We Are All Spaniards

"Rosspilot" wrote in message
...
14 or so soldiers as far as I know. (at least this is what I have seen
on
TV)

You should get out more. There are over 1500 Polish troops in Iraq.


Actually, under Polish command are more than 9000 troops (from various
Slavik
and Eastern European, other countries)

Bit less now that the 1300 Spaniards have gone AWOL....

Jay Honeck wrote:

No matter how you cut it, there is nothing good here. We are all much more
vulnerable, thanks to the Spanish.

NPR's "All Things Considered" was saying the same thing yesterday.

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

No matter how you cut it, there is nothing good here. We are all much
more
vulnerable, thanks to the Spanish.

NPR's "All Things Considered" was saying the same thing yesterday.

I also heard it on Canadian radio (which, for some inexplicable reason, is
aired on our local public radio station in the evenings) last night, and the
BBC.

For once, liberals and conservatives seem to be in agreement on something.
Too bad it's so awful.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Tony Cox" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"Rosspilot" wrote in message
...
14 or so soldiers as far as I know. (at least this is what I have seen
on
TV)

You should get out more. There are over 1500 Polish troops in Iraq.


Actually, under Polish command are more than 9000 troops (from various
Slavik
and Eastern European, other countries)

Bit less now that the 1300 Spaniards have gone AWOL....

The Spaniards are neither Slavic, nor Eastern European.

What is relevant is what the terrorists perceive. They have now seen that
"Bomb+Massive Casualties=Troops out of the Middle East."

No matter how you cut it, there is nothing good here. We are all much more
vulnerable, thanks to the Spanish.

The first part is certainly true, but I'm not sure the last bit is.
Given that attacking the U.S. resulted in two shooting wars, plus
manifold other actions against terrorism, I don't think that the U.S.
is the next logical target. Surely Italy is. Or, if the message is
"all crusaders bad", then France.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

In article , "David Brooks"
writes:


Now, by "right" I meant the traditional middle-American conservative. WD,
what would the Libertarian viewpoint have been between Munich and Pearl
Harbor? What about after PH?


There wasn't an LP then, but I expect it would be divided, just as it is now
about Iraq.

Libertarians do not believe in the initiation of force for politcal ends, but
we have no problem with taking a war to the enemy's back yard once it has
begun.

The current division in the LP is one of world view rather than of principle.
Some see terrorism as isolated incidents that must be addressed individually.
LP members with this world view generally supported the invasion of Afghanistan
but see little justification for Iraq.

Libertarian Hawks, like myself, see a larger world war, against Islamofascism,
encompassing the whole of the middle east, and much of Africa, Asia and Europe.
We look at the movement of Islamofascism as the enemy, and not just individual
governments. Under that view, Iraq is a legitimate strategic target. Iraq did
not topple the WTC, but Normandy didn't bomb Pearl Harbor either. In WW2 we
went where it was militarily expedient to fight fascism and we will fight
Islamofascism the same way now. Taking Iraq first minimzes the number of
Moslems we will have to kill to win this war.

But Libertarians are every bit as opposed to losing a war once we're in it as
we arew to unnecessarily getting into one in the first place. We would have
been quite content to let the marketplace decide whether capitalism and the
rule of law would prevail over feudalism and theocracy, but they chose to use
force and we will burn them to the ground if that's what it takes.


--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

In article ,
(Alex) writes:


Their agenda is not freedom -- it is the downfall of Western civilization,
in the name of God.

It's thier own freedom from western opresion. Believe it or not, they
don't see America as their saviour, but as their invader.



Actually, it's all about Brittany Spears.

Their sons, and worse, their daughters, think Brittany is cool. That is death
to their mysogenistic, sixth century culture. For centuries, they could
indoctrinate their sons in madrasas's, and their daughters at their mothers
knees, into their backward, authoritarian feudal culture in isolation, but now,
in the electronic age, Brittany rains down on them from our satelites and their
stick in the mud culture cannot compete for the hearts of the next generation.

And they are ****ed.

They can't win. Their people thirst for information from the outside. As soon
as we struck down the Taliban, satelite dishes buried in back yards sprouted up
like daffodils in the spring. Their culture cannot stand open exchange with the
outside world, and technology will no longer give them a place to hide. So
their culture is dying, but like a snake with a broken back, they are lashing
out blindly.

The sooner we drag them out of the sixth century, the fewer of them we will
have to kill to stop the violence. Dropping the rule of law and self
determination right into the heart of the middle east in Iraq is the quickest
way to bring the struggle to an end.


--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

In article ,
(Alex) writes:


Also, why do you assume freedom = democracy? For most people, freedom
means to be left alone to live their lives any way they want. In your
case, that means a certain political system, a certain culture, a
certain moral system, etc. In the case of the arab world, it means
something different. Who is to say that this is wrong? You can't apply
your particular moral system to another culture.


This would be why everywhere they gain power over the indigents they impose
Sahria?

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:U2_5c.32061$po.291135@attbi_s52...
The Spanish voted in a Socialist government because the Right wing
government lied to then too often. Firdtly over the reasons for going to
war
and then quickly blaming ETA when it appears not to be.

The government was punished for that - not to appease terrorists.

True or not, it doesn't matter. (And given the pre-election polls in
Spain,
I doubt your conclusions.)

What matters is what the terrorists perceive -- not what you and I
believe.
And I don't see how they can learn any lesson but this: "Bombs+Massive
Casualties = Troops out of Middle East."

The actions of Spain have endangered us all.

********! The action of the US is the problem. Cruising round the world with
its big dick looking for someone else to screw.
Big dick no brains!

"Wdtabor" wrote in message
...
In article , "David Brooks"
writes:


Now, by "right" I meant the traditional middle-American conservative. WD,
what would the Libertarian viewpoint have been between Munich and Pearl
Harbor? What about after PH?


There wasn't an LP then, but I expect it would be divided, just as it is
now
about Iraq.

Libertarians do not believe in the initiation of force for politcal ends,
but
we have no problem with taking a war to the enemy's back yard once it has
begun.

The current division in the LP is one of world view rather than of
principle.
Some see terrorism as isolated incidents that must be addressed
individually.
LP members with this world view generally supported the invasion of
Afghanistan
but see little justification for Iraq.

Libertarian Hawks, like myself, see a larger world war, against
Islamofascism,
encompassing the whole of the middle east, and much of Africa, Asia and
Europe.
We look at the movement of Islamofascism as the enemy, and not just
individual
governments. Under that view, Iraq is a legitimate strategic target. Iraq
did
not topple the WTC, but Normandy didn't bomb Pearl Harbor either. In WW2
we
went where it was militarily expedient to fight fascism and we will fight
Islamofascism the same way now. Taking Iraq first minimzes the number of
Moslems we will have to kill to win this war.

But Libertarians are every bit as opposed to losing a war once we're in it
as
we arew to unnecessarily getting into one in the first place. We would
have
been quite content to let the marketplace decide whether capitalism and
the
rule of law would prevail over feudalism and theocracy, but they chose to
use
force and we will burn them to the ground if that's what it takes.

American libertarians make Hitler and his Nazis look like a soft touch.
Says a lot for the American right.