This damn war (& coming to Spain)

As I've posted earlier I'm coming to visit on Friday... needless to say I'm concerned about safety. I'm not too worried in that Madrid is a large, diverse city, but my question is this- what's the mood on the streets? Am I an idiot for heading over? I really don't want to cancel this trip. I just wanted to get an idea of how things are from those who are there.

Thanks!

There are anti-war acts programed. Today in Sol at 20:00, I think tomorrow in USA embassy and on Saturday I think there'll be a march.
All the acts by now have been peaceful and quiet and I think they'll keep like this as all the protest are for peace, it would be contradictory to use violence and I don't see any antiamerican feeling in the people. There are strong feelings against the war, but I think they're strictly directed to Bush administration and specially Mr.Aznar, as he is not being an example of democracy, it makes me furious that 85% of population is not enough to say him that we don't want Spain to go to this war.
Maybe some Americans living here can tell you better how they feel about this. I think everything will be safe and normal.

Hi there,

You ask about the mood in the streets, well, I don't know much about that (so far everything looks “normal”, except for several pacifist demonstrations all over town(Madrid), and the tv programming), however, I can tell you what my mood is like at this moment; I'm SAD, SAD, SAD...., have very strong anti-Bush feelings, and about Aznar, is never pretty to witness someone commit suicide, even if it's only the politic kind.
I also feel shame.

I'm hanging out with lots of Northamericans these days, some just visiting and some who live here, and they all tell me they feel much safer and tranquil here than in the States, so don't worry, I for one, do not think safety for you should be an issue.

Becks, remember the other day over dinner you told me you didn't believe war would happen, and I told you I was surprised at how optimistic you were....I just wished you had been right and I had been wrong so much!

I remember I while ago browsing through another thread and reading something (written by MAD in Madrid, I believe) similar to: "Nobody likes the strongest kid in the playground"; well, personally, I have no problem at all with the biggest kids as long as they don't become bullies.

P.S.: About my comment on Mr. Bush, PLEASE note I don't mean to offend anyone, I'm just being honest; and remember I too have had to read extremely hurtful opinions on the ETA subject on this board, but inspite having expressed my distress, certain people go on “joking” about terrorism in Spain, and sadly, I'm afraid they will always continue to do so.

------------------------------------------------
If only everybody had more respect for the lives of the rest of the people….
War is never a real solution.

Once again, thank you very much for all the helpful information. I will not worry about the trip now.

I agree that this whole situation is really very sad. I can't listen to the news so much because I feel bad for what my country is doing. The only good thing that could come is that perhaps some day the Iraqi people can live free of Saddam's terror... anyway see you soon in Espana!

If my airplane is still scheduled to go to Spain on April 4th, war or no war, I'll be on it.

My only aprehension is that whenever I see friends or meet new people that the first words out of their mouths will be "What do you think of the war?" I've always heard and believe Spaniards, in general, have the wonderful ability to distinguish the difference between "the person" and the actions of that person's government.

Saludos, MadridMan

It is somewhat comforting in these dark days to hear that many of us are still able to separate a country's people from its leaders. I too will be in Spain (hopefully) starting April 3rd. Like many americans I am against this war and hope the Spaniards I meet this time will be as kind to me as in the past. We are all part of the same world. Pray for peace.

MadridMan, I have also felt that. When I was in Spain at the time of the last Gulf War, I was impressed with how easily my Spanish friends distinguished between American people and our government. Even so, it might be wise to avoid typically American institutions (McDonald's, Hard Rock) and political demonstrations. I don't think I would want to draw a lot of attention to myself if I were traveling in Spain (or anywhere) these days.

DTW, dangrmous, MadridMan--I hope your trips are magical.

Peace, everyone.

There are as many reasons to be for than against the war. Balancing everything, I must say, that opposing to the opinion of the majority of my fellow countrymen, I support this war.

Of course what I prefer is that this war had never taken place, but I also think that allies had no other choice.

What if a terrorist committed a mass attack in Spain? It is something that could take place. Everyday hundreds of moroccian inmigrants come to Spain. Any of them could introduce biological or chemical artifacts and kill 200,000 people in any city.

What happened when the El Perejil conflict took place? France did no effort to aid us, US did.

The french government is hypocrital. They speak for peace, but have 20,000 soldiers in three wars in Africa (Sierra Leona, Centroafrican Republic and Marble Coast), and important oil contracts with a tyranical leader.

Go on US, win this war with as less victims as possible.

Fernando

Fernando, estas A-L-U-C-I-N-A-N-D-O.!

Fernando,
I agree with you. I wish with all my heart that this war would have been avoided. But now that our allied soldiers, Australians, British, Americans, Spanish and other allied soldiers are there in harms way fighting against terrorism, I believe that we need to support them.

I was not shocked to discover that Saddam lied about the SCUD missiles, which Tarik Azziz and other Iraqui officials swore up and down before the U.N. that they did not have.

I personally hold Chirac responsible for what happens. Had it not been for Chirac's active opposition in the U.N., we may still be using diplomatic tactics to get rid of Saddam. Chirac's motives may be involved in selling illegal chemicals to Iraq.

New York Times writer, William Safire, just ran this Op/Ed editorial today on French Pres. Chirac:

French Connection II
By WILLIAM SAFIRE

WASHINGTON — What will the world discover, after the war is over, about which countries secretly helped Saddam obtain components for terror weapons?

Last week, I wrote that French brokerage was involved in the illicit transfer of the chemical HTBP, a rubbery base for a rocket propellant, from a Chinese company through Syria to Iraq.

When Christiane Amanpour asked President Jacques Chirac about it on CBS's "60 Minutes," he replied: "Because The New York Times is a serious newspaper, as soon as I read this I ordered an inquiry. I can now confirm officially, after an inquiry by the French foreign ministry, France and French companies have never endorsed or even provided such material to Iraq. So I am clearly denying this allegation."

Mr. Chirac knows more than I do about trade with Iraq: in the late 1970's, he facilitated France's multibillion-dollar sale of the Osirak nuclear reactor to the rising Saddam. (After Iraq officially stated that the reactor's purpose was not to incinerate Tehran but "to eliminate Zionism," Israel destroyed it.)

Let me supply Mr. Chirac with some documentation that the Inspector Clouseau in his foreign ministry cannot find.

On Aug. 25, 2002, e-mail went from the director general of CIS Paris to Qilu Chemicals in China regarding a preliminary order: "We are about to have one of our affiliates open a L/C [Letter of Credit] for an initial order of 20,000 kg. of sealant type HTBP-III. . . . The drums should have a label mentioning the nature of the goods, same as your sample: `modified polybatadiene [sic] sealant type III,' it is not necessary that the label shows the name of your company."

Ten days later, on Sept. 4, this response came from Qilu: "Thank you for your order to our HTPB-III! We just have sent a 40-foot container to Tartous (Syria) last month. I am not sure whether the container is in your warehouse now." A month later, Qilu sought a "formal order."

A Times colleague in Paris visited CIS early last week. The director, Jean-Pierre Pertriaux, acknowledged the documents but said someone else had filled the order. I duly reported his denial.

Mr. Pertriaux has since written to me to denounce my column as "mostly imagination and slander." He argues, in a rambling fashion, "About HTPB, one of the uses of this chemical is as a binder for rocket propellant, one of the possible rocket style is long-range missile, which I personally know for sure the Iraqis do not have (the CIA know it still better): so the supply of HTPB is legal, it is not forbidden by the UN except for a use which does not exist, though it is unpleasant if you plan to invade Iraq and do not want to face field rockets or anti-tank weapons."

But what about those e-mail notes? "My company never supplied HTPB to Iraq (but it considered this eventuality) we know the Chinese QiLu company, they boasted to have shipped HTPB to promote their business but never actually did."

Then, "leaving you a chance to show that you distorted the truth, but did not organize a lie," the French broker pointed elsewhere: "Three shipments (totaling 115.8 tons) have actually been made from USA via Jordanian traders."

He didn't name the supposed suppliers, but I was able to check his assertion that "the supply of HTPB is legal" with an assistant secretary of state, John Wolf. "All military-related sales to Iraq are banned by several U.N. resolutions," countered Mr. Wolf, the man in charge of our nonproliferation bureau. "This is rocket fuel you're talking about. The fact that Iraq was permitted to have missiles in the sub-150-kilometer range does not therefore allow the import of such fuel. Any sale to Iraq, except for humanitarian goods, requires the approval of the U.N. sanctions committee." The U.S. is on that committee and never approved such a sale.

Is this component of fuel propelling "unpleasant" weapons in Iraq now, to be used against our troops? I have no proof of that. But the name of the Iraqi arms merchant who handled the shipment when it arrived in Syria is no mystery. After the war, he'll sing, same as Saddam's runners of Al Qaeda agents.

Then President Chirac, all injured innocence, may castigate the foreign minister who too quickly assured him that a column about a French connection was "devoid of all foundation."

Booklady, please use your brain. Please analyze the info. before quoting William Safire.

jlramos, it's not nice to tell people they are hallucinating or not using their brains just because you don't agree with them. I don't agree with this war either (I think Jimmy Carter was right to call it unjust ), but I know Fernando and Booklady have come to their own conclusions. I might try to persuade them otherwise over a caña someday, but not here!

jlramos,

Apparently facts don't have any effect on you. Your retort? Sarcasm without foundation. Both Fernando and Booklady are steadfastly against war, because of the pain and suffering it inflicts on others, but they both agree that there comes a time, when righteous people stand up and be counted. Apparently you'd rather use the ostrich method of dealing with problems. Just bury your head in the sand, and pretend it will just "go away."

