Just by curiosity : how have people in the USA (well, let's say : around you) reacted to the bombings in Madrid ?

I dont know what you mean by "reacted". I was horrified when i saw the headlines. And a couple of us talked about it at work this week.

it depends what you consider reacting. but not many people tlaked about it around me, just my parents and teachers, and a couple of other people. but I go to high school. the only current events anyone discusses are the Michael Jackson and Kobe Bryant trials.

People are pretty horrified, of course. It's been the lead item in the news every day since it happened. My nephew is studying in Toledo right now, so of course I was a little concerned about him (he's fine).

I wonder if it will end up being blamed on ETA or Al Queada.

it seems that Al Quaeda is the main suspect. And Aznar's party has lost the election ! It seems that the spanish people are blaming his govt for these bombings that maybe would not have happened without the very unpopular war in Iraq.

Are you indirectly blaming the U.S. for this bombing?

your right, if we just leave al queada alone we will all be a lot safer, good thinking :rolleyes:

I believe that this is biggest headline in our news right now. While it is not causing huge ripples like some headline stories, it definitely is the biggest story. I just read that the Spanish goverment is likely to change hands DIRECTLY as a result of this bombing. Score a victory for terrorists. While there are some that argue that terrorists bomb to get a reaction, and that they love it when countries like American react by invading and hunting down certain individuals, I think that what they are getting in Spain is far, far, FAR more desirable: they have displaced a government that was very unfriendly to terrorists and instead now have a government that would rather overlook their activities. I think Spain is making a HUGE mistake. While this move will make life easier for Spaniards, it is also making life easier for terrorists abroad. The countries that are left standing against terrorism will be more likely to see terror attacks as a result of this change.

Score one for Al Qaeda, or whoever was behind that attack.

the terrost didnt get rid of the government the people did. it is a democracy, and the terrorists know that the new government wont do crap to them now. its funny how the terrorist didnt do a bombing until the old government was on the way out. maybe this is their way to test the new government to see what tehy will do. actually all that is happening now is still the old government so we wont know for a while how the new left wing government will react. i am guessing spain can look forward to several more bombings in the future. of course instead of doing something about it the new left wing government will do as everyone else does and blame bush, and at the same time expect him to come bail their ass out

Originally posted by Travh20
of course instead of doing something about it the new left wing government will do as everyone else does and blame bush, and at the same time expect him to come bail their ass out

I doubt the new government of Spain will want to have anything to do with Bush...

1- For Havok : where did you get the idea that I blamed the US govt for this bombing ? Of course I don't.

2- Nothing allows to say that the new spanish govt will be friendly to terrorists ! In fact the new prime minister has said that fighting terrorism will be his priority.
The Aznar govt has been defeated because he obviously lied and tried to manipulate the opinion about the real cause of these bombings, giving false evidence to show that ETA was behind the bombings. Which would have been better for him than the truth.
The problem is very similar to the 9-11 reference in Bush's ads : many people do not accept that any govt use such a terrible event for electoral purpose.

It would seem that the Spanish will be leaving Iraq,

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&u=/nm/20040315/ts_nm/spain_dc_14

It's interesting that the new Spanish government doesn't equate the "War on Terror" with the occupation of Iraq.

Originally posted by astrapol2
1- For Havok : where did you get the idea that I blamed the US govt for this bombing ? Of course I don't.
I was asking, not accusing. The way the post was worded, it made me wonder if you blamed the U.S.

its even more interesting that the new spanish government says fighting terror will be top of thier list, but then they pull out of iraq, one of the only places where any actual fighting of terrorists is happening. what are they going to do, wait until they blow up another train then arrest some more people? ya, good idea. I wonder how the new socialist government plans on "fighting" the terorists, through the UN more than likely. good luck on that, and I hoep all the popularity you find opposing the war helps soften the blows :rolleyes:

because terrorism is an abstract idea, there are many different ways of fighting it. of course, full our war is one of them, but much of what's happening is porbably secret intelligence, which seems like it would much more effective than traditional warfare.

Originally posted by WhammyBar
because terrorism is an abstract idea, Would you explain to me what you mean by this statement?

Originally posted by HaVoK
Would you explain to me what you mean by this statement?

when we refer speak of terrorism as "the enemy" it's a lot less structured than referring to a country as an enemy. terrorists groups aren't tied down. they will do anything, they have no citizens, no responisibilities. what they are doing is guerilla warfare. the fatc that they are willing to die for their cause makes it almost impossible to intimidate them. we don't know exactly who, or where they are. it' extremly difficult to pinpoint what we;re fighting in he war agaisnt terrorism.

in other words, we should just pack it in and call it a day. maybe if we are nice to them they wont hurt us.

