Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Screw Zapatero

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Screw Zapatero

    Zapatero of Spain is a communist troll who's trolling to socialist, anarchist mob around the world at the expense of his people's national pride and dignity. He sucks extremist c...k and swallows eagerly. 200 people murdered and he's offering to suck terrorist c...k in response. Because of this selfish S.O.B (again, personal popularity ahead of everything else) we may start seeing train bombs all over Europe every time there's an election with socialists involved.

    I've lived in a socialist/communist county for the first 15 years of my life, I know where communist troll opportunists eventually end up.

    And what are those statement about the occupation of Iraq being a complete fiasco? Those are really crude, trollish shots taken at the United States. Shouldn't we at least wait for the hand-over of power and the American pullout before we decide if the occupation was a success or fiasco?
    Last edited by MonsterZero; 17 Mar 04, 11:14.

    "Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a ugly brawl."
    --Frederick II, King of Prussia

  • #2
    Don't hold back...tell us how you really feel.

    Comment


    • #3
      I'm very mad because I love you guys and I don't want your lives (we have some folks from Spain too) jeopardized so some socialist wannabie can score cheap points with his electorate. The coalition in Iraq consists of 35 nations led by some of the brightest people on this planet. But no, they're all wrong and only Zapatero sees the light. And that guy has ZERO experience in foreign affaris, he's a complete wannabie.
      Last edited by MonsterZero; 17 Mar 04, 11:19.

      "Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a ugly brawl."
      --Frederick II, King of Prussia

      Comment


      • #4
        Well, a massive explosion in Baghdad. The news just came in. Terrorist salute to Zapatero the troll.

        "Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a ugly brawl."
        --Frederick II, King of Prussia

        Comment


        • #5
          The USA are reducing their contingent in Iraq by 20.000 instead of just 1.300 like the spaniards (and they even said that their soldiers can stay if they are under UN command!), so I guess you think that Bush is the Mother of all SOBs, correct? Come on, let me hear it how mad you are at GWB for raping the world by pulling out 15 times as much soldiers from Iraq as Spain intends to do
          "The conventional army loses if it does not win. The guerrilla wins if he does not lose."

          Henry Alfred Kissinger

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Kraut
            The USA are reducing their contingent in Iraq by 20.000 instead of just 1.300 like the spaniards (and they even said that their soldiers can stay if they are under UN command!), so I guess you think that Bush is the Mother of all SOBs, correct? Come on, let me hear it how mad you are at GWB for raping the world by pulling out 15 times as much soldiers from Iraq as Spain intends to do
            Kraut, what's between your ears? For you this is just a numbers game? He who pulls out the most troops is the guilty one? This has nothing to do with numbers. Iraq can be run without the Spaniards if needed, it's not the point. It's about the timing of making such statements. Terrorists blow up people and watch the reaction. You can't try to please them the day after the most severe terrorist attack in Spain's history!

            The entire terrorist ideology of Al-Quaida is built around the belief that Americans are cowardly and give up after taking a few casualties. This is directly related to two moments of American weakness: Lebanon and Somalia. The USA has been paying a heavy price for Lebanon for the past 20 years and only now in the third year of the war on terror the bad guys are beginning to review their false beliefs. Political cowardice in the face of terrorism doesn't work and actually encourages extremists to claim whatever ground you give up.
            Last edited by MonsterZero; 17 Mar 04, 12:12.

            "Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a ugly brawl."
            --Frederick II, King of Prussia

            Comment


            • #7
              The spanish decision has nothing to do with cowardice or beeing influenced by the terror attacks, Zapatero position for a long time was that should he be elected he'd pull his troops out of Iraq unless they are put under UN command. Had he decided to let his troops in Iraq _despite_ his pre-election promises you could say that the bombing influenced his decision, but not the other way around!

              And I repeat it again: having troops in Iraq is not equal fighting terrorism !! Spain can easily pull out of Iraq and intensify it's search for AlQaeda! Iraq was a US adventure to topple Saddam and trying to install a democratic government in Iraq, the US presence in Iraq attracts AlQaeda and many other anti-US terrorist groups to fight in Iraq but you presence there is lagely responsible for this increase of terror attacks. And killing some local Gunman will NOT weaken international terrorism. But that's the whole point of the war against Terror, to imprison the international terrorists and not some local clan leader or gunmen.
              "The conventional army loses if it does not win. The guerrilla wins if he does not lose."

              Henry Alfred Kissinger

              Comment


              • #8
                Some good points, I understand your position

                "Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a ugly brawl."
                --Frederick II, King of Prussia

                Comment


                • #9
                  As far as I know most of the Spanish people are against direct involvement of their troops in Iraq and they have always been. So IMHO the outgoing PM made the most serious mistake: commit without popular support. Had the Spaniards said "no" in the beginning things in Iraq would have run the same course.

