PM Zapatero Orders Spanish Troops Withdrawn from Iraq

[OutThere]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3637523.stm

Yes! Yes! Yes! Excellent! :) :) :)

[agreenster]

While getting troops out of Iraq is good, my only fear is that terrorist organizations are learning that the more they terrorize, the more governments are willing to meet their demands...

[Thanatoast]

While getting troops out of Iraq is good, my only fear is that terrorist organizations are learning that the more they terrorize, the more governments are willing to meet their demands...But under that logic, the Iraqis shouldn't feel compelled to obey the American occupiers of their country, right? I mean, isn't war just terror on a larger scale?

[MrMacMan]

Its okay I'm sure the other 'colation of the willing' will send more troops...

Like the U.S... :(

[wdlove]

The most important thing is that we cannot fail. If the terrorists see us a weak it will only embolden them. Terrorists only understand power and bold actions.

[Thanatoast]

The most important thing is that we cannot fail. If the terrorists see us a weak it will only embolden them. Terrorists only understand power and bold actions.Yeah, those damn Limeys should've taught those slimy colonist terrorists a lesson, and crushed the movement. Allowing them to find their own way and make their own mistakes was the worst thing to have happened since the fall of Rome. :D

[Bhennies]

Too bad the terrorists didn't even strike because of the Iraq war. The planning for the terror attacks in Madrid began long before the war in Iraq was even a serious option, possibly even as early as summer 2002. The current line of thought is that the North African terrorists' "fundamental objective was to reclaim Muslim control of Spain" (NYTIMES). Makes you feel sorry for the Spaniards who thought they'd be able to avoid terrorism.

[agreenster]

Regardless of when the terrorists planned the attacks, it sure appears like Spain is backing down because of the bombings in their country.

And NO, war is not terrorism on a larger scale. If thats your line of logic, the US never should have entered WWII, and even more Jews should have died, and Hitler should have taken over the world. There is a time and place for war, and its the job of the leaders of ELECTED governments to determine when to take action. Now, was G.W. right about going into Iraq? I dunno. But dont say there is no reason for war. War is awful, agreed, but sometimes the actions of tyrants need to be stopped, and the only way for that to happen is to have them overthrown by force. The fault then, lies with the tyrant, not the ones who initiate action against them.

And Im DEFINITELY not a huge war supporter, but in some cases, war is necessary. But to call soldiers who's objective is to secure peace, "terrorists on a larger scale" is completely wrong.

[Sayhey]

The new Spanish Government is following through on a pledge it made more than a year ago and in agreement with the overwhelming majority of the Spanish people who have never supported the idea of troops in Iraq in these circumstances. If that is giving in to terror then we might as well allow al Qaeda to dictate our own policy. Whatever they say we must obviously do the opposite or we are giving in to terrorism. Iraq has never been about the war on terror or al Qaeda and just because we have an administration that likes to confuse the two doesn't make it so.

The new government has also made it clear that terrorism is their top priority and has backed that up with a pledge for more troops in Afghanistan. This is not the policy of appeasement, but it is also not the policy of doing whatever George Bush thinks must be done in the world. If Bush wants to really get the Spanish to stay in Iraq, as well as many of our other allies, then he needs to turn authority over to the UN. Under a UN mandate many nations would willingly participate, as the Spanish government has made clear.

[JamesDPS]

Regardless of when the terrorists planned the attacks, it sure appears like Spain is backing down because of the bombings in their country.

And NO, war is not terrorism on a larger scale. If thats your line of logic, the US never should have entered WWII, and even more Jews should have died, and Hitler should have taken over the world. There is a time and place for war, and its the job of the leaders of ELECTED governments to determine when to take action. Now, was G.W. right about going into Iraq? I dunno. But dont say there is no reason for war. War is awful, agreed, but sometimes the actions of tyrants need to be stopped, and the only way for that to happen is to have them overthrown by force. The fault then, lies with the tyrant, not the ones who initiate action against them.

And Im DEFINITELY not a huge war supporter, but in some cases, war is necessary. But to call soldiers who's objective is to secure peace, "terrorists on a larger scale" is completely wrong.

I absolutely agree. While truly defining "terrorist" is actually harder than one might think offhand (what with "one man's freedom fighter being another man's terrorist"), it is clear that the distinction lies in the intentional targetting (with intent to kill or maim) of non-combattants vs. targetting military resources. For example, if Al-Queda had managed to hit the Pentagon without USING civilian resources (plane and lives) in the process, that could be considered an act of war. But targetting non-combattants (eg. World Trade Center) to acheive any goal is terrorism. While I think Bush's explanation for going into Iraq has clearly been shown to be bunk, I absolutely believe that our military did its utmost to minimize collateral damage (i.e. UNINTENTIONAL or reasonably unavoidable hitting of civilian targets in an effort to hit military targets), to an extent never before seen in history (they had to, it was LIVE on TV around the world!) So please refrain from trying to argue that the US is using terrorism unless you have some proof of Americans suicide-bombing Iraqi cafés or something... the distinction between terrorism and war is not a matter of "scale".

