"The American right strikes back"

I found this column on The Age's (daily newspaper in Melbourne) website. I think it raises some good points. So yeah, um, thoughts?

Column by Jonathan Freedland in The Age, www.theage.com.au
The American right strikes back

March 19, 2004

American conservatives were appalled by the reaction in some European quarters to September 11, a reaction crudely summarised as "America had it coming".

They insisted it was grossly insensitive to attack the United States and its foreign policy while Ground Zero still smouldered. They were right and I took their side, urging people at least to pause awhile before adding greater hurt to an already traumatised nation.

But look what's happening now. A matter of days after the event branded Europe's September 11, and American conservatives - including some of the very people who were so outraged by the criticisms hurled at the US in September 2001 - have started whacking not just Spanish policy, but the Spanish people.

Witness David Brooks in Tuesday's New York Times, outraged that the Madrid bombings prompted Spanish voters to "throw out the old government and replace it with one whose policies are more to al-Qaeda's liking. What is the Spanish word for appeasement?" Right-wing blog artist Andrew Sullivan also raided the 1930s lexicon for the same, exhausted word: "It seems clear to me that the trend in Europe is now either appeasement of terror or active alliance with it. It is hard to view the results in Spain as anything but a choice between Bush and al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda won." Not to be outdone, former Bush speech-writer David Frum, the man who coined "axis of evil", sighed at the weakness of the Spanish: "People are not always strong. Sometimes they indulge false hopes that by lying low, truckling, appeasing, they can avoid danger and strife ... And this is what seems to have happened in Spain."

Perhaps this is how the Bu:bou::bou::bou::bou:es hope to avenge what they saw as European insensitivity two-and-a-half years ago, by defaming the Spanish even as Madrid still weeps. But this assault should not go unanswered if only because, if allowed to settle in the public mind, it will widen yet further the already yawning trans-Atlantic gulf of misunderstanding.

Perhaps this is how the Bu:bou::bou::bou::bou:es hope to avenge what they saw as European insensitivity two-and-a-half years ago, by defaming the Spanish even as Madrid still weeps.

Put aside the imprecision (and worse) that comes with the abuse of the word "appeasement": the menace of al-Qaeda is real and serious enough without making hyperbolic comparisons to the Third Reich.

Focus instead on the two grave errors that underlie this latest argument from the right. One is a misunderstanding of democracy, the other is a failure to make crucial distinctions.

The first mistake is the more surprising, for no word is invoked more often in support of the "war on terror" than democracy. Yet these insults hurled at the Spanish show a sneaking contempt for the idea. For surely the Spanish did nothing more on Sunday than exercise their democratic right to change governments. 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.

It is a bid to reshape the political landscape, so that parties of the right stand on one side and all the rest are lumped in with al-Qaeda. The tactic is McCarthyite, the natural extension of the bullying insistence that, in President Bush's own words: "You are either with us or you're with the terrorists." If that is the choice, then there is no choice: it is a mandate for a collection of one-party states.

But this is not the heart of the matter. The right's greater error is its failure to distinguish between the war against al-Qaeda and the war on Iraq. About 90 per cent of the Spanish electorate were against the latter; there is no evidence that they were, or are, soft on the former.

On the contrary, there have been two mass demonstrations of Spanish opinion in the past few days: let no one forget that 36 hours before the election, about 11 million Spaniards took to the streets to swear their revulsion at terrorism. It takes some cheek to accuse a nation like that of weakness and appeasement.

The Spaniards showed they knew the difference between the struggle against al-Qaeda and the conflict in Iraq. It is hardly a shock that this distinction is lost on the likes of Frum and company: the Bush Administration worked tirelessly to conflate the two, constantly melding Saddam and September 11 even though the President himself has had to admit no evidence links the two.

The Spanish electorate were not voting for a cave-in to al-Qaeda. On the contrary, many of those who opposed the war in Iraq did so precisely because they feared it would distract from the more urgent war against Islamist fanaticism. (Witness the US military resources pulled off the hunt for bin Laden in Afghanistan and diverted to Baghdad.)

