the dynamite politics thread

[Lina]

come on, we just sent peacekeepers. you and i could have handled that war inbetween parties at your place.

I bet Ms. Love would've been the first peacekeeping diplomat to be sent.

 

[hyena]

lina, no matter how unrepublican you are, i'm liking you more and more by the minute.

edit: and your idea is also realistic: she likes to travel between different countries apparently, so we would have done her a favor.

 

[fireangel]

From that article:

"They have suffered a grievous blow, and it was crazy to go ahead with an election a mere three days after the Madrid massacre. "

"You do not give terrorists the chance to think that their methods work. "

=> those two things contradict each other. Because, that could mean that terrorists are able to make elections delayed, and then, in few weeks, also a different result could have happened than helding the elections as planned. Whatever you do, you change the happenings in time. And making elections not happen the scheduled day, is also a response to the attack.

"Al Qaeda has now induced one nation to abandon the Iraqi people."

=> abandon? What was then all the years before, when no-one cared for violation of human rights in Iraq?? This is sooooo manipulatively written!


"Perhaps Al Qaeda will win new recruits as a result of this triumph. But even if it does destroy Afghanistan and Iraq, it still will not stop. "


=> I still don´t see what Al Quaeda and Iraq actually have to do with each other. The terror-group is a loose network over the globe. Of course they have their camps in some countries, but it´s not like the government of these countries always decided about it. And after all, Bin Laden Family is from Saudi-Arabia, where no-one dares to say a word against (against Saudi-Arabia I mean). And most likely a lot of support for Al Quaeda also comes from Pakistan, but they have a readily working atom-bomb, that makes invasion a bit more risky.

omg please tell me you don't want a rummy as your president. i think i'll have to shoot myself.

yeah, we don´t need him. in no country.

 

[Thanatos]

charging full-steam might be macho and technically inefficient, but going around three days from a 200-people killing saying that fighting the culprits was a mistake is pure shit, in my humble opinion.

yeah I agree, the culprits must be punished, what still startles me is how many people whine and whimper so much when something like this happens and yet no one makes threads about the hundreds of arabs killed by western terrorists, or the jews (even when they are with the west) ??? answers anyon? I'd really like to know as I think part of the problem is that many people in this side of the world doesn't seem to care about the eastern people very much, they only speak in terms of terrorists, or how can democracy be brought to them or such.

 

[rahvin]

=> those two things contradict each other. Because, that could mean that terrorists are able to make elections delayed, and then, in few weeks, also a different result could have happened than helding the elections as planned. Whatever you do, you change the happenings in time. And making elections not happen the scheduled day, is also a response to the attack.

i agree that they shouldn't have postponed election day, yet it's obvious the strategy there consisted in having local terrorism blamed shortly before a major political decision involving stronger/milder opposition to both eta and al qaeda. the attack was going to influence public opinion in any case, so the whole "let's leave the situation undisturbed" is a moot point. perhaps they should have tried to make it perturbed in a less confusing way.

=> abandon? What was then all the years before, when no-one cared for violation of human rights in Iraq?? This is sooooo manipulatively written!

i'm not keen on the use of "abandoned" either, but - for example - ignoring something for years doesn't make it more right to start ignoring it again after you took an interest, albeit of the military kind.


@thanatos: of course that's how it is, we only worry about what undermines our own particular interests. this can be considered nearsighted, but you can hardly expect a selfless attitudes from a community or an ensemble of communities, as in: there's always going to be decisions prioritizing what matters the most. a socially conscious objective would be to become aware that in the long run all these situations are important for international stability.

 

[|ngenius]

If you want some more details (euphemistic word, indeed) to discuss these matters, let me add some points to it. The elections in my country ended up with a surprising change of government, as you know, moving from the Popular Party (extremely right-wing party) to PSOE (left-wing party). However, this change hasn't taken place because of the tragedy we suffered in Madrid, but it is due to a long-standing schema of hidding information, basically. The national TV public channel manipulated, changed and tossed to the depths of the abyss whatever that seemed to go against the PP politics, and they proceeded carelessly and pretty straightforwardly.

Prior to join the Iraq war, we suffered a catastrophic event when a sunken ship shed countless tones of fuel in the coast of Galicia, which everybody refused to take responsibility for, with the subsequent disaster.

The politics regarding economy are pure fiction. The job places have increased, that is true, but there's a serious mischief behind an apparent triumph: most of the people working are living unstable times, signing for temporary projects and perceiving a salary that leaves them room enough to give the whole amount to the bank to pay the highest taxes for their 50 square meters floors which will take about 30-35 years to pay, living in a country where there is no chance for renting.

The pensions were reduced up to the point that lotsa people were perceiving around 400-500 € per month.

In the end, the parties on the opposition asked for reasons to the PP for these actions, for all those politics that misled the country to a status we hadn't live since the pre-democratic era. They simply never replied, really. And then the Iraq war came, and recently the 11-M tragedy that they insisted to deviate to the national terrorism (ETA)...