As for Spain, pulling their troops really does make it look like they're bending to the will of terrorists (whether that's true or not), and that is not only weak and cowardly, but puts everyone else in greater danger.

[elmimmo]

As for Spain, pulling their troops really does make it look like they're bending to the will of terrorists (whether that's true or not), and that is not only weak and cowardly, but puts everyone else in greater danger.Either that, or the Spanish government is saying that international organizations such as the UN or NATO exist for a matter. I am lead to believe the latter. The Spanish PM has clearly stated he would support Spanish troops in Iraq under a TRUE international agreement, which is not the current status of the situation. As a Spaniard, I support him in his decision.

What I do not support him in is in his decision to do it now. He should be sticking to the very agenda that he imposed to himself. Troops were supposed to be withdrawn on June IF the UN did not take control of the situation. Not waiting until that date because, literaly "the situation does not lead to preview that the UN will be effectively taking control", makes it look like you are really more interested in withdrawing the troops than the UN taking control of the situation, and gives opponents to UN's control over Iraq the excuse to say that it is we, Spaniards, who are not willing to participate in an international forum.

[agreenster]

Look, I think its fair to say that in some ways, Spain is doing the "right thing" by pulling troops out. But the war in Iraq is already happening, and pulling out now isnt opposing the war, its leaving the Iraqi people. Right now, more than ever, the people of Iraq need stability, and pulling troops out doesnt help them at all, not to mention bending to terrorists desires.

And no, maybe Iraq had nothing directly to do with 9/11, but lets not avoid the truth: Iraq was/is a monetarily/geographically safe haven for AlQueda, and AlQueda believes that the US is evil and will do anything to get them out of Iraq. They are, if not directly, indirectly related.

I respect Spains decision, but I just fear that it will do more harm than good, for both Iraq and the rest of the world. Whether or not a country believes in the war on Iraq, now is the time to step in and help fix the mess, if not for the sake of the world, but for the people of Iraq. Dont say, "Its America's war, let them fix it," say "It was America's war, lets show them how it should be done." Governments can be grudge-holding-hillbillys all day, but that doesnt help the world or Iraq.

[elmimmo]

Dont say, "Its America's war, let them fix it," say "It was America's war, lets show them how it should be done."Under, again, the sole command of the US? Thanks, but no thanks. So the UN or any single country are supposed to take the risk of loosing human resources and money, but not to have the right to deciding on the process, huh? The US has already offered the UN such participation and the UN has obviously rejected. If you are going to take on the possible mistakes you can make, you'd better have the right to decide on making them.

It all depends on which side you look it from. The US government could easily say "OK, we engaged this solo and it has earned us (and them) nothing but casualties and an added image damage, let's show them how it should be done, and bring this international affair to an international forum, the way it should have been done from the beginning" but instead they are choosing not to. Why? Beats me, but if I am risking my life I'd better have a vote on deciding under what circumstances and for what purpose.

I am no fool (or so I believe). I do not, at all, consider that the current chaothic situation in Iraq is because the US is commanding the situation NOW. It would be pretty much the same whether it is the US or the whole UN (chiis and sunis do not really give a damn who is "occupying" them), but responsible countries must try to write history under the table of what is fair and what is not, and such a subjective attittude can only be excused when it is driven by what the widest possible international community agrees on. That is the same reasoning that drives democracy, and it is the best we have, even if it not always leads to the best decisions.

I consider myself in no way anti-USA. I spent a pair of summers when I was a teenage there to learn English and it was a wonderful experience with wonderful people. I admire lots and lots of things that come from that country. I am not starting to make a list because I do not thing this is the point, I am simply not quite fond of many other aspects of the US society, and that includes some (lots of) aspects of its foreign policy.

I still wonder, though, why some people from the US try to put the focus of the problem on why the new Spanish government's decision is wrong or not instead of trying to focus it on debating what is wrong or not with the US handing control over to the UN.

[Thanatoast]

But targetting non-combattants (eg. World Trade Center) to acheive any goal is terrorism.
How about the firebombing of Dresden during WWII? Hiroshima? Nagasaki? All deliberately targeted civilians. WWII was not different from any other war. It should've been ended before it started, by way of Wilson's fourteen points. It was avoidable, just like the Iraq War. Perhaps if the US had joined the League of Nations and insisted on weapons inspectors in Germany, Hitler would never have gained the power to kill as many as he did. War is always a failure, even under the best intentions.

We're still working as a worldwide culture to figure out how to live with eachother without being at eachother's throats. Bush and his ilk don't help.

