Article

2004-03-19 Europe

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2004-03-19 1:20:46 AM|| || Front Page|| [11124 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Don't write off 30% of the country, they voted PP.

Posted by Anonymous2U 2004-3-19 2:36:49 AM|| 2004-3-19 2:36:49 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Even left-wing creeps like Lieberman who did argue Saddam was an "IMMINENT THREAT" cannot express an opinion without engaging in gratuitous LYING. President Bush did not "reject" the help of NATO allies in Afghanistan. It was a special forces operation. The USA did not want to flood the country with EUropeons or Americans which would have been repeat of the tactical mistakes committed by the Brits and the Ruskies in past wars. NATO members with special forces suited to the job were encouraged to contribute. Canada managed to get a "warship" in the vicinity and sent SNIPER teams. Brit, Aussie, Krout and other special forces were in-country. Germany also contributed AWACs to monitor the skies over America. There is not a left of center DIMocrat in this country who is worth a damn in wartime.

Posted by Anonymous 2004-3-19 3:11:10 AM|| 2004-3-19 3:11:10 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 I hope the people of Madrid actually want to do something about terrorism, but after the demonstrations and the election I have my doubts

what, 12 million people speaking out against terrorism isn't enough to convince you ? How many US citizens took the streets after 9/11?

Posted by lyot 2004-3-19 3:48:43 AM|| 2004-3-19 3:48:43 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 They spoke (easy to do), then voted for an open appeaser (also easy to do), rather than one who'd fight (hard to do). Typical socialist preference for style over substance.

Posted by Ptah 2004-3-19 5:31:37 AM|| [http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org] 2004-3-19 5:31:37 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 There are several ways to combat terrorism..Spain is aware of that..

Posted by lyot 2004-3-19 5:51:05 AM|| 2004-3-19 5:51:05 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 see, lyot knows the score, yous guys are just too dumb to understand that you defeat an enemy by giving him/her money and askin 'em nicly to play nice.. none of this 'fighting your foe' stuff.. it's just too.. too.. American *fake shudder*

Posted by dcreeper 2004-3-19 6:12:46 AM|| 2004-3-19 6:12:46 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 Iyot - Really? Falling to your knees and giving them a blowjob isn't one of the best choices. Obviously you don't get it: a HUGE step was taken in that election - down the wrong road. Appeasers, and you can pretend Zappy isn't one only so long, always pay repeatedly for that initial act of cowardice. This is simply blackmail writ large. History proves the point beyond doubt. I now sympathize with the Spanish who voted against him - and those who have had those classic second-thoughts and "get it" regards the scale of the mistake.

There is an old joke in the US which used to be funny and used to apply:
Q. What's the difference between a tenured Professor and a Terrorist?
A. You can negotiate with a terrorist.

Not AlQ & all of the flavors of asshats which seek to bring the world under their 7th Century Caliphate. Take a good look at the world's hot-spots. Where there's violence, the odds are ridiculously high that it's Islamfascism's attempts to spread. They'll take over peacefully, and the first step has been taken in Spain, or they'll take over forcibly. They'll out-breed you, indoctrinate every child with hatred and a duty to snuff you out, and keep at it until your grandchildren are old and gray and tired of fighting. Implacable - look it up. The spread of Islam has been underway for about 1400 yrs. Take a good look at history. What you need to know to realize how fatally naive your view is - is right there.

"Combat"? Right. Hard to fight from your knees, but as a Socialist, you wouldn't know much about standing up to your enemies and fighting. Giant Puppets and street demonstrations prolly fit your style.

Spain will be pushed around like the playgound pussy, now. At least until enough of the Spanish realize what a disastrous mistake turning to Socialism was. Or, perhaps, they will find peace in dhimmitude.

Posted by .com 2004-3-19 6:37:37 AM|| 2004-3-19 6:37:37 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 anyone who thinks that terror can be beaten with words and police action is seriously mistaken,I fear europe in general hasn't yet realised just what these islamoids are about and what thier goals are.Tough talking politicians will not beat them,physical action will.

Posted by Jon Shep U.K 2004-3-19 6:38:30 AM|| 2004-3-19 6:38:30 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 I don't know lyot, I figure if they are all dead there is no more problem, there are a few sharpies left in Spain that realize that. But I guess putting your butt up in the air and hoping the Islamists lube you up is a tactic as well. I wonder if they'll kiss you first.

