Withdraw of Spanish troops in Iraq

RnderSafe said:
Does that really matter what the number of soldiers is? No, one soldier makes a difference. The ball has landed in your garden, better pick it up
Click to expand...

Yes, it matters unless somehow they were being invaded, 1300 isn't going to make or break them. Now, it's a good excuse .. and looks good and logical, but it isn't very practical - and it's the obvious tactic to use "out" of the debate. ;)

I dont even know why im keep pushing this forward i have allready made the point that this was a political choise
Click to expand...

Well now, I thought it was a strategic choice? Make up your mind, lad!

As I said, I've got no problems with them pulling their troops out of Iraq, they could have pulled them because they decided they wanted to send them on a Disney World trip and I wouldn't have cared. I appreciated what they did, and that's that. My problem is with a government bowing to down to terrorists out of fear and to achieve political gain.
Click to expand...

I like my political point better though! :D
 
Thats just speculations though.
And he probebly would have started WW2 even if so. Although thats once again speculations
Click to expand...

NO, AlexKall they are not - look at history! Sadam has along history of attacking his neighbors and what better way to focus discontent than against an outside opponent (real or not) - just ask any tyrant in history.

As to Hitler, if so much as ONE French soldier has shown up to oppose the German reoccupation of the Rhineland, the commanders of the Greman Army units had orders to turn around and go back. This would have caused the Hitler's government to collapse as he was still ruling thru the Reichstag at that point and did not have the broad support/strangle hold on power he would shortly thereafter. A cheap price to avoid WWII wouldn't you say?
 
RnderSafe said:
Good try, Alex, but they didn't have that many troops there. :lol:
Click to expand...

You would end surprised of how much those 1300 soldiers really make a diference in the Spanish defense system... Probably we were in the limit of our deployment capability, mantaining at the same time the garrisons in the south and the reaction capability - the Moroccan frontier never has been considered safe by the army chiefs.

Anyway, two cents in the matter from a Spaniard - a soldier, additionaly. While I do agree that the terrorist attacks in Madrid turned the elections to the Socialist party, I have to say that it wasn't the attacks themselves but the clumsy attempts of the goverment to hide Al-Qaeda responsibility which turned angry the people. As for the withdrawal itself, the Socialist Party had promised it before the attacks. I won't enter in the complex politic life of Spain, but believe me when I said that the terrorist influence is not as great as it would seem.

I will not enter in a discussion wheter if the withdrawal is good or bad. I, of course, have my opinion, but one of my duties as a military is to not question the politics of my goverment openly, as long as they're the results of the will of the people.

About the Spanish troops in Afghanistan, that's an entirely different matter. No one has spoken here a word about a withdrawal there - moreover, I've heard rumours that point that Spain is going to command a province there, therefore increasing the number of troops.

If I sound as if I'm defending Spain, it's probably because I am doing it. :D
 
Sapper, I was wondering when we would get to hear your take on the situation :lol: .
I realize that the withdrawal was promised by the Socialists beforehand (I am nearly wholly uneducated on Spanish politics aside from that point, however), but it still gives the APPEARANCE of caving to the terrorists, regardless of what the facts are (personally I believe that the Socialists, and the more left-wing people here, as well, are and have been bowing to the demands of the terrorists and those who support them all along).
I do appreciate and respect the sacrifice of the Spanish troops who served in Iraq and are currently serving in Afghanistan.
 
As for the withdrawal itself, the Socialist Party had promised it before the attacks.
Click to expand...
You forget one important detail, Sapper. Originally, it was stated that Spanish troops would be withdrawn by the June 30 handover, if no follow-on UN force had been authorized, it was part of the election platform. Never was it said .. "As soon as I'm elected we'll unass Iraq."

As I have stated, Spain was there in the beginning, and nothing she's done can negate the sacrifices of the Spanish troops. I've worked with them many times, and have always found them to be professionals ready and willing to fight when called upon. That does not mean, however, that the decision to placate terrorists was the "right" one.

Despite any excuses that can be made, because of the government, Spain now looks as if she bowed down to the terrorists demands. And what has it given Spain? Nothing. Spain is not safer. Europe is not safer. No one/thing is better off.
 
Roger that Rndr. People civilians especially need to remember that it is the NCA that makes decisions like this not the military infrastructure.

