MADRID, Spain (CNN) -- Pulling a major ally from the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq, Spain's prime minister-elect will withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq in the coming months, a Socialist Party spokesman said.

Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero and the socialists were swept into power during Sunday's election.

"Today, the Spanish people have spoken, and they said they want a government of change," he said in a victory speech.

The surprise victor in national elections vowed that fighting terrorism would be his first priority as he sets about creating an administration "that will work for peace."

According to the party spokesman, Zapatero will take the Spanish troops out of Iraq on June 30 -- the day the Coalition Provisional Authority is scheduled to turn over power to an interim Iraqi government.

The PM-elect has said Spanish troops should never have been in Iraq, because the was no U.N. resolution authorizing military action. Polls show up to 90 percent of Spaniards opposing the war in Iraq.

Outgoing prime minister Jose Maria Aznar has been a key European ally of the Bush administration.

Zapatero, who succeeds Aznar, told a Spanish radio station that no decision would be taken until he was in power and without wide political consultation.

"But the Spanish troops in Iraq will come home," he added in his first post-election interview with Cadena SER radio.

Aznar's choice for successor -- Mariano Rajoy, of the Popular Party -- was defeated soundly three days after terrorist attacks in the capital killed 200 people and wounded about 1,500 others.

Rajoy conceded defeat after some 83 percent of the vote had been counted, showing the Socialist Workers Party on track to win 164 seats in the country's 350-seat parliament.

The ruling conservative Popular Party is tipped to win 148 seats, thus ending eight years of conservative rule.

Turnout was high at 76 percent with voters seeming to express anger with the government, accusing it of provoking the Madrid attacks by supporting the U.S.-led war in Iraq, which most Spaniards opposed.

After a minute of silence in their remembrance "so we never forget," Zapatero expressed thanks "to all the governments and countries that have been with us in our pain."

He congratulated Rajoy as "a very good rival," and said he had called him and pledged "to cooperate in the matters of state."

Zapatero said he would seek to increase the prestige of democratic institutions in Spain, and vowed to create a transparent government that "will act from dialogue ... it is a government that will work for peace."

He added, "My immediate priority will be to fight terrorism, and the first thing I will do tomorrow -- Monday -- will be to search for the unity of the political forces to concentrate all of our efforts in that fight."

Though his government may be one of change, some things will remain constant, he said, "Tonight, I want to govern for all of us and I assure you that power is not going to change me."

Zapatero made his remarks shortly after Rajoy conceded defeat Sunday.

"The results show that he has gained the trust of the majority of the Spanish citizens and the Partido Popular recognizes that this general election has been marred by the tragic consequences of the terrible events, and the Spanish citizen has spoken," said Rajoy, who was flanked by Aznar.

"The majority of the electorate has behaved in a civilized way, and it has been an homage to the memory of the victims," Rajoy added.

He said Sunday's results "force the big national parties to examine our responsibilities," and he vowed that the Partido Popular would do just that.

"More than always, the national priority must always be the defeat of terrorists," he said.

The current government will collaborate in the transition of power, said Eduardo Zaplana, a Cabinet minister and chief spokesman for the PP.

The concession came after some 83 percent of the vote had been counted, showing the Socialist Workers Party on track to win 164 seats in the country's 350-seat parliament.

The ruling conservative Popular Party was on track to win 148 seats.

Internal tracking polls predicted last Wednesday that the PP would win, but Thursday's terrorist attacks in the capital changed everything, one analyst said.

The upset was widely interpreted as a rebuke to Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar's strong support for U.S. President George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq, which 90 percent of Spaniards opposed.

It was also seen as a criticism of the Spanish government's handling of last week's bomb blasts. Initially, government authorities said they suspected the Basque separatist group ETA -- whose terrorist attacks the ruling party has staunchly put down in recent years.

But later evidence has pointed to al Qaeda members as the possible attackers.

Need I mention the term "knee jerk"?

I think this is what has happened here. It's a serious worry if the terrorist organisations of the world decide that one of their best weapons would be to perpetrate an act like this just prior to a general election. You have to wonder seriously about the timing of this. Also you have to question why the election went ahead in such a short time after this atrocity.

