"The American right strikes back"

[Dr Unne]

Again, that appears to mean that you're not someone's ally unless you help fight their wars for them. --Big D

There are three sides at most, in a war. With us, against us, or neutral. (And like I said, neutrality is not always possible; for example, if inaction automatically results in the defeat of one side, where your aid could've been of use. In the case of this war, I don't know. But anyways.) Those with us are "allies". "With us" means providing material support. Troops, weapons, money, whatever.

Maybe we have a different sense of what the word "allies" means. There are at least two definitions. One meaning of "ally" is to be on friendly terms with someone. Spain is still an "ally" of the US in this sense, in that we're at peace with them, we trade with them, we have diplomatic relations with them. Another meaning of the word is "to be in an alliance with". I.e. a military alliance. In terms of this war, they are not our allies any longer, because they are cutting off their material support, and openly proclaiming that whereas they were part of the alliance up to now, they soon will not be.

Saying "I agree with the US, but I won't contribute a thing, even though help is needed" does not make you an ally in the second sense, in the sense of fighting a war. It makes you neutral. The stated position of the new government as I see it is that they don't support either side in the war in Iraq. That makes them neutral at best. If they provided material support to our enemies, then they'd be our enemies, but they're not going to do that, I'm pretty sure. No one is saying Spain is now an enemy.

If one country chooses to start a war, there's no onus on their allies to prove their allegiance by lending aid.

You assume that the US started the war; I disagree with your premises.

If someone's "less of an ally" because they finally decide to withdraw troops from a conflict, then the end of every war is going to cause a lot of friction, unless everyone withdraws their troops simulataneously...

When a country pledges to keep troops in a region for an extended period of time, and then decides all at once to take them out as soon as possible instead, this makes a country less an ally than it previous was, in that specific sense. Especially when the stated purpose isn't "We're done in Iraq, they don't need us any longer, time to head home", but rather "The old administration supported your war; we don't; we're leaving". Spain's stated purpose is the latter, rather than the former. There's a clear difference. You're stretching my words beyond what I'm saying.

Bush is fighting against democracy in Iraq as well, considering that he won't allow a direct election because the people would want an Islamic government, and Bush is against theocracies. Iraq will get an election when the people agree to vote for Bush's favorite. Are people suprised that Bush doesn't want the will of the people respected in Spain? Nothing in Bush's reign as emperor thus far has truly supported democracy. --Garland

And yet another thread degenerates into baseless claims and semi-nonsese. *wanders off*

[The Captain]

I'm not sure if Bush is fighting democracy in Iraq, Garland. I think the Iraqis are doing that themselves, and really, who can blame them? I believe before any form of new government can be implimented, you first must educate the people so that they can then make an informed decision as to what system they desire.

I also believe that the "constitution" that was recently signed will go up in smoke because a main aspect of Iraq is that there are 3, I believe, distinct forms of Islam in the country, and saying that "Islam is the country's religion", is opening up the floodgates for trouble. I find it VERY hard to believe that all three will co-exist easily.

Take care all.

[Garland]

And yet another thread degenerates into baseless claims and semi-nonsese. *wanders off*

*Wanders in* Differing claims aren't necessarily baseless, nor are they nonsense. They just differ. Bush didn't get the most votes - Gore did. Bush was put into office by the Supreme Court's decision, and was the second president in our history where the electoral college overruled the will of the people. Bush 's administration has voiced their concern against fundamentalist rule in Iraq. That a fundamentalist government would be the most likely outcome of a direct election is a main reason for holding off elections. Beyond wanting a stable government, Bush wants a government he's willing to work with. The US has never been well disposed to fundamentalist governments.

[Big D]

The US has an immesne and well trained, well equipped army; they don't need a heck of a lot of help in conflicts. Spain's a far smaller and less financially stable country, so their contribution wouldn't turn the tide of a fight like the situation in Iraq.[q=Dr Unne]You assume that the US started the war; I disagree with your premises.[/q]Iraq was struck first in the current conflict, so little more needs to be said here... anyway, it's beside the point as far as my argument is concerned.

All I'm saying is that it's repulsive for the US to start treating Spain like cowards and non-allies because they made choices that were right for them.

