Since my paternal grandmother was from Andalucia, Spain, I was very touched by the tragedy. I was reading this thread with much interest. Then I came upon this gem: I will defend the right of the people of Spain to democratically turn their backs on the United States, even if I don't agree with their decision. But this kind of statement is ludicrous. What did you mean by it, dmar? Did you want the US to help Generalisimo Franco? Because you couldn't possibly be talking about US actions since his death. Since Franco's death, the US has always been friendly and supportive of Spain. If you can think of an instance when Spain requested America's help and America denied it, then please remind me, because I follow Spanish news and I don't remember any such event. The only possible exception is the Gibraltar issue, but I doubt that by terrorism you meant Britain. And besides, you can hardly expect that the US will turn against Britain, can you? Your statement shows some anti-american bias. Tell me what exactly did you expect America to do in Spain, and I am sure that if they had done it, people like you would now be critizicing America for doing it. It is damn if you do and damn if you don't for the US haters.
Re: No so fast Zapatero It would be true that compromise would be the order of the day for the new government. The problem is that the policies that will be implated in Spain will be of the PSOE variety. No doubt Zapatero is going to have to do handstands in order to keep power.
Well, the reason of why Popular party lost the elections was: 1 - Aznar took the decision to support the invasion of Iraq when in the surveys the 90% of the people of Spain was against that war. 9 millons of people went to the street saying "No war", but he didn't change his decision and support USA and UK. The people is very upset about that decision. Would Bush attacked Iraq with the 90% of the US citizens against the decision? I don't think so. Bush had the support of his people, well, at least more than 50%. 2 - After the massacre of Madrid, with the people stilll dying at the hospitals, with all the country and the families crying for the victims, he took the decision to continue blaming ETA even when all the clues indicates that Al Qaeda were the real guilties, and all the governments and media around the world said that Al Qaeda was the assasins. You can't play with the pain and suffer of the people. He was lying only for his benefit, to win the elections, he should have told the truth for the families, for his country,... not hide the truth in the benefit of his party until the day after the elections (that was his intention). What would have happened if a massacre happen in USA and Bush defending his own interests said that it had been Al Qaeda when all the clues indicated that the real guilties are US anti-government militia American Christian Patriots? I think that the people in USA would be very upset with Bush. 3 - The reaction of the people after the Madrid massacre was defend the democracy, to say to the the terrorists that they aren't going to win/intimidate the people of Spain. And the form that the people though that was better to show that support to the democracy was: 1- Go to the streets. 11 million of spaniards went to the streets the friday night to show the terrorism that they will never win. 2 - Go to vote. The participation of the last election was the biggest in the last 20 years of elections. They want to show the terrorist that the democracy in Spain is very strong. Many people that wasn't go to vote in the last elections went to vote the last sunday. And many of that people was young people that were totally against the invasion of Iraq. Consequence a big part of the "new" voters vote to socialist (socialist is similar to democratic party in USA or labour party in UK, popular party is similar to republican party in USA). The combination of these 3 points make popular party lost the elections. In his first speech as president the night of sunday, the first thing that made Zapatero was dedicate a emotive minute of silence to the victims, the second thing the he said was that his first priority would be the fight against terrorism. But he won't support a invasion of a country without the support of U.N. as happened with Iraq (He was agree with Afganistan war because it had the support of U.N). One of his promises as candidate was that If the U.N. doesn't take control of Iraq, the spaniards troops would come back to Spain the June 30. It's hard blow to Bush and Blair. It means that Blair is "alone" in Europe in his support to the invasion of Iraq, and that Bush "only" have the "big" support of UK.
Bottom line for me: if fear usually benefits the so-called "right," what does it mean when PSOE wins in Spain? Courage.
And you KNOW that's a fact? How? The polls previous to the bombing indicated otherwise, that IS a fact. How do you know the bombings didn't change peoples mind?