With elections due in the States this year and in the UK next year tension will be running high in the security services.

I can't help but to feel that the terrorists has won a small victory. A important US ally leaves Iraq as soon as the power is handed over to the Iraqis.

But the Spanish people have spoken.

Well, the problem is: Aznar did that their goverment wanted to without the opinion of the people, without the opinion the other political groups, the sunday the spanish went to elections and we removed them, because they thought we are stupid or else.
The spanish didnt want spanish troops in Irak and Aznar send them anyway, now their goverment is out. [img]smile.gif[/img]
I hope Zapatero will remove this troops soon

I hear what your saying Shaide. No one really wants troops from their country there. The problem at the moment now though is that if we all pull out chaos will ensue. It's not a good situation there at the moment I agree, but it would be a hundred times worse without our soldiers there.

I think your new PM is merely playing to the crowd at the present. Has he really thought of the consequences of this action? And has he the best interests of his people in his mind, or is he simply trying to gain political mileage out of a national tragedy? According to most reports, prior to the rail bombings, the Aznar govt. was well in front in the polls to win the election. Is this true?

[ 03-16-2004, 11:42 AM: Message edited by: Skippy1 ]

It's a bit of a catch-22 isn't it? The recently elected party feels obligated to follow their beliefs by pulling Spanish troops out of a war they feel they shouldn't be involved in. At the same time, I doubt they wish to show that an act of terrorism can be an <u>effective</u> tool with which to manipulate governments. *sigh* [img]graemlins/headshake.gif[/img]
Why can't we all just get along? :confused:

Zapatero didn't say that he would remove the troops regardless - he said that he would remove them if they were not wearing UN helmets by June 30th and the new government had not formally requested UN troop presence. This leaves lots of room for the US/UK to play with and is not too distant from what both Blair and Bush have stated as their aims.

So in reality, all Zapatero has done is to pressure Bush/Blair to live up to their promises - and if the latter two have been honest, there will still be Spanish troops in Iraq after June 30th.

In any event, the Spanish troops number only about 1300 - an insignificant amount. Their presence was more about giving political support to the UK/US than to add any real stability to Iraq.

Really bad move. Shows terrorism works, and will encourage more of it. A stronger show would have been to say "HAH! Now you've done it... we're staying" and pulled out in a year, as per the mandate.

Some nations have balls. Others cave to terrorism. Good thing Spain weren't always cavers or the Spaniards would still be subjegated by the Muslim Moors.

I must say, I applaud the sit outs the night of the bombings. That was gutsy and an awesome voice of dissent against terrorism.

This article does miss some points made by you guys -- including the 90% of the Spanish people who didn't support going to Iraq to begin with. However, it's still got some very good points.

Today's NY Times:
____________________________
March 16, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Al Qaeda's Wish List
By DAVID BROOKS

I am trying not to think harshly of the Spanish. They have suffered a grievous blow, and it was crazy to go ahead with an election a mere three days after the Madrid massacre. Nonetheless, here is what seems to have happened:

The Spanish government was conducting policies in Afghanistan and Iraq that Al Qaeda found objectionable. A group linked to Al Qaeda murdered 200 Spaniards, claiming that the bombing was punishment for those policies. Some significant percentage of the Spanish electorate was mobilized after the massacre to shift the course of the campaign, throw out the old government and replace it with one whose policies are more to Al Qaeda's liking.

What is the Spanish word for appeasement?

There are millions of Americans, in and out of government, who believe the swing Spanish voters are shamefully trying to seek a separate peace in the war on terror.

I'm resisting that conclusion, because I don't know what mix of issues swung the Spanish election during those final days. But I do know that reversing course in the wake of a terrorist attack is inexcusable. I don't care what the policy is. You do not give terrorists the chance to think that their methods work. You do not give them the chance to celebrate victories. When you do that, you make the world a more dangerous place, for others and probably for yourself.

We can be pretty sure now that this will not be the last of the election-eve massacres. Al Qaeda will regard Spain as a splendid triumph. After all, how often have murderers altered a democratic election? And having done it once, why stop now? Why should they not now massacre Italians, Poles, Americans and Brits?