Nor was it appeasement to suggest that the US-led invasion of an oil-rich Muslim country would make al-Qaeda's recruitment mission that much easier.

Of course, this is not to argue that if only the war had not happened then bin Laden and his henchmen would have laid down their arms. Al-Qaeda's leaders are murderous, guilty of the most wicked acts; nothing we can do will reach them.

But that is not true of the many thousands, perhaps millions, drawn to the message of extreme Islamism; the people who would never plant bombs, but might cheer when they go off. These are the hearts and minds that have to be won over if the war on terror is ever to be won.

To assert that the conflict over Iraq made that task harder is not a surrender; it is a statement of the obvious.

It may be comforting, but this struggle cannot be won by painting the world in black and white, with America as the good guy and everyone else cast as terrorists or their allies. It will require nimble, subtle thinking - constantly making awkward but essential distinctions.

So, yes, it is quite true that al-Qaeda will be chillingly gratified by the Spanish result but, no, that does not mean that Spaniards voted for al-Qaeda. Similarly, it is quite possible to be strongly opposed to the Iraq adventure and militantly in favour of the war against bin Laden - indeed the two sentiments can be strongly linked.

There is a difference, too, between appeasing men of violence and seeking to limit their appeal, just as the leaders of global terror must be separated from those who could become their followers. Islam is no monolith, nor is the West, and all the fine gradations within these categories matter enormously.

The world has never looked more like a complex knot, and it will take precision and patience to untangle it. Wrenching away at it in fury will only make the problem harder - and our lives more dangerous.

I'd not be surprised if this writer is immediately branded as an "anti-American" terrorist sympathiser. That's what often happens when you take an objective look at such things, or if you simply don't share the US president's opinion on a matter.

That was a thought-provoking piece, moreso because of its clear ring of truth. The US adminstration's standpoint has long been, "you must do what we say, but we don't have to because we're above our own rules". I think this point is demonstrated pretty well.

you have to admit it does look like the spanish people bottled it, Al queda struck spain because they were saw as the weak link and they were right it's a victory for them.

Al Qaeda has struck a lot of countries - Kenya, Spain, the US. Doesn't mean that those countries are "weak losers".

Originally posted by Big D
I'd not be surprised if this writer is immediately branded as an "anti-American" terrorist sympathiser. That's what often happens when you take an objective look at such things, or if you simply don't share the US president's opinion on a matter. Oh, yeah, that happens all the time. We'll probably try him and execute him, too.

It is sad that Spain is backing out of support for "the war," and I do think that it is eerily similar to the appeasement right before WWII. However, it was the will of the people. Furthermore, I think we (the US) needs to stop pointing fingers and send over some foreign aid. It would certainly make us look a whole lot better.

If we are to draw analogies to appeasement before WWII, we could as well paint terrorists as communists (a semi-secret international group of people seeking to change the world), and Americans as, well, y'know hoo. Strong, hypocritical ideology-warfare (National <i>socialist</i> vs. Bolshevik, Islamic Fundamentalist vs. seemingly religious-rightist government), invasions of smaller countries, the Brittish PM trying to suck-up to the Über Kriegerfaren nation with "war-time leaders" etc. etc.




:D

Originally posted by DocFrance
Oh, yeah, that happens all the time. We'll probably try him and execute him, too. Some groups in the US media often try to paint a very negative picture of countries that back off their support for US operations - just like the New York Times column mentioned in that article. This extends to accusations against individuals, i.e. journalists from other countries who portray their side of the matter.

Originally posted by DocFrance
It is sad that Spain is backing out of support for "the war," and I do think that it is eerily similar to the appeasement right before WWII.

That analogy makes absolutely no sense. I fail to see the relationship of the socialist visctory in spain to WWII, as well as how Spain backing out of the war is 'appeasement.'

<i>American conservatives were appalled by the reaction in some European quarters to September 11, a reaction crudely summarised as "America had it coming".</i>

No one said Spain had the attacks coming. I think it's a faulty analogy to compare the kind of trash people said about America to the things people say about Spain today.

