NationStates Jolt Archive

We all saw what happened in spain on March 11th, just before their elections. Terrorists (of still undetermined affiliation) attacked Madrid, and managed to convince just enough people to change their vote to "let's get out of Iraq" and elect the Socialist party.

There is a bloody good chance that another terrorist attack will hit the US in the next 6 months.

My question is, given the American sense of Resolve and getting-tough-when-the-going-gets-roughness, will the potential attack have an effect on the elections?

If it does have an effect, in whose favor will it be in? Democrats or Republicans? Or maybe, for some screwey reason, will it have the power to kick some unknown independant up into lead?

Just something to think about.

If the US main land is attacked again like 911, it will only strengthen the American resolve to destroy terrorism.

The American reaction after 911, was swift, and without mercy.

As a Canadian looking at the situation from the outside, I feel sorry for any one that would be stupid enough to try and hit the US again. It will only cause to people of the US to rally behind their govenment. Just like they did after 911.

I dont think that more peole will vote for Bush, If the US gets attacked again, if thats what you mean.
Both candidates are very serious about protecting the U.S, its pretty much the biggest issue.
I dont think it would have much of any effect, except perhaps more people would vote.
For both candidates.

On the other hand......if the US did get hit again..it mught be a bad reflection on Bush...
Remember this is the guy who vowed to protect us from this happening again..and if it DID on his watch.....it may have a very negative effect.
I hope we dont have to find out.

The people of Spain had never supported involvment in Iraq.

I dont think that more peole will vote for Bush, If the US gets attacked again, if thats what you mean.
Both candidates are very serious about protecting the U.S, its pretty much the biggest issue.
I dont think it would have much of any effect, except perhaps more people would vote.
For both candidates.

On the other hand......if the US did get hit again..it mught be a bad reflection on Bush...
Remember this is the guy who vowed to protect us from this happening again..and if it DID on his watch.....it may have a very negative effect.
I hope we dont have to find out.Good point. Imagine the bad rap Bush would get for having the Patriot act etc. in place and STILL get attacked.

The patriot act does surprisingly little to actually prevent terrorism. t is loaded with unrelated material and shameless pork.

The more I think about it....the more that I think it would ensure Kerry's election.
Many people might start thinking.."Well...look at all Bush did..and he still couldnt protect us....maybe its time for someone else?"

As much as I want to see Kerry get elected..I'd rather not have that happen.

The patriot act does surprisingly little to actually prevent terrorism. t is loaded with unrelated material and shameless pork.The patriot act is a manner of gathering better intelligence.

It does not do much to actually stop the attacks with force though. Even if we know about something, that doesn't always mean we can stop it.

The more I think about it....the more that I think it would ensure Kerry's election.
Many people might start thinking.."Well...look at all Bush did..and he still couldnt protect us....maybe its time for someone else?"

As much as I want to see Kerry get elected..I'd rather not have that happen.I still think that, just like 9/11, there's still going to be some factor that we either overlook, or fail to do something about.

Frankly, I just trust Bush more with matters of defense. kerry second guesses himself and never gets anything accomplished.

The more I think about it....the more that I think it would ensure Kerry's election.
Many people might start thinking.."Well...look at all Bush did..and he still couldnt protect us....maybe its time for someone else?"

As much as I want to see Kerry get elected..I'd rather not have that happen.I tend to agree with you--if the public has time to think about it. That's the real issue here--time.

If the public has time to consider the implications of the attack--that despite two wars and billions of dollars in deficit spending and the Patriot Act we still got popped on our own soil--then Bush is toast easily. It's a 50 state landslide and Kerry wins 60-40 in the popular vote.

But if it hits closer to the election--say early October, maybe even late September--and the American people don't have time to consider the implications and the Democratic party rolls up into a ball afterwards like they did after 9-11 and the press gets back on its knees for Bush (and that all so very very possible), the Bush could win in a walk as well.

I would never accuse the Bush administration of trying such a ploy--deliberately allowing an attack close to an election--because while I have no doubt there are individuals who are capable of such monstrosity, I don't think it's a sure enough bet to work to take the chance of destroying the party (not to mention being executed for treason if they get busted).