Look at it this way... my own country is a strong and proud supporter of the US. We have Special Forces in Afghanistan and troops assisting the rebuilding effort in Iraq. On the morning of September 12 (11 in the US) 2001, the nation would brought to a standstill with the shock and horror of what transpired in and around New York. A special assembly of my senior school was called, where we observed a minute's silence (the first of many), then we honoured and paid tribute to our long-time friends who had been struck such a hideous and unwarranted blow. The New Zealand flag flew at half mast. On that day, everywhere you looked was living proof of the bonds of friendship and allegiance shared by the ANZUS nations, in spite of notable differences. There's hardly a truer statement than to say that the US is our ally.

However, my country still opposes the war in Iraq, feeling it was unjustified or premature given the circumstances. We don't believe in pre-emptive action as a legitimate resolution to every threat. Our Prime Minsiter even cost us a free-trade deal by saying that the war might've been avoided if Gore had won the election.

Yet in spite of all that, we are allies of the US. Firm and true. Being an ally doesn't necessitate universal, unwavering support for every action and policy.

[The Captain]

It's long been said, "Democracy is the worst system there is, except for everything else." This still holds true today.

It's tough to make an argument for any sort of oppresive system, or one that has the potential to oppress, yet frankly all do have this potential. Deomcracy just oppresses LESS than the others. Its goals are the most idealistic and probably come the closest to making them come true in one sense or another.

Take care all.

[Dr Unne]

Differing claims aren't necessarily baseless, nor are they nonsense. --Garland

Not necessarily, no. For example, feel free to support your claim that Bush a) is an emperor, b) doesn't support democracy in Spain.

That a fundamentalist government would be the most likely outcome of a direct election is a main reason for holding off elections.

I thought it was because an election would be impossible to pull off this early. Because there hasn't been a census, for example. I thought that the UN was in agreement with this, but I could be wrong. And how does delaying an election equate with trying to stop a fundamentalist government from winning the election? Isn't there just as much chance a fundamentalist government will win next year?

Iraq was struck first in the current conflict, so little more needs to be said here... anyway, it's beside the point as far as my argument is concerned. --Big D

The current conflict doesn't exist in a time vacuum.

The US has an immesne and well trained, well equipped army; they don't need a heck of a lot of help in conflicts.

NEED, perhaps not. But it'd be nice, rather than let the US fight the world's wars alone. Actions speak louder than words.

...There's hardly a truer statement than to say that the US is our ally.

All of the stuff you said was nice, but it did nothing to help anyone solve the problems of the world. We were attacked, and for many countries, the response was "We're sad. But we're not going to do anything about it, have fun."

We don't believe in pre-emptive action as a legitimate resolution to every threat.

Who said EVERY threat? You have a habit of generalizing. The war in Iraq was due to one specific threat, or perceived threat.

Being an ally doesn't necessitate universal, unwavering support for every action and policy.

Once again, who said it does? You can be an ally in the general sense (i.e. a country on good terms with another country), without being an ally in a specific war (i.e. a part of a military alliance).

The Captain: I can't read that article, it's asking for me to log in, and I don't have an account, nor do I plan to get one.

I'm not sure if Bush is fighting democracy in Iraq, Garland. I think the Iraqis are doing that themselves, and really, who can blame them?

I can blame them, if they're that stupid. But I think only a minority of them are fighting it, namely, the ones who stand to profit from dictatorship, i.e. the dictators and the dictators' thugs.

Today, Colin Powell gave a speech of some sort in Iraq, and a group of Arab journalists walked out in protest, refusing to hear him. THAT FREEDOM is a direct result of our action in Iraq. A year ago who knows what would've happened to them, had they walked out on Saddam at a press conference. Beheaded? Likely. How could anyone want to fight against freedom? Even the freedom to hate America, to hate the war in Iraq, that's still freedom. I can't believe that anyone would WANT to be oppressed to the level Saddam used to do to the Iraqis. Maybe I'm naive.

It's long been said, "Democracy is the worst system there is, except for everything else." This still holds true today. --The Captain

So in other words, democracy is the best system there is. I hesitantly agree.

[Garland]

An emperor is the leader of an empire. America could be argued to be an empire. Bush is the leader of America. If one disagrees that America is an empire, then my point is moot. I happen to think America is an empire. I like the idea that America is an empire.