In France; Ricin traces found in the subway. Now, guess who they arrested that has ricin? You got it, if you were listening. Al-Qaeda members. Now there are problems in Germany. Five arrests, all associated with Al-Qaeda, and all planning attacks in Germany, against German interests.

Despite the fact that both of these nations "kissed Saddam's arse," they would bring death to them. Now, isn't that a novel idea? Someone supports your issues, and you still are willing to kill their people? Does that mean anything to you?

The same applies to Russia, who's battle against militant Muslims continues, and at the same time, they say we have "no right" to enforce the mandates of the UN... because war is wrong. Excuse me? Aren't they at war with Chechnya? Aren't Chechnya's rebels the same people as Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and yes, even supported through unofficial channels by Iraq? The last I heard... from UN sources no less.... this was fact.

Then there's Powell's offering to the UN, which included intercepted telephone messages where Iraqi officials admitted to having illegal WMD. Of course, when Hans Blix and his band of merry men arrived at the scenes where they had been stored, they were moved. Between Blix asking for road map directions on how to get to sites, a day or two earlier than they inspected, the bugs in their rooms, and on their phones, and even lip readers who were able to figure out what the inspectors were talking about, the sites were cleaned up, before the inspectors got there. Powell presented evidence to that effect, but the "Axis of Weasel" just laughed, and said it didn't matter.

I'm with Fernando and Booklady. People who stand up and are counted, when necessary, are to be respected.

As for everyone who feels "inconvenienced" by this war, apparently you don't understand the gravity of what is happening, or don't care. If it cuts into your plans, that's tough luck. There's more at stake in the world than your pleasure trip.

Then there's those who say that "It's nice that Spaniards don't hold the actions of the U.S. government against the people of the U.S." How trite. Nearly 70% of all Americans support our actions in the Gulf, and you're saying "We don't support our government?" I suggest you say that "You don't support our government." We - as a nation - do.

So make your own case against the war, but don't take the liberty of saying "We," when it's "You" who doesn't support our actions. If you want to be "popular" in Spain, do what you want. As for me, I want to be an American, and I shall remain proud of who I am. I will also embrace my Spanish friends, regardless of their convictions, just like they will embrace me. And, when I get back to Madrid, I will give Fernando the biggest hug you've ever seen, because he stood up for his convictions, even though it may not seem popular in some circles. We may not always see eye-to-eye, but I much prefer people who have the courage to stand up and being counted, over those who would bow to public opinion, just because it makes them "popular."

Hats off to Tara, Booklady, and Fernando! You've got my vote as being part of the "Tell it like it is society!"

Wolf

Hey guys, I think we should not discuss about the war here, the thread was to ask how safe can travel an American in Spain. I've tried to explain how are my personal feelings and also what I think are the generals feelings in Spain.
There is another thread in the Non-Spain discussion about the war. Let me suggest you to continue there and keep here with the original question.

Fernando,

Do you really think it's fair and reasonable to attack a country based on "what ifs?"?, most any nation could prepare a terrorist attack on us or on anyone else, so should Bush, Blair and Aznar decide to attack them all then?
I sincerely don't understand the conexion you make between the Moroccoan inmigrants coming to Spain and Sadam's regime, since when being a muslim means necessarily being a potential terrorist?
You ask what would happen if we suffered an attack by foreign terrorists; well, who knows?, but I don't see why you seem sure we would declare war on them; we have ETA, and so far there's no Rest-of-Spain-versus-Basque-Country civil war.

Booklady,

If this is not a war being declared pretty much unilaterally then why would people and organizations such as The Pope and the UN call it an unlawful war?
I think to blame all this on Chirac is a little bit too much, don't you think? Mr. Bush has appeared absolutely eager to start this nonsense since at least last October; otherwise, why would there have been a demonstration against it in Washington back then?

I have a question for US residents, I'm very curious about one thing; it's silly really, but I want to know whether the images of Bush rehearsing his first speech after the attacks started, while his face was being made up and his hair combed, and that we were all able to watch live here (and I'm guessing from at least the rest of European countries) was showed anywhere in the States?

One other thing, leaving aside for just a second, the most important factor (for me at least) in this whole scenario, the Iraqi civilians' lives, doesn't anybody else feel sad that places such as palaces, and other types of historic buildings from none other than a country like Iraq, in which territory according to most historians the birth of western civilization took place (yes, I'm not 'alucinando'!, the gardens of Babilon, the Tower of Babel, etc....) are being destroyed like it's nothing? How would Bush, or any of us for that matter, feel if someone bombed Mount Rushmore, the Statue of Liberty or any other American landmark?

pim,

What part of the evidence presented to the UN by the U.S. don't you understand? What part of the evidence that has surfaced as to German and French participation in rebuilding the Iraqi WMD, that the UN has already admitted is happening, don't you understand? What part of the fact that the Russians were given chief brokerage of Iraqi oil, that has been the only part of their economy that is stable don't you understand? You may have missed all this, and you may have missed the fact that the last two batches of al-Qaeda operatives that have been introduced to Spain, for covert operations in Spain, were actually trained in the Iraqi desert, and supported by Saddam.

As for the "land marks" you indicated we are attacking, where did you get that idea? Is this some "future plan" by our people? Obviously we haven't attacked them, and wouldn't, unless the Iraqis put a large military complex around them. Of course, if they did that, they'd be painting a great big bullseye on them, and they very well could be destroyed, but that would be the responsibility of Saddam and his government.

One look at the scenes that are being broadcast live from the "front" would tell you what's happening. Even interviews with Iraqi soldiers who are surrendering tells the facts. These people have been totally abused by the Baath government under Hussein, and are actually thankful they will be freed from the grip of the tyrant.

Of course, what he did within his borders is nobody's business, right? He could use chemical warfare against the Kurds and that was okay? He could systematically try to kill off the Shiites in the south and it was okay?

Obviously when people talk about "humanitarian efforts," just so they can oppose what is happening, they do so without facing the truth. The fact that the Hussein government has systematically killed, and starved, millions of their own people, for their own political ends.

You might want to think about the reality of war, and what it sometimes brings. In this case, the war isn't against the Iraqi people, just a tyrant and the army that would stand beside him, and carry out his blood bath against his own.

Of course, if not bringing this man down is your cup of tea, so be it. As for me, it's time tyrants like him be brought to justice. He's flaunted the resolutions from the UN in your faces, and ours, and you'd do nothing about it.

Please understand, this is not intended as a personal attack against you. I just wish people would read more, and try to really understand what's been happening within the Iraqi borders for years. It's time that the message be sent around the world, that tyrants, and those who support terrorism, will be brought to justice, whether or not it's "inconvenient" to business plans for countries like Russia, France, and Germany.

Also, I fail to understand what someone rehearsing their speech, or having make-up put on prior to giving the speech has to do with anything. Isn't that kind of a pathetic reach to find something to complain about?

Wolf

Wolf, I think pim (who is clearly VERY well-informed) was referring to Bush's entirely inappropriate fist-pumping antics (he pumped his fist and called, "feels good!") prior to putting on his "serious face" for his "war has begun" speech. Pim, that wasn't shown here, but was mentioned by a few news outlets.

pim,

I apologize about the issue related to Bush's speech. I wasn't aware of what he'd done, with the "fist pumping." That would be totally inappropriate, and uncalled for. Stupid on his part. He's supposed to be a leader, not a clown.

Thank you Tara. I do want to keep the record straight.

Also, as a further note, I am not a Bush fan. I voted against him, and will do so next time around, and will be visibly involved in the campaign to defeat him. I don't like his attitude, or most of his antics. Still, whether it's him or anyone else in office, I support the issue with Iraq. It has nothing to do with the President in office, but a personal conviction related to human rights, and the right of self-determination by people.

Wolf

Wolf,

I guess if there's something I haven't understood, it's the same thing the UN didn't understand.

You don't understand my little comment on the images shown by mistake of Bush getting prepared to deliver that most important speech obviously because you didn't get to watch them, which was all I was curious about, because I had heard that the speech hadn't been broadcasted live in the US.
I did watch them, and number 1: I found a little bit obscene that Mr. Bush was smiling at some points, remember this was happening at the same time the bombings were beginning, but that's just me I guess. Number 2: I don't quite understand why he wouldn't be capable of going live on TV for you all to see. Number 3: It makes me feel a little bit worried that someone whose team manages to let such behind-the-scenes images be shown at such a crucial moment is handling a massive attack on a country “as we speak”. Number 4: When I hear Mr. Bush say he's doing all he's doing to save and defend not only the US citizens, but all of us, I can't help thinking, -please don't, really, don't defend ME in this way.- Number 5: For some reason, this all makes me think of a concept you many times have referred to, propaganda, but that's just me again.

Already some of what are called Sadam's palaces have been hit by missiles, who knows how ancient and precious those buildings are, and do you really think Sadam was actually located there just waiting to be killed? Anyway, that was just a rambling thought I've been having and I thought I'd share it with the board since I haven't heard anybody else worrying about that. Of course we're all experiencing other much more obvious “side-effects” from this whole situation such as the enormous financial loses for the (at least Spanish) tourism related companies, the deteriorated relationship between some European nations, etc….
Sorry but I can't help it if I love beautiful things (very, very old buildings in this case), I love this sentence from one of singer Jewel's songs: “Maybe if we're surrounded in beauty, someday we will become what we see….”