The more I think about it....the more that I think it would ensure Kerry's election.
Many people might start thinking.."Well...look at all Bush did..and he still couldnt protect us....maybe its time for someone else?"

As much as I want to see Kerry get elected..I'd rather not have that happen.I still think that, just like 9/11, there's still going to be some factor that we either overlook, or fail to do something about.

Frankly, I just trust Bush more with matters of defense. kerry second guesses himself and never gets anything accomplished.

Hindsight as they say....is always 20/20.

Lets not turn this into a Bush/Kerry debate...theres already too many of those.

Kerry has actual combat and military experience, so he probably knows more about military goings-on than bush does.

Bush has very intense ideas about how to deal with terrorism, but Im just not sure they are the right ones..

As for another terror attack..its inevitable im afraid, but this is the situation we have alloowd our leaders to put us in...that includes Kerry, to a lesser degree.
The question is..what will they likely outcome be in the next election..and It wont bode well for Bush Im afraid.
Ill tidings for Bush are fine with me...but not at the exspense of American lives.

Whatever happens..it will go very badly for the next group of idiots who do attack us..thats certain.

The more I think about it....the more that I think it would ensure Kerry's election.
Many people might start thinking.."Well...look at all Bush did..and he still couldnt protect us....maybe its time for someone else?"

As much as I want to see Kerry get elected..I'd rather not have that happen.I tend to agree with you--if the public has time to think about it. That's the real issue here--time.

If the public has time to consider the implications of the attack--that despite two wars and billions of dollars in deficit spending and the Patriot Act we still got popped on our own soil--then Bush is toast easily. It's a 50 state landslide and Kerry wins 60-40 in the popular vote.

But if it hits closer to the election--say early October, maybe even late September--and the American people don't have time to consider the implications and the Democratic party rolls up into a ball afterwards like they did after 9-11 and the press gets back on its knees for Bush (and that all so very very possible), the Bush could win in a walk as well.

I would never accuse the Bush administration of trying such a ploy--deliberately allowing an attack close to an election--because while I have no doubt there are individuals who are capable of such monstrosity, I don't think it's a sure enough bet to work to take the chance of destroying the party (not to mention being executed for treason if they get busted).Good point.

But even Bush said that we wouldn't be immediately terror-proof as soon as we get done with Afghanistan and Iraq... the War on Terror will be a very long war.

And during a war, sometimes you get attacked.

Now, if we all go with the democracts and back out of the war on terror... then how on Earth does that do us any GOOD?

Whatever happens..it will go very badly for the next group of idiots who do attack us..thats certain.Very much agreed :)

The more I think about it....the more that I think it would ensure Kerry's election.
Many people might start thinking.."Well...look at all Bush did..and he still couldnt protect us....maybe its time for someone else?"

As much as I want to see Kerry get elected..I'd rather not have that happen.I tend to agree with you--if the public has time to think about it. That's the real issue here--time.

If the public has time to consider the implications of the attack--that despite two wars and billions of dollars in deficit spending and the Patriot Act we still got popped on our own soil--then Bush is toast easily. It's a 50 state landslide and Kerry wins 60-40 in the popular vote.

But if it hits closer to the election--say early October, maybe even late September--and the American people don't have time to consider the implications and the Democratic party rolls up into a ball afterwards like they did after 9-11 and the press gets back on its knees for Bush (and that all so very very possible), the Bush could win in a walk as well.

I would never accuse the Bush administration of trying such a ploy--deliberately allowing an attack close to an election--because while I have no doubt there are individuals who are capable of such monstrosity, I don't think it's a sure enough bet to work to take the chance of destroying the party (not to mention being executed for treason if they get busted).

I dont think that the dems would fail to scream about it..
Look at me....Im not a Democrat, but definately a liberal.....
i just made the connatation that it could be construed that Bush would be "asleep at the wheel".....what do you think the Dems would say?

They'd scream bloody murder.

And as evil as Bush is.....no..I dont think he would deliberately allow another attack.
I dont think he deliberately allowed 9/11 either......but he may not have done all he could to stop it either...
Hindsight=20/20.......

The more I think about it....the more that I think it would ensure Kerry's election.
Many people might start thinking.."Well...look at all Bush did..and he still couldnt protect us....maybe its time for someone else?"

