Spain sparks Iraq troops rethink

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3638001.stm

"The US says it expects other coalition nations to reassess their participation in Iraq's security forces as Spanish troops prepare to be called home."

It seems the Spanish government is giving in to terrorist threats (perhaps as a result of Bin Laden's latest video?) and pulling all its troops out of Iraq as soon as possible. I guess this is what happens when you put a Socialist in charge.

I know some people didn't agree with the war or the reasons given for it (in particular the WMD debate, which seems to be neverending over here) however surely they must agree that now we're in Iraq we should stay there until the country is stablised. I mean, if we pull out now what do you think will happen? Mob rule, followed by the replacement of Saddam with the leader of whichever group fills the political vacuum first. You'd think that all these people who say they are on the side of the Iraqi people would want them to have a democratic government, but they also want the only protection from mob violence.

Thoughts?

Yes:

1. We shall remain until the whole thing has been resolved to the satisfaction of the UN which I hope means that the poor old Iraquis get a reasonably stable democratic government, and can get on with things....................I don't care if they vote in Ghengis Khan or Joe Stalin, just as long as it is the wish of the majority.

Otherwise the only solution would be to partition the place?.....Shia, Sunni, Kurd..........that would gie the Shias the sand, and the Sunnis and the Kurds the oil.................I don't think that would last for long?

2. Spain was not involved in a combatant role or on any significant scale............cheap party politics there...................hmmmm that reminds me I owe the Party £15 for next year's membership :D

Guess which one?

Cheers

I look at the current situation regarding the Gaza Strip and think partitioning would be the worst possible idea.

The only party I know that charges exactly £15/year for adult membership (others don't necessarily charge less) is the Conservatives (I'm a student so I get it for £3 instead - but then I'm probably the only member under 20 in my area :)).

I think the spainish goverment is calling it troops home because over 75% of the spanish population was against them being sent over in the first place. That is one of the reasons that the right lost the elections as the left said they would respect the wishes of the majority.
Also the goverement at the time tried to blame the basque movement for the train bombings even after it was clear it was al quida. There was a huge backlash of public opinion because of that.

As i said in another post the worst thing for Iraq now would be if the coalition pulled out before there was a stable goverment in place.

To delight in war is a merit in the soldier, a dangerous quality in the captain, and a positive crime in the statesman. ------George santayana

Umm how is diverting troops from the US war for oil, over t oafganistan to hunt down the alquida leader ship giving in to terror, seems to me that they are doing more to fight terror then the US is

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by bballad
Umm how is diverting troops from the US war for oil, over t oafganistan to hunt down the alquida leader ship giving in to terror, seems to me that they are doing more to fight terror then the US is

---

Errr.... Where did you come up with Spain shifting their troops to Afghanistan? I did not see that in the article.
As for how pulling out of Iraq is equated to giving in to terror: AlQueda (sp?) claimed responsibility for the train bombings in Spain and issued a statement that they would not conduct more terrorist attacks for a period of 90 days (?) in Spain, but only if Spain will remove their troops from Iraq. Note that the terrorists never gave any guarantee that the terrorists would not start their terrorist attacks anew, once Spanish troops were removed from Iraq. The message this sends to the terrorists is that it only takes 12 bombs and a large amount of "Civilian" deaths to cause the Spanish people and government to give in to terroristic demands. Bowing in to exhortion is bad on so many levels.

Where will the exhortion stop? The terrorists will start thinking, "Will it take more than 12 bombs to force the Spanish government to grant us immunity from other terroristic acts conducted in other countries? How many bombs will it take to get the Spanish government to finance our cause? How many bombs will it take to make the Spanish government build us a training facility on Spanish soil.? How many bombs will it take to change the current Spanish government, from the existing government to one that is more likely to give in to terrorist demands?......oh yeah, we've already done that, it took only 12 bombs. How many bombs will it take to get the Spanish people to elect a terrorist led political party?"

