As an American of Spanish descent I will throw my two cents in for whatever its worth. I went to a support rally if that is what you want to call it the other day (Friday) in New York. The rally was not political, but was just held to show our support (in the US) for the people of Spain. This rally was in support of what many would consider a nation that has been one of our stronger allies in the war on terrorism. Remember this was in New York, not some little town out in the sticks. I think there were maybe close to a 100 people there if not more, I don't think that there were more than 5 people there that were not either citizens of Spain that are living here in the US or people like me whos parents are from Spain. All of a sudden people on these boards are claiming that the Spaniards are cowards for voting the way they did. I thought they were or are our allies in this war , were was the support. Lets face the facts most Americans could give a damn about Spain and most Spaniards could give a damn about the US. Everybody is looking out for themselves first. I will say this though, most Americans know very little about Spain. They critize our language. Hey yes we speak Spanish so when you critize the language of most of LatinAmerica to my face yes it bothers me. When you make stupid remarks about Spain yes it bothers me. Now the only thing left to do is wait and see what happens.
Let me breakdown what hes saying. Childchab, please correct me if I err. The connection hes making to 9/11 and Iraq is this: The reason why the Spanish people didnt support the war in Iraq is tha same as others who felt the same-that it had nothing to do with terrorism. BUT, the main reason they voted the way they did was as an emotionally charged strike at a govt that they believe invited Fundie Islam terrorism acts. Its a paradox. On the one hand they think Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism, so they shouldn't support the US and have troops there. On the other, they think their involvement in Iraq made them a target for terrorism by AQ. Which is it? Its the Spanish who seem to be linking Iraq and terrorism. Not directly, but as a repurcussion of getting involved in the M.E. edit: Though believing Iraq and 9/11 were unrelated, and believeing ones involevement in Iraq now invites terrorism, is 2 different things. One can believe both to be true, and is probably the case with most Spaniards. (And I think, myself.)
I disagree. Sending troops to Iraq is to helping America, which is an offense to AQ. How can you say they are not connected? The bombing itself is a punishment of Spain for that US support. It has no other meanings, imo. So the voters in Spain say, hell with anti-terrorism, we don't need to get involved. It just happened that the sitting president is a good friend of Bush, anyone who is supportive of Bush is very unpopular. Look at the recent relection result in Germany, South Korea, and Spain. You know that millions of anti-war demostrators are also voters. They don't like the Bush-bullyism. It's election time, they finally speak their voice via the ballots.
The US won a war in Afghanistan where the Soviet Union lost and most thought we'd be mired in a war for decades. The world was stunned by the ease with which we won. The US won a war in Iraq where we were promised "a thousand Mogadishu's". We can teach Europe plenty about winning wars. Too bad Europe didn’t learn how to win wars in Yugosalvia where the USA had to, once again, save "Europeans from a European problem." America fights for a hegemony of democracy. What does Europe stand for except for it's own disappearing importance? Old tired Europe. A Europe that can’t protect itself from a few thousand AQ is going to counter balance the US? A Europe that tried to occupy Yugoslavia but found itself out gunned, without access to logistical support and whose allies included AQ in Bosnia? No, the most we can expect from Europe is a resounding "non." In fact, in twenty years when half the children in Europe are Muslim maybe we will no longer even hear "non." Old Tired Europe is so tired it can't even make babies. Create your own currency, your own military, your own EU government. It doesn’t matter. Europe's problems aren’t with it's institutions. Europe's problems are with it's own lack of will and energy. An Old Tired Europe who is only willing and able to say "non" is part of the problem rather than the solution.
Like I said, the war in Vietnam was virtually done after 1969. Funny that you failed to mention the 40,000+ deaths prior to then, under Johnson. Nixon significantly scaled down the number of troops and deaths fell rapidly from 2,600 to 600 to 100 from 1971 to 1973. That was down from 16,000 per year under your boy Johnson. How do you propose terrorists who put bombs in backpacks on trains be stopped, Einstein? Are you willing to do a physical search of all people who enter and exit trains, stadiums, banks, schools, etc? You guys already whine that your personal liberties are being infringed upon. You offer no solutions, just criticisms.