No one is saying Spain "voted for al-Qaeda". al-Qaeda and various other groups are going to be happy with Spain's decision to get out of Iraq; this is fact. Spain was heavily on our side before their election, and not as much on our side after it; this is fact. Americans are going to be sad about that. Should we be happy that we just lost an ally? What's the appropriate way to respond? Should we rejoice in the streets? Pretend we don't care?

Originally posted by Dr Unne
Spain was heavily on our side before their election, and not as much on our side after it; this is fact. Americans are going to be sad about that. Should we be happy that we just lost an ally? What's the appropriate way to respond? Should we rejoice in the streets? Pretend we don't care? So, it's a case of "if you're not with us, you're against us" then? Just because they're no longer going to provide direct support does not mean that they're any less of an ally in principle. There's a difference between "being an ally" and "helping to fight someone's illegal wars". The whole western world supports America as a nation; but very few countries will be willing to throw their soldiers into what they feel is an unjust cause. No one said Spain had the attacks coming. I think it's a faulty analogy to compare the kind of trash people said about America to the things people say about Spain today.

No one is saying Spain "voted for al-Qaeda".Witness David Brooks in Tuesday's New York Times, outraged that the Madrid bombings prompted Spanish voters to "throw out the old government and replace it with one whose policies are more to al-Qaeda's liking. What is the Spanish word for appeasement?" Right-wing blog artist Andrew Sullivan also raided the 1930s lexicon for the same, exhausted word: "It seems clear to me that the trend in Europe is now either appeasement of terror or active alliance with it. It is hard to view the results in Spain as anything but a choice between Bush and al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda won." Not to be outdone, former Bush speech-writer David Frum, the man who coined "axis of evil", sighed at the weakness of the Spanish: "People are not always strong. Sometimes they indulge false hopes that by lying low, truckling, appeasing, they can avoid danger and strife ... And this is what seems to have happened in Spain."Hmm. "No one" indeed.

Originally posted by Moose Knight
That analogy makes absolutely no sense. I fail to see the relationship of the socialist visctory in spain to WWII, as well as how Spain backing out of the war is 'appeasement.' 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.

Originally posted by Big D
So, it's a case of "if you're not with us, you're against us" then? Just because they're no longer going to provide direct support does not mean that they're any less of an ally in principle. There's a difference between "being an ally" and "helping to fight someone's illegal wars". The whole western world supports America as a nation; but very few countries will be willing to throw their soldiers into what they feel is an unjust cause. The very definition of an ally is someone who lends support. So when Spain stops lending support for the war in Iraq, yes, they do become less of an ally to the US. Do you expect the US to show unconditional love to the entire world?

<i>So, it's a case of "if you're not with us, you're against us" then?</i> --Big D

I said we lost an ally in the war, not that we gained an enemy.

I take "voted for al-Qaeda" to mean voted in favor of al-Qaeda in some way. Spain chose to be neutral. Whether it's actually possible to be neutral is another matter, but no one's saying they're pro-terrorism.

<i>Just because they're no longer going to provide direct support does not mean that they're any less of an ally in principle.</i>

Principle doesn't mean very much of anything without action to back it up.

Originally posted by Dr Unne
Principle doesn't mean very much of anything without action to back it up. Again, that appears to mean that you're not someone's ally unless you help fight their wars for them. Spain didn't contribute any forces to the Kosovo campaign during the Clinton presidency, yet none would have accused them of failing to be an ally for that purpose. If one country chooses to start a war, there's no onus on their allies to prove their allegiance by lending aid. After all, Britain and its former colonies fought World War Two without US assistance until 1941, but no-one could rightly say that America wasn't Britain's ally from 1939 till '41.
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...

Considering that Bush is in office against the will of the majority (heck, he didn't even get the most votes, nevermind a majority), Bush would be hypocritical to expect Spain to respect the will of the people. Bush's very presidency is a mockery of Democracy. What other fair, and democratic election has the man with the most votes being turned away in favor of a man crowned by the supreme court? 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.