Al Qaeda has now induced one nation to abandon the Iraqi people. Yesterday the incoming Spanish prime minister indicated he would pull his troops out of Iraq unless the U.N. takes control. The terrorists sought this because they understand, even if many in Europe do not, that Iraq is a crucial battleground in the war on terror. They understand what a deadly threat the new democratic constitution is to their cause. As Abu Musab al-Zarqawi wrote in his famous memo, where there is democracy, there is no pretext for murder. Where there is liberty, there is no chance for totalitarian theocracy.

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. Retreating nations like Spain will still not be safe. For Al Qaeda's mission is not about one country or another. It is existential. "You love life and we love death," the purported terrorists said in the videotape found in Madrid.

There will be other aftershocks from the Spanish election. The rift between the U.S. and Europe will grow wider. Now all European politicians will know that if they side with America on controversial security threats, and terrorists strike their nation, they might be blamed by their own voters.

Many Americans and many Europeans will stare at each other in the weeks ahead with disbelieving eyes. For today more than any other, it really does appear that Americans are from Mars, Europeans are from Venus.

If a terrorist group attacked the U.S. three days before an election, does anyone doubt that the American electorate would rally behind the president or at least the most aggressively antiterror party? Does anyone doubt that Americans and Europeans have different moral and political cultures? Yesterday the chief of the European Commission, Romano Prodi, told Italy's La Stampa, "It is clear that using force is not the answer to resolving the conflict with terrorists." Does he really think capitulation or negotiation works better? Can you imagine John Kerry or George Bush saying that?

Nor is America itself without blame. Where was our State Department? Why hasn't Colin Powell spent the past few years crisscrossing Europe so that voters there would at least know the arguments for the liberation of Iraq, would at least have some accurate picture of Americans, rather than the crude cowboy stereotype propagated by the European media? Why does the Bush administration make it so hard for its friends? Why is it so unable to reach out?

This is a watershed event. It will change how Al Qaeda thinks about the world. It will change how Europeans see the world. It will constrain American policy for years to come.

E-mail: dabrooks@nytimes.com

I fear that this was part of Al-Queda's plans. However, you Americans should know this: Most world leaders and people all around the world hate George Bush. That's one of the reasons the Spaniards got rid of their government was because it was too pro-Bush. Want proof? Go ask people on Ironworks from another country if they like Bush. Heck, I believe John Kerry's claims of foregn ministers supporting him. I'm saying this not because I hate the U.S.A. but because I'm very anti-Bush.

And had Aznar won the elections, we could have turned the argument on its head - that Al'Qaida forced the re-election of Aznar and that the populace voted him back as a knee-jerk reaction to a new threat.

However, Al'Qaida did do something GOOD for the Spanish population - they made an additional 20-30% of the population realise that their ballot paper is worth its weight in gold; that voting in an election is not something to be missed. Voter turnout was at an all time high with even pensioners (who had never voted in their lives) finding themselves at the ballot box for the first time.

Personally, I do not (for a moment) believe that Al'Qaida made people change their minds about Aznar. When a leader of a country implements a policy that 90% of the population abhor, he/she is bound to find themself in trouble come election time.

So a bomb goes off in Madrid and two hundred die - should the Spanish population throw out life-long principles of decency and civilisation and re-elect Aznar in a knee-jerk reaction so that he can "continue down the path of lawlessness" (as it is widely viewed there) in order to gain revenge rather than justice, or should they uphold those values that they hold so dear and throw him out? The latter action took a lot of COURAGE in my opinion.


By the way, the statement: "You love life and we love death" refers to judgement day - the insinuation being that 'westerners' do not care who they hurt in life as they do not believe that they will have to pay for their 'crimes' in the after life.
It helps if the text is put in context of the original message:

"It is a response to your collaboration with the criminals Bush and his allies.

This is a response to the crimes that you have caused in the world, and specifically in Iraq and Afghanistan, and there will be more, if God wills it.

You love life and we love death, which gives an example of what the Prophet Muhammad said.

If you don't stop your injustices, more and more blood will flow and these attacks will seem very small compared to what can occur in what you call terrorism."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3509556.stm

I'm supposing that the author deliberately removed it from its context in order to make it sound more demonic. Daft - the crime that was committed was evil enough with dressing it up.