There's one thing I do not understand, and that is how some people, some of you even, seem surprised to find out the Iraqi regime has not gotten rid of all his weapons of mass destruction after all. I, on the other hand, think it's only natural; to be a tyrant, criminal, dictator, etc….doesn't necessarily make someone stupid (a Saint, or so naïve rather), that I can imagine Sadam would REALLY destroy everything he has to defend himself and his country while he's being threatened with war for several months, specially with Bush, whom he might consider his natural enemy, so adamantly wanting to get rid of HIM. That sounds to me like: “OK, you want to kick my butt, here's my ass(leaning over)”….remember we're not talking about the most reasonable of men!….
(Pardon my French)

(Gee!, these days, I really hope that, inspite my English, I'm making myself understood and not misinterpreted)

P.S.: T, thanks so much for your e-mail, I loved the Benjamin Franklin quote.

Sorry Wolf, I just read your last post; I did not get to see the "feeling good part" but the bit I did see was enough, he wasn't smiling broadly or anything, but his half smile (maybe caused by nervousness, who knows?), really made me feel even sadder than I already was.

I love your post, specially the part where you talk about human rights.

So any active war must be supported? I thought that idea was discredited several times over during the 20th century (during the Nuremberg trials, during the Vietnam War, etc.) When a government lies to its people and the world about the terms and reasons for an attack, it is not only patriotic to voice opposition, but it seems to me of questionable morality to do otherwise.

I have friends who are stationed in the Gulf. I admire their patriotism and willingness to place themselves in danger for what they believe is a just cause. I hope they come home safely. But that does not change the fact that the government that sent them there was doing something unjustified. I feel much the same way toward Vietnam veterans I know.

The Bush administration has been dishonest about this war from the start. It has justified it with emotional allusions to the tragedies of 9-11, while admitting when pressed that there is no reason to connect Iraq with terrorist activities. Judging from Ari Fleischer's press conferences and Colin Powell's public presentations, not only has the administration failed to produce a scrap of evidence linking Hussein to Al Quaeda or similar groups, they can't even come up with a vague rumor to link them. But they used the Big Lie approach: say something often enough and people will stop questioning it.

The administration spent months seeking U.N. support for a military assault, and yet repeatedly described that activity as an "attempt to avert war." That's outright Orwellian: using words to mean their opposite.

The administration stated that Hussein could avoid a U.S. invasion of Iraq by going into exile. However, when the administration was finally asked what events would follow if Hussein did that, the response began (and I paraphrase but closely), "Well, first we'd send in our troops...."

We may have another Vietnam on our hands.

You blame the leader who insisted on continuing to use diplomatic means for the fact that the U.S. did not continue to use diplomatic means? All right, now we've moved from Orwell to Lewis Carroll.

I find it hard to believe that people are branding France as a bad ally. The word "ally" doesn't mean someone who will do whatever you tell them to. A true ally -- a true friend -- is someone who will tell you when they think you're about to do something incredibly stupid, dangerous or wrong, whether you want to hear it or not. Yes, Chirac has political motives, but Bush's are more dangerous.

If there are reprisals on U.S. soil, there will be a western political leader to blame, and it won't be Chirac.

The problem with this whole line of reasoning is it contains too many "mays" and "mights." The American way, in theory, is to hold off making accusations (or attacks) until there's evidence. One of the things the U.S. has been proud of in the past is that we didn't approve of first strikes. But then, we also used to feel superior to the Soviet Union because our government didn't spy on its own people and open their mail.

pim,

According to the resolutions of the UN, following the Gulf War, Saddam Hussein's regime was to destroy all WMDs in their possession. It was the agreement made, so we would not topple his government at that time. In reality, the man agreed to the resolution, then flaunted it as if it meant nothing, not only weakening the resolve of the UN, but making a mockery of their decisions. His decision to refuse disarmament happened long before Bush took office, so I don't see that as a pertinent issue.

Yes, I can agree, and see why he would not disarm when Bush began threatening him. But by then, the job should have already been done. We should have never been brought to this position in the first place, since he had over nine years to comply.

In fact, he "kicked the inspectors out," because they were getting too close to his arsenal.

I have no quarrel with your belief that we shouldn't be at war with Iraq. But, where does this all end? Do we, as a world community, allow terrorists to seek asylum in countries, then attack us, and retreat to safety again? In my estimation, any country that harbors terrorists, allows them to train there, or supports them, should be brought to task for what they are doing. If that means violating their country through military action, so be it. We have a right, as people, to protect ourselves from attacks by those who would do all they can, to destroy everything we believe in.

As for the UN, I think it's outlived it's useful life. They proved they were incapable of handling world matters, when they insisted that UN troops stand idly by, and watch genocide happening in Kosovo, simply because they had a "mandate" of non-interference. Disarming people, then watching them slaughtered, is not my idea of how you bring peace to the world.

Wolf

Sorry. I did not mean to insult Fernando and Booklady. I KNOW they are good people. It's just that emotions run high these days (sigh) and I got "a little" carried away. I do HATE William Safire though. Anyway...I really think this war is wrong and the Bush administration is totally inept. I always enjoy your posts Wolf. (more later). Gotta go to work I am so late already.....

el viajero,

Do you honestly believe that France, Germany, and Russia were posturing because of their belief that there was a way that Hussein would live up to the agreement made over a decade earlier?

He'd kicked the inspectors out, and the only reason he even let them back in was because he saw the U.S. building up to take him out.

You should read the documents presented to the UN by the U.S. government. You might also take a look at the satellite pics presented. They tell a story completely contrary to what you're saying about the evidence presented to the UN.

My guess is, based on your views, had the US grabbed a scud out of Iraq, and brought it into the UN, and put it on the table in front of them, you would have said..... "Yeah! But how do we know it's real? Maybe the U.S. made it!"

For some people, there's no evidence that is conclusive. Might you be one of those people?

Wolf

wolf -

I didn't say that Iran wasn't arming itself or lying about what it had. If the administration had focused on that, or the humanitarian crisis within Iraq, or any number of other reasons that might justify this attack, the whole thing would smell less fishy. The fact that they feel the need to keep trotting out the apparently urelated tragedies of 9-11, and using dishonest language in a variety of ways, suggests to me that this attack is about distracting our attention from the Bush administration's failings on the domestic front, rather than being the idealistic crusade the White House claims.

I've just moved this topic to the "Non-Spain Discussion" forum.

back to the original topic, being a traveller in Europe and anti-war sentiment - It would be easier to travel in Europe and say "I am against the war too, I'm not in agreement with US actions" - since in GENERAL, Europeans are against the war and you can discuss the topic in agreement. I was in Paris, Amsterdam and Belgium over Thanksgiving and many times after finding out my friend and I were american, people wanted to jump right into a discussion about politics. I tried to keep those converstations light and change the subject if I had to, since I am for the war, I was on vacation, and I did not feel like a heated debate. War is sad, but I am for this war - at this point. I'm not going to go into why (there's enough discussion about that in the thread already) but I just want to tell other American travellers to be prepared for questions and a little anti-american government feeling (not anti-american, just anti-american government) and just be cafeful - you are a guest in another country and while it is fine and great to debate, just be prepared. I was sitting in a bar in Brugge having a pleasant talk with some old man and out of the blue he said "you are allright for an american but I HATE Bush, I HATE that man. I just politely changed the subject. In Amsterdam, I also found myself defending capitolism and our health care (or lack of) system in the US. Whenever I run into a foreign visitor here, I try to be respectful and just ask questions if I don't agree with their political views. I find more and more that people don't always do that. They will tell you whatever they think! It makes travelling fun, in a way, and sometimes it is a little offensive. Like 13 years ago when I was in a Wimpy's in London's picadilly circus and an arab man cornered me and YELLED at me for 5 minutes about how much he hated americans. It was scary, especially at 18 years old. Just be prepared. It's a learning experience! I try to represent our country by being a considerate traveller. People sometimes assume I may be a little more liberal because I'm female, look pretty young, wear a backpack and a ponytail, like a college student. Plus, I used to be. I protested the first Gulf war! I just have changed my mind since then. But I have never changed my mind about being open-minded, and coming across that way especially when I travel. Allright, I've rambled. Just be prepared Americans - have an open mind, It's OK to disagree but be polite and enjoy your trip.

Great advice, Chicagoan! I think you're exactly right--getting into a heated debate while you're a guest in another country (and are supposed to be enjoying yourself) seems like a silly idea. I think I would take the same strategy I do with my father (who's very pro-Bush)..."gee, Dad, I'm glad to hear what you think; now can we have lunch?"

And in Spain, we can ALL agree on FOOD! MMMM....

I do the same thing to MY Dad, and my mom...and my sister.. who are all very liberal. Fun to argue for a little bit but after awhile... And spanish food - I wish they they sold tortilla espanola in the Illinois center. I think I'll go to my favorite spanish restaurant this weekend!

I like reading the political posts on my lunch break. I must say you, Fernando, Wolf, Pim and Booklady are always fun to read - you guys are well informed and have good debates.