Sadly, alliances are made to be broken. How long did America resent the British before finally deciding that we'd again be allies? Germany is sometimes still blamed for actions from decades ago. We SUPPORTED Saddam invading Iran, gave him intelligence and the like! I think it's almost impossible to stay allies with another country on every issue for every situation. Times change, people's opinions and wants change. We're all nations full of different people, with different views, so really, I think it's sort of arrogant to assume that we should have allies for everything America chooses to do.

Indeed, it does seem tough to really agree with any policies that come from our government today. Don't know how many people heard about this, but the Bush administration created fake news commercials supporting their tax cuts and medicare bills, and ran them as legitimate news pieces right down to having a voice over say, "This is Cynthia Ryan reporting..." or some name like that, and it was all a big hoax. Does the Bush Administration really think we can't handle the truth? Isn't it about time to admit there aren't weapons in Iraq? Every day more and more stories are leaked out that only further discredit the people we have in power, so really, is anyone surprised that more and more of the world's population is changing there opinions about Bush and America itself. If we really are an Empire, which is still up for debate, then I'm predicting our downfall will not be pretty.

That being said, I cannot extend enough of my sympathy to all those who were lost and hurt in these attacks. Anytime innocent lives are lost, it's a dark day. I hope this never occurs again, wishful thinking to be true, but I still hope for it.

Also, Spain is still helping us on the "War on Terror", correct? so, aren't they still our allies in that respect?

Just to prove that I'm not making up "Liberal" lies:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/15/politics/15VIDE.html


Take care all.

<i>Again, that appears to mean that you're not someone's ally unless you help fight their wars for them.</i> --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.

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

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

<i>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...</i>

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.

<i>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.</i> --Garland

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

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.

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.

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

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.

<i>Differing claims aren't necessarily baseless, nor are they nonsense.</i> --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.

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

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?

<i>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. </i> --Big D

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

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

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

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

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."

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

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

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

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>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>

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.

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

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

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.

Sorry about that Dr. Unne:

Hopefully this link works better:

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/election/0304nation/18medicareads.html

Different newspaper, same information.

Take care all.

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.

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.

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

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?

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%.

<i>Pierce, the HHS spokesman, said that despite the controversy over the Medicare spot, VNRs have been around for 20 years.</i> --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.

<i>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.</i> --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 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/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml

It's towards the middle of the article.

Take care all.

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?
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. I think that abandoning the US (and Iraq) in the middle of very troubling times more than "mildly" conflicts. 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.

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.

From this morning's WashPost, an excellent op-ed piece by a Spanish politician related to the recent bombings and Radical Islamic Terrorism...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11725-2004Mar20.html

The US does not need the coalition to provide military resources and personnel in Iraq. The US military would have been perfectly capable of invading and policing Iraq on its own. The purpose of the coalition is to provide a veneer of legitimacy to the American occupation. Spanish forces only make up a miniscule proportion of the occupation force in Iraq. It's not the loss of troops that wil hurt the US, it's the fact that it has lost a major supporter of the war in Iraq (note: NOT the war on terror). Given that the war was done unilaterally and outside the framework of the UN, I don't see this as a bad thing.

Originally posted by DocFrance
From this morning's WashPost, an excellent op-ed piece by a Spanish politician related to the recent bombings and Radical Islamic Terrorism...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11725-2004Mar20.html Could you quote the article here please (if it's not too long, but you can make the text size smaller too) - unregistered users at the site can't see anything :p

Bah. You suck, man.

The Terrorism Debate

Sunday, March 21, 2004; Page B06


THE RECENT wave of bloody terrorist bombings, from Madrid to Baghdad, underlines the special importance of the war on terrorism as an issue in this year's presidential campaign. It is vital that voters hear a robust debate between President Bush and Sen. John F. Kerry about how the war has been conducted since Sept. 11, 2001, and how best to manage it in the coming four years. But that argument should convey a message of fortitude and not weakness to America's enemies -- especially the Islamic terrorist groups that may dream of reversing U.S. policy with a single, traumatizing blow. That, sadly, could be the outcome in Spain, where the winner of last weekend's election, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, has responded to his upset victory with a message of retreat from Iraq that the authors of the Madrid train bombings will claim as a success.