As much as I want to see Kerry get elected..I'd rather not have that happen.I tend to agree with you--if the public has time to think about it. That's the real issue here--time.

If the public has time to consider the implications of the attack--that despite two wars and billions of dollars in deficit spending and the Patriot Act we still got popped on our own soil--then Bush is toast easily. It's a 50 state landslide and Kerry wins 60-40 in the popular vote.

But if it hits closer to the election--say early October, maybe even late September--and the American people don't have time to consider the implications and the Democratic party rolls up into a ball afterwards like they did after 9-11 and the press gets back on its knees for Bush (and that all so very very possible), the Bush could win in a walk as well.

I would never accuse the Bush administration of trying such a ploy--deliberately allowing an attack close to an election--because while I have no doubt there are individuals who are capable of such monstrosity, I don't think it's a sure enough bet to work to take the chance of destroying the party (not to mention being executed for treason if they get busted).Good point.

But even Bush said that we wouldn't be immediately terror-proof as soon as we get done with Afghanistan and Iraq... the War on Terror will be a very long war.

And during a war, sometimes you get attacked.

Now, if we all go with the democracts and back out of the war on terror... then how on Earth does that do us any GOOD?

I think the point is.....at what point to you say..."the casualties are too high"...

the problem with persuing the "war on terror" is when you start having many many innocent lives being taken....
Think about it...

If we were garaunteed another 9/11 every year....for as long as this campaign lasts.......is it worth it to bomb the shit out of another country that may, or may not be responsible?

The answer gets a little harder to justify doesnt it?

Whatever happens..it will go very badly for the next group of idiots who do attack us..thats certain.
Yeah, cuz we will nuke that ass

Good point.

But even Bush said that we wouldn't be immediately terror-proof as soon as we get done with Afghanistan and Iraq... the War on Terror will be a very long war.

And during a war, sometimes you get attacked.

Now, if we all go with the democracts and back out of the war on terror... then how on Earth does that do us any GOOD?I'm going to try to keep from getting excited and tearing you a new asshole for that last remark, but in case I don't--too bad. No apology.

You are correct that Bush did say we wouldn't be terror proof--and that might be the one thing that saves him, assuming that the materials from the attack didn't get smuggled in through the cargo containers that every security expert on both sides has been warning about for two years, and if it happens to be nuclear, that it didn't come from the stocks of the former USSR that we were allowed to purchase under cooperative threat reduction agreements and then were unfunded by the Republican Congress. In other words--as long as the terrorists manage to get through one of the security holes that hasn't been mentioned already, then Bush might come out okay, although that's still iffy inmy book.

Now as to your last crack--Democrats don't want to back of the war on terror. For one thing, the war on terror doesn't exist--terror is a tactic, not an enemy. We are at war with radical Islamists, epsecially the group known as al-Qaeda, and the difference between the them and "terror" is massive. Calling this was a war on "terror" is a rhetorical trick meant to keep the public frightened.

And as to the war on al-Qaeda, Democrats certainly do want to continue to fight that war. Unfortunately, we now have to fight a two front war because of the boneheadedness of the president--one on al-Qaeda and one in Iraq. And the two are not the same. Kerry has already said we won't pull out of Iraq anytime soon if he's President. We owe them whatever they need to get their society up and running again.

So try your rhetorical crap elsewhere--we're not backing down anymore. You and your buddies on the right-wing picked the wrong time to take us on--we're pissed off and not taking it anymore and you folks are going down.

Whatever happens..it will go very badly for the next group of idiots who do attack us..thats certain.
Yeah, cuz we will nuke that ass

Thats what Im afraid of.

The thing is....

Having a nuke is a far better thing than to actually use it.

Once you actually USE one..all bets are off..and the world gets really jumpy.

The more I think about it....the more that I think it would ensure Kerry's election.
Many people might start thinking.."Well...look at all Bush did..and he still couldnt protect us....maybe its time for someone else?"

As much as I want to see Kerry get elected..I'd rather not have that happen.I tend to agree with you--if the public has time to think about it. That's the real issue here--time.