An appeaser is a man that feeds a crocodile, hoping that it will eat him last.
-Winston Churchill

Looks like Spain is feeding the crocodile to me. If it were me I would have ordered the bombing of targets throughout the terrorist networks. The only way that terrorists will learn is if you bomb the living hell out of them. After september 11th, Kabul should have been a parking lot. Falluja after the uprising, US and Friendly Personnel should have been pulled out of Falluja and it should have been turned into a smoldering ruin. Oh, wait, the Iraqis already did it themselves, and then they expect us to hepl them fix it. There is something fundamentally wrong with them. Do they not see that we are trying to help re-build the country that Saddam destroyed? Or do they want to live in the Dark ages?

Screw it maybe we should just NUKE Mecca, hey if they wanna play hardball, we can play hardball. They want to try to cut the heart out of our population, why don't we just burn theirs and make it a smoldering ruin for the next few thousand years.

Maybe I am just getting pissed about all of this, and being hot-headed.
 
if you act like that every iraqi (in case of bombing falujah), or every afghani(in case of bombing falujah) or even every moslem(in case of nukinf mecca) will become a terrorist, and then no western citizen will be some kind of safe anymore
 
Gunner13 said:
Thats just speculations though.
And he probebly would have started WW2 even if so. Although thats once again speculations
Click to expand...

NO, AlexKall they are not - look at history! Sadam has along history of attacking his neighbors and what better way to focus discontent than against an outside opponent (real or not) - just ask any tyrant in history.

As to Hitler, if so much as ONE French soldier has shown up to oppose the German reoccupation of the Rhineland, the commanders of the Greman Army units had orders to turn around and go back. This would have caused the Hitler's government to collapse as he was still ruling thru the Reichstag at that point and did not have the broad support/strangle hold on power he would shortly thereafter. A cheap price to avoid WWII wouldn't you say?
Click to expand...

Its still speculations though, you can not know what he was going to do. ;)
 
Answer me this, are they safe now? Is anyone really safe anymore? I was just getting pissed about the whole thing cause my best friends are over there right now and I can't be with them. Maybe its because people keep acting like we started this whole god awful mess. We just drew a line in the sand, and said "God help he who crosses this line." Some bastards decided to cross it. If terrorists know that they can influence free elections by terror bombing, then they will. The Spanish government's attempt to put out their fires only added fuel.

Don't get me wrong though, I love Spain it is a great country, the woman are pretty, booze is cheap and people don't try to start fights with Americans in bars.

I just get so frustrated when I see our best efforts and intentions get pissed on by everyone else. What happens when something terrible happens in the world, call the americans, they will help us. But when we need help the rest of the world acts like it is our fault and we had it coming. I am from North Carolina. In 1999 we had the worst flooding from a hurricane in our state EVER. Well into the Billions of dollars in damage. The Eastern half of the state was crippled. Coffins were floasting down the street, because they floated out of their graves. Millions of chickens, hogs, and turkeys were killed. NC is the largest turkey producer in the country. After all of this damage, did anyone come and help us? No. I am not even going to start on Sept. 11. The frech statement, "We Are All Americans Now" what a load of horse crap.

How can they back stab us like this. Claim to be our allies, and then go back on their word. What ever happened to the NATO charter? An attack on one is an attack on all. I guess that goes out the window when the Americans are the ones who need help.
 
No offense to anyone, you are entitled to your opinions, and I am entitled to mine. So please if you got something to say then say it. No one is going to get pissed at you. If they do then they are a hypocritical piece of dog vomit. But everyone is a hypocrite sometimes. My views are not the views of other Americans, or any body of the U.S. Government.

So yeah don't go thinking that other Americans are as hot tempered as me. I guess it is my German side showing through. :lol:
 
the nato charter doesnt fit in there....
or did i miss the fact that iraq attacked the US? ;) .....
Most people are safe at the moment....
but if start such massive killings of civilians that thing cuold get get out of control and start to become more religious.christs against moslems...what would mean the WW III...
ok sometimes i think that is the only way to make it clear once and forever..... :roll:

imagine what would happen to the US forces if everybody in iraq would be against them....

about your allies: if you look at afghanistan, where it was sure that the taliban supported al quaeda everybody supported your attack...
In iraq that was not so clear, so the nations where more cautious...

your german side? tell me
 
I unfortunately totally agree with Wolf. Thats why I say Europe acts cowardly. I mean we asked the US for protection from BIG RED NEIGHBOR for 50 yrs... got cevered uip with the american taxpayer's bucks...they helped us get rebuilt and taught us how to use democracy. When the time has come to just cash the favor we simply forget about it and play sophisticated. Cowardness.
Still there are different Europeans, JaegerWolf.
 