The very idea of "war" against terrorism is a nonsense. It is supposed to support the idea that the solution is military and that fighting terrorism is siùilar to fighting a nation. Travh says that Iraq is the only place where terrorism is fought, but terrorism in Iraq is a RESULT of the war, not the contrary !
There are only two ways to fight terrorism : intelligence + police and political response. The intelligence war seems far to be won if we consider what happened in spain. And the political response is much broader and long term issue, which should mostly aim the reduction of inequalites and injustice both on a worldwide basis and in every nation.

bill clinton tried to fight terrorism in the courts and with police, look what that got us.

Trav, nobody ever said courts, it's intelligence that will get us places, and we don't know what's happening with that. It doesn't seem to be working though.

Look where it got us?

Look where Bush got us? hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

bush got rid of the taliban, shattered Al queada into a thousand pieces, ousted the worst dictiator in the middle east and has set up the only arab democracy in the region, "persuaded" Lybia to give up its WMD's without question and even iran now has decided to let us in on thier nuclear "energy" programs. whether you agree with it or not that is the truth. you can not argue that clinton did anything close to that during his 8 years. actually I take that back, you will try to argue it, but will fail. clinton rode a fake stock boom until it popped, got a blow job by someone other than his wife, lied about it under oath, pardoned a bunch of lowlifes then stole a bunch of stuff from the white house, vandalized it and ran.

It's a dream to imagine that Bush gets any credit for Lybia & Iran.

It is true that the war on terror is essentially an intelligence operation. The war in Afganistan was essential - but in reality it has little impact on terrorism. Any impact has come from intelligence activities.

Iraq is a longterm issue that will ultimately pay dividends & pre-war intelligence as communicated to the population was an imminent threat. If they got the intelligence wong then they still took the right action because they acted strongly based on the info they had, if they lied or embellished the intelligence then they acted too soon & need to explain why action was taken at that moment.

Overall though Iraq is not impacting terrorism positively. I strongly supported the war in Iraq last year - but at the moment it's plain to see that Iraq has increased terrorism not decreased it.

I'm no Clinton fan & I agree that Bush has taken a lot of action since being in office - but to be objective - Clinton did not have 9-11. Without 9-11 Bush would be weak on terrorism - he campaigned on a platform that said limited foreign policy.

what is with this intelligence thing? thats all I hear. how exactly is intelligence worth a piece of crap if you cant do anything about it? I hear a lot about intelligence, but never any mention of what to do with it. do you want to use it to hunt down and kill the terrorists? to stop attacks? what? I agree it is the main ingredient, but what the heck are you going to do with it? are you going to act on it, or wait around so long to make sure its 100% accurate that by the time your ready to act its irrelevant?

and drew, do you think Lybia and Iran would have just up and gave up their ace in the hole just to be good guys? do yuo think they cant see the writing on the wall? of course the war in iraq and afghanistan had a big part in their decisions. those type of countries just dont up and give up their WMD programs. look at saddam, as of now he doesnt have a WMD program, but was willing to lose power becasue he wanted everyone to believe he had them so bad, he bluffed his way into a cell. now if we find WMD, then he wasnt bluffing, but as of now, he lost everything to save a fake stockpile of WMD.

of course if 9-111 never happened we wouldnt be talking about any of this. I wish it never did happen, and I wuoldnt give a crap who won the election. but it did happen, and Clinton wasnt "lucky" enough to have it happen on his watch, to bad. his legacy as an adulterous liar and draft dodger is set.

What do you do with intelligence? er..you act on it - arrest people. The answer to everything is not always to fly in with blackhawk helicopters :slap: The next terrorist might be living 3 doors up from your house for all you know.

It's true that Iraq may have had some impact on Iran & Lybia - but it's unlikely. Both know that the US would not attack them anytime soon. In Lybia's case the reason is purely economic in nature & it was the British government that negotiated that.

Agree on Clinton's legacy, but that wasn't the original point.

arrest people? like on Cops? how about go in and take them out. these are not meth dealers, they are terrorists who dont get arrested. yes, some of them do, but the real hardcore ones we are after do not open the door for a search warrent. and it doesntmatter who negotiated the lybia deal, the fact is they have done something unprecedented in the arab world, and conviently soon after Saddam regime went down. go aheada nd deny the link, but it is there.