If the public has time to consider the implications of the attack--that despite two wars and billions of dollars in deficit spending and the Patriot Act we still got popped on our own soil--then Bush is toast easily. It's a 50 state landslide and Kerry wins 60-40 in the popular vote.

But if it hits closer to the election--say early October, maybe even late September--and the American people don't have time to consider the implications and the Democratic party rolls up into a ball afterwards like they did after 9-11 and the press gets back on its knees for Bush (and that all so very very possible), the Bush could win in a walk as well.

I would never accuse the Bush administration of trying such a ploy--deliberately allowing an attack close to an election--because while I have no doubt there are individuals who are capable of such monstrosity, I don't think it's a sure enough bet to work to take the chance of destroying the party (not to mention being executed for treason if they get busted).Good point.

But even Bush said that we wouldn't be immediately terror-proof as soon as we get done with Afghanistan and Iraq... the War on Terror will be a very long war.

And during a war, sometimes you get attacked.

Now, if we all go with the democracts and back out of the war on terror... then how on Earth does that do us any GOOD?

I think the point is.....at what point to you say..."the casualties are too high"...

the problem with persuing the "war on terror" is when you start having many many innocent lives being taken....
Think about it...

If we were garaunteed another 9/11 every year....for as long as this campaign lasts.......is it worth it to bomb the shit out of another country that may, or may not be responsible?

The answer gets a little harder to justify doesnt it?I still stand proud of the fact that the average Iraqi death rate per year is far less under US control than it ever was under Saddam.

But as for your point, you seem to have this idea that anyone we attack has no affect on the actual terrorists. YOu fail to see that these guys ARE organized, and that we have crippled over half, if not 3/4 of their hierarchy. It's a good start, but it is by no means over.

Whatever happens..it will go very badly for the next group of idiots who do attack us..thats certain.
Yeah, cuz we will nuke that ass

Thats what Im afraid of.

The thing is....

Having a nuke is a far better thing than to actually use it.

Once you actually USE one..all bets are off..and the world gets really jumpy.Ignore that guy.

Everyone knows we would never really use our nukes. They're just a determent... MAD (Mutually assured destruction... in case the enemy has an advantage over us, they can't use it, because they know we'll just level them back, and no one gets anywhere)

You all should Read "A brief History of the Human Race"

Whatever happens..it will go very badly for the next group of idiots who do attack us..thats certain.
Yeah, cuz we will nuke that ass

Thats what Im afraid of.

The thing is....

Having a nuke is a far better thing than to actually use it.

Once you actually USE one..all bets are off..and the world gets really jumpy.
I dont know about that, Japan stopped jumping after we dropped two of them.

You all should Read "A brief History of the Human Race"...summary?

Everyone knows we would never really use our nukes. They're just a determent... MAD (Mutually assured destruction... in case the enemy has an advantage over us, they can't use it, because they know we'll just level them back, and no one gets anywhere)That's the case for now--but the Bush administration is funding research into so-called "battlefield nukes" which are lower yield than the missiles warheads we currently have. That scares me, because if someone actually gets it into his head that these things are usable, we're one step closer to that Armageddon scenario that Squatches was worried about.

Whatever happens..it will go very badly for the next group of idiots who do attack us..thats certain.
Yeah, cuz we will nuke that ass

Thats what Im afraid of.

The thing is....

Having a nuke is a far better thing than to actually use it.

Once you actually USE one..all bets are off..and the world gets really jumpy.
I dont know about that, Japan stopped jumping after we dropped two of them.Guess that's a good thing, because we didn't have any mroe after we dropped those two. And neither did anyone else--so I guess you analogy isn't worth very much after all, is it?

Whatever happens..it will go very badly for the next group of idiots who do attack us..thats certain.
Yeah, cuz we will nuke that ass

Thats what Im afraid of.

The thing is....

Having a nuke is a far better thing than to actually use it.

Once you actually USE one..all bets are off..and the world gets really jumpy.
I dont know about that, Japan stopped jumping after we dropped two of them.Yeah, but that's cuz they didn't know what hit 'em, and they were convinced we had more.

Nowadays, and ever since the Cold war... if anyone, anywhere, fires a nuke, EVERYONE fires a nuke, and then the world is destroyed, in like under a week, if not less.

