POLITICAL ISSUES

[Harlan Huckleby]

Ziggy's point was that the terrorist attacks in Madrid and London were motivated by the fact that the Spanish and British governments were participating in the "coalition," and that the attacks were intended to create an even strong popular opposition to the war in those countries. What exactly are you objecting to in that view?

You're probably right that the terrorists were motivated to sway public opinion. And it's to the Spaniard's (especially) eternal disgrace that they caved so quickly and completely to terrorist pressure.

The IRaq War was a bad misstep in the fight against terrorism. But it certainly became a centrally front even if it was of our own creation.

It's important to keep in mind that terrorists are not active in Europe because of United States policy. I know you didn't state that, but some may take that implication.

There's nothing we can do about Europe. If they don't want to send troops to Afghanistan, its probably because they figured out that they can get away with it. But I think the European governments are far more vulnerable to terrorism than we are, and our expending greater efforts than us to combat it domestically.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I can't figure out what you're trying to say here. Ziggy's point was that the terrorist attacks in Madrid and London were motivated by the fact that the Spanish and British governments were participating in the "coalition," and that the attacks were intended to create an even strong popular opposition to the war in those countries. What exactly are you objecting to in that view?

Ummm... What's so hard to figure out? She was implying that Spain and England were attacked because they supported us. Yet, there was no answer to why countries that didn't support us were also attacked--other than switching the criteria to Western democracies instead of just supporters of the U.S.

[hoosier]

You're probably right that the terrorists were motivated to sway public opinion. And it's to the Spaniard's (especially) eternal disgrace that they caved so quickly and completely to terrorist pressure.

Granted this point is only marginally related to the discussion at hand, but I have to say that you've bought into a sadly mistaken version of things in Spain. Aznar didn't lose the election because the Spanish people "caved in." The Partido Popular lost because they got caught in a clumsy lie: that the Madrid attacks were carried out by ETA. The PP thought that version of things would drum up more popular support for a party with a rep for being tough on (Basque) terrorism. When it quickly became pretty clear that ETA wasn't behind the attacks, the PP (deservedly) screwed itself.

[hoosier]

I can't figure out what you're trying to say here. Ziggy's point was that the terrorist attacks in Madrid and London were motivated by the fact that the Spanish and British governments were participating in the "coalition," and that the attacks were intended to create an even strong popular opposition to the war in those countries. What exactly are you objecting to in that view?

Ummm... What's so hard to figure out? She was implying that Spain and England were attacked because they supported us. Yet, there was no answer to why countries that didn't support us were also attacked--other than switching the criteria to Western democracies instead of just supporters of the U.S.

She wasn't talking about all European terrorism, only about two cases where the attacks were clearly designed in response to national government support for US. Saying that doesn't mean one thinks all terrorist attacks in Europe share the same motives, or that the US is to blame for the attacks.

[Tarlam!]

(..)there was no answer to why countries that didn't support us were also attacked--other than switching the criteria to Western democracies instead of just supporters of the U.S.

Um, apart from Spain and the UK, what other countries were attacked? My memory fails me.... Oh, Indonesia? As in Bali? Yes, well, that would almost be Australia, wouldn't it?

So, apart from those 3, who got attacked?

[HarveyWallbangers]

(..)there was no answer to why countries that didn't support us were also attacked--other than switching the criteria to Western democracies instead of just supporters of the U.S.

Um, apart from Spain and the UK, what other countries were attacked? My memory fails me.... Oh, Indonesia? As in Bali? Yes, well, that would almost be Australia, wouldn't it?

So, apart from those 3, who got attacked?

Terrorist attacks were thwarted in Germany, Denmark (Copenhagen), and Turkey. Al Qaeda posted on their website that they were targetting Euro 2008 in Switzerland. Which of these countries supported the U.S. in Iraq?

Let's be real here. If it isn't one excuse, it's another. Unless you all want to live by strict Muslim edicts, then appeasing the likes of Bin Laden and Al Qaeda is tremendously stupid.

[Tarlam!]

Actually, Turkey was hit.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

What you are describing in gov't handouts is actually called the velocity of money, not the keynsian multiplier.

Exactly. THis has been told to Tex many times, but he still insists on using the "money multiplier" term incorrectly.

Perhaps this is just another reason the "liberals" shy away from "debating" him. When you can't even use correct economic terms, and you have been shown the TEXTBOOK definition, and you still continue to believe you are right...well, what is the point?