Trav - you live in some kind of soldier of fortune fantasy world. The war on terrorism is basically a war of intelligence - how you round up the actors is hardly the point. The point is that intelligence comes first not the military. The 9-11 hijackers were all living in the US - not in Afganistan or Iraq. The FBI could have picked them up before 9-11.

If you read my post I didn't deny a link between Iraq & Lybia's actions, I just think the issue is unlikely to be that simple. Especially given the fact that the negotiations started before the war in Iraq.

I still dont get this war of intelligence thing. all wars depend on intelligence. what you really mean to say is you want law enforcement officers doing the fighting, not the military.

No not at all - that is absolutely not what anybody is saying.

The war on terror is a war where intelligence is the main tool to prevent terrorist attacks and to bring the terrorists to justice. It is not a war between states fought with armies like WWII

Sure the military have a key role to play in some areas - but it's a relatively minor role bcause the terrorists are living in our towns and cities. What would you propose is the military mission for next year? invade California?

Nobody is against using the military where it makes sense, but the military is not going to win the war on terror - the CIA and the FBI are going win it together with the intelligence agencies of countries around the globe.

yes, of course I dont plan on martial law on our streets, I mean th emilitary is going to have to do the fighting in other countries like Afghanistan, iraq, and any other country that the terrorists flee too.

The fact that it's news to you that the war on terror is a war of intelligence and that you have trouble understanding it - suddenly explains a lot.

War, war, war ! This should not even be called a war, maybe it would make things clearer for people like Travh.
If he govt suddenly declares "war against cancer", does it mean the army is going to track down tumors in the streets ? Of course no.

as I said before, a war of intelligence is impossible. intelligence is part of any war, you cant take the war out of war, sorry. there will have to be someone to get the terrorists uncovered by this intelligence, as they are not going to turn themselves in because we have intelligence on them. you all act as if intelligence is something new, a new strategy. intelligence has been an intregal part of war since the beginning of time. but intelligence alone isnt worth the paper its printed on. its like having gas and no car. everyone is such experts on intelligence suddenly, when not 5 years ago these samepeople were read to disband the CIA entirely.

Intelligence sure is not your favorite weapon.

Originally posted by astrapol2

If he govt suddenly declares "war against cancer", does it mean the army is going to track down tumors in the streets ? Of course no.

It does in the U.S.! :D

Originally posted by Travh20
as I said before, a war of intelligence is impossible. intelligence is part of any war, you cant take the war out of war, sorry. there will have to be someone to get the terrorists uncovered by this intelligence, as they are not going to turn themselves in because we have intelligence on them. you all act as if intelligence is something new, a new strategy. intelligence has been an intregal part of war since the beginning of time. but intelligence alone isnt worth the paper its printed on. its like having gas and no car. everyone is such experts on intelligence suddenly, when not 5 years ago these samepeople were read to disband the CIA entirely.

Trav - I'm lost as to why this concept is hard for you to understand. This is a war of intelligence - period. The fact that you cannot understand that doesn't change the fact that it is. Forget the type of Wars you are used to - this isn't anything close to those type of wars.

Nobody is saying intelligence is a new thing. Compare WWII to this war. You seem to think this war is like WWII - it isn't - it's nothing like that type of war. Physically picking up the terrorists is the easy part - the hard part (the war) is to know who they are and where they are. Remember - as I have already said, all the 9-11 hijackers were living legally in the US. Maybe there are others in the US waiting to act - the only way to defeat them is to know about them - who they are and what they are planning to do next. This is why it is a war of intelligence. None of the people in Iraq or Afghanistan are in a position to do anything in the US. Sure their leaders may be in some of those places - but not the actual terrorists. The actual terrorists are HERE.

Originally posted by astrapol2
Intelligence sure is not your favorite weapon.

tell me smart ass, what would you do with all this magical intelligence you gather? send out the goof ball gendarme to get the crap shot out of themselves? or would you employ the SUPER gendarme?

So Trav - explain in your own words (don't type too fast sometimes I can't read what you type) the war on terror.

Specifically
- Who the players are
- What the strategy of war is
- How we will defeat them
- Where the war is fought

Originally posted by DrewM
Trav - I'm lost as to why this concept is hard for you to understand. This is a war of intelligence - period. The fact that you cannot understand that doesn't change the fact that it is. Forget the type of Wars you are used to - this isn't anything close to those type of wars.