Mark my words. That unless the United States manages to wipe out the influence of AlQueda, Spain will be attacked by AlQueda again, because the terrorists now have a tool of leverege that is proven effective against the Spanish People and the Spanish government.

Spain did not retract its troops from Iraq to "comply" with terrorist demands, nor to prevent further attacks on Spanish soil.
Zapatero (the new PM) had the retraction of troops from Iraq on his agenda long before the March attacks, and it was one of his bigger election promises. The Spanish people chose, elected Zapatero and his retraction politics, and Zapatero kept his promise.

He didn't give in to terrorist demands, he gave in to the people's demands...

That doesn't say anything about whether retracting troops from Iraq is right or wrong, but it does say something about the reasoning behind the retraction.

When will people get it into their heads that this is not a US-led war to take the Iraqi's oil from them? I am sick and tired of these conspiracy theories - we went in and took out Saddam Hussain, one of the world's most ruthless dictators, and everyone keeps moaning about the oil. It's nothing to do with that.

As for Zapatero, he seems to be doing what's popular rather than what's right (in my opinion). I long for the good old politicians like Thatcher who made a decision and stuck with it because they thought it was the right thing to do, not something that would win them votes/popularity.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Negative
Spain did not retract its troops from Iraq to "comply" with terrorist demands, nor to prevent further attacks on Spanish soil.
Zapatero (the new PM) had the retraction of troops from Iraq on his agenda long before the March attacks, and it was one of his bigger election promises. The Spanish people chose, elected Zapatero and his retraction politics, and Zapatero kept his promise.

He didn't give in to terrorist demands, he gave in to the people's demands...

That doesn't say anything about whether retracting troops from Iraq is right or wrong, but it does say something about the reasoning behind the retraction.

---

I Stand corrected Negative. Zapatero was running a platform that favored the removal of Spain's troops from Iraq.

However, it was my understanding that before the bombings occured, the Conservative party in Spain was poised to win the election again. I may be wrong on that count also, but I don't have time hunt down the articles.

Thanks Negative

Here's an interesting article covering it all, OverdueSpy.
And you are right:

Quote:

---

It is true that the governing Popular Party led in the polls until days before the elections, and it would likely have been reelected but for the horrific train bombings in Madrid that occurred just 72 hours before the voting started. But that does not mean voters turned against the government out of fear of the terrorists. The reality is more complicated.

---

you are correct on the spanish elections spy...but if one wants to fight alquida would it not be better t ogo where thye are (afganisatan, the horn of africa, south east aisa and pacific islands.) then oppressing a populace where they are not (iraq)

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by bballad
you are correct on the spanish elections spy...but if one wants to fight alquida would it not be better t ogo where thye are (afganisatan, the horn of africa, south east aisa and pacific islands.) then oppressing a populace where they are not (iraq)

---

Now we are moving more into the realm of preception here. I preceive the improvised explosive devices, gunfire, rockets, mortars, along with calls from AlQueda for terrorists to flock to Iraq to help resist the Infidel Americans as ample proof that there is a war on terror to be fought in Iraq. I'm guessing that you probably perceive the fighting as being conducted by everyday Iraqis that do not want Americans and their cultural influence intorduced into their society. Which is a valid viewpoint. Although I disagree.

Negative. Yes, the issues were more complicated in Spain than just a bombing. Let me try to clarify my point a little by saying that AlQueda was able to significantly influence the Spanish Electoral process, which bodes evil for not only Spain but potentially for any country with major political elections upcoming. (America Included) However I think that America ,and the American people, would react accordingly by voting to kick some terrorist butt and not cowering in fear inside of our boundaries.

spy the question is do we let alquida pick the war zone (as we are curently doing in iraq), or do we take the fight to them(why are we ignoreing africa and understaffing afganistan). I would rather chose the battle ground and act proactivly insted of being reactive

bballad, you are assuming there is substance to fighting in afganistan. I get the impression it's pretty quiet there. Meaning, the fire is elsewhere? You can't catch Armadilos in Canada?