Are you talking about gold in the northeast or gold in what we now know as the continental U.S.? OH..Nevermind! It was a good sandwich.
brobear, the terrorist bombing in Madrid occurred before the change in government. Their retreat from Iraq occurred because 90% of the Spanish were opposed to the war. The election, within one or two days AFTER the bombing, and the resulting change in prime ministers led to the withdrawal of the Spanish troops.
Thanks for the info Siber. I just remembered that it was right at the time when Spain was saying they would withdraw. Which still makes it appeasement. I remember it was all over the international news about the bombing and Spains change of regime due to the people's distaste for the Iraq war. Word was already out, well in advance, that Spain was withdrawing. _X_X_X_X_X_[small][bold]'brobear'[/bold] [/small]
brobear, On the eve of the election, it was clear in the opinion polls that the government WAS going to get reelected. The prime minister had stated that the Spanish troops would REMAIN in Iraq. Even though the majority of the Spanish were against the Spanish deployment in Iraq, they were very happy with the government's overall job in managing the economy and reelection seemed a certainty. The opposition had announced that they would withdraw the troops if they were elected but it didn't look good for them. Then came the bombings in Madrid. The public opinion changed almost overnight. The opposition won and decided to withdraw the troops. Al Qaida had actually succeeded in deciding the Spanish elections. That is why there is presently quite a bit of anxiety in the US (and elsewhere) about a timed terror act just before the Presidential elections. Could they do it again?
Don't know whose polls you were reading. Everyone reading the political climate could see the current government,at the time, was going to get ousted. Much like LBJ during the Vietnamese conflict/war. You don't have those percentages of the population against a faction and it remain in power. The polls were obviously wishful thinking on someone's part. I concede that the bombings would have some influence, but the sentiment was there already. The point I was trying to make was that one can't turn and run in the face of terrorism. They'll just attack to make you run faster. Many governments are starting to abandon associations with the US to appease their citizens, the Philipenes being the most notable of late. Do you think the terrorists there are going to give up operations. Seems someone wants to appease the citizenry and that bunch of citizens are living in a dream world. They need to wake up. _X_X_X_X_X_[small][bold]'brobear'[/bold] [/small]
All political theory aside and all the philosophical opinions; I am saying simply that the policy of appeasing terrorists is wrong. If they get the impression they can influence others by their acts of terror, they will do so. The best way to invite attack is by showing weak resolve in the face of attack. You are right, the attack in Spain was probably calculated for the effect and sadly the people of Spain fell right into line. As I said, the election was no shoe in and the bombing was a clincher.
This is one article I read. It is particularily relevant now...http://www.iht.com/ihtsearch.php?id=515674&owner=(International%20Herald%20Tribune)&date=20001121010000 'Night. Always a pleasure, you know that.
The article is from April 2004 and one can tell the political leaning of this paper. They presented the sentiments of John Kerry as the closing words. Not exactly an impartial piece. I do agree with the part about not giving in to terrorists though[bold] (which were not the words of John Kerry).[/bold] Seems Mr. Kerry is more interested in being loved than in fighting a war on terrorism, which President Bush is doing. Make love, not war... Hmmm, heard that somewhere before. Good night siber and have a pleasant evening. The best to you and yours. _X_X_X_X_X_[small][bold]'brobear'[/bold] [/small]
An interesting thing: Since 9/11 we have been threatened by imminent attack. Various times we have been told by the media an attack will likely happen. The truth is an attack could happen at any time and if possible the attackers will time it to have the maximum political effect. That means all big events, including political ones are under threat. Look at the security for the Olympics. Did I hear an attack was imminent during the Reagan funeral. What happened when the transponder on the Governor of KY's plane went out? The media has pretty much become the 'boy who cried wolf'. I'm sorry to say, eventually, they will probably be right. Then we'll hear 'we told you so', neglecting to mention all the times they were wrong. _X_X_X_X_X_[small][bold]'brobear'[/bold] [/small]
