Spanish PM Orders Troops Out Of Iraq

[Aaron]

Looks like the Spanish PM is making good on his promise.

MADRID - Spain's new prime minister is fulfilling an election promise to withdraw his country's troops from Iraq, but it's unclear how quickly the soldiers will return.

Luis Rodriguez Zapatero announced Sunday that Spain's 1,300-strong contingent will be brought home in "as short a time as possible."

Zapatero officially became prime minister on Saturday when he took the oath of office, nearly five weeks after defeating conservative incumbent Jose Maria Aznar.

Zapatero had promised to remove Spanish troops unless military and political operations in Iraq were placed under United Nations control.

In a televised speech, he said it's unlikely that a UN resolution will be adopted "to meet the conditions we have set for our presence in Iraq."

His anti-war stand as head of the Socialist Party is believed to have swayed many voters who suspected the government was covering up al-Qaeda links to the March 11 train bombings in Madrid.

Zapatero said the troop withdrawal was a pre-election promise he made after realizing the government's support for the war in Iraq contravened "the will of the Spanish people."

Aznar told Fox News Sunday the pullout will only lead to more chaos in Iraq.

Washington had been expecting Sunday's announcement for weeks. A White House spokesman said the U.S. expects Spain's withdrawal to be "co-ordinated, responsible and orderly."



Written by CBC News Online staff

[Shinova]

Appeasement?

[TheDarkling]

Appeasement?

No, a politician keeping an election promise.

[Rogue 9]

An election promise to perform appeasement.

Well, we all knew this was coming.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I'm sure that's how AQ and the Arab Street sees it.

[Aaron]

Appeasement?

No, a politician keeping an election promise.

Although one could argue that now that their pulling out, theres no reason for Al Queda to attack Spanish targets.

[TheDarkling]

Although one could argue that now that their pulling out, theres no reason for Al Queda to attack Spanish targets.

What about doubling their contribution to Afghanistan, would that provide a reason?

[Aaron]

Although one could argue that now that their pulling out, theres no reason for Al Queda to attack Spanish targets.

What about doubling their contribution to Afghanistan, would that provide a reason?

They doubled their contribution to Afghanistan? I didn't know that. Given their twisted logic it probably would provide them with a reason. Even though there are no combat ops in Afghanistan right now, and their not engaged in subdueing the populace.

[The Kernel]

Appeasement?

No, a politician keeping an election promise.

Although one could argue that now that their pulling out, theres no reason for Al Queda to attack Spanish targets.

Except that he made that election promise long before the terrorist bombing.

[Darth Wong]

I'm sick of this "appeasement" bullshit. The term "appeasement" refers to doing something which you are not otherwise inclined to do in order to make somebody happy. Since the Spanish people were overwhelmingly against the Iraq war since before it began, this is not appeasement.

Fucking "appeasement" bullshitters ... as if there's no other reason to get out of that quagmire but "appeasement"! Even John Kerry insists that UN involvement in Iraq should occur only under US command; why the fuck should anybody else risk their soldiers in a place that Washington DC seems to consider its private property?

[Aaron]

Even John Kerry insists that UN involvement in Iraq should occur only under US command; why the fuck should anybody else risk their soldiers in a place that Washington DC seems to consider its private property?

Theres no reason why anyone else should risk their soldiers lives in Iraq. The USA and the UK started this mess and unless they are willing to hand the operation over to the UN then they can finish it. Why would the former Spanish PM deploy troops to Iraq if the populace was against it? Canada didn't deploy our troops after polls showed that the majority of Canadians opposed the war.

[The Kernel]

Even John Kerry insists that UN involvement in Iraq should occur only under US command; why the fuck should anybody else risk their soldiers in a place that Washington DC seems to consider its private property?

Theres no reason why anyone else should risk their soldiers lives in Iraq. The USA and the UK started this mess and unless they are willing to hand the operation over to the UN then they can finish it. Why would the former Spanish PM deploy troops to Iraq if the populace was against it? Canada didn't deploy our troops after polls showed that the majority of Canadians opposed the war.

While I agree with you about this being the US and UK's mess to deal with, government decisions should never be run by polls. The general population is incapable of seeing such trivial things as long-term benefits which is exactly why the Bush administration loves making decisions that sacrifice the long-term for short-term benefits.

[Admiral Valdemar]

I'm sure that's how AQ and the Arab Street sees it.

Fuck them.

Unless the Spanish suddenly threw up their collective hands and went "We just don't care anymore" and stopped fighting terror, I don't see how they can be helping al-Qaeda or their cronies.

[Aaron]

While I agree with you about this being the US and UK's mess to deal with, government decisions should never be run by polls. The general population is incapable of seeing such trivial things as long-term benefits which is exactly why the Bush administration loves making decisions that sacrifice the long-term for short-term benefits.

Yes but wars have to be embarked on with the support of the populace. Otherwise you'll wind up in a Vietnam type situation. If the Canadian government had supported and gone to war with the US in Iraq then they would definatly have lost the next election. Just like the former Spanish PM. Although it should be mentioned that the sponsership scandal will probably cost the Canadian Liberal party the election anyways.

[The Kernel]

Yes but wars have to be embarked on with the support of the populace. Otherwise you'll wind up in a Vietnam type situation. If the Canadian government had supported and gone to war with the US in Iraq then they would definatly have lost the next election. Just like the former Spanish PM. Although it should be mentioned that the sponsership scandal will probably cost the Canadian Liberal party the election anyways.

You can make the same argument about any government decision. You realize of course that WWII would have probably ended a lot better had we gotten involved sooner (arguably true with WWI as well) and FDR wanted to get involved, but he knew that he didn't have the support of the American people and was unwilling to devote official support to the war until after Pearl Harbor. That is why he had to waste time with programs like Lend/Lease and Cash/Carry as well as the Japanese embargo--these were programs designed to help the Allies hang on, but appear to the American people as if we weren't taking sides.