Nobody is saying intelligence is a new thing. Compare WWII to this war. You seem to think this war is like WWII - it isn't - it's nothing like that type of war. Physically picking up the terrorists is the easy part - the hard part (the war) is to know who they are and where they are. Remember - as I have already said, all the 9-11 hijackers were living legally in the US. Maybe there are others in the US waiting to act - the only way to defeat them is to know about them - who they are and what they are planning to do next. This is why it is a war of intelligence. None of the people in Iraq or Afghanistan are in a position to do anything in the US. Sure their leaders may be in some of those places - but not the actual terrorists.

I know what you are trying to say, but the whole war of intelligence just sounds stupid. its like having a football coach standing on the sidelines with a game plan and no players. it just doenst make sense. intelligence is just as important now as it always ahs been. i tmay be more difficult to obtain now, but its no more imortant than it was to patton or Rommel. the intelligence has to be acted on, or its useless. CLinton had Bin laden in the sights of a predator drone in 1998. sure it was great intel, actuall visula ID in real time, but he decided it was better to do nothing about it. what the fuck good was that intel? worthless, thats what it was. what if our intel finds major terroirst activity in N korea, will the same naysayers say its to dangerous to do anything about it?

and intel inside the US is very important, but the same people cryign about it are the same people crying about the patriot act. they want their cake and to eat it too. Now I believe the patritot act has stopped more than 1 terrorist attack in ths country. of course we never hear about it. i know it is very unpopular, but nothing is these days. but you know what, it is getting the job done.

Trav - I'm not trying to say it - I am saying it loud & clear with a bullhorn - Intelligence is 1000 times more important in this war than it was to Rommel & Patton. I'm astonished that you think it's the same - what planet are you living on Trav?

In WWII they knew who they were facing - they might benefit from intelligence to outsmart the enemy but intelligence didn't change the size of their armies, their equipment or the reality that they were facing another army on a battlefield with known boundaries and objectives - In this war without Intelligence you have no clue who the enemy even is and the battlefield is the whole world. Big difference Trav. Think about it - I am confident that you must be able to understand this point. My 3 week old son could understand that.

Having somebody in the sights of a predator drone is NOT a good definition of intelligence. Intelligence is where you know that Joe Terrorist living at 123 anystreet USA is planning to blow something up and you grab him before he does it. The military plays no part in that. Or it's the spanish police knowing that 5 guys are going to put 10 bombs on a train and stopping them before they do it. The military plays no part in that. Or it's knowing that guys are taking flying lessons with the intent of flying into the twin towers and you arrest them before they do - the military plays no part in that.

Please answer this

Specifically
- Who the players are
- What the strategy of war is
- How we will defeat them
- Where the war is fought

look man, I am not saying intelligence isnt important. I am saying intel alone is not going to win anything. I know how imprtoant intel is, and support our intel gathering agencys whole heartedly. thats not the point. your trying to say its a "war of intelligence". its not a war of intelligence, that would be when 2 inelligence agencys, like the CIA and KGB are going at it and spying and counterspying and all that. this is a war against terrorism, or terrorists if you prefer. intel is only half the battle. didnt you ever watch GI Joe as a kid? "knowing is half the battle" they said, and they were right, it is only half the battle.

Originally posted by Travh20
its not a war of intelligence, that would be when 2 inelligence agencys, like the CIA and KGB are going at it and spying and counterspying and all that.

:@@:

I'll give you one thing Trav - I get a laugh from some of your posts sometimes - even my wife is smiling at that one.

I can take it you are not going to answer the 4 bullet point questions?

well I am glad I can provide a cheap laugh to you and your better half. :rolleyes:

who the players are: the terrorists. mainly islamic militants bent on creating a one world islamic government . our forces and our allies forces. our intelligence aparatus and our allies intelligence aparatus, determined to keep our quality of life as it is. those are the players

what the stategy of the war is: the stategy is to stop any and all future attacks on us and our allies. thi should be accomplished with force of action, not a defensive posture. hunting instead of lyingin wait. they will be less likely to be able to respond if they cant stop and catch their breath.

How will we defeat them: most important is to not want to cut and run after a few casualties, as we have been known to do in the past, this is the root of all the attacks. the terrorists wont respect a week nation, and have no fear of a paper tiger. we have to be more violent then they are in order to defeat them.