[Harlan Huckleby]

You're probably right that the terrorists were motivated to sway public opinion. And it's to the Spaniard's (especially) eternal disgrace that they caved so quickly and completely to terrorist pressure.

Granted this point is only marginally related to the discussion at hand,

You are sounding like an arrogant ass. The topic got to terrorism in Europe, one way or another.

but I have to say that you've bought into a sadly mistaken version of things in Spain.

I know it was a complex situation, but it is not sadly mistaken to suggest that the bombing further hardened public opinion against the Spanish participation in Iraq. Are you suggesting Spaniards became more enthusiastic about fighting Islamic extremism in Iraq & Afghanistan? No, to the contrary. They retreated to isolationism.

And BTW, the politics of what happened in a three-day window between the bombing and election is impossible to know. I just did some reading, there are theories both ways. But that controversy on which I am "sadly mistaken" is besides the big picture.

[MJZiggy]

(..)there was no answer to why countries that didn't support us were also attacked--other than switching the criteria to Western democracies instead of just supporters of the U.S.

Um, apart from Spain and the UK, what other countries were attacked? My memory fails me.... Oh, Indonesia? As in Bali? Yes, well, that would almost be Australia, wouldn't it?

So, apart from those 3, who got attacked?

Terrorist attacks were thwarted in Germany, Denmark (Copenhagen), and Turkey. Al Qaeda posted on their website that they were targetting Euro 2008 in Switzerland. Which of these countries supported the U.S. in Iraq?

Let's be real here. If it isn't one excuse, it's another. Unless you all want to live by strict Muslim edicts, then appeasing the likes of Bin Laden and Al Qaeda is tremendously stupid.

Who said anything about appeasing bin Laden?

[the_idle_threat]

I did. I expect you all to do it immediately.

[hoosier]

You're probably right that the terrorists were motivated to sway public opinion. And it's to the Spaniard's (especially) eternal disgrace that they caved so quickly and completely to terrorist pressure.

Granted this point is only marginally related to the discussion at hand,

You are sounding like an arrogant ass. The topic got to terrorism in Europe, one way or another.

I wasn't being arrogant at all, I was just trying to acknowledge that I was picking on a point that was tangential to the discussion of "blaming the US" for terrorist attacks in Europe. So blow me.

but I have to say that you've bought into a sadly mistaken version of things in Spain.

I know it was a complex situation, but it is not sadly mistaken to suggest that the bombing further hardened public opinion against the Spanish participation in Iraq. Are you suggesting Spaniards became more enthusiastic about fighting Islamic extremism in Iraq & Afghanistan? No, to the contrary. They retreated to isolationism.

And BTW, the politics of what happened in a three-day window between the bombing and election is impossible to know. I just did some reading, there are theories both ways. But that controversy on which I am "sadly mistaken" is besides the big picture.

Yes, it's a complex situation and it's possible to read it both ways. The electoral turn against Aznar was almost certainly in part a rebuke of his party's dishonesty and in part a rejection of his Iraq policy (which, given the circumstances, is "caving"). But I'm sticking to my guns that to paint it as nothing other than shameless caving--which all commentaries in the US press did, and which your initial comment did--is sadly mistaken since it completely obscures the other side of the coin.

Oh, and one more thing: the vote for Zapatero isn't necessarily a vote for isolationism, since Zapatero has consistently declared his support for a strong front against terrorism, albeit through the U.N. If you want to dismiss that position as unrealistic in today's political climate (and therefore as de facto isolationism), you also have to admit that it's the Bushies who have made it unrealistic.

[Bretsky]

Presidential candidates Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and
> John Mc Cain were flying to a debate.
>
>
>
> Barack looked at Hillary, Chuckled and said, 'You know
> I could throw a $1,000 bill out of the window right now and
> make somebody very happy.'
>
> Hillary shrugged her shoulders and replied, 'I could
> throw ten $100 bills out of the window and make ten people
> very happy.'
>
> John added, 'That being the case, I could throw one
> hundred $10 bills out of the window and make a hundred
> people very happy.'
>
> Hearing their exchange, the pilot rolled his eyes and said
> to his copilot, 'Such big-shots back there. I could
> throw all three of them out of the window and make 156
> million people very happy.'

[Harlan Huckleby]

I could
> throw all three of them out of the window and make 156
> million people very happy.'

For you to even mention the subject of assasination during a presidential election season shows what a dispicable human being you truly are.

[Joemailman]

B must be a Bob Barr supporter if he wants all three of them dead.