I find it funny that we have live cams set up in Baghdad to wach a war I am ashamed about American media and the general publics view this a war not a TV drama, or video game people are dieng when those bombs go down for god sakes furthermore this is a direct quote from a media spokes men "we are in for a treat we will finally be able to see Americas fire power." I was disgusted by this statement. Also please understand that this war is not again terriosm but against Iraqi soverienty. But dont worry my fellow Americans we will eventually feel the wrath of the muslim world as a whole.

Gee Quintos already saw the "muslim" wrath on 9/11 in NYC. Screw you
You know what? I'm not for this war for some reasons and for it for some other reasons. Its not a simple yes and no and if anybody says Differently...god bless the clarity they have..Quintos I'm glad you sleep well at nights in California.
Much love & Kisses from NYC

Joe,

Last night a small measure of retribution was visited on an al-Qaeda training camp in northern Iraq, which has been protected by Iraqi Republican Guards. They were hit with cruise missles. It's another step towards ridding the earth of these cockroaches. It may not be much, but each time a few of these terrorists get a chance to meet Allah up close and personal, it's a win for everyone. It's also a message to those who don't realize it that al-Qaeda has operated freely within Iraqi borders, and one of the reasons we've taken the actions we have.

Quintos,

The wrath of the Muslim nation? Jihad? So we should back down, and kiss their ... whatever? Is that how the world should handle the threat of terrorism? We should just keep accepting the murders of innocent people because if we don't, "Osama bin Laden, or some other Muslim zealot is going to get us?"

I'm sorry. That's not an acceptable alternative. The time is at hand where the U.S. and it's allies are showing the world that "Anyone who harbors terrorists, aids them, or supports them, is going to pay the price."

There's an old adage, well worth remembering. I think it applies to those of us who enjoy the fruits of American and Spanish independence.

"A brave man/woman only dies once, but a coward dies a thousand deaths."

It a good adage, and well worth remembering.

Wolf

One of the most consistent trends in the current war coverage on America's cable news stations has been the use of sports language like "Saddam thought he'd have a home-field advantage." I can't help wondering whether the reporters talk that way all the time or whether this reflects something about how they view war. The Bush administration was asked repeatedly to explain the connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, and the answer - at least to the best of my recollection - was always that they could not prove any link between them, but that Hussein seemed like the sort of guy who'd be chummy with terrorists. If we're going to accept the White House's claim that 9/11 was a prime justification for this attack, then the kindest explanation is that it was an invasion based on a hunch, and that's not something to be proud of.

As for whether that was really an Al-Qaeda training area they found in the north, what is your source of information? CNN has not reported this, as far as I can tell.

Even if the Pentagon had announced such a thing -- and I'm reserving judgment till I see a news report -- I've lived through enough wars to know that you have to wait awhile to find out whether what the soldiers found in the field bears any resemblance to what the White House and the Pentagon say they found.

If the allied forces displace the current regime, replace it with a non-tyranical government that doesn't abuse and torture, and destroys or at least takes control of dangerous weapons of mass destruction, has a positive outcome occurred? Was this something worth fighting for? Would we have been better off sitting on our hands for another twelve years sipping our Starbucks and cafe con leches?

Is it just American propaganda that reveals Iraqi citizens coming out of their houses to help tear down portraits of Saddam and cheer the allied forces? Was it just propaganda that Iraqi citizens were killed for doing the same thing during the Gulf War? While it has been said that many American don't support this, despite recent Gallup polls which indicate 76% do, have these anti-war Americans discussed the issue with the Iraqi immigrants who have settled in the United State. A recent local newspaper surveyed those immigrants who knew the horrors of Hussein the best, and they supported the campaign to free their former country.

And, remember, these "historical" palaces, many built in the last 20 years by Hussein himself, can not compare to our National landmarks. Who enjoys these palaces of the tyrant? Are they open to the public? Can anyone visit these "historical" treasures other than the cowardly dictator who bunkers down inside them?

I do not like war, I do not like to see young men and women (Iraqi, British, American) killed. Diplomatic attempts should always occur first. Unfortunately, Saddam Hussein has done things on his own terms. He has failed to take substantial steps over the last 12 years, only doing so, and then the bare minimum, when pushed to the brink. His people have suffered due to sanctions while he rests in comfort in these precious, historical palaces. Should we allow his nation's children to suffer so that we save a palace?

I am proud to be an American and I support my government. It frustrates me to see Americans acting cowardly and stating, "accept me as an individual and do not hold me accountable for my government for I am ashamned of them". America is not Iraq, we the people have control over our government. President Bush is not a dictator who acts alone. If you are traveling overseas and feel that, when approached by a citizen of another country, you need to state "like me but not my government", please do us all a favor and stay overseas.

Hi there.

I have been thinking about this issue for weeks. My beliefs are not something that has occured to me last night, but I've just being listening different points of view for and against this war, and have reached to some conclusions.

As I have said there are almost the same arguments to be for and against the war.

Some people ask why US is that concerned about Irak's regimen while there are dozens of other antidemocratic regimes around the world. These same people support France's statements about the war. The answer is quite simple, not every antidemocratic government has mass destruction weapons. Hey, but US, UK, Rusia, China, France and others have them... yes, but they use it with responsability, and only as a dissuasion tool, while Irak has used to attack both its own denizens and those from other neighbour countries (Kuwait, Israel and Iran).

Those who openly protest against this war deliberately ignore every other war in the world. Why they didn't protest against Chechenia war? Why they aren't protesting against the three open conflicts in which France is using 30,000 soldiers to support or depose dictatorships in Marble Coast, Centroafrican Republic, and Sierra Leona? Why they didn't protest against these wars?

The only explanation I have found (and I know this is going to make me gain some enemies...) is that european leftists continue to be strongly antiamerican, antisemit and quite antidemocratic. Here you can openly speak against Bush saying that you hate him (as Pim has done), but never dae to speak as I'm doing because you are automaticly labeled as a fascist (no matter that you are not). I consider myself politically left-centrist in some matters and right-centrist in others. But I can't stand this hypocresy of calling Aznar an assasin, Bush a dictator and yelling for Sadam as I have seen in demonstrations these days, while PP's sites, meetings and candidates where attacked or weren't allowed even to speak. THAT IS NOT A DEMOCRACY. No matter that you don't agree with them (I sometimes agree, others not).

I don't totally support every US action. I realize that in the past, the present and the future it has commited grave errors that have cost human lifes (for example giving Irak chemical weapons). The one who does something commit errors, the ones who does nothing are free of them. It is very popular and easy to lower defense costs letting US assume them and then criticize them for being that belicist.

Then things like Bosnia, Croatia, Kosovo and Albania happen. We europeans let a fascist dictator to exterminate a million inocents in our own faces. Hollish soldiers did nothing when serbs executed 30,000 men in Svrenica, and again at last were the US that put order in that countries.

I don't like war anymore than any of you. I wonder for every human life lost in this conflict (even if he was Sadam himself). But if this is the unique way (after 12 years of diplomacy) to disarm a bloody and irresponsible regime, so be it.

I would say to my fellow countrymen: Remember who your allies are. In the last 25 years we owe more to the US than to any other country. Nor the french who washed their hands with ETA terrorism until 5 years ago or called Morocco a friend when they military occupied a spanish territory. Israel trained our inteligence agency against ETA, US aided us with echelon system. Remember that our arab allies have congratulate us 3 days ago for our efforts in this crisis. Remember that they have advised us when some radical islamists wanted to bomb us. Remember that Tarek Aziz menaced us with more terrorism.

Are we doing to do nothing against islamist terrorists? Remember that we did nothing against ETA and their supporters for 20 years, did we had success? Against terrorists we must act or face undesired consequences.

I will defend myself always with arguments, no matter that some people may think I'm hallucinating.

Fernando

el viajero,

Lest we get into a war of words over something that the American government said, this report should be enough to make you see the connection.

http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/mena/ansarbk020503.htm

The ties are real, and reports from the Turkish government, and even Iranian sources confirm that this group has been operating independently in Iraq, without government intervention. In fact, there are reports from Kurdish, Turkish, and Iranian sources which indicate that Hussein has helped their cause with assistance, "under the table."

Believe what you want. I repeat. It was just a little "retribution," since they are tied to al-Qaeda. Since this source is The Human Rights Watch, it's pretty rediculous to say these aren't facts.

Wolf

Many of my friends, who know me well, have asked me why I am not part of the peace movement. My answer, and this is one that took me many months to reach, is what counter policy does the peace movement provide the world? Other than supporting Saddam Hussein indirectly, if not directly? Or, bashing the U.S.?

Are they upholding universal human values? The world has yet to reach agreement on universal human values. The peace movement has not yet said that it will not stand for the oppression of Iraqi and Kurdish women? The Iraqi genocide of the Shiites in Iraq? The horrible repression of human rights by Iraq? As I looked at the banners, I did not see any banners saying: "Stop the rape of Iraqi women," or, "Stop building Palaces and give bread to the Iraqi people."

For many years the UN sanctions against Iraq have been criticized. The poverty, lack of food, medicine, etc. that the Iraqi people have had to live, yet Saddam Hussein has used the funds for Oil-for-Food, to build these beautiful palaces, which some people actually feel sad about their destruction! Saddam Hussein has used the oil black Market to enrich himself. Forbes Magazine carried an article about Saddam being on the top Billionaire list! He likes the sanctions, he has become enriched and can still blame the West and the U.N. for the social conditions in Iraq!

