proper, viable government is well seated in place. If an Arab country or even Israel had done the bombing and invading, using its 'right' to pre-empt a possible future attack and the destruction of (non existant) WMD, the US would be making the same noises the rest of the world is now. Or maybe even doing another Iraq war 1 to kick the aggressor out. See, America thought Iraq posed a danger so America attacked. America doesn't cede that 'right' to anyone else. Is it at all possible that the reason for increased Muslim terror is understandable? King George has made America and other places less safe. Thank you Mr. President, I hope to see you out of a job, like many of your countrymen and women, come November.

because, the way I see it, it may have an indirect impact on my country too.
What country would that be ...Israel or America?

From what I gather he's talking about Israel.

Nothing to do with Iraq had any thing to do with America.. we ALL know that now.. even the Bush administration is all but admitting it on the most part.. they screwed up. Blaming bad Intel.. yadda yadda yadda .. What amazes me is why people are still defending it when they even themselves now say it was based on bad/false Intel. Can't people just admit when a mistake was made? Sheesh.

My favourite new analogy this week is.. "Hey Iran attacked us, let's go invade Russia" because it makes about as much sense.

because, the way I see it, it may have an indirect impact on my country too.
What country would that be ...Israel or America?

From what I gather he's talking about Israel.

Nothing to do with Iraq had any thing to do with America.. we ALL know that now.. even the Bush administration is all but admitting it on the most part.. they screwed up. Blaming bad Intel.. yadda yadda yadda .. What amazes me is why people are still defending it when they even themselves now say it was based on bad/false Intel. Can't people just admit when a mistake was made? Sheesh.

My favourite new analogy this week is.. "Hey Iran attacked us, let's go invade Russia" because it makes about as much sense.
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

Exactly, except it wouldn't be Russia because they can fight back. Just like North Korea, the real potential danger. At least to American eyes.