This is a victory for al-Qaeda regardless of the relative positions of the two parties. It's a victory for them because, as a direct result of an al-Qaeda action, a Western democratic election that one party had held a very comfortable lead in (someone said it was closer, but--and I was aware before 3/11 that there was an upcoming election in Spain, altho I didn't know exaclty when it was--everything I had heard beforehand said that the PP was going to win in a landslide) suddenly swung to the other party. Whether the PSOE or PP will be tougher on al-Qaeda isn't relevant to me, since I don't know enough about the 2 parties to judge them (I admire Aznar, but he would not have been the PM anyway). What is relevant is that al-Qaeda now believes that they can decide the outcome of a Western election simply by attacking the country in question a few days before an election. Regardless of whether you prefer the PP or PSOE, this is not a good thing. Undoubtedly they will now try to pull off attacks against the major members of the anti-terrorism alliance who have upcoming elections--Italy, Poland, and the US. Sardinia, is the EU (minus the UK, who would have no reason to become a military rival to the US) ready to spend the equivalent of US$400 billion per year on defence?? That's just to maintain the current gap between US and European military capabilities, by the way; if you wanted to actually bridge that gap within, say, 20 years you'd probably have to spend something on the order of twice that, not to mention diverting your industry and technical brainpower to military research and development. Is the EU going to do that for its EuroArmy? If not, then don't talk about Europe as a potential military rival to the US.
Not all Spaniards are cowards, only the 15% or so of voters who switched their votes to the Socialists after the bombing (based on pre-election polling). Another 28% or so (those who voted for the Socialists) are just plain stupid. Don't take it so personally, we have about the same percentage of cowardly appeasers in this country who will vote for Democrats.
This is totally wrongheaded conclusion. The fact is even without the bombing, the result of the election would be the same. If you think a bomb exploded right before the election could change people's mind which was made up long time ago, you need to grow up.
Great; what you said was "...Vietnam was over, for all intents and purposes in 1969..." What I said in response was that 7,220 deaths post-1969, to humans, means something, and nothing like "Vietnam was over." Of course, when you measure life the way you do, you could come here, among the humans, and submit that Vietnam was really only Vietnam when we lost 40,000 lives and was over when we lost 7,000. Go elsewhere. One solution includes employing the investigative tools we had and have surrounding the crime of 9-11, pursuing the conspirators to the criminals, and bringing them to justice, in accordance with a rule of law; its would never include using American resources and wasting American lives illegally invading another nation that was not in relationship with the crime at hand. Bottom line: We agree that we are still subject to AQ attacks. You blame Spain, and praise the reduction of democracy in your own nation, the supposed beacon of democracy for the world; I blame Bush, and praise Spain's people for being democracy enacted, and selecting a leadership that, unlike the leadership that was in place, appears committed NOT to hob-nobbing with Bush and Blair, but to - SURPRISE! - reducing Spain's susceptibility to terrorism...Iraq has nothing ot do with that, and less to do with any articulable glboal moral stand on anything of worth. I get that you will never get that, and just hope that you are never in any decision-making position aobut anything that ever affects me.
This is true and my wife, a former resident of Spain, is worried that Americans will have a poor opinion of all Spaniards. It was a small shift. It was turn out by people who don’t normally vote. All of Spain didn’t capitulate to the terrorists. Moreover, there were domestic issues involved with ETA being blamed rather than AQ for perhaps political reasons. It's easy to read too much into it. PS - Mel, when I have time I'll respond to your reply on my post. Yours was one of the more thoughtful replies.
When you said that, you are really plain stupid. There's nothing more stupid than a second guess on people's voting decision. There's a reaon they vote in such way, which you are totally ignorant of.
I don't know Sparky, maybe because they aren't. Did you listen to Bush when he said there was no evidence to support a connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda? Al Qaeda have only now come to Post-Saddam Iraq, taking advantage of the instability. Bush's Great Chimp War in Iraq has allowed Al Qaeda to expand.
I'm certainly no Democrat, but you without question define cowardly. Everything you've ever posted stinks of follow-order functionaryism, one of the higest forms of cowardice. Just wait: Bush will TELL you what to think about the above post in a minute or two, and then he'll tell you how to respond. ... ... ... Oops, I forgot, he's just as much a coward as you are. Hey, wait; maybe Bush is emulating YOU... Hmmm...(jots down new theory...)
Uh...the swing from poll to election was 10 points. That means 5% of voters changed their minds. Not only are you a pussy- you're stupid, too.
There were over 600,000 US soldiers in Vietnam when Nixon took over. In his first year, he sent 150,000 home and continued to withdraw over the next 3 years down to only 50,000 left when he was re-elected in 1972.. So, in relation to where the war was in 1965-68, yes the war was over. I really don't get your point. Your assertion was that Nixon "lost the war". Nixon got us out of the war, a war that Johnson bungled beyond any hope of redemption. Are you suggesting that the United States was "winning" the war or that Johnson would have won Vietnam? Pinning the loss of Vietnam on Nixon shows an utter lack of knowledge...perhaps you've not studied the issue closely enough.
Bush never said we had to attack because of any imminent threat... He said that we cannot wait for a "grave and gathering threat TO BECOME IMMINENT, before we take action..." carry on....