But what the folks in the Peace Movement have failed to realize is that Saddam did not disarm peacefully. He lost his war of aggression against another Arab nation, Kuwait. He was told to disarm and allow U.N. inspectors to view the destruction of these weapons. He had many chances to do so, many years to do so. The plain fact is that he had no plan to disarm. He lied about having SCUD missiles, that's a fact. If he disarmed, he had no need to use the SCUD's.

So why do I support our coalition soldiers? Because they are taking care of the mess that the U.N. failed to fix. Why? I am afraid of another Twin Towers catastrophe, hitting our country or our allied countries. Is that selfish? Ask yourself, do you want Madrid, Barcelona, Nice, Paris, Rome, Florence, London, hit like New York City was?

It does not take a person with a great brain, to come to the conclusion that if you have a person like Saddam Hussein, with billions of oil dollars, and a strong hatred toward the West, particularly the U.S., that he is not going to support the terrorists any way he can? He openly gives thousands of dollars to families of dead terrorists.

Terrorism is an expensive undertaking. You have to have money to support terrorism. Saddam Hussein has been supporting terrorism. He needs to be stopped for the sake of the Iraqi people and for the sake of our own folks back home!

QUINTOS,
Life must be grand for you to sit back in sunny California and make those nice remarks to the board and wishing for all Americans to feel that retribution. Hmm, are you aware of the fact that Joe Sambuca and I have travelled and worked as Americans abroad. But no, how would a small pea brain like YOU know. Instead, you are living comfortably in CALIFORNIA, taking in the sun, have access to a computer, phone, and living large. Gee, you don't appear to be living off the WELFARE SYSTEM unless ,,,,,,,,
Oh, I'm not finished,,,,,,,,,,,
First, Lets get the facts straight, can you handle the truth QUINTOS? ONE: SADDAM HUSSEIN IS A GENOCIDIST, JUST LIKE HITLER!!!!!!!!!
SECOND: THOUGH I BELIEVE IN PEACE AND TRANQUILITY, THIS ISSUE WITH SADDAM HUSSEIN SHOULD HAVE BEEN DEALT WITH 12 YEARS AGO. BUT DUE TO THE PUBLIC OUTRAGE, THE WAR STOPPED. I KNOW BECAUSE I WAS AT THE UNITED NATIONS. SADDAM HUSSEIN CONTINUED WITH HIS INBRED, DECEITFUL AND MANIACAL POGROM THAT PURPOSLEY DESTROYED 1.5 MILLION PEOPLE. AND DO YOU KNOW HOW I KNOW, BECAUSE I HAVE HAD THE JOYOUS JOB OF REVIEWING REPORTS ON THIS GUY'S "PROGRAM"
SO WHEN YOU ARE READY TO GROW UP AND DECIDE WHAT IS GOOD AND BAD, BY REASON OF INSANITY, LET ME KNOW!!!!!
AND NOW: I AM WILLING TO PAY FOR A ROUND TRIP TICKET TO NEW YORK CITY, YES FOLKS I AM OFFERING THIS MAN A TICKET TO NYC( do I hear the Rolling Stones with that stanza)TO HANG WITH ME AND JOE SAMBUCA,NOT TO FORGET NATE ALSO, AS TO GIVE QUINTOS A HISTORY LESSON, STARTING WITH GROUND ZERO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THEN, I WILL END THE DAY WITH A PERSONAL TOUR, OF WHAT FUNDAMENTALISM, EITHER RELIGIOUS OR POLITICAL CAN DO AROUND THE WORLD,,,,,HMMM. QUINTOS YOU ARE NOT A MASAGINIST ARE YA,,,,,?
BY THE BY, QUINTOS: ARE YOU GOING TO MADRID,
I SURE HOPE SO, IM A DYING TO MEET YA(thanks, Mick Jagger) BECAUSE YOU, JOE SAMBUCA, AND 2 OTHER PERSONELL FROM THE FRONT LINES, I'M NOT SAYING JUST MILITARY BUT SOCIALLY WILL HAVE A GREAT TIME DISCUSSING THE "MUSLIM" ISSUE, SINCE ONE OF THEM IS MUSLIM,HMMMMM READY FOR THAT?

ANYWAY SORRY WOLF, MADRID MAN AND ALL BUT I HAVE HAD ENOUGH TODAY ABOUT THE BAD USA. I'M USUALLY SILENT (BUT DEADLY) AND CAUTIOUS, BUT QUINTOS CAN ONLY SHOW HIS HATRED AND BIGOTRY AS USUAL AS PART OF HIS TRUE PERSONALITY.

much love all,
respectfully
ANN M. O'CONNOR
AKA
NEW YORK RED

NEWYORKERD dont you think you are over reacting calm down just because you live in NEWYORK doesnt mean that you are a sage or any thing like that.AGAIN CALM DOWN!!!! WHAT ARE YOU THE FORUM MAFIA I NEVER ATTACKED THE US OR ANY THING ONY THE WAY THE MEDIA POTRAYED THE WAR JESUS YOU GUYS ARE SO UP TIGHT SCREW IM NOT GOING TO POST ON THE NEGATIVE FORUMS ANY MORE I JUST GET PISSED OFFif I said I hate the US I would understand but I did not attack any one except the media and the people view on the war in general.Every one on this forum get pissed off because they know that they know nothing about Iraq and how stupid it is to say that this is for iraqi freedom any one that bilieves that crud is a moron further more the people when ever I mention further terriosm from muslims you guys emediatly become angered dont you understand that in the very book of the Koran it says to kill infidels well did you? NEWYORKERD and dont judge me in less I attack you personally. Also Suddam hasnt killed many of his own peolple mainly Kurds in the North which are not Iraqis. Hitler and Suddam CAN NOT be compared because Hitler killed millions Suddam thousands

Oh my Quintos, Let me guess, you personally have studied the Koran, and you have lived with "Muslims" to?
Hmm, the last time I spoke and lived with a revered IMAM and his family, the word infidel was related to a later transcription brought about by the FUNDAMENTALISTS. In fact, Quntos, living in Lebanon, another war torn country gave me great insight to fundamentalism,,,hm so I guess I have a little more info on the subject, next to YOU of course.
But then again, you are soo educated and so adept at this thing called "DIPLOMACY", that it surprises me you have not answered the immediate question,, do you have proof and have had the last number of years to study hypocrasy and politicism with the genocide of millions, I have. I have personaly seen by my own two eyes what weapons of mass destruction can and has performed. Hmm, the fact I live in New York is just an added bonus babeee! :p
Oh by the by,, taking me up on the trip Quintos ? love to meet you and show the real facts of terrorism while we are on the subject.!


Oh I forgot to add Quintos, you sure about that number of Kurds, you sure, you wanna bet your bottom dollar the one you will spend for your suntan lotion that Hussein only killed a few????????
Because I can pit my numbers from WHO and the UNICM versus your "encyclopedia" including a quacamole dip to add since you seem so sure?? But then I forgot you are "THE MAN" when it comes to the "KNOW IT ALLS" or in history "THE NO-NOTHINGS" . But then I'm sure you know who are the no-nothings dont cha Quintos?????????

Let's all please take a deeeeep breath and calm down a bit on this passionate issue. Thanks.

HAHAHAAAAAAA come on man calm down

NYRED,

You have absolutely no reason to apologize to me. I know where you, Joe, and Nate have been. I know your job doesn't mean sitting behind a desk in NY, it includes going to the four corners of the world, and trying to salvage a few broken bodies, and lives, after the Saddam Husseins of the world do their best to destroy these people.

I totally agree with you. Until these "anti-war" people get a chance to taste the devastation, or have their families suffer under the hands of a tyrant, they are just blowing smoke. They have no idea what it means to live like there is no hope.

Wolf

WOLF
Thank-you for those words of encouragement.
My experiences with so many individuals have enabled me to get a 360 degree view. Now mind you I may not agree always with the Administrative Branch, especially former President Clinton, but I do respect the criteria. Respect can and does go along way.
Today, I received information that a close friend missed the grenade attack from a fellow Marine. This makes me sad, to think, that fellow soldiers ready to protect their own and their country would turn. But the reality is, as I have witnessed time and time again, misrepresented fools and their idealism will askew the clarity involved.
With respect to all others who I will see again and to those I will meet for the first time in Madrid, our conversation should be spent on going forward and not on the "stagnant issues".
I have been known to "put my cards on the table",when it is necessary.
WOLF It's now that you should make plans for "High Noon" in Madrid. It would be exhilerating to see you at the US Embassy when a few of us arrive. Chorizo, Potatos with hot sauce and Rijo.
MADRID MAN The Chorizo served at the Cafe outside the US Embassy is not bad. It's the Potatos with HOT SAUCE is the real taste of one's strength. :o
Till we meet again!!!!!!
NEW YORK RED

NYRED,

There's nothing that I'd like more than being able to meet with you and others, but at this time, due to other engagements, there's no way I can get to Madrid. I'm afraid I won't even be able to consider it for over a year.

But, if I do get a chance to get to NYC to visit our son, I would enjoy meeting you, Nate, and Sam, if you are there. In fact I'd consider it an honor to buy all of you a drink. What the three of you do is not recognized as much as it should be, and I know you don't do it for the money, because it certainly isn't there.

In fact, let's make that two drinks. You certainly deserve it for the work you do.