[ 03-16-2004, 08:42 PM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

Skunk, I do agree that the bombings did not change the overall outcome of the election. However, the 30-point swing it caused WILL have the effect of encouraging future attacks around elections as a political tool -- A.Q. will see the obvious results.

I also think you misrepresent the meaning of the quote. I think the language you quoted does NOT amount to an insinuation that "that 'westerners' do not care who they hurt in life as they do not believe that they will have to pay for their 'crimes' in the after life."

The quote
Tells me no more than what was represented by the author.

I also further note that you are often trying to explain the terrorists' messages and what they are complaining about and what they are trying to say. Personally, I don't give 2 farts about those things -- I just want to see their dead terrorist corpses laid out in a pleasing arrayment of justified death. My opinion.

[ 03-17-2004, 01:10 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

Spain should be proud of the effort they and their troops put forth in Iraq thus far. Well done Spain.

Agreed Djinn. They've been rebuilding cities, caring for hospitals, providing water and setting up electricity.

Oh so evil is their presence in Iraq! All 1300 of them. Caring for the oppressed is something 90% of Spanish are against? ■■■■ politics. ■■■■ politicians. Leave the troops in to finish what they've been rebuilding. Leave the troops in to show terrorism doesn't work.

Christian missionaries are being killed in Iraq each day. Another 5 died earlier this week. Some baptists I believe. A 60 year old, 53 year old and 38 year old woman.

So evil are these missionaries! Perhaps all Christian organisations should pull out in retaliation.

■■■■ politics and politicians. Puts causes ahead of human life. Every company that did business with Hussein, every politician that defended his right to rule is as responsible as those that dropped the bombs for the termination of humans lives.

[ 03-17-2004, 06:12 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

<font color="#C4C1CA">
And a valid opinion too.
I would be quite happy if OBL, Bush, Blair et.al would just shut up - and I love to see them all sitting behind bars in a maximum security prison for the rest of their lives - where they belong. Those who abandon the law and use violence rather than the courts and democratic systems to get their way belong in a cell - as far removed from society as possible.

Unfortunately, not listening to their messages leads to the less pleasing array of the corpses of innocent people. Sticking fingers in ears lead to 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq and now Madrid.

And even if we are not big enough to listen to the message (despite the revulsion at having to), one would expect that 'great' nations would be capable of a little self-criticism. And certainly, a 'great' politician should always be capable of standing in the other man's shoes and asking himself how he would feel if he were on the receiving end of x,y and z. I've seen no evidence of that so far - not since WWII anyway.

And so the circle of violence continues. Only problem is, while Al'Qaida et. al have a definite list of targets in set locations, those trying to stop them do not. We are waiting for the next attack and have no way of preventing it.

In the old days, it was easier to maintain the status quo. Al'Qaida was a small and unimportant organisation based in Afghanistan - few people in the middle east had heard of them and even fewer supported them. The intelligence services yawned with the ease of tracking them - everyone who belonged would, at some point end up in a training camp in Afghanistan, and as soon as they did they would be watched, and everyone they met when they left would be watched, and everyone they met would be watched too.

But the Bush military machine wanted quick results to please a frightened electorate - so they invaded on the mistaken assumption that Al'Qaida was just another animal - cut off the head and the body will die. But Al'Qaida is more like a cancer - the malignant cells operate independantly and wheras before you knew where they were, now we have no idea at all.

Going on to invade Iraq was like prescribing ciggarettes to a cancer patient while trying to remove the disease with very low doses of radiation. It just helped the cancer to grow rather than kill it off. One big successful recruitment drive for Al'Qaida paid for by the US and UK taxpayers.
And *still* we can't find them - just the odd cell here and there and soon as we remove that, another one grows somewhere else to take its place.

There is not doubt in my mind that both Bush and Blair are sincere in their beliefs that what they are doing is regrettable but right - but that mindset is no different from the opposing terrorists that they are seeking to destroy.

Locking them all up in adjoining cells (or exectuting them) is a nice idea - but unrealistic. Bush, Blair and the Al'Qaida machine will be protected by their supporters indefinitely while a steady stream of innocent lives are ended before their time.

