They bombed Madrid because they are terrorists, who want to kill and frighten people. They bombed Madrid to punish Spain for going to Iraq. The Spanish did the right thing. They didn't cave into terrorists. They moved their troops from an unjust war to a just one. The just one deals with going after terrorists who caused 9/11 and the forces that supported them. The unjust one didn't have anything to do with that initially but our presence brought in all those terrorist elements. The fact is that Spain would still be in Iraq if the ruling party hadn't lied to the people and been removed in favor of a party that wanted out of Iraq.
That's what I said. But they didn't do "the right thing" until the terrorists pushed their buttons. A different set of terrorists for sure, but Iraq was ruled by terrorists when we ousted Saddam. So the bombing did make all the difference? If that's not "caving" I don't know what is...
no... that's why the keep wanting to terrorize US assets, but we've been keeping them at bay. I'm afraid it is only time. The world is large.
you are linking causality where there is none. The fact that they pulled out of Iraq after the bombing does not mean the bombing caused it. What caused it was the party in favor losing the elctions. They didn't lose the elections because of the bombing either. They lost because they lied about those bombings. That is the cause, not the bombings themselves. The bombing did not make all the difference. Lying about the bombing made the difference. Again because they did the right thing after the terrorists bomb, doesn't show that the terrorists caused them to do the right thing. The terrorists love us staying in Iraq. It is a great centerpiece to hang their campaign on. You are using the old logic flaw. First - My dog pooped in the house. Then - It stopped raining. Conclusion - My dog's poop can stop rain. Because two things happen in a certain sequence does not mean one causes the other. That is especially true when other evidence points to different causes.
I'm saying goodwill that doesn't have any real effects is meaningless. If the goodwill can't get someone to do something that they wouldn't have done anyway (or not do something they were planning to do) then it is just words. Not so much to submit to the will of the other country, maybe just to give them the benefit of the doubt. If America polls at 10% or 90% in Europe, but there are no material differences, then I don't give a **** which way it swings. At that point, you are just talking about being popular.
Lisa: “By your logic, I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.” Homer: “Hmm; how does it work?” Lisa: “It doesn’t work; it’s just a stupid rock!” Homer: “Uh-huh.” Lisa: “... but I don’t see any tigers around, do you?” Homer: “Lisa, I want to buy your rock...”
Considering that, maybe with the exception of right wing survivalist wackos, all plots to attack the US have originated in or transited through places abroad, that's a rather short-sighted view to take. The world is a lot more interconnected than you wish to believe.
The bombing was related to the issue of being in Iraq; it was not unrelated like these other silly examples involving dog poop and rocks.
If I go around poking a hornets nest and I get stung should I say that well I'm not going to bullied and intimidated by those hornets and keep on poking the hornets? Terrorism doesn't just happen in a vacuum. There is almost noone whose sole cause is terror. In the end any reaction to an act of terror has to be considered with broader goals. Spain had very little interest in going to Iraq in the first place other than to support the US and the Spanish electorate realized that it continuing to support that Iraqi policy was costly to them in the long run with little benefit.
Good will doesn't mean you surrender your will. If my neighbor's house gets burned down because of faulty wiring out of goodwill I might put him and his family up give him some clothes and food and maybe some money if his insurance doesn't pay out. If he decides that he's going to make the electrician who put in the faulty wiring pay by burning his house down I'm not just going to go along with my neighbor out of goodwill.
Have all plots to attack the United States originated in countries where the United States was unpopular, or merely from people who did not like the United States? I think the existance of the OKC bombings show that even in a country that has extraordinary goodwill for the United States (in that case, the US itself) there is the potential for violence to occur. 9/11 occured before we invaded Iraq and after we came to the aid of an Arab nation to resist the invasion of a dictator unpopular among those who perpetrated the attacks (al Queda specifically and Muslim extremists in general). In fact, the invasion of Iraq weakened Saddam (who was opposed to al Queda), strengthened the Mullahs in Iraq (who are ideologically similar to al Queda), and should result in our exit from Saudi Arabia (which was the #1 complaint of Osama bin Laden). So, if anything, the war in Iraq should appease those who have shown a willingness to attack us, but it has not. Maybe we should decide what we feel is the right thing to do, and everyone else is free to decide how they feel about it. I certainly don't want to abdicate American foreign policy decisions to non-Americans.
Well, they should because as I understand it the Islamo-fascists would have Spain (again) as part of their empire. Get ready to embrace Sharia Law amigos and amigas!
