belated comment on the spanish elections
let's say a powerful country, we'll call it "Widespread Empire" or W.E. for short, on the basis of some very dubious claims that were widely disputed among, not only much of the rest of the world, but also among the WE's own people, and without any provocation at all, decided to attack another country, who we’ll call Erraq, indeed wage all-out war on it. and let's say that WE garnered support (through economic and other incentives) for this war by a few less powerful countries, we'll call them Auralista, Plando, Spina, Yalti, and the KU (mostly against the wishes of the majority of their populations), and a whole host of smaller countries (we'll call them Georgia, Uzbekistan, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Azerbaijan, Slovakia, Estonia, Lithuania, Albania, Macedonia, Romania, Nicaragua, Columbia, El Salvador, Bulgaria, etc.). let's also say that one of the claims made to justify the war was that it would make the world safer, that it would prevent future terrorist attacks.
Now, let’s fast forward a year and pretend that the war ended a couple of months after it began and that, while there have been no terrorist attacks on WE soil, there have been many in and near the region where the war was waged, mostly against the WE and the countries who supported the WE’s war, as well as any of the Erraqi people who work with WE. We’ll say that the attacks began ever since the war ended and have not abated.
Let’s also say that the evidence for the claims made against Erraq have fallen flat and more and more people every day are seeing that the whole thing is and was a sham. We’ll assume that all this has only confirmed, in many people’s minds, many of the terrorists pre-war claims that WE are, I mean is, an imperialistic aggressor and may actually need to accept some responsibility in actions taken against it, i.e. that WE need(s) to awake from our/its blissful ignorance.
Now, let’s say that the terrorists decide to “branch out” so to speak, and attack one of the countries that supported the WE’s so-perceived imperialistic, aggressive war in retaliation.
Question: What does this say to a country where 90-something percent of the people opposed the war? Does it say:
A. The war was a great idea, the world IS safer, the war HAS prevented terrorist attacks. Thank you government for not listening to our weak-willed faint-heartedness!
B. We didn’t like the idea of war. we didn’t believe the WE. It seemed like such an obviously bad idea. nevertheless we went to war anyway. Now these bombs and all these people dead. Well hey, anyone can see that it’s just a minor snag on the road to a safer and better world. We will soon be safe from these attacks because the WE has done such a great job with ending terrorism. (Like for example, when it implemented the policy of provoking terrorists to commit terrorist acts in order to “root them out,” regardless of the potential cost to human life). Thank you W.E. government!
C. We told you we thought the war was a horrible idea, and that all peaceful, diplomatic means should be exhausted before anyone resorted to such a thing. We told you that we thought the W.E. was LYING and bullying other countries into supporting their war. We told you that we didn’t understand why, in the 21st century, we’re still trying to solve problems by killing people we don’t agree with, unprovoked. And yet you disregarded all this and took us into war anyway. Then, presumably recognizing that the very fact of this was the reason we were bombed and so many people killed, you tried to shift blame onto a group unrelated to the all this, to save your own skins. Well, guess what? It didn’t work. We are an intelligent people and we know when we are being deceived. Which is why we opposed such an unnecessary war to begin with. You didn’t listen. So this time we spoke louder…with our vote.
So. If we are to take it one further (I know, it’s a stretch) and pretend that Spina held elections a few days later, where they would be deciding the fate of the government that took them into a war that they didn’t want, thereby making them a target for future terrorist attacks like the recent one that killed 200 people. And that, moreover, this same government recognized how bad this would look for them a few days before an election, and decided to try and convince the people that another, unrelated group was responsible, how do you think the people would vote? If they were to vote for the opposition party, what would it then say about the intelligence of someone who dismissed the results as “appeasing the terrorists?” or would it say more about their political motives? (maybe both?)
Now, let’s fast forward a year and pretend that the war ended a couple of months after it began and that, while there have been no terrorist attacks on WE soil, there have been many in and near the region where the war was waged, mostly against the WE and the countries who supported the WE’s war, as well as any of the Erraqi people who work with WE. We’ll say that the attacks began ever since the war ended and have not abated.
Let’s also say that the evidence for the claims made against Erraq have fallen flat and more and more people every day are seeing that the whole thing is and was a sham. We’ll assume that all this has only confirmed, in many people’s minds, many of the terrorists pre-war claims that WE are, I mean is, an imperialistic aggressor and may actually need to accept some responsibility in actions taken against it, i.e. that WE need(s) to awake from our/its blissful ignorance.
Now, let’s say that the terrorists decide to “branch out” so to speak, and attack one of the countries that supported the WE’s so-perceived imperialistic, aggressive war in retaliation.
Question: What does this say to a country where 90-something percent of the people opposed the war? Does it say:
A. The war was a great idea, the world IS safer, the war HAS prevented terrorist attacks. Thank you government for not listening to our weak-willed faint-heartedness!
B. We didn’t like the idea of war. we didn’t believe the WE. It seemed like such an obviously bad idea. nevertheless we went to war anyway. Now these bombs and all these people dead. Well hey, anyone can see that it’s just a minor snag on the road to a safer and better world. We will soon be safe from these attacks because the WE has done such a great job with ending terrorism. (Like for example, when it implemented the policy of provoking terrorists to commit terrorist acts in order to “root them out,” regardless of the potential cost to human life). Thank you W.E. government!
C. We told you we thought the war was a horrible idea, and that all peaceful, diplomatic means should be exhausted before anyone resorted to such a thing. We told you that we thought the W.E. was LYING and bullying other countries into supporting their war. We told you that we didn’t understand why, in the 21st century, we’re still trying to solve problems by killing people we don’t agree with, unprovoked. And yet you disregarded all this and took us into war anyway. Then, presumably recognizing that the very fact of this was the reason we were bombed and so many people killed, you tried to shift blame onto a group unrelated to the all this, to save your own skins. Well, guess what? It didn’t work. We are an intelligent people and we know when we are being deceived. Which is why we opposed such an unnecessary war to begin with. You didn’t listen. So this time we spoke louder…with our vote.
So. If we are to take it one further (I know, it’s a stretch) and pretend that Spina held elections a few days later, where they would be deciding the fate of the government that took them into a war that they didn’t want, thereby making them a target for future terrorist attacks like the recent one that killed 200 people. And that, moreover, this same government recognized how bad this would look for them a few days before an election, and decided to try and convince the people that another, unrelated group was responsible, how do you think the people would vote? If they were to vote for the opposition party, what would it then say about the intelligence of someone who dismissed the results as “appeasing the terrorists?” or would it say more about their political motives? (maybe both?)