As a result, people found themselves confused and threatened by a new menace, but mainly we felt openly deceived, and mostly upset, angry in an unbelievable world of shady politics, and people wanted the truth, without strategies. A right that democracy must guarantee.

|ng (Because we were plenty of reasons)

 

[Lina]

Interesting post. (I feel like Profånity.) But then why did polls predict a Popular Party lead so close before the elections, if all these other incidents were major factors, as you say?

the Popular Party (extremely right-wing party) to PSOE (left-wing party)

It's so amazing to me, the difference between those definitions in Europe and here. Our left-wing party is probably further right than your "extremely right-wing party." *sigh*


Hey hyena, here's your teddy in action :
http://www.ultimatemetal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=142361



edit: |ngenius, here's an article that backs up what you're saying:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64804-2004Mar16.html

Lessons from Spain
[font=Arial,Helvetica][size=+1]Voters Want Honesty [/size][/font]



By David Bach
Wednesday, March 17, 2004; Page A25

MADRID -- Did voters punish Spain's conservative government for its resolute fight against terrorism? Did they opt for a candidate who opposed the war in Iraq because they see the bombings as a direct consequence of Spain's presence there? Are we to conclude that the terrorists are achieving their goal of breaking up the international coalition that has committed to fight terrorism?

I don't think so. The resolute stance of Jose Maria Aznar and his government against the Basque terrorist group ETA had been a principal source of support for his Popular Party. And despite the opposition of almost 90 percent of Spaniards to the war in Iraq, Aznar's handpicked successor, Mariano Rajoy, was almost certain to win Sunday's elections.

What drove voters to the opposition and turned the election around was, quite simply, the government's information policy in the aftermath of Thursday's train bombings, and the appearance that it was manipulating information to benefit the governing party's electoral prospects.

ETA was the immediate suspect after the bombings. In a nation scorched by more than three decades of ETA terrorism, such a heinous killing of innocent civilians to influence a general election seemed plausible.

The government quickly got out front in casting the blame on the Basque terrorist organization. And when evidence surfaced suggesting the possibility that Islamic extremists were involved, government spokesmen dismissed it, continuing to publicly press the case against the Basque separatists. Interior Minister Angel Acebes publicly denounced those questioning ETA's culpability. Foreign Minister Ana Palacio instructed Spain's ambassadors to use any opportunity to put the blame on ETA and prevent alternative versions from taking hold. Aznar himself called the editors of major Spanish newspapers and laid out the case against the violent Basque separatists.

On Saturday, in response to growing doubts about ETA's responsibility, and with elections looming, demonstrators in many Spanish cities, who had marched 11 million strong against terrorism the previous day, took to the streets again, this time demanding transparency, full information and an unbiased investigation. The feeling began to take hold that the government was seeking to influence the elections by presenting a particular version of what had happened.

By Sunday morning -- after the arrest of three Moroccans and two Indians in connection with the attacks and the surfacing of a video in which an alleged al Qaeda spokesman claimed responsibility -- a large number of Spanish voters felt their government had deliberately misled them. By turning out to vote in record numbers, voters showed terrorists that they would not be intimidated. They also sent their government packing.

The lesson of Madrid is that the war on terrorism can be won only with the people, not against them or behind their backs. Terrorists wage war against innocent civilians, ordinary citizens like the many Madrileños who took the train to work or school on Thursday morning. The attacks made it painfully clear once more that anyone can become the victim of terrorism, at any time, in any place. In such times of omnipresent danger, the least people expect is not to be misled by those in charge.

Opposition to the war in Iraq did matter on Election Day in Spain. But for many, rejection of the governing party was not based on a simple notion that the presence of Spanish troops in Iraq brought on the attacks. Instead, it stemmed from the perception that the government withheld information about the attacks and deliberately tried to sway public opinion on a matter of utmost importance. Over the weekend Spain didn't have a government that led, it had a governing party that campaigned.

Elections in the United States are still months away. Already the candidates are sparring about what role the memory and lessons of Sept. 11, 2001, should play in the campaign. The war on terrorism will be a critical issue, and so will be the situation in Iraq. Still, the elections will be different.

I hope that American voters will not have to cast their ballots with fresh memories of pain and suffering caused by a terrorist attack. But the lesson of Madrid should be heeded: that ordinary citizens, who every day are on the front lines of the war on terrorism, have a right to transparent investigations and the right not to be misled.

The writer is a PhD candidate in political science at the University of California at Berkeley. He lives in Madrid.

 

[rahvin]

It's so amazing to me, the difference between those definitions in Europe and here. Our left-wing party is probably further right than your "extremely right-wing party." *sigh*

i don't really think so, when it comes to social issues. it could be a bit like that if we're talking economics (but i'm sure hyena can brief us on the subject perfectly), though.

edit: |ngenius, here's an article that backs up what you're saying:

well, |ngenius said the voters were already inclined to turn left, while your article refers to a change of heart after the attack. or am i just too sleep-deprived to see?

 

[Lina]

well, |ngenius said the voters were already inclined to turn left, while your article refers to a change of heart after the attack. or am i just too sleep-deprived to see?

The connecting theme, though, being a sense of manipulation and dishonesty on the part of the government.