Wolf (Whose respect for people who care for others knows absolutely no limits.)

I'd like to outrage a few people here and thank Jose Maria Aznar for his courageous stand with the USA against the Iraqi regieme. I think I speak for many (though certainly not all) Americans who feel that the US has been abandoned by many, and worse stabbed in the back by some, nations that were formerly allies. The generousity of the US to many of these fair-weather "friends" has been unprecedented in the history of the world. Spain, thank you for supporting the USA now and in the future.

Kurt, it's genuinely kind of you to thank President José María Aznar for his support. Seemingly, he speaks only for the Spanish government and not for the majority of the Spanish people themselves - just an observation. This is often the case with governements and the people they govern having conflicting views/opinions on issues.

Saludos, MadridMan

You certainly are correct, Kurt, in your assumption that Americans feel distressed by the way our "so called" friends treated us recently. I have already shared with this board what my feelings are for M. Chirac's actions.

That's why, like you, so many of us are grateful to the British, Australian, Spanish and the other coalition governments that support us.

I am truly sad at the tragedy that we could not have resolved this peaceably, or as a United group of Nations. But now we find out why members of the Security Council acted as they did. The Russians sold Saddam anti-GPX devices. This device only places the civilian populations at jeopardy. So much for their humanitarian concerns.

Actually, we're disagreeing over what the U.S. government didn't say, but that's splitting hairs.

It says the allegations are real, not the ties. It repeatedly includes disclaimers such as "Human Rights Watch has not investigated the alleged links between the Iraqi government and Ansar al-Islam, and is not aware of any convincing evidence supporting this contention."

HRW does document horrific human-rights abuses in Iraq, but that has never been the White House's principal justification for this invasion, nor has Bush announced a worldwide war on religious intolerance and genocide. If he did, a lot of people who oppose this assault on Iraq would be behind it. However, this assault has always been touted as the first salvo in The War On Terrorism.

I'm not an ideologue about opposing this war: I can certainly be convinced. Heck, I'd prefer to be convinced. I'd love to feel the pride about this military incursion that some folks here obviously feel. But I think that if the White House or the Pentagon really had proof linking Saddam Hussein to terrorism, we'd have heard it by now from Ari Fleischer or Colin Powell. If such evidence existed, it would be in Bush's interest to share it with the world.

Now that we've launched the largest air assault in history, almost anything Iraq does on U.S. soil is a legitimate act of war by any standard. Surely there will be people who will then say, "See? We *told* you he was a terrorist." But that's like jabbing a bear with a sharp stick and then saying "See? I *told* you he was dangerous" when he bites your arm off.

Madridman,

Are we certain that President Aznar doesn't speak for the majority of Spaniards? I don't know if that's correct or not. From what I've gathered, even though I'm not certain, the polls that indicate 80% of the Spanish population is against his stand has been derived through radically disposed groups, opposed to Aznar, who have their own following. If that's true, the results would definitely be skewed, and it might not be anywhere near the true feelings of the people.

In either case, I too applaude President Aznar for his stance on the issue. It's leaders like him that are gaining respect from nations of the world who refuse to accept being subjected to the atrocities of terrorism, and despots, and from "peace-niks" whose concerns have never been for the rights of humans, just their own cozy little worlds.

I also agree with Fernando. How can anyone talk about "peace," and do it violently? It's an oxymoron, and to be honest, the people who act that way can leave the "oxy" off their names. They are, in every sense of the word, morons. They'd silence objectors to their point of view through violence.

Gee! Doesn't that sound like something we've already seen? Oh yeah! Demonstrations in places like Baghdad, where anyone who would dare to oppose this unruly crowd would be killed.

Wolf

Hi, Wolf --

A tiny percentage of the world's millions of peace protesters gets out of hand, and you think that discredits the entire cause? Are you personally responsible for every act carried out by people with whom share common causes?

Opinion polls are always an iffy proposition, but 80% may be close to the mark. Think about it: most liberals (in the American sense of the word) will oppose the war, while the right wingers (Opus Dei and less extreme variations) will side with the Pope, who is against the war. A lot of politically moderate Catholics who don't feel strongly one way or the other on the war may also side with the Church. That leaves mostly secular conservatives, who are numerous, and some of those will probably be for and others against. In any case, I think it's a safe bet that most Spaniards are against the war, even if it's not 80%.

Most Spaniards are against this war. The percentage could be 80-90%. In fact, Fernando, you're the only Spaniard I know (besides PP politicians) who is pro-war. So I wouldn't applaude Aznar or any president who is deaf to the will of his people (people he should be representing, those who voted him and democratically elected him). More than 4 million Spaniards have demonstrated against the war on the streets these days and he doesn't seem to care.

This war seems to many of us not only illegal (war hasn't been aproved by the UN) but also inmoral (I'd like to live in a country that doesn't change innocent lives for economical benefits). Just calling it “Operation Iraqui Freedom” is as demagogic as it gets, freedom for whom, Shell, Exxon, BP, ...? Or freedom to have a geostrategical position in the Middle East? Ronald Rumsfeld has forgotten very quickly how he shook hands with Sadam during Iran-Iraq war and aided him with biological weapons. But, of course, these WMD were “the good ones”, weren't they?

Let's hope we'll see them all (Bush, Blair, puppet Aznar and Sadam) judged for their crimes in an International Court in the future.

Castiza,

We readily admit we made a mistake with Saddam Hussein, when we supported him. It wasn't a great moment in American history. Still, you are looking past the human rights violations, and the threat to peace in that region, when you say that this war is a crime. You're also saying that this war would have been "legal" if France, Germany, and Russia had signed on board, in the UN.

Am I missing something here? Are you saying that those three "great humanitarian nations" are correct?

Still, in your own words, you've essentially admitted that Hussein should be brought down, when you indicated he should face a world court for his crimes.

So what's your idea on how we get rid of him? Throw grapes at him? Obviously sanctions don't work because he has his buddies in France, Germany, and Russia playing footsie with him, and he's business as usual.

el viajero,

I agree that it's just a small percentage of the protestors who perform acts of violence. The majority of them protestors are non-violent.

I'm fairly well convinced the vast majority of people in Spain are against this war as well, but I am at a loss as to figure out why. I keep hearing statements about leaving Hussein alone, but I never hear anything that tells us how we can get rid of this cancer on the face of the earth. I also agree with your analysis of why certain groups of people will automatically be against it. Strangely enough, not that long ago, I would have probably been one of them. What changed my POV was the facts that I kept digging up. They told me I was wrong.

Over the years, one of the biggest lessons I learned was that you "never offer criticism, you must offer constructive criticism." I guess that's what puzzles me. How do people propose taking care of this man without taking him down?

What I respect most is your ability to deal with facts. Even if we disagree on an issue, it becomes a point of debate, not a mud slinging contest. It's always good to hear valid points of view, even if they oppose our own.

Wolf

Hi again, Wolf --

I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, so I've been trying to think if there's any good motive I can ascribe to George W. Well, I finally came up with one. It's an unlikely scenario, but here goes:

Let's imagine that the human rights abuses by Saddam and company really *are* Bush's motives. Saddam is a mess that a previous White House administration made, and Bush wants to mop it up. However, to justify invading a sovereign nation, he has to pretend that there's evidence linking Hussein to the 9/11 terrorists. Result: wildly inconsistent, borderline incoherent public statements trying to justify the war in the name of national defense and a War on Terrorism, with secondary allusions to the morally admirable (but legally harder to justify) reasons for the war.

There... my good deed for the day.

Not unilaterally (or nearly unilaterally).

During the 12 years after the 1991 Gulf War, the world diplomatic community paid little attention to what was going on in Iraq, with the result that Hussein had little incentive to comply with the terms of the cease-fire. Once the U.S. and Britain refocused attention on the Gulf and the threat of military action loomed large, Hussein's people began cooperating to some degree with the weapons inspectors. If the inspections had been allowed to go on, it seems likely that one of two things would have happened: either Hussein would have disarmed (unlikely), or a consensus in favor of military action would have grown.

One of the main problems in this affair is that the U.S. came off as a bully: we kept saying we wouldn't invade if Hussein met certain terms, and then we kept changing the terms. The impression that came across was that Bush wanted to invade no matter what, and that the offers of terms were lies.

Rightly or wrongly, Bush entered the White House with limited credibility for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the lingering question of whom the American electorate actually chose in 2000. Perhaps more than any other president, he needs to avoid being perceived as a blatant liar, and he has displayed a singular lack of caution on that count. In terms of Bush's public image, I don't think Ari Fleischer's penchant for evasiveness, obvious disdain for the press, and love of empty catch-phrases are helping very much, either.

Just my 2c worth.

Thanks! I appreciate hearing your POV as well.

Fortunately, MadridMan's bbs system lets me edit out the really choice bits from my messages before anyone sees them.

Saludos.

Madridman: Governmnets are elected to act on behalf of the people who elected them. That does not mean that voters MUST be consulted on each and every issue. Aznar is acting on his (and his ministers) beleifs as to what is in the interest of the Spanish nation. That opinion polls are currently against this position does not make it any less legitemate. BTW...what exactly are the questions being asked in these 'opinion polls' everyone points to? "Are you against war in Iraq?" is not a fair question and does not reflect the issues involved.

Within the last few hours, the U.S. military found a chemical plant in Iraq. It was secreted with sand cast camouflage. At this point, nobody is positive as to what chemicals they have found, but tests will begin as soon as the area is totally secured.