JaegerWolf08 said:
How can they back stab us like this. Claim to be our allies, and then go back on their word. What ever happened to the NATO charter? An attack on one is an attack on all. I guess that goes out the window when the Americans are the ones who need help.
Click to expand...

Come on, NATO supported Enduring Freedom Operation. We still have two or three Frigates with Infantes de Marina embarked in the Indic Ocean, and a group of P3 Orion has just returned from Djibuti. A lot of NATO countries have troops in Afghanistan.

And, like it had been said, NATO chart does not cover when a NATO country begins a war. It's a defensive organization, not an offensive one.

The difference about Iraq was -I think- that from the very beginning, it seemed an announced war. Personally, I do think that Iraq is better with Saddam, or at least she will be in the long term. The problem is that the motives of the war changed with the passage of time. I do remember, in the two months that preceded the war that Collin Powell almost sweared in the UN that Iraq had a lot of MWD and that they were willing to use it. At least the first thing proved false (and thank God, we didn't have to check the second). It was only when no MWD were found when I began to hear about 'The liberation of Iraq'. While I do agree that this is a legitimate reason, I ended with the impression that the US goverment wanted a war, no matter the excuse.

If Europe didn't send help in the American disasters, it was mostly due to the fact that the US didn't need help, in the same way that Spain didn't receive help in the 11M attacks. The rescue services were enough to attend the emergencies, and that's something you should feel proud about.

I don't know if Spain is safer after the withdrawal or not. I do know, though, that the people here feel safer: after the attacks, all the terrorist were captured or killed. Thousand of soldiers are patrolling dams and railways (I have returned yesterday from a week in the field), and the security is higher than ever (without restraining any public right). People has calmed down, and life goes on.
 
Saddam ruled by terror, which is what the terrorists are trying to, and we are trying to help them.

How can you say that things were better under Saddam? People were being tortured and killed on a regular basis for trivial things. Such as losing a soccer game. The Iraqi Olympic committee building had a 30 cell torture chamber in the basement. How can you possibly say that things were better?

I am saying that the US gives gives and gives to everyone else, and what do we get in return. Complaints. They say that we are being to Imperial.

In the end, the US will get screwed over.

Japanese tarriffs will not allow the sale of some US goods in Japan, but when the US wanted to put tarriffs up protecting American goods, the Japanese about blew an O-ring. I am refering the steel incident a few years ago. So, the message that the Japanese are sending is that the US Gov't is supposed to look after the Japanese people more than its own citizens.

It is so Ironic that the Europeans are complaining about US Imperialism, when it was europe that started the whole idea anyway. Perhaps the Europeans are just a little more bitter now that THEIR empire is gone.
 
My English is so screwed up that probably I wasn't able to tell what I really meant. Hell, things weren't better with Saddam. It was a hell, like all the dictatorship, and I'd prefer to live under the American ocupation than under Saddam's regime. However, I was trying to say that after the war, with many of the basic industries destroyed, for not talking about roads, railways, etc... and the endless fighting between the soldiers of the Coalition and rebels, things are pretty ****ed up in the country, and I tried to say that I thought that, even if now aren't nice, in the long term the conditions would improve greatly. I wasn't trying to support Saddam or anything, Heavens forbid. :?

It is so Ironic that the Europeans are complaining about US Imperialism, when it was europe that started the whole idea anyway. Perhaps the Europeans are just a little more bitter now that THEIR empire is gone.
Click to expand...

Well, you complained when we were the bloody imperialist, so I guess that now it's our turn to complain... :mrgreen:
 
The industry and infrastructure of Iraq(what little of it there was) was bombed to hell during the first Gulf war. The Oil for food money that the UN gave to Iraq was squandered by Saddam and his sons and very little of it went to rebuild the country.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top