Breaking the cycle of violence takes courage. It doesn't neccesarily involve 'listening' to the other other side - but it does demand self-critiscism. Bush and Blair simply do not have that kind of courage - and neither does Al'Qaida (and I wouldn't expect the latter to ever have that kind of courage) - but then it doesn't need to start with Al'Qaida. It only takes one side to begin the process of self-examination to end the cycle.

Personally, I'm simply APPALLED that 'Great' Britain is behaving in such a manner and DISGUSTED that my country has to take lessons in democracy and law from France, Germany and now Spain. How the once mighty have fallen...
</font>

And that, in a nutshell, is why you will never defeat terrorism.

Terrorism as a cancer - what an interesting metaphor! ;)

http://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/cg...;f=31;t=012810

So I take it from this that you subscribe to the conspiracy theory that Bush knew the 9/11 attacks were going to happen before they happened? I think your underestimating Al'Qaida's abilities to disguise it's operations and overestimating the "intelligence services" abilities.

I'm afraid I totally disagree with this. It was clear in the weeks leading up to the attack that Aznars party was leading in the polls. That's not to say that they would have definately won, only that there was a clearly defined lead. To say that the attack on the trains didn't influence the vote, especially after the opposition party announced they would bring the troops home from Iraq, is to say the least, presumptuous.

My own opinion is that the election should have been delayed. This would have avoided the obvious emotional vote counting towards the final result, that has come about due to the election being held the very next weekend after the attack. Can anyone really feel that it had no effect on the result?

<font color="#C4C1CA">
Oh far from it!
I think that the security services let that one slip simply because, having had everything wrapped up tightly for so long and with so little happening as a result, they simply mis-read the signs.

Life had simply gotten too easy to maintain the neccessary vigilence and the intelligence services let their guard down. But then, who could have expected something on that scale anyway?
</font>

<font color="#C4C1CA">
Interestingly enough, I just came across this snippet from Time Magazine, posted on the day of the attack:

"The governing centre-right Popular Party was heading for victory in the election. The only thing that was in doubt was their majority, which they might have lost. The attack will now guarantee their majority.

"People will be so outraged that they will be bound to react in that way and look towards politicians who crack down on terrorism."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...034076,00.html

But I do disagree with halting elections as a result of a criminal act - that in itself would upset democracy and give the terrorists a win, and Aznar was right to state that he would not conceive of the idea. Even the US government backed that position.

Oh and by the way, the opposition party only stated that they would withdraw troops from Iraq AFTER the election was OVER. They, as all other parties did, stopped making any electoral statements as soon as the attacks occured and kept quiet until after the result was known.
</font>

[ 03-17-2004, 07:46 AM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

Funny you should mention that Skunk, I actually "just came across this snippet" myself. :D

http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?o...47C1C37A0051E2

All depends on where you look I suppose. :D

Well, as I said, it can be used either way by those in denial that they lost an election on their lack of merit rather than any external event.

We saw this in the Netherlands not too long ago. There has been for YEARS a growing resentment of immigrants and the way that the state had dealt with the issues (head in the sand).

Along comes ONE man (Pim Fortuyn) who was both intelligent and who had bags of charisma. He sets up his own party based largely on the immigration issue and challenges the existing status quo and within months he was set to win the elections with a landslide.

Then, a just a couple of weeks before the election he is murdered - but his party "List Pim Fortuyn" still managed to take a large number of seats in parliament.

Now, those in denial started dribbling on that his party got a sympathy vote as a result of his assassination. In reality, Pim Fortuyn WAS the party, the party WAS HIM and actually, many people didn't vote for his party after his death because they no longer saw a point - his party probably would have won MORE seats had he lived.

Self denial, self-denial, self-denial - how can anyone not agree with MY principles. I AM RIGHT and therefore there has to be some other reason why people didn't vote for me/my party of choice. And they'll make up any excuse to explain it "it was raining, there was a postal strike, a bomb, lies in the press" - whatever. Any reason other than people not believing in their POV.

