Ah, when the Spanish people do something based on what they feel is right it's "self determination". But when individual Americans do the exact same thing it's what? Bullying?  If Americans chose to boycott Spanish products would that not be Americans excercising their right of self determination?

A few random thoughts:

- The Spanish socialists have always been against the war in Iraq. They won the elctions and will fulfill their promise to get out of that war. Should they have changed their stance suddenly because of the bombs in Madrid? Would that NOT have been influencing the elections by AQ? Aside from their complete freedom to elect anyone they damn well please (something America should support instead of question), perhaps the Spanish people had very different reasons to vote for the socialist? Like for example the fact that Aznar and his Partido Popular were one of the most deceitful governements in recent democratic history? Their actions right after the bombings showed that clearer than ever and the voters kicked them for it. A thing to applaude, not something to condemn as cowardice.

- Perhaps American voters should pay more attention to things like this Link and ask themselves "will I allow myself to base any part of my opinion on what people like this say". Prime example: The invasion of Iraq has NOTHING to do with 9/11. AQ did NOT operate from Iraq, nor were there ties to Saddam. Just because George, Paul and Dick say so doesn't make it the truth. This is a belief widely shared in Europe, hell, all over the world outside the US. Ignoring that has been an American speciality lately, doesn't make it any less real though.

- George W Bush said shortly after 9/11: "Either you're with us or against us". It seems a good many of you have taken this to heart and have lost all ability to tolerate the fact that it IS possible that people disagree with you while still being your friends, not automatically your enemy. Democracy hinges on the ability of people with different beliefs to coexist peacefully while respecting eachother despite these differences. It si something AQ is unable to do, hence their attacks. Unfortunately, it also seems to be something America's leaders seem unable to do.

Brad, since when is Spain against the US?

The new Spanish government has stated that it hopes to maintain a close and cordial relationship with the US.

Please stop vilifying them.

As for population changing position, 90% of the population were against the Iraq war. THis hasn't changed. What changed was 48% support for the ruling party dropped to about 40%. This can be easily blamed on the way the leadership tried to blame ETA. Within 2 hours iof the blast the Spanish government had already informed it's ambassadors to blame ETA. Despite solid contradicting evidence and reports from police the government still tried to blame ETA. When it became clear that it was muslim linked they tried to suggest an ETA/Al Qaeda link. The Spanish people don't like being purposely misled. No wonder 8% of them changed their votes. That is NOT cowardice.

As for American's boycotting Spanish goods it's entirely their right. Never suggested otherwise. Just commented that I'm surprised they haven't already suggested it!

Paul.

So let me guess this straight? The US is trying to bring about democracy in Iraq. Spain is a democracy. As Baker puts it "The Spanish majority have hated the Iraqi war since the beginning, but they didn't get their way." In other words their Government was not representing them (as is supposed to be the case in a democracy) and so they threw the unrepresentative democracy out. And you don't like this. It's called democracy, something Americans claim to know something about. And anyone they said their troops will remain if authority is handed over to the UN, which let's face it, the US would actually like so they cut and run like they have in Afghanistan.

Let America boycott Spanish products. The rest of the world expects nothing less.

I love how in retrospect America is in Iraq to help bring democracy to the region. The national myths America have about itself are amazing.A t least Europe had to confront the bs that founded their national myths after world war 2 ... America just keeps creating new ones.

my fave is that they lost the Vietnam war because of peace protestors not getting behind the troops.

It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic

bobo_fett : What do you think Spain will accomplish by pulling their troops out of Iraq? Do you think that it will make the situation for the Iraqi people better? On the one hand you say that protesters didn't have anything to do with the US failure in Vietnam, and on the other you say that Spain pulling out their troops is going to effect some sort of positive change? If not, what is the point in abandoning the Iraqi people?

Popular opinion was a good part of why Vietnam never worked out. We didn't have the public support to face the long-term commitment it was going to take to win the war, or the stomach to do what it would take to end it quickly. Not unlike our hestitance to crush North Korea when we had the chance, for which we are paying dearly now.

There was little hope the coming Democratic administrations would have followed through, much like a Kerry administration is poised to fail the Iraqi people. That is what quitting in the middle of an endeavor does for people. Spain doesn't seem to mind, though.

The spin keeps going.

Let's stick with objective reality: Party A supports policy X. Party B supports policy Y. Party A is ahead in the polls. Terrorists attack demanding that nation switch from policy X to policy Y. Electorate changes vote from Party A to Party B.

..and yet some of you don't see the obvious conclusion one can draw from this?

Brad, while I still cannot honestly draw a conclusion in the Spanish situation, I have to point out that your argument is fallacious in a number of ways.
First, your premises that the attack occurred with concurrent specific demands and that there were only either policy X or policy Y are both either untrue or dubious, and even if we agree to assume your "poll" statement true (poll data being rather dubious in and of itself), your argument is already broken.
Next, it's clear you entered the discussion presupposing your conclusion to be true and providing links to articles supporting that conslusion, and, I have not seen any evidence from you supporting any of the propositions within your later argument (which also seems to flip-flop between inductive and deductive reasoning), therefore, failure by (post hoc, ergo propter hoc), aka "false cause".
In other words, your conclusion is far from obvious to anyone other than those that already believe it. That of course does not prove your entirely wrong on the subject, however, the patronization is a bit insulting.
I see a number of people here expressing considered opinions and some even supplying facts, but argument by reduction is a classic spin tactic. See: your last post

Brad
you can of course draw that conclusion. Of course there are links. The Spanish new government has been promising for months that they would withdraw their troops if elected. Just what Al Qaeda wants! But you are ignoring any information and facts you are not interested in. Why for example were nearly 1 million Spanairds protesting on the Saturday about the truth? Why were they chanting 'tell us the truth'? Could it be that the Spanish givernment tried to hoodwink them for political gain and they were angry?

How about this scenario.

Party A supports X and Y. Party B supports Y only. People support Y only but Party A has done good job so is ahead in polls. Terrorist attack. Party A says it's nothing to do with X. Police prove Party A is lying. Party B wins.

X=war in Iraq
Y=war on terror

You just don't see X and Y as different, do you?

Paul.

Okay, who has killed the most civilians since World War 2? The Terrorists? The Commies? Let me think..... Apeasing Terrorists is bad, causing Terrorism is worse. There are no "always" and "nevers". No government has divine rights or constant moral superiority and neither do individuals. Lets face it, people will be people no matter what country they represent and in that case you must be willing to entertain the fact that you are wrong. All this bully talk about Terrorists or America polarises the debate. Look at the facts: How many years has America NOT been fighting in some war somewhere since WW2? And who have they been fighting? Not superpowers thats for sure.

d, while I still cannot honestly draw a conclusion in the Spanish situation, I have to point out that your argument is fallacious in a number of ways. First, your premises that the attack occurred with concurrent specific demands and that there were only either policy X or policy Y are both either untrue or dubious, and even if we agree to assume your "poll" statement true (poll data being rather dubious in and of itself), your argument is already broken.

Care to try again? This was in the news 6 days before the bombing courtesy of CBS.
Here's the link: Link

CBS/AP) An Islamic group that claims responsibility for the Madrid bombings says it will turn Spain "into an inferno" unless the country halts its support for the United States and withdraws its troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. The threat came in a letter faxed to the Spanish daily newspaper ABC over the weekend, the paper said Monday. ABC said the letter was handwritten in Arabic and signed "Abu Dujana Al Afgani, Ansar Group, al Qaeda in Europe."