If this is in fact chemicals associated with chemical weapons, and clearly proves that Iraq did in fact violate the UN accords, how many of you who have taken "anti-war" stances, and said you did because we lacked "proof" that Iraq was violating the accords will come over to our side, and admit that the question of force asked by the U.S., Spain, and the UK, was justified?

Or... will you continue to offer the "anti-war" sentiment, even though the bubble of your defense for us not being there has been burst?

It's a fair question, and I believe it should be answered.

I'll wait, somewhat patiently......

Wolf

To define the Human Rights Issue in the United Nations regarding the situation in Iraq, I will comment on that issue personally and professionally.
One; The last 12 years of ongoing Intelligence Reports have shown the genocide with the administration of Iraq at the helm. The Human Rights Division of the UN consistently argued their reports to the UN WHO. The Human Rights Division continued to produce reports on other Middle Eastern Countries, but fell on deaf ears, why you ask,,,,,,,,, Let me explain
OIL MINISTERS AND THE FEAR OF HIKED PRICES AND OIL EMBARGOS THREATENED AGAINST THE WORLD. AND YES FRANCE HAD THEIR HANDS IN THAT PIE AS WELL AS THE GERMANS. IN RETURN FOR SILENCE AND THE SCUTTLEBUCK OF THIS ISSUE, THESE 2 COUNTRIES OFFERED HIGH TECHNOLOGY TO IRAQ FOR A MISSIVE OBLIGATORY RECOGNITION FROM IRAQ THAT IRAQ WOULD FIX THE PROBLEM EVENTUALLY
Two: This problem should have been resolved 12 years ago, when the United States and the UN Security Council had the go ahead, but no,, the public had their outrage. Instead of showing the world through open communication and media related avenues of the horrors, it went silent. Therefore the "SLEEPING BEAR" just waited.
So ladies and gentlemen, pointing fingers in a late stage does not resolve the issue.
The final resolve is to end the "secret", to end the "lies" that Iraq, Iran and other Middle Eastern countries have held for quite some time.
The truths are as follows: NIMBY aka NOT IN MY BACKYARD
These countries that despair has followed and continues must be pushed out unto center stage. These countries are OUR problem, lest everyone forgets. These countries are a hidden threat that undermine the existence of respect for human rights.
But as long as the public have their "heads in the clouds with the silver lining" thinking that "poor them and nasty us" should think twice.
Again, I re-iterate look at the facts, not the ballon. The facts are real, do not mistake just a quote or the "hidden reason" as the answer by the USA and Great Britain "picking on Saddam. Saddam Hussein had the chance to clean up his act and refused. Instead he uses his people: aka: women and children as laboratory rats and human shields. Or have we forgotten the Death Camps from wars before.
Respectfully,
NEW YORK RED

AMEN, NEW YORK RED!

My point exactly about the peace movement, what is the movement counter policy to the acts of horror that have taken place in Iraq? Is their solution to leave Saddam and his govenrment to continue ad infinitum?

MUCH OBLIGED AND MY VERY GRATEFUL THANKS BOOKLADY
On Monday, I will be presenting the recent health care concerns featuring,,yes everybody,,,Chemical Warfare, and other atrocities that will affect the population in the Mediterranean.
Hmmmm, ya think anyone from the Human Rights will be there ? I highly doubt it!!!!!!!!
But in my heart when I speak, I will remember all those who have felt the shame. loss of life and and the ongoing bitter feeling to those who died and to those who continue to survive.
It is to them I have hats off to, for who am I to walk in their shoes?
Best Wishes
NEW YORK RED

For another view on Iraqi brutality, check out this link: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/si_online/news/2003/03/24/son_of_saddam/

I know, I will regret this. I know it with certainty.
Everytime I get involved in this thread I get an ache in my stomach, but anyway I just needed to post the following:
"Richard Perle, who happens to be chairman of Mr. Bush's defence policy board, only this week called the UN "the chatterbox on the Hudson" - despite the fact that it's on the East River (hope his geography is a bit more accurate when he starts ordering the bombing!)
Perle was penning an obituary for the United Nations and he didn't seem too sad to see it go. "What will die is the fantasy of the UN as the foundation of a new world order...the liberal conceit of safety through international law administered by international institutions."
And what will replace the UN, in Mr. Perle's fairy tale world? Why the good ole USA of course! It will administer worldwide justice and punishment in the interests of "a new century favourable to American principles and interests"." (from Terry Jones, http://www.observer.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,919899,00.html )
So Mr. Perle has just announced the birth of a new empire. Heil Perle!
By the way, I came across the other day to the answer of an old thread in this same board: Why was the first inspectors team kicked out of Irak? Well, just ask Scott Ritter, who was one of them and openly admitted being a spy. Anyway, not even him found a clue about forbidden weapons.

Wolf
I will not believe one single JOT that comes out from the US army sources; I think they have got totally discredited along last years, and especially from the beginning of this crisis. So I will not care a damn if they say that they have found a smalpox storage, of the damned gate to hell in Saddam´s cellar. If they are as reliable as when they bombed a medicine factory in Sudan, a convoy of refugees in Kosovo, or a bus in Syria, then I guess there is not the least reason to believe anyone wearing an uniform and talking in the bubbling box.
What is exactly the explanation from US government? "Oh, what a pity! We (and others) supported and armed Saddam for decades! How could we do such a mistake? We armed the Taliban, hey, that was not a good idea. We shot Mossadegh and eventually brought Islamic revolution to Iran. We greeted the birth of Pakistan, the first Islamic Republic in history, now a nuclear power. Our "intelligent bombs" have a strange knack to blast Chinese embassies and Syrian buses."
That makes up many mistakes in a row, I am afraid. But surely the guys on top know what they are doing:
"The answer is, now let`s start a new war, transform Irak into a protectorate, support Islamic bigotry in that country, and of course go on selling the Saudis all the weapons they need."
See? New mistakes for the future. Everything goes OK

Check this out!
Saddam is in big trouble now!

Upi

Maybe this will lighten the mood

The Lords of Vengeance
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Monday 24 March 2003

We have become, with a sudden jolt, a divided nation in this time
of war. Demands that Americans leave aside protests, accusations and anger
in order to support our military work in Iraq have gone unheeded by great
segments of the population. Millions of people have poured into the streets
of virtually every city in the country to demand that the bombing be
stopped, and that the troops be brought safely home. Those protests have
been met by equally enraged citizens who see these protests as an aid to
terrorists and an act of treason. Americans scream obscenities at Americans
across lines created by armored police.

This will only get worse, as both groups are hardened in their
opinions and beliefs. In the final analysis, questions of who is right and
who is wrong fall by the wayside, as both sides stand secure in their
rectitude. In such a polarized situation, right and wrong will be
determined between these groups when one side quits.

Caught in the middle is a group far larger than the combined mass
of the citizens described above. This group may be unsure, may fall to one
side or the other on a daily basis, but essentially support the war. It is
to this group in particular that I address my words.

I understand why you support this engagement. At bottom, you do
so because you are loyal. The President has said it must be so, and so it
must be so. The loyalty of this nation's citizenry is now and has always
been our greatest strength. Many of you who support the war are veterans of
other conflicts, and so your support is based upon a desire to stand with
the troops now in harm's way. This is more than honorable.

Many of you believe this must happen because you have been told,
time and again, that Saddam Hussein possesses an awesome arsenal of mass
destruction weapons that he will gladly give to terrorists for use against
us. Your belief that this is so stems from your loyalty - the President has
told you it is true, and so it must be true. It is fearful indeed to
consider weapons like this in the hands of terrorists.

You must know, however, that no proof of either prohibited
weapons possession or connections to terrorism on the part of Saddam Hussein
has been offered by the administration. They have made many accusations,
and offered chunks of evidence, but over the last weeks and months each and
every bit of evidence put forth has been debunked. Sometimes, the press has
proven them wrong, sometimes the weapons inspectors in Iraq proved them
wrong, and sometimes our own intelligence services proved them wrong. No
proof offered by the Bush administration has stood up. None.

Likewise, many of you support this war because of the deplorable
suffering Saddam Hussein has inflicted upon his own people. There is no
denying the barbarous nature of this dictator, and no one worth a damn would
ever lift a finger to defend his actions. You have been told that the Iraqi
people will be freed by this conflict, that democracy is coming to that
tired and torn nation. For many of you, this is more than enough reason to
support this action.

Unfortunately, it is all but certain that the Iraqi people will
see neither freedom nor democracy because of the cultural divisions within
that nation. Iraq is divided into three groups: Shia, Sunni and Kurd. The
Shia make up over 60% of the Iraqi population, and are ideologically and
theocratically aligned with the hard-liners who rule Iran. Should we bring
western-style majority-rules democracy to Iraq, we would be setting the
stage for a debilitating alliance between Iran and Iraq. The Kurds will
never be allowed to rule Iraq or anything else; we have already promised
Turkey this. Only the Sunnis remain as the viable future leaders of Iraq.
Saddam Hussein is a Sunni, and the tribal politics of the Iraqi Sunni
guarantee that whoever replaces Hussein will be as bad as he was to the
other Iraqi groups, or worse.