Sometimes the government must commit ourselves to a decision about a conflict that people aren't going to be pleased with. This is simply a necessary fact and just because some of the wars we've been in that were unpopular turned out to be a mistake does not invalidate this.

[Darth Wong]

Sometimes the government must commit ourselves to a decision about a conflict that people aren't going to be pleased with. This is simply a necessary fact and just because some of the wars we've been in that were unpopular turned out to be a mistake does not invalidate this.

Irrelevant, since you must show that there is an concrete need to commit to this war in order to make this argument, and we both know that there is none.

[The Kernel]

Sometimes the government must commit ourselves to a decision about a conflict that people aren't going to be pleased with. This is simply a necessary fact and just because some of the wars we've been in that were unpopular turned out to be a mistake does not invalidate this.

Irrelevant, since you must show that there is an concrete need to commit to this war in order to make this argument, and we both know that there is none.

Where do you derive that from what I said? Cpl Kendall said:

Yes but wars have to be embarked on with the support of the populace.

I'm simply disproving that particular statement and it has nothing to do with the current war. There ARE times when wars need to be embarked upon against the wishes of the populance and I can say this even if I don't believe that the current military occupation of Iraq is one of them.

[Aaron]

I'm simply disproving that particular statement and it has nothing to do with the current war. There ARE times when wars need to be embarked upon against the wishes of the populance and I can say this even if I don't believe that the current military occupation of Iraq is one of them.

Name a war that wasn't embarked upon for defensive purposes that was necassary regardless of the populace's opinion. If the population doesn't support a war then what right does the government have to embark upon it? The government is the representation of the people, they are not supposed to do things for their own gain.

[Stark]

Name a war that wasn't embarked upon for defensive purposes that was necassary regardless of the populace's opinion. If the population doesn't support a war then what right does the government have to embark upon it? The government is the representation of the people, they are not supposed to do things for their own gain.

Bravo!

I hope you've got an asbestos suit, though...

I think it's ridiculous that many Americans decry the functioning of democracy in other countries. They call the rest of the world 'cowards', because as a nation they aren't interested in a war, without asking just why *they* are so interested. I live in AU, and our leaders sent troops to Iraq despite massive protests and public outcry, and now maintain that they can't pull them out now because we're 'involved'. All things considered, I'd rather be in Toronto.

[The Kernel]

Name a war that wasn't embarked upon for defensive purposes that was necassary regardless of the populace's opinion. If the population doesn't support a war then what right does the government have to embark upon it? The government is the representation of the people, they are not supposed to do things for their own gain.

WWII (we should have been in BEFORE we were attacked), WWI and to an extent the Civil War.

As for what right the government has to declare war without public approval, sorry but you don't live in a true democracy but a Constitutional Republic. We elect leaders to make those decisions for us, and if we don't like them we elect someone else, but that doesn't give hundreds of millions of Americans the right to micromanage government policies. We can complain about it (and we do), we can vote them out of office, but when it comes down to it, we put the decision in their hands by electing them. THEY have the information that we lack, and we elected them on the basis of how best to use that information.

Note, that I'm not saying that we can't protest a war. I'm just saying that the government does NOT need to conduct a poll before they go into a conflict. This is law and simple common sense.

[Vympel]

Nice to see the Spanish have brains. Now all we need is that fuckwit John Howard to be voted out and Mark Latham to pull our troops out.

[Sharp-kun]

Nice to see the Spanish have brains. Now all we need is that fuckwit John Howard to be voted out and Mark Latham to pull our troops out.

Then Iraq inches closer to going to hell.

If that happens, what are the chances we'll be doing this all over again in 10 years?

[Crown]

Appeasement?

Hardly. Spain is increasing its troops in Afganistan.

[Aaron]

WWII (we should have been in BEFORE we were attacked), WWI and to an extent the Civil War.

As for what right the government has to declare war without public approval, sorry but you don't live in a true democracy but a Constitutional Republic. We elect leaders to make those decisions for us, and if we don't like them we elect someone else, but that doesn't give hundreds of millions of Americans the right to micromanage government policies. We can complain about it (and we do), we can vote them out of office, but when it comes down to it, we put the decision in their hands by electing them. THEY have the information that we lack, and we elected them on the basis of how best to use that information.

Note, that I'm not saying that we can't protest a war. I'm just saying that the government does NOT need to conduct a poll before they go into a conflict. This is law and simple common sense.

Actually I live in Canada which is not a Constitutional Republic, but a Parlimentry Democracy. As for the wars, in WWII FDR didn't have the public support to get involved until you were attacked so he waited. There really was no reason for the US to get involved in WWI until the Lusitania was sunk and even then that could be considered an accident (mis-identification of the target). As for the Civil War, well I don't really know anything about it. I'm Canadian and it's not taught in our system.

So for two of the examples provided your government did not declare war until it was attacked and public opinion was behind it. With the Civil War as I've stated before, I don't know anything about it. Although I seem to remember the CSA attacking Fort Sumter and starting the war.

If you look at most of the wars in recent history I think you will find that they were embarked on with public support. Even Vietnam was initially approved of by the American populace. It wasn't until the Tet Offensive in 68 that opinion started to turn.

My stance is that wars should not be embarked on unless public opinion is behind it. I used to be a soldier and I can tell you that nothing is worse than not having the public's support.

[Sir Sirius]

Just heard on the news that Moqtada al-Sadr has ordered his followers to leave Spanish troops in Iraq alone now that Spain is withdrawing. Couldn't find an online source, could someone confirm this?