Posted by JerseyMike 2004-3-19 6:47:41 AM|| 2004-3-19 6:47:41 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 Lieberman has some decent ideas in this piece but until we overcome Europe's PC instinct even more Euro troops in Iraq won't help that much. Prodi had it almost exactly wrong. Among the main problem with the war on terrorism is that we are using too little force, we are too respectful of criminal rights, too cautious in risking collateral damage, too apologetic when collateral damage happens. The other problem is that we are too PC to confront the fact that Islam has an evil history and, unless it changes, an evil future.

Posted by mhw 2004-3-19 7:24:54 AM|| 2004-3-19 7:24:54 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 you all make it seem as if Spain is renouncing in the War on terror, while the only fucking thing that has happened is that the Spanish citizens have democratically chosen not to follow the UNILATERAL position of the US.. Yet , the Spanish public is willing to go after these terrorists in a multilateral approach, even re: Iraq.. I see people here bashing the Spanish because democracy has worked..that's foul.. Even if this is to be perceived as a strategic victory for OBL.

Posted by lyot 2004-3-19 7:56:55 AM|| 2004-3-19 7:56:55 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 "democratically chosen not to follow the UNILATERAL position of the US."

Well, if the UK, Italy, Poland, Australia, a lot of east europe nations and even Spain were following this position wouldn't that make it actually a multi-lateral position?

Lyot, no one's bashing democracy or saying the Spanish election was bogus. What we are saying is that they fucked up in the way they voted - and it was a victory for OBL.

Posted by Jarhead 2004-3-19 8:18:17 AM|| 2004-3-19 8:18:17 AM|| Front Page Top

#13 Lyot

This was not democracy at work, this was terrorists and leftist press working together to influence the outcome of an election.

How in the name of ...... (fill in deity or blasphemy of choice) you can call this a democratic process is beyond me.

Posted by Evert Visser in NL 2004-3-19 8:22:18 AM|| [http://chinditz.blog-city.com/] 2004-3-19 8:22:18 AM|| Front Page Top

#14 Just out of curiousity, is there any link being looked at between the Socialists and the terrorists who were involved in the bombings? It would seem like a huge coincidence, unlikely but possible that Zap (or someone in his command structure, more likely) decided to hedge bets and make certain that there was a stick driving the populace (common for Socialist government).

Posted by Benjamin L Silver 2004-3-19 8:41:59 AM|| 2004-3-19 8:41:59 AM|| Front Page Top

#15 Sory fot the lenghth of this comment, i found it on Tim Blairs site and it was left there by: "Franco AlemÃ¡n (from Barcelona, Spain, New member of the Axis of Weasels)"

Wow, and I thought our lefties had problems with logic.

Let me try this

3-10: PP was comfortably ahead in the polls. the only doubt was how big they would win.

3-11: you know what happened.

3-11 to 3-14: a massive disinformation campaign to put the blame on the PP, with rival PSOE and their friendly media disseminating false rumours (suicide bomber, intel services were angry at the gov't because they said they thought 99% probability it was Islamists since the very beginning, etc) and then shouting 'coverup, coverup'. Street agitation, accusation "the govt lies if they don't arrest the bad guys in 24 hours" (really, they did say that), and contravening the electoral law forbidding political propaganda the day before the election. Opposition leaders asking for the resignation of the government, because 'it lied',... THE NIGHT BEFORE THE ELECTION and saying the results wouldn't be legitimate if Aznar didn't appear in a special session in Parliament ON THE NIGHT BEFORE THE ELECTION. 'Spontaneous'rallies in front of PP's offices across Spain shouting and insulting, pot-banging. 1 office burned down. Physical assaults all over. PSOE-friendly media: "what do you know, there are demos EXACTLY in that place at that time; encouraging them? moi?" PSOE officials saying 'we know things that the government isn't telling' without offering any evidence.

3-14: PSOE wins

Quite clear, isn't it? Yes, some minor mistakes in being a bit too blunt blaming ETA were made the first 3 hours by the interior minister, and were quickly corrected. In fact, critics knew about the Islamic connection only after the minister held a press conference about it. It was then whan the opposition, who had been saying 'yes, it's ETA but let's not use this atrocity to blame anyone politically, just the murderers', started precisely to use the atrocity and blame it directly on the government rather than on the murderers when they Islamic clue appeared, as they saw they could inflame the public opinion.

