Withdraw of Spanish troops in Iraq
I have worked with the UN a couple of times (Lebanon and Macedonia), but I do not have any hard feelings to your coment Cryhavoc...
But I wouldn't go as far as calling them weak and pointless...
UN has done a lot of good things around the world (humanitarian work), and their Force is PeaceKeepers, not fighting soldiers..
And one of the reasons why some calls UN weak and pointless is lack of support from some of it's member countries..... :?
But I'm fairly neutral to EU...
(we are not members, yet.......)
But I wouldn't go as far as calling them weak and pointless...
UN has done a lot of good things around the world (humanitarian work), and their Force is PeaceKeepers, not fighting soldiers..
And one of the reasons why some calls UN weak and pointless is lack of support from some of it's member countries..... :?
But I'm fairly neutral to EU...
(we are not members, yet.......)
Italian Guy
Milforum Hitman
Speaking as an european... spanish withdrawal's just so coward and definitely proves how different the two shores of the ocean are: fear and lack of balls, books, snobism, intellectuals, philosophers, on the eastern shore. Saving the world from catastrophe on the western one.
ItalianGuy4US said:
You do have to put in to consideration that the elected party that ware sitting there before dug their own grave by over-riding a wote against sending troops. Of course the people would wote on an other partiy then a party that stoped listening to them
I think it would have happened even if spanish soldiers or the terror action would not have happened
Same thing happened here in sweden on the wote of either driving on the left side or the right, the Swedes woted on left, the goverment changed it to the right side
They didnt last for long, although they ware realected 
I doubt this has anything to do with cowardness, more grunge and discomfart with the sitting party
AlexKall said:I doubt this has anything to do with cowardness, more grunge and discomfart with the sitting party
I think you are right it was a political move. However it sill looks like they a bowing to terrorists. I feel over all it was a bad move, I think it will come back to bit them in the butt. [/speculation]
Italian Guy
Milforum Hitman
I'm sorry if i sounded a bit rude.
I'm not sure I got all of what AlexKall said but it's just that I believe that the european public opinion is naive and selfish: europe itself does not know what the word responsibility is all about to the extent that they take democracy for granted, make it fashionable by covering it with the peace flags all over, and then believing that's enough for freedom to last.
I mean democracy should be armed, in order to survive, that's just the point I guess.
I'm not sure I got all of what AlexKall said but it's just that I believe that the european public opinion is naive and selfish: europe itself does not know what the word responsibility is all about to the extent that they take democracy for granted, make it fashionable by covering it with the peace flags all over, and then believing that's enough for freedom to last.
I mean democracy should be armed, in order to survive, that's just the point I guess.
Italian Guy
Milforum Hitman
To RedNeck
ain't it just the real meaning of your Sowell's quote, by the way ? Spanish chose to not defend their civilization, they're bowing to terror in miserable hope that it will not hurt them again. Same hope the British and French had, in Munich, when they sacrificed Poland and Czechoslovakia to Mr Moustache.
And now here you have europe teaching what should be done... makes me laugh.
ain't it just the real meaning of your Sowell's quote, by the way ? Spanish chose to not defend their civilization, they're bowing to terror in miserable hope that it will not hurt them again. Same hope the British and French had, in Munich, when they sacrificed Poland and Czechoslovakia to Mr Moustache.
And now here you have europe teaching what should be done... makes me laugh.
Redneck
Active member
ItalianGuy4US said:
Well put (although several European nations, your own included, have taken what I believe to be the right side in this conflict).
Don't take the "keep it civil" to heart, you'll see them everywhere on here, given the international nature of these forums, we have to ensure that everyone is equally respected so as to avoid pissing contests, if you'll pardon the expression.
:lol: And Snauhi, just because Saddam may have not been a direct threat to yourself, does that mean that you do not have the duty to do everything in your power to aid those who cannot help themselves? Protesting those who are willing to sacrifice their own lives for the liberty of people they have never met accomplishes nothing good.
Gunner13
Active member
Absolutely Redneck :firedevi:
All I want to know is when the new Spanish Government will hold their formal surrender ceremony to the terrorists (Al Queda and ETA) - not to mention when the Hondurans will. I know that Spain is still supporting NATO efforts in Afganistan, but how long will it be before they pull out there too?
Thanks goodness the Poles, Brits, Italians, etc. are still supporting efforts in Iraq
. Contrary to some people's opinions, there are parts of Europe that do actively support counter terrorism efforts and the efforts in Ir 8) aq, so all is not lost - not even close.
Gunner13
Active member
Yo, Jtf2:
The problem was that Sadam did not, and was not going to, stay in HIS own backyard. Leaving aside the fact that he was a murderous, money filtching bozo, he also invaded 2 other countries, bombarded others with SCUD missiles and was ready to do it again at any time. A threat to one country can rapidly become a threat to all. Do you think that Nazi Germany would have started WW II if the French or British Governments had stood up to him in 1934?
Pollux:
Yes, for the reasons given above (although their homegrown idiots may be a larger threat).
The problem was that Sadam did not, and was not going to, stay in HIS own backyard. Leaving aside the fact that he was a murderous, money filtching bozo, he also invaded 2 other countries, bombarded others with SCUD missiles and was ready to do it again at any time. A threat to one country can rapidly become a threat to all. Do you think that Nazi Germany would have started WW II if the French or British Governments had stood up to him in 1934?
Pollux:
Yes, for the reasons given above (although their homegrown idiots may be a larger threat).
Redneck
Active member
Jtf2 said:
How is it NOT? This is, to be blunt, an entirely undefensible position. It denotes a wholly self-centered and selfish attitude that I am extremely glad is not shared by my own government (along with those of our allies in this). There is a saying that goes (roughly) "defending liberty anywhere means defending liberty everywhere," we cannot sit idly by while people less fortunate than ourselves suffer under tyranny and expect our own freedom to remain unchallenged (by, say, a massive terrorist attack on our home soil).
Redneck
Active member
Ever hear of Liberia?
And Somalia (granted, a certain someone decided it would be best to cut and run there before we accomplished anything, but we did send troops there)?
Be realistic, though, we can only do so much, but at least we are doing what we can (besides military operations, look at the billions we send overseas in foreign aid every year, along with the manpower and resources we expend delivering that aid and providing other assistance to foreign nations). Along with this, the military option (as you can see with all the ya-hoos moaning today) needs more justification than just "we think we should get boots on the ground and help these people" (too many people would rather look the other way than face any chance of being asked to sacrifice anything themselves to help anyone else), so those nations we will enter first will always be those that have the ability to present a direct threat to ourselves as well as their own civilians.
And Somalia (granted, a certain someone decided it would be best to cut and run there before we accomplished anything, but we did send troops there)?
Be realistic, though, we can only do so much, but at least we are doing what we can (besides military operations, look at the billions we send overseas in foreign aid every year, along with the manpower and resources we expend delivering that aid and providing other assistance to foreign nations). Along with this, the military option (as you can see with all the ya-hoos moaning today) needs more justification than just "we think we should get boots on the ground and help these people" (too many people would rather look the other way than face any chance of being asked to sacrifice anything themselves to help anyone else), so those nations we will enter first will always be those that have the ability to present a direct threat to ourselves as well as their own civilians.