And no, maybe Iraq had nothing directly to do with 9/11, but lets not avoid the truth: Iraq was/is a monetarily/geographically safe haven for AlQueda, and AlQueda believes that the US is evil and will do anything to get them out of Iraq. They are, if not directly, indirectly related.
Link please? The only story I ever saw was a three year old meeting b/t Saddam and an al-Qeada lieutenant that went nowhere.

[Macmaniac]

How about the firebombing of Dresden during WWII? Hiroshima? Nagasaki? All deliberately targeted civilians. WWII was not different from any other war. It should've been ended before it started, by way of Wilson's fourteen points. It was avoidable, just like the Iraq War. Perhaps if the US had joined the League of Nations and insisted on weapons inspectors in Germany, Hitler would never have gained the power to kill as many as he did. War is always a failure, even under the best intentions.

Yes everything is avoidable if we lived in a perfect world. If you have studied WWII history you must understand the crushing poverty that the people of Germany faced, they looked to wherever they could find it. The Germans were hit so hard with Allied reparations the government collapsed. Hitler appeared as a strong leader and people were so desperate that they would take anything they could to get them out of poverty. Wilson had excellent points in his 14 points, however he did not have the support at home, also on top of that Great Britain, and France wanted a harsh reparations plans because they had been put through hell and back, that does not justify their actions, but you have to understand what the public opinion was at the time. Also the League of Nations would have held even less sway then the UN does today, weapons inspections would have been worthless for one no power at the time would have ever agreed to it, by the time weapons inspections would have even become practical it was too late. On top of that what authority did anyone have to kick Hitler out? No one could ever enforce the inspections, Great Britain and France were in no financial shape to challenge Hitler, and people would have not been willing to risk war by doing theoretical weapons inspections. In addition Hitler had far too much support at home, people looked up to him as a strong leader, as horrible as this may sound this is the truth. Modern principals of diplomacy would not have worked in those times.

[G4scott]

Lets just hope not too many countries follow Spain's example, and pull out of Iraq. Iraq is going to take many years to rebuild, and if we all packed up and left now, it'd turn into the craphole it was before. We can't allow some thug to try to grab power in Iraq, and start to take over the country. That's the last thing we need. And if we withdraw our troops, that's what will happen.

I've spoken with soldiers back from Iraq, and they say that they need us there, or else thugs will take over, and scare the Iraqi people into submission, like their previous dictator did. The Iraqi people need a force there that will protect them, and not oppress them. They need to learn not to be afraid of the government, and it's not going to happen overnight. And until they are on their own, and not under the rule of a tyrannical dictator, we must stay there to make sure none arise.


Oh yeah, and if you're leaving the Iraq war now, you're a bit late. The war ended some time ago. This is the occupation, and rebuilding. The only thing that makes it seem so tragic these days is the Iraqi mobsters who are trying their best at a power grab, and our wonderful media, that knows that "10 Coalition Soldiers Killed in Iraq" sells more than "More Iraqi People have Power and Water than before"

[Ugg]

The Spaniards, like all the others who pledged their support to gw, were misled. There are no WMD, SH did not support terrorism directly, the Iraqis do not want us there. The bulk of the Spaniards, like the bulk of the Brits, did not support going to war in Iraq. Who knows what the outcome of the election would have been had it not been for the bombing in Madrid, but the people of Spain spoke and they spoke for withdrawal.

Had gw gone in with a viable post-war plan, much of the chaos occurring now probably wouldn't be happening. Even Kofi Annan is voicing doubts about the UN taking the reins in the near future.

This could well be only the beginning. The UK foreign office has advised all British companies doing business in Iraq to pull out until the CPA can somehow slow the violence. The US is responsible for the mess and they should be responsible for fixing it.

[Apple //e]

Lets just hope not too many countries follow Spain's example, and pull out of Iraq. Iraq is going to take many years to rebuild, and if we all packed up and left now, it'd turn into the craphole it was before. We can't allow some thug to try to grab power in Iraq, and start to take over the country. That's the last thing we need. And if we withdraw our troops, that's what will happen.

I've spoken with soldiers back from Iraq, and they say that they need us there, or else thugs will take over, and scare the Iraqi people into submission, like their previous dictator did. The Iraqi people need a force there that will protect them, and not oppress them. They need to learn not to be afraid of the government, and it's not going to happen overnight. And until they are on their own, and not under the rule of a tyrannical dictator, we must stay there to make sure none arise.


