|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
posted March 17, 2004 09:31 PM |
|
|
Peacemaker -- so the response to a terror attack must be "vote for the incumbent"? How is that any less of a victory for terrorism? Terrorism had it's victory when 200 people died. Don't grant them imaginary victories based on an election outcome. Look at it this way -- a major terrorist attack occured and an election occured shortly afterwards very smoothly -- no indefinite "postponement" of the election, no martial law, no granting of "special emergency powers" to the chief executive. An incumbent government who defied the vast majority of its people on an issue as major as war was voted out of office. If you really have to assign a winner, give it to democracy.
Wolfman -- Iraq is "kind of" scaring you "now"? We went to war on a lie or an error and this didn't scare you. Hundreds of americans and thousands of Iraqis are dead and more continue to die and this didn't scare you. The war costs escalate by the day and this didn't scare you. Our allies are more suspicious of us than of terrorists now, but that didn't scare you. Two hundred people died in Spain, but that's not the part that scared you. You're scared because the incumbents lost. I, for one, am quite glad you're on the sidelines for this one.
____________
Drive by posting.
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
posted March 18, 2004 06:58 AM |
|
|
No bort. A victory against terrorism is when the vote goes the way it was going to go -- either way -- incumbent or challenger -- DESPITE a terrorist attack.
The developments in Spain do not suggest that is what happened as far as I understand those developments.
Whether somebody was the incumbent is completely and utterly irrelevant to my point.
If you are suggesting a victory for the socialist party was already in the bag and that the attack had nothing to do with it, then you and I are operating on different information. As I said, my understanding is that it was a dead heat that turned into a landslide. Correct me if I'm wrong.
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
posted March 18, 2004 02:24 PM |
|
|
Polls are often wrong. Dean. Dewey. Two polls on the same day. Reasonable conclusions require reliable information which a poll does not provide.
____________
Drive by posting.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted March 18, 2004 05:14 PM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 18 Mar 2004
|
I Agree With Both Bort And Peacemaker
I think Bort is correct but I think he's taking the american's poll behavior and comparing it to the Spanish poll behavior. While it is true that our polls were wrong about candidates such as Dean I do not think the polls for the Spanish election were under the same circumstances.
If you want to say that polls in general all over the world are often wrong then I would have to disagree for the simple fact that a generalization so large would be suggesting that the circumstances are the same all over the world.
I think Bort assumes Spain is similar to the U.S. which I disagree with. They are a different people with a different government, language, and culture. I think that the polls in Spain were reflecting more truth than the polls in america were.
So to recap I agree with you Bort that polls don't elect leaders. People do. However I think that the Spanish sentiment was so vocal that the polls were reflecting correct values for this particular election.
I also agree with Peacemaker, that the election was, in fact, a dead heat prior to the terrorist attacks on the trains.
**Side note: Could we please carry this conversation over into the Spain thread? Or atleast create one?**
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
posted March 19, 2004 05:26 PM |
|
Edited By: Svarog on 19 Mar 2004
|
A bit controversial logic
Quote: Anyways, the apparent message is clearly unproductive. We need to achieve the most solidarity we can in the face of the "war on terrorism" and if anybody lets terrorist attacks influence national decisions in ways the terrorists want, then we're just showing them they can win by using terror and are handing them the whole enchilada...
A lot of things influence the public opinion, ranging form war in iraq to speeding fines, including the recent terrorist attack in Madrid. It's like saying that 9/11 didn't influnce the Americans. Totally absurd!!
So, I would agree with Peacemaker on this one, but I don't think it's a victory for terrorism at all, although it seems to have turned the tide in favor of the socialists. But nevermind, just because terrorist are against the war in Iraq also, doesn't mean we have to be for the war, when it's clearly a bad thing. In this case that particular goal of the terorists coresponded with the goal of 90% of the Spanish. IMO, that doesn't mean we support the terrorists. This tragedy only gave another argument about the risk that Spain is taking, waging the Iraqi war. Above all, it was a victory for democracy.