That's why it's so important to make sure terrorists don't get nukes, or WMDs, because if they use them on us, then we don't have anyone to nuke back.

Everyone knows we would never really use our nukes. They're just a determent... MAD (Mutually assured destruction... in case the enemy has an advantage over us, they can't use it, because they know we'll just level them back, and no one gets anywhere)That's the case for now--but the Bush administration is funding research into so-called "battlefield nukes" which are lower yield than the missiles warheads we currently have. That scares me, because if someone actually gets it into his head that these things are usable, we're one step closer to that Armageddon scenario that Squatches was worried about.I'd rather have a destruction of an enemy base with one missile than a destruction of an enemy base + an extra million civillian casualties.

Either way, I'd trade every nuke in the world for 10,000 "actually smart" bombs.

That's why it's so important to make sure terrorists don't get nukes, or WMDs, because if they use them on us, then we don't have anyone to nuke back.

Heres the scary thing Raysia.....

At the end of the previous century..there were known to be about 20 handheld nuclear devices.....(guess who made them?)

The whereabouts of 11....can be accounted for.


We all know that Al-Qeada really really wants one.......

Whats the possibilty that they DO?

Or some other nut-job organization?

Maybe NOW you understand why the Clinton administration was so interested in Al-Qeada?

Guess that's a good thing, because we didn't have any mroe after we dropped those two. And neither did anyone else--so I guess you analogy isn't worth very much after all, is it?
how is it not worth much? the Japs didn't know we were out of A-bombs.

Besides, I am not a big fan of the MAD way of thinking, I am more of a Mutual Assured Security (MAS) kinda guy.

Maybe NOW you understand why the Clinton administration was so interested in Al-Qeada?
yeah, he was intrested, but he didn't do shit but send cruise missles into abandoned training camps.

Guess that's a good thing, because we didn't have any more after we dropped those two. And neither did anyone else--so I guess your analogy isn't worth very much after all, is it?
how is it not worth much? the Japs didn't know we were out of A-bombs.

Besides, I am not a big fan of the MAD way of thinking, I am more of a Mutual Assured Security (MAS) kinda guy.Because MAD requires that both sides have the weapons--the Japanese didn't have them and thus had no way to retaliate. They stopped jumping, as you so eloquently put it, because they felt outgunned.

But the discussion prior to that was about nukes today--and there are countries that could conceivably retaliate. Not with enough firepower to destroy the US, perhaps, but they could still inflict major damage.

But as to your last point, I'm in favor of MAS as well. That's part of the reason I oppose the battlefield nukes idea.

Maybe NOW you understand why the Clinton administration was so interested in Al-Qeada?
yeah, he was intrested, but he didn't do shit but send cruise missles into abandoned training camps.

Your a boob.

He also dumped a big fully detailed dosseir on Bush's desk detailing all the information they had on AQ....
wich included the knowledge that AQ were going to use Planes to attack buildings......

thats pretty accurate isnt it?

Maybe NOW you understand why the Clinton administration was so interested in Al-Qeada?
yeah, he was intrested, but he didn't do shit but send cruise missles into abandoned training camps.The training camps weren't abandoned--they just didn't have the higher-ups there anymore.

And why was it that Clinton couldn't be more aggressive against al-Qaeda again? What's that term? Oh yeah--wagging the dog. And the Republican party has the balls to say Clinton wasn't trying to do anything about al-Qaeda.

Maybe NOW you understand why the Clinton administration was so interested in Al-Qeada?
yeah, he was intrested, but he didn't do shit but send cruise missles into abandoned training camps.

Your a boob.

He also dumped a big fully detailed dosseir on Bush's desk detailing all the information they had on AQ....
wich included the knowledge that AQ were going to use Planes to attack buildings......

thats pretty accurate isnt it?
you seriously need to read this article about what intel the clinton administration knew about al-queada

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040426-612309,00.html

And why was it that Clinton couldn't be more aggressive against al-Qaeda again? What's that term? Oh yeah--wagging the dog. And the Republican party has the balls to say Clinton wasn't trying to do anything about al-Qaeda.
Hey, Clinton wagged the dog pretty damn well to get NAFTA and WTO passed by the republican congress. And what is causing outsourcing, the thing that has made Americans lose their jobs to overseas, NAFTA and the WTO.