Bush's support democracy or support terrorism, black and white rhetoric, combined with the administration's equating the Spanish people as Al-Qaeda supporters and terrorist appeasers for excersing their democratic rights is proof enough for me that Bush is opposing Spanish democracy. Besides, in the black and white world of morality, an enemy is one who doesn't support. By not supporting Spain's democracy, Bush is opposing it. If the argument that by not supporting the US in battle, one is opposing the US in battle is valid, so is this.

[The Captain]

Sorry about that Dr. Unne:

Hopefully this link works better:

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news...dicareads.html

Different newspaper, same information.

Take care all.

[Big D]

Originally posted by Dr Unne
You have a habit of generalizing.

Surely, then, it's a generalisation to say that Spain is less of an ally to America overall, just because its limiting its support on one issue?

Besides, the biggest issue here is still the fact that Spain is getting undue criticism from some elements, particularly in the lack of sympathy being shown, just because they've made one choice which mildly conflicts with the US government's plans. A country really needs to attend to its own needs first, including the wishes (pacifist or no) of its people, rather than continuing to toe another nation's line for the sake of some kind words.

[qi=]They elected the Socialist party; to suggest they voted for al-Qaeda is a slur not only on the Spanish nation but on the democratic process itself, implying that when terrorists strike political choice must end.[/qi]

The core issues in that article are what's at stake here, I believe.

[Moose Knight]

Originally posted by DocFrance
Then you might not know enough about pre-WWII history. Let me give you a quick lesson. Hitler wanted Czechoslovakia (the Sudetenland, in particular). Germany was ready to make a forceful invasion, but England and France wanted to prevent violence. So they held a meeting with Germany and signed a treaty that basically said that England and France would not intervene in the invasion of Czechoslovakia if Germany didn't invade any other countries. This was known as appeasement. Of course, Hitler never upheld the treaty and went on to invade Poland. England and France then finally pulled their heads out of their butts and decided to take a stand. If they had taken a stand earlier, a lot of bad things could have been prevented.

Yeah, but England and France were not under the threat of violence freom Hitler then (because they felt Hitler only threatened east Europe), but Spain was under the threat of violence (hence the tragic recent attacks). I still fail to see your point.

Also, before WWII, there was something called the Great Depression (you might have heard of it). France and Britian had more to take into account than Spain as a result of the depression. France and Britian (as well as our country) feared mobilization because of its economic outcome. Such was not the case in Spain's decision to leave the war, another major difference between England and France's Decision during WWII and Spain's recent decision.

Anyway, a hugely vast majority of the Spanish population (I think about 90%) was against the war in Iraq from the getgo. So now they're exercizing their right to Freedom obviously moreso than when the war began. What kind of bottomhole "Democratic" leader doesn't recognize the will of 90% of its people?

[Shadow Nexus]

OK, sorry, I normally would not jump into the defense of my country, but the man quoted in that article went too far with his masterful show of ignorance.

Let's see, first of all, no, we did not vote for Al Quaeda, and such assumption is just a bunch of sensationalist neofascist demagogy. That man clearly had no bleeping idea of what the hell was gong on in Spain, with such ignorance the only use I see for his words are to print them and have them in case I run out of toilet paper.

OK, I live in Spain, and I lived through all of this, his perspective is completly wrong:

Spanish people did not surrender to Al Quaeda, it was not a movement to go against José María Aznar (The president ruling before the socialist party camer to power).

In the last four years of ruling, José María Aznar has shown clear manipulation of the media, ignoring of the people's will and a completly fascist way of acting. During the dictatoship (1939-1975) he showed clear support to the fascist goverment in power. Of course, when people voted him, they did it thinking he had changed, but truth is after he got absolut majority (More than 50% of the seats in the parliment) he became anti-dialogue and exposed clear fascist actitudes in his goverment, he was asfixianting the rivals and moved into the criminalization of anyone who did not agreee with him, I liked to call him Leviathan because he acted as if he was the absolutist king of everything, he did all he could to mantain power. Comparisons to Franco (ex-dictator, died in 1975) came up, and moany people that have lived through the dictatoship agree in this.