(but yeah, terrorists also seem happy with the outcome of the election. So what, as long as the majority's happy, and Bush unhappy)
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
posted March 19, 2004 07:44 PM |
|
|
The problems the Spanish had with Aznar had more to do with his lies and misinformation in the hours after the bombing than the bombing itself. Yes you could link that directly to the attack, but you could also say that really, Aznar was to blame for lying, that's what drove him from power. I really don't think loosing by 5% (Aznar got 38% of the vote, Zaparetto 43%) counts as a "landslide" either to be fair. What he did tipped the scales slighly against him, but it was still close. The reaction against him was his fault, the terrorist merely the catalyst for the spanish to realise that he was perhaps not the man for them.
The problem with this:
Quote: No bort. A victory against terrorism is when the vote goes the way it was going to go -- either way -- incumbent or challenger -- DESPITE a terrorist attack.
Is that you assume it would have been Aznar elected had the attacks not occurred, if as you said the polls were "dead-heated" anything like the higher turnout could have caused the 5% swing. The truth is, if Aznar had won by 5% we'd all be saying how wonderful it is that the bombs affected the vote not in the slightest. By the same token, in that scenario, others might say that Zaparetto was right, but lost because of the terrorists aiding Aznar's cause
Pretty much the biggest affect the bombs did have was to make this election the highest turnout ever in Spain. Whilst it's possible that the attacks did affect the result, the truth is I imagine none of us will ever be able to tell you who would have won had they not happened. Polls can be wrong, and 5% really isn't that much of a swing at the last minute.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Stormrage
Known Hero
Tucker is not a duck
|
posted March 21, 2004 01:54 PM |
|
|
One question... why does everyone hate Iraq? I thought you hated Saddam, not the country he was tormenting!
____________
"Heed to my call, denizens of All poor countries! Viva la revolt!"
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
posted March 21, 2004 05:33 PM |
|
|
PH --
Excellent points man. While I stand by my point that we should all avoid any appearance of reacting the way terrorists want us to so that we don't empower them, I have to say this all sounds like more specific information, like for instance on the percentages, than I previously had. Actually, anything less than 5% is not considered statistically significant, let alone a landslide. Also, if polls show the issue that turned the tide was Aznar's alleged misrepresentations concerning the attacks rather than the attacks themselves, then that removes the facts from my analysis yet another step.
Stormrage --
What gives you the impression people "hate" Iraq? That's certainly not what I get, and is the opposite of how I feel. Every woman over there is me; every child is my son. Every man is my husband or dad or brother. That's how I feel about it all.
For their sake, I'm thrilled they don't have to endure constant tyranny and fear under the SOB Hussein anymore, but now, the main concern at this point is figuring out what's best for the country (staying to help stabilize and rebuild versus pulling out and letting Iraq do this for itself). Far as I can see everyone on any point of the spectrum in this argument (at least in this forum) pretty much has that interest of Iraq in mind, we just differ somewhat on the best way to proceed to achieve it.
Anyone --
I keep catching the tail-ends of the skirmish or whatever on the Paki(stani)-Afghani border. Can someone enlighten us as to those developments? I just heard something like they think they have killed Al Quaeda #2 Sawari (Aswari???) Is that true? How did this all come about? This isn't a government-to government war is it? Who is fighting?
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
posted March 21, 2004 05:56 PM |
|
|
Peacemaker -- don't abbreviate Pakistani to "paki." Paki is a racial slur.
____________
Drive by posting.
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
posted March 21, 2004 06:29 PM |
|
|
bort -- thanks for the tip. I will go back and correct now.
(P.S. My apologies to anyone who might have taken offense. None was intended.)
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
posted March 21, 2004 07:40 PM |
|
|
Well to be fair I haven't seen polls about why they turned against Aznar, but most media reports state the spanish people were annoyed and aigitated at his lies, it's easy to connect this in part to the reason for his loss. I agree giving terrorism a say in matters is wrong, but there's nothing to say the spanish did do this. Zaparetto has always been anti-iraq, it's not like he pulled out because of the bombings either.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
posted March 21, 2004 10:36 PM |
|
|
(You mean like anti-war-in-Iraq, not actually anti-Iraq? Sorry if that's a dumb question )
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
posted March 21, 2004 10:38 PM |
|
|
Nah, he hated Iraq too Of course I meant anti-war in iraq
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
posted April 18, 2004 09:44 AM |
|
|
collectively speaking, 1000% of the world population are just people.