Wagging the dog works both ways

But as to your last point, I'm in favor of MAS as well. That's part of the reason I oppose the battlefield nukes idea.
battlefield nukes was a stupid idea to begin with. if people feel the amount of radiation from DU rounds is too much, even the smallest nuke thrown onto the battlefield would make the whole world turn against the side that used it. what makes this more amazing is the fact that the USSR made an atomic mortar round. I believe it is fired from a 240mm mortar. that is just plain stupid.

MAD worked back in the cold war, MAS is the way to go now.

We all saw what happened in spain on March 11th, just before their elections. Terrorists (of still undetermined affiliation) attacked Madrid, and managed to convince just enough people to change their vote to "let's get out of Iraq" and elect the Socialist party.

There is a bloody good chance that another terrorist attack will hit the US in the next 6 months.

My question is, given the American sense of Resolve and getting-tough-when-the-going-gets-roughness, will the potential attack have an effect on the elections?

If it does have an effect, in whose favor will it be in? Democrats or Republicans? Or maybe, for some screwey reason, will it have the power to kick some unknown independant up into lead?

Just something to think about.

What? I mean, what? Sorry, pal, but that's not quite what happened here in Spain.

Around 90% of Spanish people were against the war - and that includes the majority of Popular Party voters. It was obvious the PP was going to lose some power. Agreed, they were still supposed to win the election, and after March 11th Madrid bombs, they didn't. Why was that?

Well it's not likely any right-wing supporter would change his/her vote. Also, it's not likely any leftist would vote PP. So what made the difference? If you followed the March 14th Spanish Election, you'd know it was a success because it reached the top on number of people voting. Those people that usually doesn't care at all to wake up early on a sunday morning to go and vote made the difference.

Right-wing are solid. Only one party, with great discipline. Right-wind voters are people who supports their as a duty, so obviously they never miss an election. It's like going to church every sunday.

Leftists in Spain are, since before the Spanish Civil War, scattered onto different parties quarreling between them all the time. The stronger is the PSOE, but their ideals are 'not so leftist'. Many people would vote Izquierda Unida, but they are not a real alternative. Results: most of the people who would vote left end up not voting at all.

That was the real difference this time: all those people who does not usually vote, this time they did. And they supported the only alternative to PP. It's not that PSOE won, it's more than PP lose, because the Spanish people wanted to 'punish' them.

Maybe NOW you understand why the Clinton administration was so interested in Al-Qeada?
yeah, he was intrested, but he didn't do shit but send cruise missles into abandoned training camps.

Your a boob.

He also dumped a big fully detailed dosseir on Bush's desk detailing all the information they had on AQ....
wich included the knowledge that AQ were going to use Planes to attack buildings......

thats pretty accurate isnt it?
you seriously need to read this article about what intel the clinton administration knew about al-queada

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040426-612309,00.html

I dont see anything in that article that says anything different taht what Ive stated.

In fact....It says that Clinton sat down with Bush an told him flat-out that Bin Laden would be his #1 security threat.
Funny...that Bush chose to go into Iraq instead of finishing the job eh?

We all saw what happened in spain on March 11th, just before their elections. Terrorists (of still undetermined affiliation) attacked Madrid, and managed to convince just enough people to change their vote to "let's get out of Iraq" and elect the Socialist party.

not exactly. first off, something on the order of 80-90% of the country was/is opposed to the invasion and occupation of iraq. secondly, the psoe fell out of power in 1996 due to corruption scandals and being a bit too tough on terrorists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAL) (after dominating the post-franco national political scene). which means that the pp wasn't in because they were all that popular but because the other guys were viewed as corrupt assholes.

the complaint i've heard from spanish people is based around aznar and the pp's handling of the bombings. people felt that they were trying to shift the focus to eta despite evidence linking it to islamic extremists as part of a political strategy. add that to getting into a war that nobody wanted, and it becomes time to punish the party by voting for the other guys.

secondly, the psoe fell out of power in 1996 due to corruption scandals and being a bit too tough on terrorists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAL) (after dominating the post-franco national political scene). which means that the pp wasn't in because they were all that popular but because the other guys were viewed as corrupt assholes.