Where the war is fought: the war is fought wherever they are. if they are in iraq, we fight there, if they are in N korea we figt there. if they are in our county or the county of our allies, we fight them there, although a bit differently than with tanks and helicopters

Originally posted by Travh20
what the stategy of the war is: the stategy is to stop any and all future attacks on us and our allies. thi should be accomplished with force of action, not a defensive posture. hunting instead of lyingin wait. they will be less likely to be able to respond if they cant stop and catch their breath.

Where the war is fought: the war is fought wherever they are. if they are in iraq, we fight there, if they are in N korea we figt there. if they are in our county or the county of our allies, we fight them there, although a bit differently than with tanks and helicopters

Yeah, but to do all of those things you need an ass-load of intelligence, which is why it's so much more important now than it was in Patton's time. Otherwise you're just randomly busting down doors and pointing guns at the heads of people that aren't even involved.

WTF? I have never said we didnt need intelligence! look, whatever amount of intellience you are thinking, double it and that how muh I think we need. I am not arguing that we dont need intelligence! and the need for intelligence for patton is the same as it is now. you cant say it wasnt as important to him. no one wants to go chargign into a division of germans witha comapny of tanks. intelligene is more than just knowing where they are. its knowing how many, what they have, what they are doing. in the military ther eis a simple acronym for an intelligence repot, it is SALUTE. Size Activity Location Uniform Time Equipment

But you're missing the point, Trav. The need for intelligence in this war is about a thousand times greater than it was in WWII. In WWII, intel was good for finding the big, unmistakable masses of enemy troops. We already knew where to go and what to do. Now, we have no idea where these terrorists are. We can't do a damned thing without intelligence here, but in WWII we at least had a vague notion of where to go: Germany and Japan. The terrorists we're fighting against aren't only in Afghanistan, Iraq, or North Korea; they're all across the globe! Thus, the need for greater intelligence.

again, I never said we didnt need intelligence. I nver said we didnt need more intellience, I am just saying it is nt more important to us now than in was to patton in WW2. they had a hell of a lot at stake too, the victory over the germans was by no means a sure thing.

Originally posted by Travh20
again, I never said we didnt need intelligence. I nver said we didnt need more intellience, I am just saying it is nt more important to us now than in was to patton in WW2. they had a hell of a lot at stake too, the victory over the germans was by no means a sure thing.
They may have had more at stake, but how on Earth can you deny that intelligence is more important now? Hypothetical situation: WWII, neither the U.S. nor its allies could gather any intelligence, for whatever reason.

We know where to attack, so boom, we go. We might even win. Who knows?

Hypothetical situation: just barely pre-War on Terror. Neither the U.S. nor its allies can gather any intelligence, for whatever reason.

We can't do shit. We just sit and wait, sit and wait, sit and wait for everything. Terrorists fly the planes into the WTC, the Pentagon, and the one out in Pennsylvania. We can't figure out who the hell that was. The terrorists are heartened, and attack more. Again, who the hell was that?! Where are they coming from?! Even if we figure out it was OBL, we've still got to find the al Qaeda cells, and we certainly wouldn't find any in the U.S. (They do exist, in small numbers.)

Borg - you may as well give up with trying to explain it to him - he seems incapable of understanding the point. I'm not sure if finger puppets would work - doubt it.

Another thread turned from "debate about an interesting issue" into "everyone tries to convince travh he's wrong".
I'm tired of discussing with Travh. Not because he disagrees with me, but because it leads nowhere. If anyone has something new about this topic, please let me know !

your right, you guys are hopeless. intelligence is just as important now as it ever has been. and that is VERY important. I am not saying we dont need intelligence! look up sometime the amount of resources and manpower invested in WW2 intel gathering and interpretation and you will see it was a massive undertaking. it wasnt simply looking at maps and deciding where to go next. it is now clear to me you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to WW2 if you think you could have just jumped in a tank and headed for berlin and had any chance of success whatsoever.

Originally posted by Travh20
I am not saying we dont need intelligence!
But...no...one...has...ever...said...AAAAGGGHHH!!! ::dies of frustration::

man, I dont even remember what the hell we are arguing about anymore :rolleyes:

Back to the original subject:

Poland has announced that it will pick up the slack that will be left when Spain leaves Iraq. I don't understand why Spain isn't getting more flack for leaving the allies in Iraq high and dry.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/03/18/poland.iraq/index.html

If only we had an ignore button...

you can say that again

There is an ignore button