By that measure, President Bush's national security address Friday, and the earlier exchange of broadsides between the Bush and Kerry campaigns last week, offered a good beginning to the American debate. The rhetoric may have been tough and some of the charges overheated. But both Mr. Kerry and Mr. Bush started from a common point: The United States must not shrink from the challenge, either in Iraq or elsewhere. Though he condemned what he described as a failed policy, Mr. Kerry declared in a speech Wednesday that "having gone to war, we have a responsibility to keep and a national interest to achieve in a stable and peaceful Iraq." And though Mr. Bush might perceive a benefit in promising to wind down the mission, he sent the opposite message: "We will never turn over Iraq to terrorists who intend our own destruction," he said. "We will not fail the Iraqi people, who have placed their trust in us. Whatever it takes, we will fight and work to assure the success of freedom in Iraq."

That there are irresponsible alternatives to these positions has been demonstrated by both Republicans and Democrats in recent days. The Democratic version came from former Vermont governor Howard Dean, who implied that Mr. Bush was somehow responsible for the terrorist attacks in Madrid. Mr. Kerry, who had unwisely recruited Mr. Dean as a surrogate spokesman, quickly and rightly repudiated him. A couple of days earlier, Vice President Cheney charged, not for the first time, that Mr. Kerry advocated returning to the pre-9/11 policy of treating terrorism primarily as a problem of law enforcement. The implication was clear: A vote for Mr. Kerry would be a vote against a war on terrorism. The claim was missing from the vice president's subsequent and broader assault on Mr. Kerry on Wednesday, and appropriately so: It simply isn't true, as Mr. Kerry's own speech made clear.

That there is much to legitimately disagree about was manifest in the week's speeches. Mr. Kerry argued that Mr. Bush overstated the Iraqi threat, that he failed to build a strong alliance for the war or prepare for its aftermath, that he sent too few troops and then did not give them the body armor they needed. He promised an expanded army, an expanded alliance in Iraq and a long list of benefits for soldiers, reservists, veterans and their families. The essence of the Bush offer, as Mr. Cheney described it, is to stay the course; the suggestion is that Mr. Kerry might not. The vice president pointed to the senator's shifts of position on Iraq and his past opposition to weapons systems and mocked his stance on alliances, saying only those countries who oppose the United States seem to have Mr. Kerry's respect. There are real differences here. As Mr. Cheney said, Americans may have the clearest and most meaningful choice on national security in any presidential election during the last 20 years. But that choice should be about how the United States can win the crucial battles now underway -- not whether they should be fought.

I can't really blame Spain for backing out. It's favouring its people over anyone else, and why wouldn't it? Maybe they're "cowardly" or whatever you'd like to call it, but they're saving lives of their own citizens by preventing terrorist attacks. I wouldn't want my house bombed if I could avoid it. It's not a global threat. It's not imperative that the US has support. I can see why it would upset people though. It's not good to lose an ally. And it is losing an ally.

Hm, if you think of Spain and its leaders like a mother and children, it makes it easier to understand. If some of your children are killed because you're supporting another family you don't know that well, are you going to keep fighting, or take your remaining children and run? Like that only... not. And political.

The Hitler analogy doesn't apply. For one thing, the comment about "if only the english and french had've fought". How could they have known that all that would've been avoided? For all they knew, Hitler could've beaten them and took over all of Europe just because they wouldn't yeild. Or maybe if they fought the war would've been over quickly. Who knows? We know what happened, but it would be impossible for them to know how their actions would affect things. Hindsight is 20/20, and all that.

The US is very not an empire. They're not trying to take over Iraq, they don't have territories that they've taken over. They're just not.