Finally, someone that seems to have read something about what happened in Spain during at least last 15 years. You're right, corruption was one of the main things that made the PSOE lose the government. But I think that the main reason was because they never fulfilled any political promise. People here got tired of waiting for that bright new Spain that the PSOE said they were going to build.


the complaint i've heard from spanish people is based around aznar and the pp's handling of the bombings. people felt that they were trying to shift the focus to eta despite evidence linking it to islamic extremists as part of a political strategy. add that to getting into a war that nobody wanted, and it becomes time to punish the party by voting for the other guys.

It's not that people 'felt' that way. You probably heard the news; the PP government tried to convince every foreign media that ETA was behind the bombings. They even went to the UN saying that, and you know it is the first time the UN has to take back their own words...

Add to that what happened with the Prestige, and the overall rejection of anything EU related, and you'll get the reason why Spanish people kicked the PP out of the government.

In my opinion, an attack leading up to the election would have the effect of moving people to vote for the person that would do whatever is necessary to destroy those responsible and those who protect or hide them. In my view, and from what I've seen the view of a majority of Americans, that man is Bush. I don't particularly like Bush. I think his "moral crusading" and his economic policies are poor. But, like him or not. Think what you will about the war in Iraq. Bush would stop at nothing to get a look at the brains of those responsible. He wouldn't ask the UN for permission. He wouldn't care which nation's nose got bent out of shape over it. He'd have them killed and everyone who hid and supported them. I really hope that there is no terrorist attack in the US before the election or ever. But if there is one, duck! All hell's going to break loose. I don't think that would help anyone or end terrorism but it would happen and in the short run, sometimes revenge is good enough.

Finally, someone that seems to have read something about what happened in Spain during at least last 15 years. You're right, corruption was one of the main things that made the PSOE lose the government. But I think that the main reason was because they never fulfilled any political promise. People here got tired of waiting for that bright new Spain that the PSOE said they were going to build.

well, unlike many people i tend to think knowing something of the context of an situation is a good idea before spouting off about it. though i wish i knew it all in more detail.


the complaint i've heard from spanish people is based around aznar and the pp's handling of the bombings. people felt that they were trying to shift the focus to eta despite evidence linking it to islamic extremists as part of a political strategy.

It's not that people 'felt' that way. You probably heard the news; the PP government tried to convince every foreign media that ETA was behind the bombings. They even went to the UN saying that, and you know it is the first time the UN has to take back their own words...

yeah, what i meant by 'felt' is not that they were acting on emotion so much as making a connection that americans wouldn't. i mean, there's barely any outrage here and they've all but admitted that they really just wanted to start a war. it sometimes seems that europeans in general are much more likely to believe their leaders are lying assholes than americans.

it sometimes seems that europeans in general are much more likely to believe their leaders are lying assholes than americans.

I don't believe they are lying assholes. I know they are :wink:

I don't believe they are lying assholes. I know they are :wink:

heh

over here, its amazing the lengths people will go to so they won't have to acknowledge that fact. we've got some of the most spectacular examples of doublethink ever around these parts.

Doublethink. Sounds so... Orwellish.

Everyone knows we would never really use our nukes. They're just a determent... MAD (Mutually assured destruction... in case the enemy has an advantage over us, they can't use it, because they know we'll just level them back, and no one gets anywhere)That's the case for now--but the Bush administration is funding research into so-called "battlefield nukes" which are lower yield than the missiles warheads we currently have. That scares me, because if someone actually gets it into his head that these things are usable, we're one step closer to that Armageddon scenario that Squatches was worried about.I'd rather have a destruction of an enemy base with one missile than a destruction of an enemy base + an extra million civillian casualties.

Either way, I'd trade every nuke in the world for 10,000 "actually smart" bombs.

I would say a genuine artificial intelligence in a bomb is very likely to be a pacifist.

As for MAD, there is no consequence of not launching the missles that is greater than the consequence of launching the missles, but that doesn't mean that there are not people batshit crazy enough to launch them anyway.