Oh yeah, and if you're leaving the Iraq war now, you're a bit late. The war ended some time ago. This is the occupation, and rebuilding. The only thing that makes it seem so tragic these days is the Iraqi mobsters who are trying their best at a power grab, and our wonderful media, that knows that "10 Coalition Soldiers Killed in Iraq" sells more than "More Iraqi People have Power and Water than before"

do a google on salvador allende, the gulf of tonkin incident, the independence of panama, and youll see why many people distrust us foreign policy

"freedom" and "democracy" are marketing terms to sell the war to the people

the bush regime should just admit that the iraqi occupation has to do with using iraq as a base of operations from which to shape/control the region

history has shown that the us does not care about a nation´s form of government in place and any crimes they commit, so long as it is pro-us according to the prevalent foreign policy.

the war is far from over. this last "combat phase" was but one campaign against radical islam.

just my 2 pesos

[idkew]

There are no WMD, SH did not support terrorism directly, the Iraqis do not want us there. .

Care to check your sources of info again?

Iraq DID HAVE WMD at one point. Saddam used them against his own people. Whether or not he had them at the time of invasions, we will never know for sure, but we sure haven't found them.

Saddam DID DIRECTLY SUPPORT TERRORISTS. He paid money (what was it? $25,000?) to the families of suicide bombers. Maybe you don't call these people (someone who straps a bomb to themselves and finds a group of people to kill) terrorists, but i sure do. If you don't call that support, what do you call it?

[idkew]

the war is far from over. this last "combat phase" was but one campaign against radical islam.

just my 2 pesos


the only part religion has in this is that these terrorists have the same beliefs. they believe that people should not be free. they believe women have no rights. they believe women are property. they believe that if you do not think like them, you must be killed. they believe it is ok to sell drugs to finance more killing. they enjoy the killing of innocent civilians.

really pious huh?

[idkew]

Had gw gone in with a viable post-war plan, much of the chaos occurring now probably wouldn't be happening.

you really think the thugs in iraq care if it is the US or the UN they are fighting? you think they would lay down their arms tomorrow if the UN was in control? notice the UN is mostly a non-arab christian entity?

[Apple //e]

the only part religion has in this is that these terrorists have the same beliefs. they believe that people should not be free. they believe women have no rights. they believe women are property. they believe that if you do not think like them, you must be killed. they believe it is ok to sell drugs to finance more killing. they enjoy the killing of innocent civilians.

really pious huh?

religion convinces them that they are right and that the whole world is wrong

they believe they are on a god-given task to kill all the infidels

its called extremism, and thats the real enemy

[idkew]

religion convinces them that they are right and that the whole world is wrong

they believe they are on a god-given task to kill all the infidels

its called extremism, and thats the real enemy

check this article out here (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/04/19/spain.body/index.html)


these god fairing people removed a fallen police officer from his tomb, drug the body around and set him ablaze.

[Ugg]

Care to check your sources of info again?

Iraq DID HAVE WMD at one point. Saddam used them against his own people. Whether or not he had them at the time of invasions, we will never know for sure, but we sure haven't found them.

Saddam DID DIRECTLY SUPPORT TERRORISTS. He paid money (what was it? $25,000?) to the families of suicide bombers. Maybe you don't call these people (someone who straps a bomb to themselves and finds a group of people to kill) terrorists, but i sure do. If you don't call that support, what do you call it?

Yes, but at the time we went in, there were none. There is also a great deal of doubt as to whether it was Iraq or Iran that is responsible for the deaths of the Kurds.

Our definitions of support must differ. After the fact support to the FAMILIES of the suicide bombers is hardly support. These people although desperate, starved and in many cases without hope would certainly not do what they did for a check. Support means up front and before the fact in my book. Other than that there has been no proof whatsoever that SH was an active force in international terrorism.

[Apple //e]

check this article out here (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/04/19/spain.body/index.html)


these god fairing people removed a fallen police officer from his tomb, drug the body around and set him ablaze.

that has nothing to do with iraq, religion, or spain withdrawing troops

it is not known who did it yet

[Apple //e]

you really think the thugs in iraq care if it is the US or the UN they are fighting? you think they would lay down their arms tomorrow if the UN was in control? notice the UN is mostly a non-arab christian entity?

i agree; they will resist all foreign invaders, regardless of national origin

[MongoTheGeek]

The war is over. All that is left is vultures picking over the scraps and us trying to rebuild. Syria is invading trying to make another Lebanon. Iran is running a 4th column action. The US and other coalition members are trying to rebuild.

It is too bad that Spanish troops are leaving, many hand s make light work but I have no anger towards them and nothing be respect for the soldiers. My big worry is that it is setting a bad precedent. Spain apparently changed governments because of the terror strike and because of the change they pulled out. For the next 2 or 3 years there will be strikes preceding major elections in high profile countries, US, Italy, France, UK, Russia and Germany. Perhaps even Japan. France and Germany even though they don't back the rebuilding of Iraq and have done little to arouse the ire of the extremists will still be targets to get them to do more to pull the US off. I am certain that US will be either attacked sometime in mid to late October or there will be no less than 100 people arrested in possession of automatic weapons or explosives.