Come on, Dante, you know this story -- it's about how the war in Iraq has attracted all the really bad terrorists to Spain.
Good post Madrid Forever. I think your post demonstrates the Spanish mindset, one that is not easy for most Americans to grasp, simply because most Americans have never been there. The best thing that can come of this attack in Spain is for a new voice to join in the War on Terrorism (or we could call it what it is, the War on Islamic Fundamentalism, specifically Wahadism...) to balance the unilateral actions taken by the US. Now, the US is not alone as a victim in these attacks.
No you got me wrong I don't like the idea of military rivaling you. It would be fool. All we need is an independent foreign policy, supported by the capacity to defend ourselves efficiently. No need to be able to destroy the planet 20 times, just to be able to destroy any hipothetical enemy one time. The capacity to have a good rapid reaction force and a good peacekeeping force. There's no need to raise the overall spending. Last example of how a joint effort can bring optimal results is the (UK, Germany, Italy, Spain) new european combat airplane, the eurofighter typhoon. Btw of course i am guessing that the simple idea of any kind of USA-EU warfare would be unacceptable for both our pubblic opinions. Just tell me if I'm wrong so I begin to worry even more than I actually do for your dumb unilateral international policies.
Luckily the serbs didn't want to fight a real ground war. Anyway even if your assumption is correct, one more reason to go on with EU army.
Now I know that English is Sardines second language. So I'm here to help. The "uni" in unilateral means one. That is greater than zero and less than 2. So, several possibilities exist: 1) Sardine thinks that the US is the only country involved in the WOT. In which case he is only uninformed and is due a friendly pat on the head. 2) That "uni" can mean something other than one. In this case, sardine, we say "multi". In this case he is excused for his englishasasecondlanguageism
I was talking about iraq that as you surely know has nothing to do with WOT (which remains a concept I don't like). Or maybe if it has something to do is in favour of al qaeda and its goals (ie start a real war of civilizations/religions). I sadly know that there's also too many western ppl who like the idea for various motives. basically I also tend to view as unilateral some faked multilateral intiatives where one says what to do and the others, the allies, are just meant to say yes or yes (no "no" allowed). p.s. I think afganistan intervention was fair (nothing to object against italian participation), I have some complaints about the adopted tactics but... I noticed someone compared USSR war and the last one. Very different ones. USSR tried to control the whole country we are only controling a small part leaving warlords and talibans (there's still lots of them) free elsewhere. Smart move. btw i still can't understand why to abandon and weak the effort there for the iraqi invasion.
At first I was really bothered by the sentiments of a few people here who called/are still calling the spanish electorate as "cowards" etc. then I realized this attitude is the manifestation of either an incredible lack of analytical thought, or the last dying gasp of supporters of a bankrupt and incompetant US administration. To equate a vote for a non-rightwing party with capitulation to terrorists is the one and only tactic that the US republicans have to fall back on to prevent their incompetant-in-chief from getting fired this november. The recent political atmosphere in the USA is packed with examples of the exact same behavior. The republicans are quick to slander and insult the patriotism/courage/behavior of any politician who dares to oppose Bush - from foreign leaders to homegrown americans who have a spotless history of courage, dedication, even personal sacrifice in american conflicts like Vietnam, from people who served in Vietnam (gore, kerry), to people who were prisoners of war of the Vietcong for years (McCain), even to soldiers whom lost limbs in Vietnam (the senator from Georgia). Without a doubt, the same slander will soon be applied to residents of New York City, who lived through a great tragedy but found the strength the persevere and keep the capital of america and the world a vibrant and indomitiable city. NYC will vote strongly against Bush this year, so by the republican's twisted logic, most of the residents of NYC will be terrorist appeasers and cowards - even the firefighters and policemen who rushed into the world trade center to save lives, and the rescue workers who toiled for months in the hellish pit that became the graves of thousands of people. This is the republicans view of cowardice - as opposed to the "courage" of spewing hate and encouraging violence and war from the safety of their tv couches in suburban towns that will probably never see a muslim, much less a terrorist. So I hope the residents of Madrid and Spain do not get a twisted view of America from the ravings of a minority of americans who are clutching at straws to keep George Bush in power. "Cowards" such as you keep good company with the best that America and the world has to offer. I hope the insults of the narrow-minded will encourage you to do the same as was seen in NY - to cherish life not death, to focus on fighting the correct fight, and to persevere to make your country and the world a better place.