Guys, this country looked a bit like Venezuela that night.

For the record: I am not questioning the democratic result itself: people voted, and the ballot count was unimpeachable. But it there was manipulation and lies, well, they were done by the opposition.

BTW earlier today, all relevant intel docs have been declassified and show that, indeed, for the first hours they thought it was ETA until they later knew about the Islamic clue. This is exactly what the government had been telling all along.

Tim, I haven't seen there's detailed information available in english on the web about the declassified documents yet, but I'll post about it as soon as it is available, OK?

Posted by Evert Visser in NL 2004-3-19 8:45:42 AM|| [http://chinditz.blog-city.com/] 2004-3-19 8:45:42 AM|| Front Page Top

#16 Interesting timeline Evert. By looking at it one might think that Zap and the gang were 'in' on the bombing. They sure were able to marshall their propaganda machine fast - perhaps too fast - to take advantage of the deaths.

All I am saying is that you got to wonder how Zap and the PSOE were able to take advantage of the tradagy so quickly and with such agility without knowing beforehand what would happen and having all sorts of plans available.

Or should I turn in my tinfoil hat :-)

Posted by CrazyFool 2004-3-19 9:44:09 AM|| 2004-3-19 9:44:09 AM|| Front Page Top

#17 Turn in the tinfoil hat, Crazyfool ;)

The socialist activists did an impressive job knocking up conspiracy theories and baseless accusations in such a short time, but don't forget: that's their stock in trade. Socialists feel the need to deceive people in the same way that terrorists feel the need to kill people. It's what they do best.

Posted by Bulldog 2004-3-19 9:55:11 AM|| 2004-3-19 9:55:11 AM|| Front Page Top

#18 "Getting NATO into Iraq won't help -- the French and Germans wouldn't commit anyway, and Zapie wants the UN to be in charge of the whole schmeer."

1. no German troops, but might get German help in other forms (TGA?)
2. Might get some French troops, though not many
3. If NATO is there under a UN res, puts more pressure on Zap to stay.
4. Might get Turks
5. Makes life easier for Blair, Berlusconi, and Kras..er that Polish guy.
6. May make things easier for the new Iraqi govt, by putting a different formal face on the force.

Not sure why invoking Article V wrt to Madrid hurts - we can still act bilaterally with Spain.

IIUC the reason not to do Afghan as a NATO op was NOT that the Euros were timid, but fear that every bombing run would require a commitee meeting, as in Kosovo. I presume that there were other rules NATO had available in case of a USSR invasion of Germany pre-1989. I presume appropriate rules werent in place for Kosovo cause French and Italians didnt want them, and for Afghan cause there wasnt time to develop and agree on them. Not sure that has to always be a constraint on future NATO ops.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-3-19 10:32:43 AM|| 2004-3-19 10:32:43 AM|| Front Page Top

#19 The really scary thing is that Joe is pretty much the voice of reason and logic in the Dem party. The rest of the bunch are true loons.

Posted by mojo 2004-3-19 12:22:18 PM|| 2004-3-19 12:22:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 Yet , the Spanish public is willing to go after these terrorists in a multilateral approach, even re: Iraq..

In the end, this means that nothing will get done. All one needs to do is look at the UN and its resolutions for a good example.

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2004-3-19 12:39:00 PM|| 2004-3-19 12:39:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 Nice one Evert. Reminds me of the Florida election.

Start a ruckuss, blurr the facts. Scream indignation. Problem for dems was they failed.

Posted by Lucky 2004-3-19 12:56:59 PM|| 2004-3-19 12:56:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 Start a ruckuss, blurr the facts. Scream indignation.

Sounds like 4th period special area.

Posted by Shipman 2004-3-19 2:30:35 PM|| 2004-3-19 2:30:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 Words twist and warp, losing old meanings and gaining new ones.

Multilateral, as used by lyot and others seems to now mean "defensive." A multilateral (defensive) approach to Islamism would would seem to entail monitoring the activities of Islamists in your own country and working closely with foreign intelligence agencies in an attempt to anticipate attacks, which would then presumably be prevented through police action. Other acceptable "multilateral" means are sanctions, shutting down terrorist finances, and wealth transfers to terror plagued nations to eliminate "root causes."