[Awimoway]

Either that, or the Spanish government is saying that international organizations such as the UN or NATO exist for a matter. I am lead to believe the latter. The Spanish PM has clearly stated he would support Spanish troops in Iraq under a TRUE international agreement, which is not the current status of the situation. As a Spaniard, I support him in his decision.

What I do not support him in is in his decision to do it now. He should be sticking to the very agenda that he imposed to himself. Troops were supposed to be withdrawn on June IF the UN did not take control of the situation. Not waiting until that date because, literaly "the situation does not lead to preview that the UN will be effectively taking control", makes it look like you are really more interested in withdrawing the troops than the UN taking control of the situation, and gives opponents to UN's control over Iraq the excuse to say that it is we, Spaniards, who are not willing to participate in an international forum.

I appreciate and respect your well-reasoned, articulate response. It's nice to get a view of the Spanish policy from inside Spain. I was unaware that the PM had set a June deadline for himself that he is now violating. In America all we hear about is how our own president is under a lot of pressure to turn over the country in June, how that same pressure is forcing him to refuse to send more troops, and how our troops are woefully overburdened and fatigued with more getting killed every day. So, from our perspective—characteristically self-centered as it may be—Spain is really stabbing us in the back by leaving coalition troops even more shorthanded and in danger. I'm not saying we're correct; I'm only saying that's how it looks.

I feel very strongly that the war was wrong because it was unjustified (and an exploration of the merits of that argument don't really belong in this thread, thank you very much). But now that we are there we have an obligation to see the thing through, and to do it the right way. But with troops being pulled out, remaining coalition nations too afraid of the political ramifications of sending reinforcements, the UN not wanting to get involved with GW Bush's mess, and a June self-government date looming that will—mark my words—prove to be an unqualified disaster, the notion that other countries are getting cold feet is both unsurprising and very worrying. American officials are saying angrily that "this is not what allies do." I tend to agree.

Moreover, it's really hard not to see the outcome of the Spanish election—and the consequences that are coming from it—as being an endorsement of terrorism. From this side of the ocean, Spain looks afraid. Again, I'm not saying that's an accurate portrayal, but that it's simply how it looks. The fact that Osama bin Laden recently came out offering amnesty to any European nation that withdrew its support for the war in Iraq does nothing to help Spain's credibility. Spain looks afraid. I think the fear is understandable, but I worry that it's only proving to the terrorists that terrorism works.

[JamesDPS]

Either that, or the Spanish government is saying that international organizations such as the UN or NATO exist for a matter.
(snip)


While I'm not at all a fan of Bush, and he certainly screwed things up, part of the problem is that the Gulf War was never really finished, and the UN was happy to declare sanctions and rules prohibiting certain behavior against Iraq (no-fly zones, importation restrictions applying to weapons material, treatment of the Iraqi people, etc.) without actually backing it up with a credible threat of force, which unfortunately, seems to be the only thing some regimes respond to. I think diplomacy should have been given a lot more effort, but the only way an organization like the UN can be successful (and their success is absolutely necessary for any hope of world peace) is to back it up with force. Police are not effective in stopping crime if all they can do is say "stop doing that". Basically, Bush should have only cited the expiring of various UN deadlines and violations of restrictions imposed by the international community as reason to remove Saddam (obviously, kind of screwed the pooch with the whole WMD thing, even though it's clear that they at LEAST had chemical weapons -- they used them against us in the Gulf War, after all).

Basically, the UN is only a viable organization if it can command military strength independently of its member nations, and if it's willing to use more than words to impose international law. Unfortunately, the U.S. is the primary military power in the UN (by a long shot) and is unwilling to give resources unconditionally to a UN command, and is itself obviously somewhat untouchable.

As for Spain, their nation committed support before the invasion of Iraq and shouldn't back out now regardless of whether they should have gotten involved in the first place. You don't get involved in a fight alongside your friends just to run away when you get punched back, leaving them in the fray. Obviously the invasion was the "easy" part -- the policing of an incredibly unstable country (which may as well be in civil war without outside support) is the hard part and will take time and sacrifice from everyone.

How about the firebombing of Dresden during WWII? Hiroshima? Nagasaki? All deliberately targeted civilians. WWII was not different from any other war.

