Appeasement has the expected result

[Nash]

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Both are possible. But the outcome was clear, they voted for the prty they felt would make the terror go away.

See, my thinking says they voted for the party they felt would make the LIES go away.

That's what I need ya to nail down here. Which was it?

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by -tronski-

If spain was easily frightened there would be a basque state in existance there since the late 60's.

 Tronsky

It has nothing to do with national character, I am not implying that at all.

However we must remember that the same socialit party that won these elections had a somewhat cozy relationship with the basque terrorists, in IIRC fact there was great public emarasement for them when it was discoverd they were in scret talks recently with the basque terrorists. And just recently, before the train attacks there was a basque terriorist cough with hundreds of pounds of explosvies...

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by Nash
Btw, Grun....

When, on the second of November, George Bush is voted out of office, will you call this appeasement? Will yours be a nation of appeasers also? Will you move to France in disgust?

Well if bush is leading the poolls and kerry runs on a left wing terrorist negotiationg (like the socialists in spain) get out of iraq NOW agenda and a huge terror attack happends three days before the election and there is a massive turn, then yes that would be unfortunate and a mistake. The terrorists would be happy.

[Nash]

So, if terrorists blow up the... erhm... Sears Tower 3 days before the election and Kerry wins, it's appeasement?

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by Nash
So, if terrorists blow up the... erhm... Sears Tower 3 days before the election and Kerry wins, it's appeasement?

LOL, thats far too simple and you know it...  

Why not be really crude and phrase your question like this...

If Kerry is leading bush by 40 points, and bush was just convicted of child molestation, and then the terrorists blew up sears tower and still Kerry won would that be appeasement?

[Nash]

uhm... no, I don't follow, sorry.

[Hortlund]

Comparing ETA to Al Quaeda is like comparing the Norwegian army to the US army. Sure they are both armies, and sure they are all armed, but basically that is where the similarities stop. The continous Spanish war against ETA says nothing about Spains dedication in the war on terror.

Spain has 1300 troops in Iraq, 125 in Afghanistan.

Nash, you only need to look at the sequence of events... Its quite simple really, no matter how bad you want to spin it.

[Hortlund]

A December posting on an Internet message board used by al Qaeda and its sympathizers and obtained by CNN, spells out a plan to topple the pro-U.S. government.

"We think the Spanish government will not stand more than two blows, or three at the most, before it will be forced to withdraw because of the public pressure on it," the al Qaeda document says.

"If its forces remain after these blows, the victory of the Socialist Party will be almost guaranteed -- and the withdrawal of Spanish forces will be on its campaign manifesto."

[Nash]

Hortherz,

Your 1st post makes about as much sense as your second.

That aint saying a lot.

Your second post is the ramblings of a terrorist's mind. If you want to now use terrorist's assumptions as proof of anything whatsoever, then you are nothing more than their messenger.

Who gives a watermelon what they think?

[Hortlund]

In December Al Quaeda publicly announces its plans in regards to Spain: Attack Spanish targets to force a Spanish retreat from Iraq. Our estimates are that the Spanish government will not survive more than 2-3 attacks before public opinion will force them from power.

Well, it only took one attack.

[Nash]

Yeah and it only took a few years PRIOR to that attack that Spain's government said they were gonna pull out.

Terrorist mind warp tactis now?

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Nash

Who gives a watermelon what they think?

They do...

You just dont get it do you?

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by Nash
uhm... no, I don't follow, sorry.

You were  seeting up the question in yur scenario by ignoring a whole range of relevant background info.

For exaple was kerry projected to win? Did kerry run on a get out of iraq now platform and did his party negotiate with terrorists? Did terrorists specifically say the sears tower bombings were for USA top leave iraq - like in spain.

All of those things are relevant.

Obviously if kerry is running on a stay in Iraq policy and he is leading in polls and he still wins after attacks then no it couldnt be appeasement.

But lets say he was running on leave iraq now platform. And that he was behind in the polls, and suddenly after attacks specifically linked to get out of iraq deamds (like spain) he wins...

Well those are two different scenarious.

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by Nash


Who gives a watermelon what they think?

Whoa!!!

So whatever response we make to the terrorists is irrelevant because we shouldnt be concerned about how our actions will affect their assesement of us, their assesement of their tactics, their planning for future operations etc? Those are all influenced by the way they think, and what they think - especally in response to our actions..

So its a terrible mistake to not consider and not care what the enemy is thinking....

Because thats exactly the full implication of what you just said Nash...

[-dead-]

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
LOL, thats far too simple and you know it...  

Why not be really crude and phrase your question like this...

If Kerry is leading bush by 40 points, and bush was just convicted of child molestation, and then the terrorists blew up sears tower and still Kerry won would that be appeasement?

Hmm sounds to me like you're arguing against your original position there.