                  The Spanish have cooked their own soup and now they're refusing to eat it.

                  It takes a nation with guts and bravado to take on extremists, that's for sure. An indecisive involvement is worse that no involvement at all because people we are facing hold nothing back.

                  "Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a ugly brawl."
                  --Frederick II, King of Prussia

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Some interesting thoughts on Spain...

                    More thoughts on Spain

                    Several left bloggers, and most of Kevin Drum's commenters, seem to be missing the point about the Spanish elections. If the consequence of major terrorist actions is to induce voters to elect politicians who will pursue -- for whatever good reason -- policies the terrorists favor, that constitutes an incentive for more terrorist actions. So if the Spanish voters were saying to al-Qaeda, "Okay, we give up; we'll do what you want; just don't hurt us again," that would be bad for the world and dishonorable of the Spanish voters.

                    I'm a little bit disappointed that so many of the warbloggers seem eager to adopt this interpretation, and to trumpet their contempt for a country now grieving for its dead. It might be the right interpretation, and a certain amount of contempt would be justified if it were the right interpretation, but this really isn't the moment to by adding insult to injury.

                    Of course, the alternative interpretation -- or better say "another interpretation," since they aren't mutually exclusive -- is that the Spanish electorate was angry at having been bullshat by the Spanish government, which leaped to finger the wrong group for the bombings in order to use the bombings to its domestic political advantage. (Beautiful Horizons has some specifics: apparently the counter-terror investigators in Spain knew within hours that ETA hadn't done it, and some senior officials threatened to resign when Anzar continued to speak as if ETA had done it.) I can see how that possibility might send shivers down the spines of those hoping for a Bush re-election in November.

                    But I still have to ask the warbloggers one question: Why are you so eager to see bad news here? Why do you prefer to see the people of Spain as a bunch of cowardly appeasers, and the election result as a victory for al-Qaeda? Isn't the eagerness to see bad news in the War on Terror exactly what you love to accuse your opponents of?

                    Whatever mix of interpretations is true, it's certain that the Spanish voters just voted to withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq. One question people in Washington (and we, as their bosses) ought to be asking is why our government hadn't done more in the run-up to the election to make it clear to the Spanish people that acting in concert with the United States had direct benefits to Spain.

                    The Administration has been gleefully public in threatening and taking reprisals against those of our allies, including France, Germany, and Canada (but not, for some reason, Russia) that failed to follow our diplomatic and military lead. But the flip side of that -- benefits for those who have helped us -- hasn't been nearly as obvious. What victory suitable for domestic political consumption did the Bush Administration give Anzar and his Partido Popular. What victory has it given to Blair, or Berlusconi?

                    If there's a single idea that runs through the "Mirrors of Princes" literature from Xenophon to Machiavelli to Neustadt, it's that a ruler has to make it advantageous to others -- and especially to those who are not already his intimate friends -- to cooperate with him, and disadvantageous not to cooperate. Both domestically and internationally, the Bush administration seems to be fixated on only on the nasty half of that formula.

                    And whatever the reasons for what the Spanish electorate just did, the results make it clear that American unpopularity abroad has real consequences, and that it would be in our security interest to have an administration in power capable of attracting popular support in democratic countries for our fight against al-Qaeda and its friends.

                    Bill Clinton was and is a supporter not merely of anti-terrorist policy generically, but of the Iraq invasion as well. He spoke up at a crucial moment in the British debate on the war in support of the Bush-Blair position. Both domestically and internationally, Clinton has considerable prestige. Yet the Bush crowd has been so eager to have Clinton to use as a domstic political whipping-boy that they have never tried to engage that prestige on their side of the debate.

                    Many Democrats dislike George W. Bush in part because he was and is a war President. I see "war is not the Answer" bumper stickers on the same cars that have Dean and Kucinich bumper stickers on them.

                    But some of us dislike George W. Bush largely because he has proven to be such an inept war President. November Matthew Yglesias has details. We're hoping, this November, to elect a better one: a President capable of rallying the allies we need for this war, a President for whom homeland security is more than an excuse to do a little union-busting, a President who will not subordinate victory against terror to domestic political advantage, a President less in thrall to the House of Saud and therefore more willing to demand that Saudi support for al-Qaeda and for Wahhabist hate education cease.

                    Earlier thoughts on Spain here

                    Update Quite possibly neither of my proposed explanations (the Spanish electorate was waving a white flag or the Spanish electorate was punishing a government that lied to it) was correct. Turnout in this election was unexpectedly high, perhaps because some people who would otherwise have been non-voters were mobilized to make a gesture of civic solidarity. As in most countries, the potential electorate in Spain as a whole leans somewhat to the left of the sub-group that actually votes, in part because the non-voters tend to be young. So it may be that the terrorist attack didn't change anyone's mind about which party to vote for, but merely increased turnout in a way that happened to help the PSOE opposition.