I agree -- firebombing of Dresden and use of nuclear weapons against civilians are examples of terrorism, no argument here. However, the world climate was totally different during WWII. For one, thing, it was an example of "total war" in which the entire resources of the participating nations were mobilized for militarization. This has not happened since. Also, it's obviously that technology has changed significantly since then. The effectiveness of today's weapons make it unnecessary to bomb an entire city in order to destroy, say, a weapons factory reliably. As such, the destruction of an entire city to acheive a military goal (as with WWII blitzes) could be considered "unavoidable". The decision to use nukes against entire cities is clearly terroristic, and worked very effectively. Victory, but a dark period in history for the US and humanity. Sure, from a utilitarian point of view it can be argued that more lives were saved in the long run, but that is irrelevant - ends do not justify the means and all that... but again I point out that the world order was COMPLETELY different at the time, every nation at war being in a state of desperation. Only decisive, massive devastation would bring an otherwise long-drawn-out-slugfest to a stop...

[G4scott]

the Iraqis do not want us there.

This is far from the truth. The corrupt Iraqis that want to take over do not want us there. I have spoken with soldiers who have temporarily come back from Iraq, and they say that the Iraqi people want them to stay. They're afraid that an Iraqi government will oppress them, and if they speak up against it, they'd disappear in the night never to be seen again. Although bitter at first, these soldiers described how it takes time for the Iraqi people to warm up to US troops, because the last people who were in charge and carried around guns were terrible murderers.

One soldier I was talking to described a time he was on patrol, and they came across a group of people loading several automatic weapons into the trunk of a car. Because they are trying to get people to register their weapons, the soldiers approached the people. A big woman came out, and started yelling, and cursing the American troops. The guy finally asked the woman for her name, and when she asked him why h e wanted her name, she was stunned by the response. He just said "It'd be nice to know who I'm talking to", and this woman almost broke down in tears. They have never been treated kindly or like actual human beings by their ruling government, which is why they're afraid the US wants to harm them. They've feared government all their lives, and have been raised to do so.

Oh, and while it might be wrong to say there were WMD's in Iraq when we invaded, I think it's equally as bad to outright believe that there were no weapons of mass destruction at all. The intelligence for the latter claim is just as good as the first. I'm not saying that there were WMD's, I'm just saying that to automatically assume there weren't any WMD's is wrong too.

[zimv20]

all of the discussion has been about the symbolism behind spain pulling its trooops. and i'll agree that, symbolically, it's pretty big.

but the actual numbers are about 1300, which is some 1% of the US' force. the only reason that would be a logistical problem is that it seems the forces are stretched thin already. previous to this recent announcement, the bush administration has already paved the way to sending in more troops.

btw, honduras is also pulling its troops, some 400.

does anyone know what other countries have troops in iraq, and what those numbers are? are the UK and Poland the only (non-U.S.) countries w/ more than a handful of combat troops there? anyone know the total # of deployed coalition troops?

[zimv20]

Iraq DID HAVE WMD at one point. Saddam used them against his own people.
that second point is in dispute. i assume you're referring to the gassed kurds. the CIA has made no official determination of who did the gassing and evidence actually points to the iranians.

the "saddam gassing his own people" allegation is something which is oft-repeated but seldom questioned.

[elmimmo]

May I quote myself, please?I still wonder, though, why some people from the US try to put the focus of the problem on why the new Spanish government's decision is wrong or not instead of trying to focus it on debating what is wrong or not with the US handing control over to the UN.Do you want us there? Do you want France or Germany there? Do you want an international community there, working side by side? Bring it to the UN and/or NATO. So easy as that. Can someone tell me what is so wrong about that?

[skunk]

does anyone know what other countries have troops in iraq, and what those numbers are? are the UK and Poland the only (non-U.S.) countries w/ more than a handful of combat troops there? anyone know the total # of deployed coalition troops?
Here, Zim, from the BBC:

US: 135,000

UK: 8,700

Italy: 3,000

Poland: 2,400

Ukraine: 1,650

Spain: 1,300

Australia: 850

Japan: 550

Honduras fell off the map, apparently. :p

[SlyHunter]

May I quote myself, please?Do you want us there? Do you want France or Germany there? Do you want an international community there, working side by side? Bring it to the UN and/or NATO. So easy as that. Can someone tell me what is so wrong about that?
They did and France veto'd it. The only reason the US went in with the coalition of the willing is because the UN refused to back up their 17 revolutions and do it. The make up of the forces are not all that much different had it been a sanctioned UN force.

[amnesiac1984]

Spain apparently changed governments because of the terror strike and because of the change they pulled out. For the next 2 or 3 years there will be strikes preceding major elections in high profile countries, US, Italy, France, UK, Russia and Germany. Perhaps even Japan.

This isn't necessarily true. I believe the election in spain was a result of the government absolutely flat out denying al-Qeada involvement in the attacks. They, immediately after the attacks, announced that they had no doubt that it was the ETA. Then the day before the election news broke of evidence linking it to al-Qeada, and I think that is what caused the majority of Spanish people to vote out their goverment, it was a massive mistake on the previous governments part to deny al-Qeada involvement when it looked so likely that it could have been to everyone on the outside.

