Spanish Elections

[Gustaf]

That's sad.

[Gustaf]

I guess so...

[Gustaf]

Ok.. lets hope the other 50% is in Spanish Utah

Lol, taht's likely. My dad told me once that previously in Sweden, for some reason, they would always start off with Northern rural districts in the counting, which meant that the Communists were always at 20, 30, 40% in the initial results scaring the SH*T out of everyone.

[Gustaf]

Really sad. Socialists are going to win.

It would be HUGE mistake to withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq!!! It would encourage new attacks in other European countries!

Osama bin Laden: "It worked in Spain. Let's try in Italy, Britain, Denmark, Poland, Hungary"

Exactly. But not even Spanish socialists can be so stupid as to not see that, right?

[Gustaf]

It was stupid to send troops in Iraq. It's stupid to retire them.

After aznar, I want see Blair and berlusconi out!

Why Blair? Who would replace him? And it wasn't 'stupid', it was siding with Western democracy.

[Gustaf]

Mister Gordon Brown... I hate Blair, not the labour party. And it was against public opinion to send troops in iraq thus I think that Aznar, Blair, Berlusconi must lose elections. As Bush...

Sometimes the public opinion isn't right. And people don't vote on that issue alone, but on many others as well.

[Gustaf]

Mister Gordon Brown... I hate Blair, not the labour party. And it was against public opinion to send troops in iraq thus I think that Aznar, Blair, Berlusconi must lose elections. As Bush...

Well Aznar was retiring anyway... the PP's candidate was Rajoy.
Over here, our electoral system means that Blair literally cannot lose.
BTW public opinion swung behind the war after the whole UN shenanigans (=brits don't like Chirac).
Not in Spain though...

Yes I know... But it's a vote against Aznar and his lies, not against Rajoy.

And Tony Blair can lose elections no? He is very unpopular with his lies and conservative can win... (I don't like conservative party but it's better than Blair). and Brits didn't want the war but they are patriots and give a support to british troops.

The Consrevatives supported the war just as much as Blair. They certainly won't gain votes from that.

[Gustaf]

it's possible... look at Spain (I know, itisn't th british system but a party who has a great majority can lose th next elections) ... If a poll gives a advantage for conservative, conservative wins. I don't like conservative but I prefer a conservative win to a blair win. Solution: Gordon Brown took the party now!  I hoe that libdems will win but is it possible?  I don't know.

I dislike Newt Gringrich. Stupid guy (as...)

The LibDems have very little off a chance. Blair will probably win until he quits or is overthrown by his own party.

[Gustaf]

Still a thing: where is the conservative revolution? in your *ss...


Goodnight and see your tomorrow!

WHat?

[Gustaf]

The PSOE has claimed victory

And Europe fails yet again to rise to the occasion...

[Gustaf]

Dry run by Al Quida on the eve of an election to see if they can punish a government they want out.  Now that they have their result expect an attack on the U S a week or so before our November election.  That will be a bad miscalculation on their part.  We're not a bunch of cowering Euros.  Same strategy is liable to produce a much different result than they are hoping for.

I think 'cowering euros' is raking it a little too far. Spain doesn't have the kind of emotional tie to the Iraq War that the US has.

[Gustaf]

Maybe.  But attacking the U.S. in the same way on the eve of our election will get Kerry buried on election day.

You said it yourself.  "Europe fails yet again to rise to the occasion".  Expect more, not less attacks on Europe as a result.  

Yes, it probably would, but that's b/c you feel part of the war in a way that the Spanish people never did. In fact, they have lvien under fascist rule and with Baskian terrorism for decades. And I also don't think it's correct to lump all Europeans into the same group.

But I agree that it's a stpid decision and that it's giving in to the terrorists. And there might be more attacks, but I'm not sure against which countries.

[Gustaf]

I think your all underrating the Spanish here…this is not a victory for Al Quida, to them it does not matter who is in power any where they are still their enemies…the Spanish voted in the socialist not because they where some pacifistic political party that had argued against the war on terror their a fairly moderate party who opposed the war in Iraq it is true but then so did most Spaniards and most Europeans…Spain is not in the habit of giving in to terrorism witness the manner in which they have resisted the attempts by the Basque separatist ETA who have fought for nearly thirty years to create an independent Basque nation and yet very little ground has been given to these terrorist….Spain has not given in to terrorism they have booted out a government which did something the majority of Spaniards disagreed with and as a result of that action they made Spain a target for global terrorism…ultimately Spain voted out the popular party because they did not want to go to war in Iraq and they where right to oppose that war…further more the large turnout (well over 60%) was seen by many as an act of defiance to the terrorists showing that Spain would not be intimidated nor allow the rights and liberties that the terrorist despise to be circumvented… Aznar’s actions have caught up with him he took part in a very unpopular war and made Spain a terrorist target that it was not before that…Spain had no wish to pay for in innocent blood the price for a war it wanted no part of…and the results we hear of today simply show that Spain still opposes the Iraq war the attack simply brought it to the fore…and once again there is no hint of surrender or appeasement here… we ask why America is isolated!      