Originally posted by Emerald Aeris
I can't really blame Spain for backing out. It's favouring its people over anyone else, and why wouldn't it? Maybe they're "cowardly" or whatever you'd like to call it, but they're saving lives of their own citizens by preventing terrorist attacks. Who is to say that the terrorists won't keep attacking Spain? This is where the appeasement analogy does apply - France and England handed over the Sudetenland on the premise that Hitler would stay true to his word. Likewise, the Spanish people voted for a leader who would bring them out of the war on the premise at they wouldn't be attacked again. This time, though, they weren't even given a false promise that they wouldn't be attacked. They are afraid, and are thinking of their personal safety before their freedom. What is going to happen in Spain the next time terrorists attack, and the time after that?

It is the will of the people, though. So be it.

I fear neither pain nor death, but I do fear a cage from which I can never escape; a cage where I will stay until I am old and empty and have come to accept it as my ultimate fate.

Spain was attacked because they supported the US. It's pretty logical to assume the attacks will stop now that they don't.

Sure, it may be logical, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they will stop attacking Spain. If a man holds a gun to your head and says "Give me all your money or I'll shoot," is there any guarantee that he won't shoot you after you give him your wallet? I wouldn't trust a terrorist with my life, or anything at all.

But if you don't give him your wallet, you're pretty much garanteed to get shot. Is your wallet and pride really worth that much?

The terrorists wouldn't want the wallet.. they get enough money from Saudi Arabia.

Take care all.

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.


Well, i think it really depends on the case. Gay marriage, for example: I can't see any rational justification against it, just religious reasons or the Glorious Argumentation of "can I marry a chair then?".

A war, on the other hand, involves pain and bloodshed, no matter how you look at it. Then probably the governor should listen to people crying they don't want to go to war.


Likewise, the Spanish people voted for a leader who would bring them out of the war on the premise at they wouldn't be attacked again. This time, though, they weren't even given a false promise that they wouldn't be attacked. They are afraid, and are thinking of their personal safety before their freedom.

AAAARGH, READ THE DAMN LONG POST I PUT IN THE FIRST PAGE

It should anwser to that.








Thank you.




:)

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

How the god is two major powers signing a treaty of non-intervention with a country that was an insanely large threat to the sovereignty of just about everyone even remotely similar to the people of a country voting in a different government due to the actions of anonymous die-hard extremists? Just because it involves the government withdrawing troops from another country (which is/was nowhere near as large a threat as the Third Reich?).

Comparing that to appeasement is insane. Conservatives seem to jump at everything and call it "appeasement", as if there's anything remotely like Nazi Germany to appease here.

oh, I know that's late, probably been answered and completely off-topic by now. Probably.

Originally posted by Shadow Nexus
just religious reasons or the Glorious Argumentation of "can I marry a chair then?".

haha, gotta love that. BECAUSE AN ANIMAL CAN SIGN A MARRIAGE CONTRACT, YOU KNOW.

Originally posted by Duo
How the god is two major powers signing a treaty of non-intervention with a country that was an insanely large threat to the sovereignty of just about everyone even remotely similar to the people of a country voting in a different government due to the actions of anonymous die-hard extremists? Just because it involves the government withdrawing troops from another country (which is/was nowhere near as large a threat as the Third Reich?).

Comparing that to appeasement is insane. Conservatives seem to jump at everything and call it "appeasement", as if there's anything remotely like Nazi Germany to appease here. I don't see what's so insane about it. I think you're just choosing not to consider my analogy and labeling it as "insane." And who said anything about conservatives?

the Glorious Argumentation of "can I marry a chair then?".
I made that argument first. ^_^ I feel so pwoud.

I made that argument first. ^_^ I feel so pwoud.

Want a medal? Or a permission to marry an inanimated object? I'd like to marry my books...

They're not remotely similar, is all. And the Conservatives I know are always going "Blah blah appeasement" so you know, it's rather popular with then.

*shurg*

It's tough to debate the past. Perhaps America shouldn't have dropped the A-bomb to end the war? What if England and France had directly opposed Hitler and both had been crushed? The war would have ended A LOT differently.

Take care all.