Unilateral action as defined by the second international socialists and transnational progressives seems to now mean "offensive" action. Unilateral (offensive action) takes the fight into terrorism's home bases. It places substantial pressure on entities financing terror by military and diplomatic pressure. Terror bases and logistic tails are forcibly dismantled. Terror organizations are forced to react to offensive operations rather than taking their time to plan their own.

The socialist and tranzi critiques of "unilateralism" are well known, so I won't waste a key stroke on them. I don' think that I've ever seen a serious critique of the "multilateral" approach though. Here is mine:

* Defensive action is by definition reactionary. By going over to the defensive, you lose the initiative. The attacker can plan his assaults in relative security. Meanwhile, the defender is wide open with multiple cells assessing and probing his defenses.

* Foreign intelligence services are unreliable. They may have agendas of their own (France) or they may be corrupt, incompetent, and penetrated by the enemy (Middle East).

* Diplomatic and economic pressure without military might to back it up is meaningless. So called "soft power" is a farce. The carrot and stick ultimately become bribery (as the US is doing in Egypt and the EU in the PA) or the soft power equivalent of war, sanctions. I've lived in a country under sanctions (Panama) and have studied the effects of them ever sense. The only people hurt by them are the poor and middle class. The bad guys just steal more to offset their losses. Inevitably, many goverments only pay lip service to the sanctions. Amazingly, when the investigation is complete after sanctions are lifted, the countries most responsible for breaking the sanctions are usually the very European and Far Eastern countries that most favor santions in the first place.

* "Multilateral" approaches always assume that governments like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are modern nation states. They are not. They are in fact feudal states. The "foreign minister" of such entities may not represent the will of the Army, ulema, security forces, or nobility. Even if the titular government negotiated an agreement, they might in fact only have made a deal on behalf of a very narrow segment of the entity's power structure.

* Attacking finances is not decisive. Financing and funding activities can be moved underground into the hawala banking system. Banks in terror source countries can be penetrated and subborned as can charities. Attacking finances is akin to attacking ball bearing production in WWII. You will cause the enemy to work harder, but you will never destroy him.

* Wealth transfers to terror sourcing nations. They will be siphoned off by kleptocrats, laundered and used to build nice houses in the south of France. Not only is it bribery but stupid bribery due to the feudal nature of these countries. How much influence does Arafat have over Hamas?

Conclusion: The "multilateral" approach funds your enemies, enables oppressive kleptocrats, fails to stop attacks, and hurts the very people (middle and poor classes) who would otherwise be you natural allies. The very word "multilateral" is an Orwellian distortion of plain English and parallels the use of terms like "Popular Front" during the 1930's.

Posted by 11A5S 2004-3-19 3:16:25 PM|| 2004-3-19 3:16:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 11A5S, interesting words you write, yet I don't believe the unilateral approach solely will provide the US with the security it needs. Military pressure is usefull, but that in itself will not suffice to shift the opinions, a necessary step to root out terrorism.

Posted by lyot 2004-3-19 4:02:17 PM|| 2004-3-19 4:02:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 lyot - then could you kindly spell out what else you think is required to fight terrorism that we're not doing already, instead of endlessly dancing around it?

Posted by Raj 2004-3-19 4:29:20 PM|| [http://angrycyclist.blogspot.com] 2004-3-19 4:29:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 Unilateralism - ignoring those on Saddams payroll and doing what has to be done anyway.

Multilateralism - considering those that took Iraqi bribes and otherwise circumvented UN sanctions to have the moral high ground and pro-UN against those that tried to make Iraq follow existing UN resolutions.

Orwell was right. War is Peace, peace is war, after all.

Posted by ruprecht 2004-3-19 4:43:14 PM|| 2004-3-19 4:43:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 if you remember article V was invoked after 9-11 and all the eurotrash did was send some manned awacs.....not really a force to coduct the war that was needed and is still needed in parts of middle east.
3-12 - WE ARE NOT ALL EUROPEANS! if we were then the terrorists will have won!

wonder how much gold spain has gotten ready for that downpayment for peace with dishonour!