Sums up my view. Well, not exactly sums up, but...you know what I mean...

[Gustaf]

Yes, I agree, Al Quida will find an excuse to attack whoever or whenever they please.  These people are murderers pure and simple.

However, Europe is really asking for it.  Terrorists don't commit terror in order to get something in return.  They aren't seeking a negotiation.  They commit terror in order to kill us.  Whether it be Americans, Brits, Spaniards, Italians, even Turks and Saudis.  They worship death.  They want to kill us.  Spain just made a huge mistake and Europeans are going to die.  Fools.  Terrorists blow up innocents and it's the government's fault never the terrorists.

And no, all Europeans don't have the same view on terrorism.  However, a much larger % of Europeans adhere to a less than get tough stance on terrorism than do Americans.  I don't understand the mentality of Europeans.  Appeasement NEVER works.  History has clearly shown us that.  

I think you're missing the point. Has any European nation NOT supporting US led actions against Muslim countries ever been attacked by Muslim terrorists? I think not. Sure, you can argue that in the long run Islamic fundamentalism will be a threat to the European way of life, etc. But it still remains that we're very far from being as hated as the US and a few of your allies are. So appeasement at least appears sensible on reasonable grounds. And, it isn't really appeasement, since most Europeans didn't seek the conflict originally.

[Gustaf]

And I would want to say that at the beginning, Chirac was not against the war in Irak (look at 1990: france (with socialist president) was with USA against saddam) but the way in wich  the bush administration covered the subject has constrained Chirac and France to be against.
[/quote
Chirac was against war on Iraq, because he wanted to increase international influence and power of France. He wasn't against war itself. Chirac isn't pacifist. He is intriguer.

I consider that Schröeder did it with more pacifistic motive.

Chirac is a French nationalist, calling him a pacifist is absurd. Giving nuclear capability to Iraq certainly isn't pacifist. Schröder could be considered to be even worse, he opposed the war only to win the election.

And Mitterrand, the former socialist president of France, was much more pro-West than any other French president of the 5th republic. He even supported the Falklands War.

[Gustaf]

The European leftists who are rejoicing at the defeat of the pro American government in Spain need to keep one thing in mind.  The Europeans have been free to pursue their utopian social policy largely because they only had to spend a tiny part of their GNPs on defense.  We took care of their defense needs for them.  Well, Europe, you are now at the mercy of Islamic terrorists in Spain, France, Britain, Germany, and Italy.  With their large muslim populations and the door now wide open in Spain to Islamic extremists in North Africa, you are going to have to fend for yourself.

Europe lacks the will to fight back and now Al Quida knows Europeans can be intimidated by a few well placed explosives left on soft targets.  Expect much more.  The elections in Spain cost us 1200 Spanish soldiers in Iraq.  Those will be replaced.  Europeans on the other hand have now given the go ahead to a bunch of jihadists who intend to rain death and destruction on hundreds and thousands in a half dozen European countries.  You are now at the mercy of a gang of thugs who attach no value to human life.  You asked for it.  I'm sorry for you.

OK, now I have to just speak up and say that you're wrong. First off, I don't think that the defence business thing matter. I don't have the exact numbers in my head, but I do believe that the difference in European and American defense spending, as in terms of % of GDP is suffuciently small to not affect the underlying structure of society. And it's cheap to call it 'utopian', making it sound like something very strange, which it really isn't.

Secondly, you seem to imply that the Spanish were fighting against terrorism but were then intimidated by the attacks and backed off. That is not correct, they didn't want the war from the out-start, they just tolerated the conservatives having a different opinion on this as long as it didn't hurt. Now it did and it became an issue. There are other factors as well, but these are the most important ones.

[Gustaf]

So you used the Corrected System, rather than D'Hondt?
I think Sweden uses 1.7, 3, 5, 7, 9 etc as dividers, I don't  know about Finland, but traditional D'Hondt, as used in Spain and Portugal, uses 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc, thus making it tougher for small parties to win a seat.

I ought ot know this I guess...no one cares, since the ned result is that each party gets the same percentage of seats as they got of the vote, almost exactly. But I think it's 1.4, but that's a vague recollection only.

[Gustaf]

If you include Charles V's Habsburg Empire at it's greatest extent, then throw in much of Cental Europe as well.

Why not the whole New World, based on the Tordesillas Treaty?

[Gustaf]

Yes, before the line was moved from the the Madeiras to the Azores, Spain had a legitimate claim on Brazil too.

Exactly. Damned sneaky Porutguese...