But voters rarely vote on single issues (esp. in the EU) - it's never that simple.
There are a large number of people in the UK who demonstrated against the war but will still vote for Blair in the next election because they see him as the lesser evil. There are others who were for the war but will not vote for him as a result of his reorganisation of University funding and his lack-lustre attempts to improve the NHS and reduce crime. Voters are not sheep who will move according to how loud the dog barks - they are more like donkeys, stubbornly holding their position until you offer them enough carrots to make them get up.

Aznar whipped the donkey during (and after) the Iraq war (and even in the aftermath of the Madrid blast) and didn't have enough carrots on offer to keep his party in power afterwards. As one Madrid resident puts it:

"And we were not afraid. There was no room in us for fear. This was our funeral, our personal and furious homage to the victims. We would have felt pain even if ETA had been guilty; we did not hate ETA any more or less than we hated al-Qaida. We hated murderers infinitely, all murderers, and this hate motivated us, not fear...

On Sunday, the Spanish people voted bravely, they voted with rage and they voted according to their conscience. Spain has not humiliated herself before the attacks of terrorists, she has risen up against a government which humiliated her every day by using terrorism as an electoral weapon. Spain has shown that she is a decent country. The Socialist party has won the elections, but never was a victory so desired been at the same time as sad as this one."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/spain/arti...170873,00.html

[ 03-17-2004, 09:49 AM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

Really? And where are your statistics. Where is your proof? On what version of reality are you basing this assertion on? Your experience? That YOU or your friends rarely vote on single issues?

Try presenting reasons rather than spouting off your opinion on the motives of MILLIONS of people you do not know and don't understand if you want your opinion-presented-as-gospel-truth to be taken any more seriously than deluded rantings.

For the record I have no opinion on that. I haven't seen any evidence to support either a pro or anti assertion. I am simply sick to death of inane overgeneralisations presented as fact.

Show me that voters rarely vote on single issues, for until you do, it would seem the existence and popularity of such single issue parties as The Greens, Nuclear Disarmament Party, Shooters Party, No Self Government Party (which earned enough votes to govern in a coalition govt. in Canberra, Australia) prove you wrong.

http://www.lincolnheritage.org/About...ens_unite.html


Europe's Greens Unite

Summary

Some 1,300 delegates from 32 European Green parties met Feb. 22

in Rome to form a united party, adopt a common platform and

campaign for European Parliament elections in June. As divisions

in the European Union grow, pan-European narrow-issue parties --

such as the Greens -- will gain strength because they have the

best chance of transcending national borders.

Really? And where are your statistics. Where is your proof? On what version of reality are you basing this assertion on? Your experience? That YOU or your friends rarely vote on single issues?

Try presenting reasons rather than spouting off your opinion on the motives of MILLIONS of people you do not know and don't understand if you want your opinion-presented-as-gospel-truth to be taken any more seriously than deluded rantings.

For the record I have no opinion on that. I haven't seen any evidence to support either a pro or anti assertion. I am simply sick to death of inane overgeneralisations presented as fact.

Show me that voters rarely vote on single issues, for until you do, it would seem the existence and popularity of such single issue parties as The Greens, Nuclear Disarmament Party, Shooters Party, No Self Government Party (which earned enough votes to govern in a coalition govt. in Canberra, Australia) prove you wrong. </font>[/QUOTE]So let me get this straight - are you saying that if the Nuclear Disarmatment Party advocated child sex in addition to banning nuclear weapons, that people would still have voted for it?

One issue can take part in the decision making process - but it rarely settles it.

By the way, I don't recall Austrialia making an application to join the EU - but we will consider it if you really want ;)

Wahhhaaaayyyyy! Go Yorick! Don't you hold back there mate, let it all out!! :D :D :D

And as you can see, in the Core Values of the British Green Party, environmental issues only take TWO of their 10 main Core Value Points. They are not 'single issue' parties:

1. Humankind depends on the diversity of the natural world for its existence. We do not believe that other species are expendable.
2. The Earth's physical resources are finite. We threaten our future if we try to live beyond those means, so we must build a sustainable society that guarantees our long-term future.
3. Every person should be entitled to basic material security as of right.
4. Our actions should take account of the well-being of other nations and future generations. We should not pursue our well-being to the detriment of theirs.
5. A healthy society is based on voluntary co-operation between empowered individuals in a democratic society, free from discrimination whether based on race, colour, sex, religion, national origin, social origin or any other prejudice.
6. We emphasise democratic participation and accountability by ensuring that decisions are taken at the closest practical level to those affected by them.
7. We look for non-violent solutions to conflict situations, which take into account the interests of minorities and future generations in order to achieve lasting settlements.
8. The success of a society cannot be measured by narrow economic indicators, but should take account of factors affecting the quality of life for all people: personal freedom, social equity, health, happiness and human fulfilment.
9. Electoral politics is not the only way to achieve change in society, and we will use a variety of methods to help to affect change, providing those methods do not conflict with our other core principles.
10. The Green Party puts changes in both values and lifestyles at the heart of the radical green agenda.
http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/values.html

[ 03-17-2004, 10:00 AM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

Gotta go now, will get back to you tomorrow.

Cheers, Skip.

Really? And where are your statistics. Where is your proof? On what version of reality are you basing this assertion on? Your experience? That YOU or your friends rarely vote on single issues?

Try presenting reasons rather than spouting off your opinion on the motives of MILLIONS of people you do not know and don't understand if you want your opinion-presented-as-gospel-truth to be taken any more seriously than deluded rantings.

For the record I have no opinion on that. I haven't seen any evidence to support either a pro or anti assertion. I am simply sick to death of inane overgeneralisations presented as fact.

Show me that voters rarely vote on single issues, for until you do, it would seem the existence and popularity of such single issue parties as The Greens, Nuclear Disarmament Party, Shooters Party, No Self Government Party (which earned enough votes to govern in a coalition govt. in Canberra, Australia) prove you wrong. </font>[/QUOTE]So let me get this straight - are you saying that if the Nuclear Disarmatment Party advocated child sex in addition to banning nuclear weapons, that people would still have voted for it?

One issue can take part in the decision making process - but it rarely settles it.

By the way, I don't recall Austrialia making an application to join the EU - but we will consider it if you really want ;) </font>[/QUOTE]Post your stats or retract your assertion. The onus of proof is on you, as you made the assertion.

This is irrelevent. I mentioned "The Greens" which initially were an Australian single issue party, before diversifying, not the European Green Party, which I posted as being a "narrow issue party".

Furthermore your view flies in the face of opinions like this:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only
exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves
largess out of the public treasury."
-- Alexander Tyler, 18th Century Scottish historian

Which would make the single issue of "What's in it for me" the ONLY reason voters vote the way they do.

You are wrong because as usual you have presented no statistics, no history, no analogies or comparitive examples. Only a sociological opinion presented as fact. As ever you do, as always you will it seems.

[ 03-17-2004, 10:11 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

;)

Bear in mind, a preferencial 2 party preferred voting system ensures you can vote AGAINST the parties you most dislike, as well as voting FOR the ones you do.

As such, many political parties like Pauline Hansons "One Nation" were trounced because voters voted against them regarding one major issue.

And that, in a nutshell, is why you will never defeat terrorism. </font>[/QUOTE]Maybe. Listen, as long as someone is willing to pursue peaceful means of protest, I'm all for them. Once they use terrorist acts against civilians as a negotiating tool, I don't care what they have to say, wish only to react to violence with violence, and will see them in hell before I capitulate. They want to start a game no one can win, that's fine by me. If they use violence, and then we as a society back up and start bending to them, we have let an amoral means accomplish their goal -- that cannot be. There is a moral point here that in fact is worth all of us dying for. (IMO, of course).

Oh, and Skunk, I personally think it was shitty of you to lump OBL, Blair, and Bush into one "lawless" basket yet again. For one, no one can prove Bush and Blair broke any laws. You can allege this, assert that, and wave your liberal hands about in the air yelling "the sky is falling," but there CERTAINLY is reasonable doubt as to any illegality. I've explained before how the law itself was quite legal, in fact no one has seriously asserted it wasn't in any real way (i.e. filing a case with the UN), so I shan't do it again. I just note that it saddens me that every time I try to entertain a serious discussion with you, you turn into a shit. Your continued baseless allegations are called slander and libel.