Yea, your right, we should all forget about the 3000 murdered on 9-11... Liberals always will believe that it is a September 10th world... Spain can afford to be run by cowards. This country needs leaders who understand what is at stake and are willing to lead despite the popularity polls... Reagan understood that when Europe opposed putting medium range missles in Germany. Bush understands that today. On November 2nd, when he wins reelection, so will the rest of the world.
Wow. You really are infected with Stupid; this will be my last post to you, b/c you can't read, and you can't remember what you've said. To quote (psst... this is you) Vietnam was over, for all intents and purposes in 1969... This is me, in response to that: 7,220 U.S. soldiers dead between 1969-1974, countless wounded. Everytime the spirit moves you, and you get up on your hind legs and waddle on over to the ol' Apple IIc, we all know that volumes of stupid are on the way... This is you: Like I said, the war in Vietnam was virtually done after 1969. Funny that you failed to mention the 40,000+ deaths prior to then, under Johnson. Nixon significantly scaled down the number of troops and deaths fell rapidly from 2,600 to 600 to 100 from 1971 to 1973. That was down from 16,000 per year under your boy Johnson. This is me: Great; what you said was "...Vietnam was over, for all intents and purposes in 1969..." What I said in response was that 7,220 deaths post-1969, to humans, means something, and nothing like "Vietnam was over." Of course, when you measure life the way you do, you could come here, among the humans, and submit that Vietnam was really only Vietnam when we lost 40,000 lives and was over when we lost 7,000. Go elsewhere. Only you, and I do mean ONLY you, out of the few prokaryotics I know, could take the above exchange and ascertain that: (1) My assertion was Nixon lost the war. I wasn't EVER even talking about that, mooncalf! My point remains as it ever was: you think that 7,000 lives lost ever equals a war "being over, for all intents and purposes," you're a fool, and certainly a member of a family that did not lose anyone to that conflict during that time. (2)I was "suggesting that the United States was "winning" the war or that Johnson would have won Vietnam" at all. Again, for the literally challenged prokaryotics among us (psst; that's YOU), I clearly stated that my focus, with regard to your statement on Vietnam and when it "ended," was to disabuse you of any notion you might have had that you were talking sense; you were, and are, talking utter non-sense. IOW, beyond the scope of your assertion about Vietnam being over when 7,000 more troops had yet to be killed, and tens of thousands of troops had yet to be wounded, you are talking to yourself, which must be a regular occurence. Now, to the above assertion, where you continue to submit Stupid such as "So, in relation to where the war was in 1965-68, yes the war was over," let me make one thng clear for you: That's failed thinking. Just because there were significantly less lives lost in the post-1969 period than there were before 1969 is a uselss point. Again, over 7,000 lives lost and tens of thousands wounded does not a "WAR'S OVER!" headline make, period. You can't get that; I understand. Just stop trying to speak Human.
Spain, out of Iraq? Spain's prime minister-elect has described the country's participation in the war in Iraq as "a total error," and says he plans to withdraw 1,300 Spanish troops in June. "If the U.N. doesn't take control of Iraq, I think Spanish troops are going to come back, and the date is June 30," he said. "I don't think the administration in Iraq is the best." http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/03/15/spain.election/index.html
The ability of my colleagues to engage in self-parody on these boards is astounding. First it was flannigan, then patrickm, now usasoccer........ The post above is remarkable in its......I'm not even sure how to describe it. Spain isn't run by cowards, its run by people who have (correctly) determined that the war with Iraq had nothing to do with fighting tererorism. If they're cowards we'll discover later. You constant harping at 9/11 is getting tiresome. Afghanistan was a justified military action. Iraq, for which it is likely the Spanish were bombed, had nothing to do with 9/11. So when the Spanish populace, which was completely opposed to the war, voted their politicians out of office, they had the right to do so. That you refuse to understand that 9/11 and Iraq have nothing to do with each other is still stunning. The schizophrenic level of incomprehension and illogic in your post is so baffling that its hard to know where to counter it. Your blanket assertion of "its a 9/11 world" just won't cut it.
Turkey didn't support the war. Turkey didn't send troops in to help rebuild. Turkey's population was much more against the war than teh Spanish were. Look what happened to them. The favorite targets of AQ after tradition ME states are states that are prosperous, democratic and secular. Countries that both supported and opposed the war are going to figure out that a terrorist attack isn't a matter of "if" but "when". You really need to think with that brain of yours. WHOOPS..... You don't have a brain. The Germany results have nothing to do with Bush-bashing. Schroeder flogged the dead horse of anti-war in order to prevent losing to the CDU in 2002. It barely saved his government. The problems in Germany now deal mainly with economic reform. German's want to have a prosperous economy but keep their lavish welfare state. Schroeder's recent election defeats are domestic in nature, flooging the dead horse isn't going to help him. South Korea's problems deal with the historic problem of corruption within the government. Nothing to do with the war in Iraq.