In his last two years, josé María Aznar has created an atmosphere of opression and injustice overpassing anything seen before in Spanish democracy, leading us to the largest political crisis in the last 30 years. Actually, I wrote, not long ago, an article in another forum, expressing my fear in that, if PP (Aznar's party) won the elections, we would face a crisis that may lead either to civil war or extreme and unsustainable situation of opression against communities seeking independence.

I cannot stress enough on the weight the lost of power PP has had at the goverment relieved the weight on top of the Spanish people. In fact, I did not live transition (From fascism to democracy) but all the people who lived it have compared the winning of the socialist party as a transition to democracy in front of the opressive PP goverment.

The people did not only kick out Aznar because of the attacks and the support to the war in Iraq. It was one of the main reasons, and the other reason has a name: Alfredo Urdaci. Alfredo Urdaci is the director of the news programmes in Televisión Española, a public television paid with our taxes. Since the general strike in 20/5/02, his informatives have degenerated to a point it actually got denounced by the general court and the European Union, and yet, he kept on going with the manipulation. TVE informatives lie or ommit a lot of information, being another tool in the attempt to create a criminalization of the sides oposing the goverment. In the case of a private television such as Antena 3 Televisión it is irking, but in the case of a public television it is simply not acceptable.

After the 11-M, Acebes (The voice of the goverment) came out and blamed ETA. At first this was accepted, until Otegi denied it, then suspicions lead to Al Quaeda. Soon, even when the evidence fell nearly completly into Al Quaeda's side, the goverment insisted in ETA, as this would give them votes:

President Aznar phoned all the national media systems, from TV to radio, including newspapers: ETA is to blame, he said. Of course, most media pointed at ETA at first, even if the most left winged ones seemed to doubt more of who had commited such an atrocity. Ana Palacio, minister of exterior policy, sent letters to all the embassies asking the people in charge to blame ETA. Soon ETA denied the authory: People claimed for the truth.

During the night before the elections, people gathered at the door of the PP buildings, "We want the truth", they claimed. While this happened, a tape with Al Quaeda claiming the terrorist attack appeared. Since I was ill, I didn't go to the demostrations, but I did listen to the media, television and radio, at the same time. I try to show now how extreme was the manipulation: The tape was confirmed to have been found at 11:00, even if they had it before. OK, this was the news:

Radio:

SER (Socialist radio)- Informed about the finding of the tape ipso facto: They knew from before, but they said they had to contrast information and that the goverment had asked to keep that information on secret.

COPE (Church radio)- No news until two hours later.

Onda Cero (Right winged)- No news until next day.

TV:

TVE- No news. At that time, TVE was supposed to be broadcasting Shakespeare in Love, and yet they were showing a movie about ETA. The family present in that movie took Urdaci to the courts accusing him of "using their suffering as an electoral tool". SER informed that some of the employees of TVE were thinking of a strike in rebellion against Urdaci.

TVE2- A movie. Again, public TV.

TV3- Catalan television. Informed 15 minutes after SER. They are an independent television, but just regional in catalonia.

Tele 5- This is a left winged TV, and yet they did not informed: Silvio Berlusconi, who owes 55% of the stocks of Tele 5, intervened forcing them not to say the news.

Antena 3- A bad seagal movie.

CNN+- Spanish mirror of CNN, but left winged. Informed one hour late.

TT- Porn movie. And a preety bad one, it had a guy cumming in a girl's face while he said "How beautiful". Who the hell writes the scripts?



OK, anyway...also, I'd like to add that the actors and directors of Spanish cinema did a project of a series of short films denouncing the problems in the country: Many of the shorts denounced the goverment. Of course, such project was criminalized by the goverment.

http://www.clubcultura.com/haymotivo/videos.htm


All are in Spanish except for two, one has no words and the other is a song, but the images tell enough:

http://www.clubcultura.com/haymotivo/video04.htm

(He speaks, but he is not saying anything, just gibberish. He is doing an impression of our goverment....very good one btw)

http://www.clubcultura.com/haymotivo/video30.htm

This video is done by the songwriter Víctor Manuel. The goverment removed subventions from centers that helped women that had been hit by their husbands. I must warn the vídeo contains frontal nudity.



There: That's the reason why Spanish people voted Zapatero. Sure, it's what Al Quaeda wanted, for Zapatero to win, and it's what Bush did not wish for. So? It was also the wish of most of the peripheral communities who are completly tired of the opression the PP does against us. Here in Catalonia, the votes to PP descended in a 50%.