This is irrelevent. I mentioned "The Greens" which initially were an Australian single issue party, before diversifying, not the European Green Party, which I posted as being a "narrow issue party".

Furthermore your view flies in the face of opinions like this:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only
exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves
largess out of the public treasury."
-- Alexander Tyler, 18th Century Scottish historian

Which would make the single issue of "What's in it for me" the ONLY reason voters vote the way they do.

You are wrong because as usual you have presented no statistics, no history, no analogies or comparitive examples. Only a sociological opinion presented as fact. As ever you do, as always you will it seems. </font>[/QUOTE]Check out the manifesto of the European Green Party organisation then:
http://www.europeangreens.org/info/principles.pdf

As you can see - it is NOT a narrow one issue organisation.

I'm sure that Alexander Tyler was as knowledgable on 20th Century society ;) as you appear to think - but nonetheless, the issue of "What's in it for me" nearly always encompasses more than one issue - rarely just financial well-being as was the case in Tyler's world of 230 years ago.

[ 03-17-2004, 10:21 AM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

But why should that stop him? Facts have never stopped him posting his opinion like it's fact before... ;)

<font color="#C4C1CA">
My mistake in not making myself clear.
I actually stated:
"Those who abandon the law and use violence rather than the courts and democratic systems to get their way belong in a cell - as far removed from society as possible."

When I actually meant:
"Those who abandon the law <u>and/or</u> use violence rather than the courts and democratic systems to get their way belong in a cell - as far removed from society as possible."

You know as well as I do that the UN was set to vote on whether military action was to be taken against Iraq and, when it looked like the US/UK were going to lose the vote, they abandoned the democratic process and declared a war which cost thousands of innocent lives.

And you know as well as I do that that any case filed against the US would have to pass through the security council - which the US sits on and can veto. No country would be stupid enough to waste their time filing a resolution against a state that could veto the resolution. It's the only organisation in the world where a judge is allowed to decide the verdict on an alleged 'crime' that he is accused of. No prizes for guessing which way he would vote.

I actually don't know if they broke any laws - professional opinion seems equally divided on the issue - but they DID abandon the democratic process and they DID wage war before all alternatives had been explored. And that is not slander because it is verifiable FACT.

And because thousands of lives were lost as a result (and people are still dying in the ongoing conflict that they started), that DOES make them as bad as any terrorist.</font>

[ 03-17-2004, 10:41 AM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

This is irrelevent. I mentioned "The Greens" which initially were an Australian single issue party, before diversifying, not the European Green Party, which I posted as being a "narrow issue party".

Furthermore your view flies in the face of opinions like this:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only
exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves
largess out of the public treasury."
-- Alexander Tyler, 18th Century Scottish historian

Which would make the single issue of "What's in it for me" the ONLY reason voters vote the way they do.

You are wrong because as usual you have presented no statistics, no history, no analogies or comparitive examples. Only a sociological opinion presented as fact. As ever you do, as always you will it seems. </font>[/QUOTE]Check out the manifesto of the European Green Party organisation then:
http://www.europeangreens.org/info/principles.pdf

As you can see - it is NOT a narrow one issue organisation.

I'm sure that Alexander Tyler was as knowledgable on 20th Century society ;) as you appear to think - but nonetheless, the issue of "What's in it for me" nearly always encompasses more than one issue - rarely just financial well-being as was the case in Tyler's world of 230 years ago. </font>[/QUOTE]Need I say it again? For the third time, you made the assertion. Post stats that prove your p.o.v. or retract.

What really annoys me is that everyone seems to ignore me.

So you are suggesting that the French, Polish, and German resistence movements in WW2 should be removed from society? Are you suggesting that Chamberlian was a hero despite being played for a fop? Do those who shepherded Jews to freedom, belong in a cell?

Generalisations like this don't wash.

As for what is 'right' is it right to let a man beat his wife and kids to death, and do nothing while the courts fail to grant a warrant for his arrest?

I've said it before, Hussein's maltreatment of his citizens broke human rights laws, and should have been removed years before. That alone justifies any attempts to remove him. The question is, why were some sectors of Europe so self centred they worked to ensure he was able to keep "molesting his children"???

What did you say?