Most of them are just trying to live their lives. (Like 97%)
ALl I gotta say, is the big wigs of the middle east, central government USA, and everyone else trying to influence their POWERS among us are beating the crap out of world populous.
How dare them. How dare them
(HC MEMBERS DONT READ THE REST OF THIS POST)
( FBI CIA PRESIDENT WHITEHOUSE USAMA OSAMA USA FEDERAL TAXES Government senetor politics lets not kill the reaper lets tax the seeker lets enslave the speaker, and twist the dreamers. AND it was all painted, lalala . If an HC person read this i guess ill let you know it was my intention to bring a CIA type of agency here to read the first part of this message. so like, ill say assasinate, kill death too but im not hostile. lol I just know how versitle the world will be
____________
What are you up to
|
|
redhawk
Known Hero
Gaurdian Supreme
|
posted April 18, 2004 04:40 PM |
|
|
Hey celfious,thats like shooting into a hornets nest, talk about drawing fire on yourself. Personally though, I thought it was funny, and I for one could care less what the government or the feds think of me. I'm a soldier and they don't scare me, I kinda live for the conflict anyways. Though because of my position , I have to watch what I say and do so I'm currently stuck being quiet and nice about the government so currently I support my government, GO USA RAH RAH RAH!!!!!!!!
As far as Iraq is concerned, I don't want to be involved in that mess, but I will go there to replace my brothers and sisters who have served there time and need to come home.
____________
It's better to burn out, Than fade away !!!!!!!!
|
|
Regimantas
Tavern Dweller
|
posted April 18, 2004 06:08 PM |
|
|
ok here is MY opinion about war in iraq and terrorism
first, the reason for war: "iraq has some mass destruction weapons and is a threat + iraq supports terrorism"
well no findings of weapons yet as far as i know
how can u attack other country with such reasons?
what did iraq do to US? its over a year now and i cant find any reasons for war. or US has the right to decide who to attack if they want to? noone has the right in my opinion.
and now thousands of innocents die there, and dont u think that more osamas will appear after this war? i think terrorists will grow in number because of this war.
also, imagine how do families of soldiers feel, when their sons dies there, in iraq. "they died there fighting for.." for what? whats the point ? free iraqi from hussein ? ok then free all the people where dictators rule.
about terrorism
well osama didnt came from nowhere and made attacks on US.
dont u think that US themselves are guilty that terrorists make such acts now? or terrorist appeared from nowhere and said "OK. now we will attack US. We got nothing to do anyway." Things always have reasons.
____________
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
posted April 18, 2004 09:14 PM |
|
|
Quote: ...i cant find any reasons for war...
Quote: Things always have reasons
I don't really think I have to say anything...
____________
|
|
redhawk
Known Hero
Gaurdian Supreme
|
posted April 19, 2004 06:00 AM |
|
|
reg, why not ask the tens of thousands of Iraqi people that saddam butthead killed over the past forty years if there was a reason to take him out, oh ya you can't cause there dead!!!!!!!!!
____________
It's better to burn out, Than fade away !!!!!!!!
|
|
Regimantas
Tavern Dweller
|
posted April 19, 2004 11:56 PM |
|
|
to wolfman
things always have reasons, but i cant find one to attack iraq. maybe u can tell me? u just understood me wrong.. read it more carefully. if i cant find a reason it doesnt mean it hasnt got one. and i dont believe that US attacked just to free people of saddam.
to redhawk
i think its their internal matter. or u can attack every country where dictators rule? im not supporting saddam, hes really evil and did terrible things.
anyway i think it was stupid to start that war, coz there will be more osamas now, thats guaranteed.
|
|
Aquaman333
Famous Hero
of the seven seas
|
posted April 20, 2004 12:16 AM |
|
|
Quote:
i think its their internal matter. or u can attack every country where dictators rule? im not supporting saddam, hes really evil and did terrible things.
So it's all right for dictators to kill thier own civilians because there are more than one of them? When people are being slaughtered for no apparent reason, it's not an internal matter, it's a global matter.
____________
"Brian, look! There's a message in my Alphabits! It says,
"OOOOOOO!"."
"Peter, those are Cheerios."-Family Guy
|
|
|