[Dr Unne]

Pierce, the HHS spokesman, said that despite the controversy over the Medicare spot, VNRs have been around for 20 years. --The Captain's article

The article is hard to follow, but apparently the Republicans released some kind of commercial which looked like a news report, but wasn't? That's pretty slimey, but the article says it's a common tactic and has been for 20 years. But yeah, that kind of thing isn't too surprising.

Surely, then, it's a generalisation to say that Spain is less of an ally to America overall, just because its limiting its support on one issue?

Besides, the biggest issue here is still the fact that Spain is getting undue criticism from some elements, particularly in the lack of sympathy being shown, just because they've made one choice which mildly conflicts with the US government's plans. --Big D

I don't think I'm generalizing at all. I never said Spain is now our enemy. I said they're now less an ally than they used to be. I think that abandoning the US (and Iraq) in the middle of very troubling times more than "mildly" conflicts.

I haven't seen a lack of sympathy toward Spain. I watched a whole day of mourning on TV. Bush gave a bunch of speeches or whatever, put a big wreath of flowers somewhere in the Spanish embassy (or somewhere similar), etc. etc. According to yourself, that's all the support that's needed, right? But interestingly, the US also offered material support to Spain, in the form of investigators to try to track down the bad guys, rescue teams, and aid for the injured. Isn't that more important than words, anyways?

Maybe a few jerk politicians are being more impartial and unfeeling than is necessary. I don't see how this is a big deal. And I think some small amount of criticism of Spain is justified, for reasons stated.

[The Captain]

"The article is hard to follow, but apparently the Republicans released some kind of commercial which looked like a news report, but wasn't? That's pretty slimey, but the article says it's a common tactic and has been for 20 years. But yeah, that kind of thing isn't too surprising."

Yeah, that's essentially it, except, I don't think any previous Administration actually aired these ads to networks as "TV reports", which is what irks me. Yes, all politicians lie, and create false concepts to push their views through, but I've never before heard of actually making fake news stories to try and trick the public into believing what's being said is fact and not just a group of people's opinions.

Perhaps I'm too idealistic, but I'd like to think that you can at least be up front with something. I haven't believed a word coming out of Bush's mouth since he was elected and frankly, that's sad. The only people in the Administration I end up believing now are those we were fired or let go because they actually want to expose facts.

It was recently said that Former Secretary of Treasury, I believe, Paul O'Neill came out and said during Bush's first Cabinet meeting, the entire discussion revolved around attacking Iraq. This was BEFORE 9/11 mind you, so it shows how long the Bush Administration has been planning this "campaign".

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in592330.shtml

It's towards the middle of the article.

Take care all.

[Big D]

[q=Unne]I haven't seen a lack of sympathy toward Spain. I watched a whole day of mourning on TV. Bush gave a bunch of speeches or whatever, put a big wreath of flowers somewhere in the Spanish embassy (or somewhere similar), etc. etc. According to yourself, that's all the support that's needed, right? But interestingly, the US also offered material support to Spain, in the form of investigators to try to track down the bad guys, rescue teams, and aid for the injured. Isn't that more important than words, anyways?
[/q]This thread, I believed, was about the criticism outlined in the article posted by Skogs; there's no denying that the majority of the world sympathises with Spain in this time of crisis and tragedy. We're just talking about those who, rather hypocritically and falsely, have sought to blame a democratic nation for the choices it has made. [q=Unne]I think that abandoning the US (and Iraq) in the middle of very troubling times more than "mildly" conflicts. [/q]On the other hand, it shows a commitment to international law and to peace. Spain will undoubtedly continue to contribute humanitarian aid, just no more combat personnel. Besides, Bush lambasted the rest of the world for not joining in his illegal escapade, I'd think that the coalition should be grateful that any countries have lent support for any amount of time.

[nevermind6794]

I think the Spain election brings up a good question:

In a representative democracy, should politicians follow the will of the people, or do what they feel is right?

If they go against the majority of the people, they are not representative.

If they don't do what they feel is right, civil rights and women's suffrage (along with many other things) would likely be fairy tales in the U.S.

See, things like this are the reason I should be dictator. Or hegemon. Whatever.