 

[rahvin]

The connecting theme, though, being a sense of manipulation and dishonesty on the part of the government.

is this so uncommon? i mean, i can't remember a time when more than half of the population in this country didn't complain of being manipulated and lied to by the government. sometimes this did result in a turnover, at other times it didn't and can be filed under the "general bitching" category: citizens forced to pay taxes and face everyday's discomforts are going to blame it on the government even if said government is doing a rather good job, since living in a community will always imply a certain amount of personal sacrifice for the common good.

 

[Lina]

is this so uncommon? i mean, i can't remember a time when more than half of the population in this country didn't complain of being manipulated and lied to by the government.

No, obviously political lies and manipulation aren't uncommon. But given the simultaneous, independent accounts from |ngenius and that journalist, I'm at least willing to entertain the notion that Spaniards feel something more explicit and offensive is taking place.

 

[|ngenius]

Lina is right. Common situations are not necessarily acceptable situations, and looking from the eyes of a politic party, what you need over anything else is to keep the trust and confidence of your people, and if you lie, you better invest some time on it in order to preserve your own ass' integrity. You can't deceive explicitly and expect the country to nod and smile stupidly (well, half of it will do it anyway...).


|ng.

 

[rahvin]

Lina is right. Common situations are not necessarily acceptable situations, and looking from the eyes of a politic party, what you need over anything else is to keep the trust and confidence of your people, and if you lie, you better invest some time on it in order to preserve your own ass' integrity. You can't deceive explicitly and expect the country to nod and smile stupidly (well, half of it will do it anyway...).

and isn't that rather optimistic? i can understand that the best lies are those who haven't been exposed yet, but the level of explicitness in calling any political party's bluff seems to have to be quite high to make the population actually recoil in stupor and change their mind. most voters in europe never really modify their choices dramatically (left to right wing or vice-versa), so elections results are based on how many people can't be arsed to get out of bed and go express their opinion, plus a basis of uncertain moderate bourgeoises who stick to the candidates they find more reliable. i see the majority smiling stupidly allright...

 

[Child of Time]

most voters in europe never really modify their choices dramatically (left to right wing or vice-versa), so elections results are based on how many people can't be arsed to get out of bed and go express their opinion...

Yes. If a voter decides to vote for a different party, he/she will probably vote for another of the parties that are in/would be in coalition, and the vote is making even less difference. I've got the impression that in many countries it's the couch potatoes that decides which parties will be ruling.

...plus a basis of uncertain moderate bourgeoises who stick to the candidates they find more reliable.

Yeah, here in Sweden the Christian democratics (conservative) had a charismatic leader who'd been in charge for the party in 31 years. He retired four months ago and the party has lost about half of thier voters since then, much because of the insecurity about who will succeed him.

 

[|ngenius]

and isn't that rather optimistic?

Sure, it is, and I must admit that I feel kinda relieved, Mariano Rajoy seemed a firghtened puppet following Aznar with a dose of stupidity in addition. But you should admit, my little friend, that we are living strange globalized times with the USA leading this oddity, so you better expect the unexpected, even people leaving their beds behind to express their opinion for the first time (what makes me nervous, because only God knows what people can do when expressing themselves!!).


|ng.

 

[hyena]

the left/right wing issue mentioned by lina: what rahvin said is true. but the striking feature doesn't affect econ only: italian (and maybe also other european) leftists refuse ideas that are, as far as i know, regarded as common sense by americans, left or right. economically: free market is better than planned economies. socially: in the USA, only some extremists regard patriotism as wrong; people may differ on how better to express it, but the fundamental idea of loving one's country is held by most. here, the left challenges the very thought of having some emotional and cultural attachment to one's own country. moreover: americans, no matter their political persuasion, believe in individuality above the rest, and they are not scandalized by the fact that a sequence of fuckups on the job can lead to being fired; most left-wing parties in europe are against a non-regulated job market. this is economic, but it's also an attitude; being left-wing in the US doesn't mean that you think that the state is going to look after people when they choose not to look after themselves, although probably the Clinton years pushed the Democrats towards similar thoughts (Americans, please correct me if i'm wrong).

 

[Malaclypse]

just before going to bed (so i can read lots of interesting posts tomorrow), i'd direct the discussion towards recent events in israel/palestine. opinions, please.

 

[wildfyr]

Like Noam Chomsky recently said in a speech and I am quoting freely
as I can't find the document now:
"The only way to win the war on terrorism is stop using terrorism".

I hereby wish to nominate Noam Chomsky as a candidate to the office of President of the United States of America.

 

[Arch]

I was watching Distorted Morality, in which Noam Chomsky said everyone (including you and I) is to be blamed for terrorism, not just Al Qaida, bin Laden, or any other extremist.

 

[wildfyr]

I was watching Distorted Morality, in which Noam Chomsky said everyone (including you and I) is to be blamed for terrorism, not just Al Qaida, bin Laden, or any other extremist.

Let me revise that... Arch for President!

"kay. People consume things. What and how we consume matters, right? And thennnnnn...? <<<<< *in Asian lady voice over speaker box*