Good post poopypants. No, really, I mean it. Assailing Spaniards as cowards is as ridiculous as calling U.S. citizens that oppose the Bush Administration "un-American". It is a mindless sentiment, name calling in the place of thoughtful discussion. If you believe Spain erred in electing the PSOE government and Zapatero, please thoughtfully explain your reasoning. Dante has done a decent job, pointing out how Spain will now not honor it's commitment to take over the southern patrol after June 30th. That is a legitimate reason to dislike the democratic decision by the Spanish people to oust the Partido Popular in favor of the PSOE. But spare us the name calling. It adds nothing to the discussion.
I too think that's incorrect to call Spanish voters cowards. They focused their vote on the fact that Aznar had exposed the public to AQ rath, unnecessarily. THis was done in the emotional time shortly after the attacks. It's understandable, really. One can't separate though that the consequences of this vote will make things harder for the US and remaining allies.
The only issue that I HAD is that the vote was emotionally biased by focusing on Aznar's decision to support the US, while ignoring his other significant triumphs in domestic policy and economic wellness. I can accept this though, because although ETA is under control (for now) and the economy is doing very well (dispite the effects of the attack); what does this all matter if you're getting murdered going to work? It has been said before: the attacks made the risk tangible and the Spanish voted in an effort to get out of AQ bullseye. We'll see what the consequences will be....
Why? Would you vote for someone that unnecessarily put you at risk? If you're normal and don't vote for that person, does that make you a coward?
No. Of course not. But your question has nothing to do with the contradiction in the previous post...
Some people might fail to recognize that america was attacked for the sole reason that we are america, a global empire - but Spain was attacked perhaps because they were (an easier target?), but also because their leaders chose to jump into the fight on america's side, perhaps as opposed to other countries that were not as gung-ho. Perhaps remember that Spain once had an empire that vied for domination of the world, yet their wealth was squandered and eventually the country was thrown into decades of violent turmoil which achieved...???? Perhaps Spaniards don't want to be in the spotlight any more, without direct gain. They tossed out muslim dominance once before, so perhaps they have as much fear of islamic world domination as americans have a fear of redcoats who sound and act like Hugh Grant. Ponder that before launching the "c"-word. A better leader of the free world who has the respect of the world might still have Spain "on our side" perhaps?
You know what I like about you Sardinia? You are informed but wrong. Being successful in Iraq has everything to do with the WOT. I know Europe would rather have skimmed it's share from the oil for food program and kept Saddam in power for decades but when the US, Britain, Poland, etc. defeated Iraq it told AQ and the rest of the Arab world a few things. First, you can't defy a coalition that includes the US. The US can go anywhere it wants and defeat any enemy. Second, that they don’t have to live under a bully. The can and will eventually have their own democracy. They can be in charge of their own destiny. Yes it is a very "smart move." That's one difference between Europe and the US. We don’t want to rule colonies. We don’t want to support thugs. The mixture of American idealism and isolationism that infuriates Europeans is exactly what intimidates dictators the world over. We don't have a need to be in control of every inch of Afghanistan. We don’t even want to be in charge of Afghanistan. We would be much happier if the Afghanis kept their democracy and we went home. Europe would be much happier with a thug with which it could negotiate some accommodation. It is exactly the tyranny that the Europeans support that UBL wants to get rid of. The problem is he wants to replace it with his own tyranny. Good thing there is a USA to "force" democracy on the world.