[idkew]

that has nothing to do with iraq, religion, or spain withdrawing troops

it is not known who did it yet

humm.. looks like the link changed.

[MongoTheGeek]

This isn't necessarily true. I believe the election in spain was a result of the government absolutely flat out denying al-Qeada involvement in the attacks. They, immediately after the attacks, announced that they had no doubt that it was the ETA. Then the day before the election news broke of evidence linking it to al-Qeada, and I think that is what caused the majority of Spanish people to vote out their goverment, it was a massive mistake on the previous governments part to deny al-Qeada involvement when it looked so likely that it could have been to everyone on the outside.

I agree that the government may have been voted out for other reasons. It just looks like they caved for AQ.

In a way its almost fair to blame ETA off the bat for Madrid. Arab terrorists were initially blamed for Oklahoma City.

[idkew]

that second point is in dispute. i assume you're referring to the gassed kurds. the CIA has made no official determination of who did the gassing and evidence actually points to the iranians.

the "saddam gassing his own people" allegation is something which is oft-repeated but seldom questioned.

i was unaware that there was any question about this. i had always seen it portrayed as fact.

[amnesiac1984]

I agree that the government may have been voted out for other reasons. It just looks like they caved for AQ.

In a way its almost fair to blame ETA off the bat for Madrid. Arab terrorists were initially blamed for Oklahoma City.

there is a difference between initially placing the blame, and flat-out denying the possibility of it being anybody else. The official line of the administration was "it was the ETA, case closed". No wonder they lost all the trust of the Spanish people when they were proved so spectacularly wrong. If they had said, "Well we think it probably was the ETA, but we are not going to rule out any possibilities as its far too early to tell." They made that claim about the ETA almost instantly.

[Sayhey]

May I quote myself, please?Do you want us there? Do you want France or Germany there? Do you want an international community there, working side by side? Bring it to the UN and/or NATO. So easy as that. Can someone tell me what is so wrong about that?

There is nothing wrong with that. Bush has been forced to move towards this solution, fighting it every step of the way, but moving now towards the Brahimi plan in a desperate attempt to salvage the June 30th date for turn over of sovereignty. It is highly unlikely that Bush will move towards a real turnover of the process to international authority by the deadline. I, for one, have no problem with the "early" pullout (estimated at 4-6 weeks.) There is ample time to deal with the tactical situation on the ground resulting from this withdrawal and it may force Bush's hand toward making real steps toward a real turnover of authority.

All the folks who are so worried about the "symbolism" of the withdrawal of Spanish troops don't seem to be worried about the reality of the lack of support by the Spanish people of a war started outside of the authority of international law and institutions. Why would we expect US troops to stay in an illegal war that was not supported by the US people? Yet we now expect Spain to accept Bush's definition of the "war on terror" and let her sons die for Bush's vision of a new "Pax Americana"? There has never been any doubt about the Spanish people's commitment to a rejection of terrorism, but that doesn't mean they must march in lock step with a US neoconservative foreign policy.

[numediaman]

The most important thing is that we cannot fail. If the terrorists see us a weak it will only embolden them. Terrorists only understand power and bold actions.

Strange, that's how the terrorists feel about us.

-------------------------

All this bashing of the Spanish P.M. is why the old saying that "the U.S. has no friends, it only has allies", is so true.

Spain is a democracy. The P.M. is following through on a promise to the electorate. For that you want to bash the P.M.? I think it is rather refreshing.

Maybe you feel it is OK for the President of a country to lie to both his constituents and foreign allies -- but in other countries this is not considered good form.

[zimv20]

I agree that the government may have been voted out for other reasons. It just looks like they caved for AQ.
parts of the US media did a decent job of giving that impression

Arab terrorists were initially blamed for Oklahoma City.
by whom, though? did anyone in the WH say that (maybe, but i don't recall it)? or was it early media speculation? either way, i seem to remember that the misconception didn't last very long.

[zimv20]

Here, Zim, from the BBC:

including the hondurans, that's 153850 coalition troops. the spaniards make up 0.85% of that force. thanks for the numbers.

[JamesDPS]

...Iraq DID HAVE WMD at one point...

that second point is in dispute. i assume you're referring to the gassed kurds...

But what is NOT in dispute is that Saddam used WMD against US troops during the Gulf War. This is not something that is widely publicized, because the US threatened massive (potentially nuclear) retaliation if Saddam had used gas, and when he did, the US didn't want to go through with said destruction (which would be ironic now if they HAD!); in other words, he called our bluff. BTW, I'm basing this not off any news, but from a friend of mine who was THERE, and whose unit was attacked by Iraqis using gas shells. Additionally, there have been reports in the news ever since (every once-in-a-while) of soldiers suffering after-effects of exposure to toxic gas similar to what was seen after Vietnam.