Posted by Dan 2004-3-19 5:10:06 PM|| 2004-3-19 5:10:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 #24 you speak as if our enemies will like us if we amend our ways...no the only thing that the whackos in the me understand is sheer force..i do not want these aholes to like us - just fear us. then we can get on with a policy of containment and semi-MADD doctrine.

Posted by Dan 2004-3-19 5:13:35 PM|| 2004-3-19 5:13:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 As I recall, one main reason we didn't involve European forces heavily in the Afghanistan operations is that their command and control systems and some other armaments are a generation behind ours. They simply could not be integrated into active operations without badly compromising our abilities.

Now, that's not so important in some operations, but in an active hunt it is a real problem. Add in the committee approach and it would have been unworkable. The Euros took offense at that, but it's pretty clear cut.

Posted by American 2004-3-19 5:15:30 PM|| 2004-3-19 5:15:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 lyot: It's not just "interesting words." It's thoughts, and analysis, and logic. It's trying to understand a problem, diving into it and maybe after studying it every day for years, mastering it. It's not sophism or spin. It's not the high school debate team; the guy with the most citations in his shoebox does not win the argument. You're better than most Bush opponents, but you still have that air of sophism around you. There are plenty of good arguments against the Iraq experiment (tribal culture cannot be democratized; cultures need to be left to find their own way to modernity, they cannot be led; corruption and cynicism are too deeply embedded for the rule of law; etc.), but you and the other left wingers posting here never use them. Instead you criticize US policy based on theories of strategy that no successful strategic thinker from Sun Tzu through Lenin has ever given the briefest consideration. You rely on Chomsky and other sophists for your data instead of going out on the Internet and finding your own. You make assertions about military operations based on old anti-Vietnam war propaganda that in turn is based on tactics that the military discarded when it adopted AirLand battle doctrine in the mid 1980's. Stop worrying about words and talking points. Start reading and listening and questioning.

Posted by 11A5S 2004-3-19 6:34:55 PM|| 2004-3-19 6:34:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 Another thing about NATO, the US wasn' t entirely interested for Four reasons (1) Any large NATO force in Afghanistan would require US logistics to maintain it. The US is better off dealing with its own logistics. (2) The more allies in theater the more chance of a blue-on-blue. As it is some Canadians paid the price in Afghanistan. (3) French NATO officers passed targeting information to the Serbs the last time we fought alongside them and there was no way the US was going to have targetting info going through NATO headquarters again. (4) There was a strong suspician that several NATO members wanted to join so that they could control US actions rather than assist.

Posted by ruprecht 2004-3-19 7:08:13 PM|| 2004-3-19 7:08:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 Europeans do know how to deal with terrorists - at least, the Germans do. The Baader/Meinhof gang bombed and killed dozens in Central Germany from the early 1970's through the mid-1980's. Germany crushed the organization, killed or captured its members, and ended the terrorism. That's the ONLY way that works. Now, a different group of leaders want to try something else, something that has NEVER worked, but it's "different". THE SOLE REASON THEY WANT TO TRY A DIFFERENT WAY IS BECAUSE THE UNITED STATES IS DOING EXACTLY WHAT GERMANY HAD SUCH SUCCESS WITH. There will be hundreds, perhaps thousands of more people killed in Europe if EUrope doesn't get over this idiocy of having to be "different" than the United States, and go back to what works, regardless of what "others" are doing.

Posted by Old Patriot 2004-3-19 8:31:03 PM|| [http://users.codenet.net/mweather/default.htm] 2004-3-19 8:31:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 Oh, well. If they have to die in droves to learn their error then so be it. Their choice-their consequences. There is no sympathy from this quarter anymore. They have picked which side they are on.

Posted by whitecollar redneck 2004-3-19 8:53:33 PM|| 2004-3-19 8:53:33 PM|| Front Page Top

16:23 Shipman
14:49 Shipman
14:44 Shipman
11:47 Aris Katsaris
03:12 Barry
01:06 Jen
00:38 Brewer
00:25 Jen
00:22 Jen
00:22 Barry
00:13 Jen
00:12 ex-lib
00:02 OldeForce
23:58 ex-lib
23:57 Mr. Davis
23:44 Super Hose
23:43 Super Hose
23:42 Traveller
23:39 Super Hose
23:31 ex-lib
23:23 ex-lib
23:21 Super Hose
23:20 .com
23:19 tu3031