                    Which just goes to show that lots of wierd stuff happens in politics, and lots of things mean less than they seem to mean.

                    I'm a little bit embarrassed at having missed what seems in retrospect like an obvious hypothesis. (Duhhh...if something changes in an election, it's either due to vote-switching or changes in turnout.) But the people who have spent the last two days insulting a nation in grief ought to be substantially more embarrassed.

                    Essentially, what the warfloggers who have been demeaning themselves by berating the Spanish vote results are neglecting to consider is that the Spanish people chose to drive out a party which proved to be a failure with respect to the interests of the Spanish people. It is stupid to think that if the actions of the outgoing party made Spain less safe, that they should be allowed to continue making it less safe.

                    If there were to be a major terrorist attack on the US in the days before the election in Novemeber, would you think (if you are still a fence-sitter) that you should continue to elect an administration that disregarded the advice of the previous administration and allowed a major terrorist attack on US soil to take place, not just once, but twice? Seems to me to be the epitome of stupidity to knee-jerk vote for a failed policy, just to prove that you're hard-headed enough to not be swayed into seeing that you might have been wrong in the first place...
                    I have no problem at all with being proved wrong. Especially when being proved wrong leaves the world a better place, than being proved right...

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      In all honesty, I would prefer the Spainards withdrew their troops rather than force them to risk their lives in a cause their people don't believe serves Spain's best interest. I've never been comfortable with the ideal of pressing countries to contribute to causes they don't support. Not only does it effect the quality of support, but it can damage long-term relations.

                      So if Spain, or anyone else want to pull back their troops, I would thank them for their participation and wish them well. If Iraq ends up benefiting those who did not contribute to the effort, that is fine with me as well. We are in Iraq because many Americans thought, and continue to think it was the right move. We should do all we can to complete the mission, even if America ends up alone.

                      As for Zapatero, he sounds like a newbie politician caught up in the dreams of the authority invested in him. Bush promised to disengage America from peacekeeping operations, which caused some headaches in places like the Balkans. Once in office, keeping those promises became more difficult than he could have imagined.

                      Before we condemn Spain for "punking-out", we need to consider our own beliefs. Many Americans didn't believe the US should have involved itself in many places and efforts. We twiddled our thumbs while Canadian, British, Dutch (I believe) troops were taken hostage in Bosnia. We did nothing while hundreds of thousands died in Rwanda. In each incident our own interest exceeded any obligation to the greater good. So we can't act all brand-new because Spain has decided to put her interest ahead of our own.
                      "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I would concur with Deltapooh, if the Spainards heart isn't in this, maybe it's best if they weren't there.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Priest
                          I would concur with Deltapooh, if the Spainards heart isn't in this, maybe it's best if they weren't there.
                          I agree but what were they thinking when they committed? That it was going to be like TV-miniseries?

                          "Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a ugly brawl."
                          --Frederick II, King of Prussia

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            It scares me that some people see almost no difference between social democracy and socialism E. Euroepan style.
                            "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."

                            – Associate Justice Louis D. Brandeis, Olmstead vs. United States.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Socialism is the same wherever it is. Just because Canada has to deal with no one because they have the Colossus of the South right next to them, doesn't mean that Universal Health Care is the answer. Just because you don't have to deal with any real problems... doesn't mean that Socialism is the answer.

                              Spain is slipping, so because of Terrorist attacks the Spanish people retreat into a shell out of Iraq. Bowing to the terrorists. What happened to the damn Cortez's and the conquistadors? Fair weather allies aren't really allies at all. If someone gets attacked and leaves the U.S. then why should we lobby to the world for support in operations? Because if they get hit after we agree to all their useless concessions they'll pull out and we'll be stuck with a negotiated problem?

                              Numbers don't matter, the U.S. can easily just apply a regiment if needed or not even that. The Spanish were good to have as a counter-balance European opposition to the War. Now it doesn't really matter. It just shows how alone the U.S. is nowadays and I don't see why we should change when our "allies" are so weak as to surrender into terrorist demands after one attack. Pitiful.

                              Cortez was a Conquerer.
                              Furthermore, they had calculated that if 25,000 of them died for every one of us, they would finish us first, for they were many and we were but few.
                              -Hernan Cortez

                              The Pacific is our ocean. The power that rules the Pacific, therefore, is the power that rules the world. That power is and will forever be the American Republic.
                              -Senator Albert J. Beveridge, 56th Congress

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X