E-Fight with Wingnut over Spain's Election

[UTUSN]

My opening salvo was standard stuff around here, that AZNAR had defied his people, the king, the Pope, to join Shrub in the illegal Iraq attack, that this was typical "anti-democracy" for anybody associated with Shrub.

Wingnut returned fire:
-------------------------------

I don't know what anti-democratic talk you'r etalking about. I will say this: sometimes voters are wrong; they make the wrong decision. I consider myself an Hispanophile. I learned Spanish on Spain living with a Spanish family. My wife almost married a Spaniard. I have nothing against them, but they are guilty of attemtping to appease the Islamo-fascists, just as the democracies tried to apease Hitler and the other fascists before WW 2. They think They have no fight with the Islamofacists. They may not, but the fascists do with them. They are silly and ignorant of history who think that by standing on the sidelines in this war between light and dark they will avoid the fight; they will not; they will just be last to be gobbled up. I can understand people unhappy with the war in Iraq but I don't understand anyone who thinks this fight doesn't involved them. It does and it will. Like the Nazis and the Communists, they will stop trying to subjugate us only when they are stopped. WE are foolish to think we can make them go away by being nice or by being neutral; there is no neutral in this just as there wasn't during the Cold War.

I said this:
----------------------------------

You don't know what anti-democracy tendencies I'm talking about (in the Shrubbites and their followers)? Really? Did points 1), 2), and 3) just disappear into the ether? Read Kevin PHILLIPS's American Dynasty for a damning indictment of the YEARS of MULTIPLE offenses of - not just Shrub - the BUSH family's anti-democracy, Election 2000 NOT being the first BUSH stolen election.

There's a lot of flim-flam in your response, and it just reflects the generalized flim-flam from the Shrubbites/Neo-Cons/PNACers. The flim-flam starts with 9-11 and the war-on-terror: Wingnuts keep claiming that the WAY Shrub is handling things is the ONLY WAY. This is not true. After the Taliban, we should have kept after Bin Laden, wherever THAT led, whether to Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. But Shrub can't afford to be exposed that way, now can he?

By the way, whenever one of the Shrubbites goes on t.v. and claims that the Shrub agenda is to END terror - it's ridiculously laughable. Can burglary, murder, fraud or any number of horrible things be ERADICATED? No. But they can be MANAGED and CONTAINED ------like ANYTHING, for a certain CYCLE of time.

Go back to points 1), 2), and 3) about DEFYING the will of the governed. Also, the talk about "appeasement" and "being nice, neutral" - is a red herring. Being "tough" doesn't mean settling old BUSH family cartel feuds. It certainly suits Shrub to let OTHER facets of problems just simmer and simmer away--------has he done ANYTHING about the Middle East, North Korea, or, for that matter, anything at home?

He said this, heatedly:
--------------------------------

I have time for two things: first, You watch alot more TV than I get to, so I don't know which Shrubbites you're talking about who say the Bush way is the only way. I haven't said that and I don't believe it. HOWEVER, I haven't heard another credible way. Kerry to date has offered nothing coherent (unless I've missed it, which is possible). HE has criticized, which is his right, but what would he have done and what will he do, now? In fact, what he would have done is almost irrelevant since if he wins it's only what he WILL do that is important? Announce to the world that everything's on hold til he catches bin Ladin? That gives bin Laden and the Ilsmaists all the power over him. How will he fight the threat? Does he agree there IS a threat? what is the nature of the threat? IF there is no threat, what does he see? As is implicit in the Spaniards quoted in the paper, does he believe al-Qaeda blew up the trains BECAUSE they supported Bush? Will they be able the placate the ISlamists and live in peace? The Psalmists are the new Crusaders, convert or die. There is no other construction that I see as realistic.

I really don't follow the talking head guys because I don't have time. I watch or listen to IMUS in the morning and not Fox. I listen to Fox 5 to 6 pm but they aren't;'t reflexive supporters of Bush. It is imperative that Kerry and the Democrats says what they would do. Do they believe about the Islamofascists, as SOME did in the Cold War, that OUR behavior is what make them strike out? That if only we wouldn't threaten Stalin and the Russians, they ouewldn't be so mean? That was a fundeamental misreading of Communism and is dangerous misreading of the present danger. The SPaniards WERE attacked by the Islamists for supporting Bush. My arguement is that in this war between light and dark, they have to pick sides. They can't be on the sideline. There IS no sideline.

--------------------------EOM

[BillZBubb]

1. Same old "with us or against us" bullshit

War between "light and dark" is typical wingnut oversimplification. The vast majority of Muslims aren't terrorists. The fact that a lot of them have some sympathy for the terrorists should be a concern.

Kerry has no responsibility to lay out a detailed plan at this time. He has way too many other urgent tasks just fighting off the Bush* slime machine. He has, however, given some indications about what he would do. The primary change would be to stop invading countries who had nothing to do with 9-11 and Al Qaeda. He'd focus on the real enemy instead of the PNAC imperialistic agenda. The other major change would be to work closely with all our allies, instead of snubbing those who disagreed with him.

The invasion of Iraq had NOTHING to do with terrorism. But a major consequence of it is an increase in terrorism. And that was predicted by many here at DU. Spain got their first war dividend--yes Aznar mad Spain a target by supporting Bush*'s illegal invasion of Iraq. And, no, the Spanish aren't idiots. They know that by throwing out the lying conservatives that they will still face terrorism. But now they plan to fight the real terrorist enemies, not Bush* fabrications.

[UTUSN]

2. Yep, How Come Shrub Has Never

had to say what he was going to do about something. Campaign 2000 was just a lot of fluff and bluster from him----on the one hand fluff about "compassion" and bluster threatening "Don't mess with Texas" (don't look at my record).

[Guaranteed]

3. He's pushing "inevitability"

The war between Christianity and Islam is on, in his mind, and he's just trying to get you to pick a side.

Play down the conflict. It's only the extreme elements of Islam- vs. the extreme elements of Christianity ;) (That's a nice little slam).

This guy isn't arguing from reason- he should be easy to dispose of.

On edit: Also, make clear the distinction between the Iraq war and the war on terror. We keep CONCEDING to them that the Iraq war had something to do with the war on terror- it didn't! So they always force us, somehow, to start arguing against the war on terror. It's fucking ridiculous- I'm sick of them trying to muddy the waters, endlessly.

[Bandit]

4. First we need to divorce ourselves from the terminoligy War on Terror

What we are experiencing is unlawful activity. It is a matter of Law Enforcement, not War. We are not engaged in battle with any country except Iraq and there are no soldiers or fighter jets or tanks or anything. We are involved in a world wide police action and need to start addressing it as such.