Of course, it's probably a pretty far-fetched idea that Saddam had made any progress in the pursuit of nuclear weapons (or even biological weapons, for that matter -- both are insanely complex and difficult to build and deliver).

[skunk]

But what is NOT in dispute is that Saddam used WMD against US troops during the Gulf War.
And vice versa. What do you call dropping large bombs from B52s flying at 60,000 feet? Multiple rocket launchers? DU shells? Just because the Coalition of the Witless were writing the dictionary, it doesn't mean a rose is no longer a rose.

[JamesDPS]

And vice versa. What do you call dropping large bombs from B52s flying at 60,000 feet? Multiple rocket launchers? DU shells? Just because the Coalition of the Witless were writing the dictionary, it doesn't mean a rose is no longer a rose.

Good point -- I'd never try to argue that the US doesn't have and use WMD (especially as the US is still the only nation to ever use nuclear weapons in warfare)... but that's not what my point was about.

[edit]: although on a side note, I think the dictionary you refer to was actually written at the Geneva Convention, not by the Coalition of the Witless... WMD refers to nuclear weapons and weapons banned by international law.

[mactastic]

Of course, it's probably a pretty far-fetched idea that Saddam had made any progress in the pursuit of nuclear weapons (or even biological weapons, for that matter -- both are insanely complex and difficult to build and deliver).

And the real pisser is that of the 'NBC' weapons (nuclear, biological, chemical) only the nuclear weapons are considered a strategic threat. Chem/bio weapons are tactical, and are not really a threat to the security of the United States. IOW, even if Saddam had the means to deliver a weapon, either by rocket or some other lower-tech method, that that doesn't rise to the threshold of threatening the security of the US. A nuclear weapon would do so.

Of course, and to my great surprise, we've found nothing that points to SH doing anything more than mothballing any NBC projects he had under way in 1991. I thought we knew where those weapons were, that they were in the areas south and west of Baghdad.

[JamesDPS]

And the real pisser is that of the 'NBC' weapons (nuclear, biological, chemical) only the nuclear weapons are considered a strategic threat. Chem/bio weapons are tactical, and are not really a threat to the security of the United States. IOW, even if Saddam had the means to deliver a weapon, either by rocket or some other lower-tech method, that that doesn't rise to the threshold of threatening the security of the US. A nuclear weapon would do so.

Of course, and to my great surprise, we've found nothing that points to SH doing anything more than mothballing any NBC projects he had under way in 1991. I thought we knew where those weapons were, that they were in the areas south and west of Baghdad.

I have a feeling that we probably did "know" where the weapons programs were, but I would imagine that after advertising that knowledge, they'd be moved or scrapped... in any case, I really don't think that Saddam was ever a direct threat to the US... if anything, he's MORE of a threat now than before (if there were any banned weapons in Iraq before the war, where are they now? en route to locations around the world?)

[zimv20]

But what is NOT in dispute is that Saddam used WMD against US troops during the Gulf War.
this is the first i've heard of this. aside from your friend's account, what do i have to go on?

[mactastic]

I have a feeling that we probably did "know" where the weapons programs were, but I would imagine that after advertising that knowledge, they'd be moved or scrapped... in any case, I really don't think that Saddam was ever a direct threat to the US... if anything, he's MORE of a threat now than before (if there were any banned weapons in Iraq before the war, where are they now? en route to locations around the world?)

I think if you're gonna claim he moved weapons around, there has to be evidence of recent production of such weapons. Most Chem/Bio weapons don't have a very long shelf life, so if SH had them to ship to some other country, he had labs producing the stuff. Now we are all pretty sure that he wasn't doing it in those purported 'mobile bioweapons labs' that Powell and Rummy made such a big deal about, so those facilities have to be somewhere. And there have to be roads capable of supporting the heavy equipment needed to both build and supply those facilities. So they (the facilities, not the weapons themselves) can't be just anywhere in the country. We've had over a year now to search that country freely, and still nothing. So I'm inclined to believe that the possibility that SH spirited off all his WMDs is nearly zero.

[idkew]

...So I'm inclined to believe that the possibility that SH spirited off all his WMDs is nearly zero.

If i gave you a year to dismantle a manufacturing plant in california and hide it, how long do you think it would take for me to find it?

[mactastic]

If i gave you a year to dismantle a manufacturing plant in california and hide it, how long do you think it would take for me to find it?


Depends, how many satellites and analysts do I get? :p Cause I guarantee you, SH moved nothing major around in that country without us seeing it for over a year.


And would you be producing anything in that plant over that year? And if your product was no good after a few months would you still retain any of that product that was useful?

[zimv20]

If i gave you a year to dismantle a manufacturing plant in california and hide it, how long do you think it would take for me to find it?
do you have half the US military, the CIA, 10+ years of satellite imagery and UN weapons inspectors reports at your disposal?