I fear that too many of you support this war because you have
relied upon our mainstream television news media for information about this
whole issue. It is telling indeed that, in an age where news comes in 24
hour chunks, where viewers have a galaxy of channels to watch and become
informed, some 40% of Americans believe that Saddam Hussein was directly
responsible for and involved in the attacks of September 11. This simply
isn't true; virtually every non-partisan and objective source considered
credible in America dismisses said connection out of hand. The fact that
this glaring misconception is held by such a large group of Americans shines
a nauseating light upon the level of journalism being practiced by those who
come on our televisions to provide us with the facts. It is also
worthwhile, and disappointing, to note that the Bush administration has done
little, if anything, to disabuse Americans of this very incorrect
connection.

At the end of the day, though, I think I know the true reason why
you support this war. You still see September 11th when you close your
eyes. You still fear blue skies and airplanes. You tremble when your
subway dives down into a tunnel, you grip the wheel tighter when you drive
across a bridge, and your stomach sinks when you know that, again tomorrow,
you must face a day of work in a high-rise office building. You, a mighty
American, citizen of the greatest nation that has ever existed, have been
made to fear on your own soil.

Somehow, somewhere, someone has to pay for that. Afghanistan was
not enough, though our forces destroyed at least as many civilians in
driving out the Taliban as were lost in New York and Washington and
Pennsylvania. It does not satisfy, because you know that in some place
under the stars right now, Osama bin Laden is walking around alive and free.
George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and the generals and soldiers who
now wage war in Iraq are your lords of vengeance. They bring the hard fist
of retaliation down upon a nation we have despised for over a decade now.
You speak of fearing chemical weapons, you speak of standing with the
troops, you speak of bringing freedom and democracy to the Iraqi people, but
when all is said and done you watch the terrible blooming of fires and
explosions in Baghdad and a voice whispers within you, "There. Payback.
Finally, payback."

I cannot, and would not, judge you for this, for I feel the same way
about 9/11. Few Americans, even after the time that has passed, can
contemplate that day without feeling a desire to see someone bleed for it.
Yet even that dark and ancient reason must bend to the
consequences. Seventy two hours of war on Iraq have passed, and in that
short time a number of incredibly bad things have happened. We shot down a
British plane with one of our Patriot missiles, killing the crew. An as-yet
uncounted number of American Marines have been killed and wounded in clashes
near Nasiriya, and others have died in a helicopter crash. Twelve Americans
have been captured by Iraqi forces and are being held in an undisclosed
location. Images of their faces were broadcast on the Al Jazeera network,
and it was clear that many were wounded.

Several American missiles have struck targets in Iran, including
a government building that housed the Iranian Oil Ministry. Iran has
reacted to this with anger, and if they decide to roll tanks and engage in
this fight, our forces will be in grave trouble. To the north, Turkish
forces have poured across the border into Iraq. Turkey has for years
coveted the oil fields around Mosul and Kirkuk, and has likewise wished to
crush for all time the Kurds and their hopes for an independent state.

A soldier with the 101st Airborne apparently went mad and
attempted to assassinate his brigade commanders in a grenade attack that
killed one person and wounded a dozen others. The Vietnam war gave us a
term for such an atrocity: "Fragging." The soldier in question has been
detained, and there is an investigation underway, but the blow to morale
among Airborne troops is incalculable.

Baghdad, Basra and several other cities have been bombed
repeatedly, setting ablaze neighborhoods and killing scores of civilians.
Perhaps most frightening is the fact that the Marines who fought in Nasiriya
came under fire from Iraqis wearing civilian clothes. It has been posited
that these were Iraqi troops dressed as common civilians, and this may be
true. It could also be true that the Iraqi people are not greeting American
forces with the joy we were expecting. The fact remains, however, that from
this point on every civilian in Iraq will be considered hostile. This was
the darkest aspect of the Vietnam war, when troops were unable to tell
friend from foe. The confusion led not only to great strain among our
soldiers, but to terrible acts of violence perpetrated against innocent
non-combatants.

Basra has not fallen. Umm Qasr has not fallen. Nasiriya has not
fallen. Resistance has grown exponentially, and our casualties mount.
Looming in the distance is Baghdad and urban warfare, which may begin as
soon as Tuesday. The death toll among our fighting men and women will rise
in horrible fashion if we become engaged in a street-to-street fight for the
capitol city. After that comes Tikrit, family seat and final stronghold for
Saddam Hussein and his supporters, and another potential urban clash.
This wretched list of dreadful news will grow longer with each
passing day. Our brave men and women in the armed services will continue to
die, along with untold numbers of innocent civilians. There is no end in
sight; Bush administration officials who have organized this conflict have
stated clearly, in documents stretching as far back as 1997, that Iraq is
only the beginning of a wider war to reorganize that entire region. You may
have noticed that there has been no exit strategy offered by the
administration for this conflict. There isn't one, because we have no
intention of leaving.

The polarization and anger within this country will strain us to
the breaking point. Across the world, anger at America's actions in this
conflict will rise and rise and rise until we are, truly and at last,
completely despised and completely alone.

Never forget, also, that there are other lords of vengeance in
the world. They have proven, vividly, that they can strike us to the heart
at the time and place of their choosing. None of them are in Iraq, but all
of them will seek our blood in payment for the Muslim civilians who die in
this war. Should this conflict inspire them to act, many Americans will die
within our borders. The resulting constitutional lockdown will end,
forever, the ideas that formed the basis for this country. The war should
be taken to these groups, in their secret places and their bank accounts,
and not past them to Baghdad.

The choice is yours to make. Vengeance comes from the stomach,
and hope from the soul. In this matter, use your eyes and your mind to
decide where you stand. Many terrible things will resolve themselves in a
far better fashion if you can find it within yourself to say six simple
words.

Stop the bombing. Stop the war.

© Copyright 2003 by TruthOut.org

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/printer_032503A.shtml

Newyorkred
It is always an ordeal to sail across your prose, but I think I have understood a couple of points:
-You are insinuating that, not only Irak, but Iran as well should be invaded and conquered without provocation.
-You pretend that this war has started because western leaders are somehow "worried" about Human Rights in the Middle East: this would be, then, a holy war of some sort, to fight for justice.
Aha. Interesting. Now, regarding the knowledge of International law that you display, and considering what is your idea about war, its origins and causes, its geostrategical context and so on, may I reckon what is exactly your commitment in the United Nations? You must be a janitor, no doubt.
I think if Chechnians, Irakis, Palestinians and the others, eventually managed to spread a virus across Europe and the US, they wouldn`t deserve blame. We have earned it.
See the following: it is a Spanish site, but I just would like to show you the pics in it. Scroll down the bar on the right and check the SECOND pic. http://www.rebelion.org/
See? the liberation has started

Carmenm,

Our bad! Apparently you didn't understand what Red said. She said she's been there, and seen the hell, while you keep giving us left wing rhetoric that's part of the extreme socialist propaganda, written by people who prey on weak minds.

By the way, that is a terrible picture. It reminds me of the hundreds I saw of Kurds and Shiites that Hussein was systematically killing. That was called genocide, the picture you offered was for "shock effect," and had little to do with the reality that there will unfortunately be some people killed through collateral damage.

Making matters worse, you have conveniently ignored the fact that American forces are being very careful to avoid collateral damage, and they are being subjected to greater danger because of it. You should tell the truth, not paint a picture that suits your political ambition. It should be beneath your dignity. It also tells me you could care less about the truth, as long as it allows you to denegrate the U.S.

Sorry! I can't buy your offerings. They are totally biased, and without foundation.

LW,

I always tend to believe people who put facts on the table. When I read that "millions of people" are coming out in American cities to protest against the war, I begin to ask myself what the person who has written an article is smoking, or what kind of mushrooms they put on their steak.

The fact is, there have been thousands of protestors in cities, and the fact is that the "vast majority" of people support the war against Iraq, regardless of the reason. That's what matters.

As for the "political retrospective" of the author, he's making assumptions, and has his own point of view, which may be totally wrong. He's condemning the Iraqis in saying they will never have a democratic government.

As for the question as to whether or not Americans are seeking revenge, that's about the dumbest statement he could make. Who in hell wouldn't want revenge for 9-11? It has to be part of our reasoning for action.

Oh! I forgot! That 20% that think it was okay for the twin towers to crumble because the Muslims were just making a "statement."

I'll tell you what. Let's just say, "We're making a statement back."

Maybe it's time for people to hear the truth. Not from others who lay safe and warm in their own beds, have a full belly, and feel relatively safe when they get up in the morning, and pack themselves off to school. Let's hear it from people who went to Iraq protesting this war, intent on being "human shields" to protect the Iraqi people. After all, they are counted amongst your opposition numbers if I'm not mistaken....

----------------------------------------------
Scenes From the Liberation--Courtesy of the Wall St. Journal's "Best of the Web Today" by James Tarranto:

"You just arrived," Ajami Saadoun Khlis of the southern Iraqi city of Safwan tells London's Guardian. "You're late. What took you so long? God help you become victorious. I want to say hello to Bush, to shake his hand. We came out of the grave." He lost his 29-year-old son to Saddam's thugs; the younger man "was executed in July 2001, accused of harbouring warm feelings for Iran."

The Telegraph reports from Umm Qasr, another southern Iraqi locale:

"We never wanted to fight--only the diehards did," said one Iraqi, as they grabbed at water bottles and clasped their palms as if in prayer, begging for food. . . .

One man pulled up his shirt sleeve and held up his right hand. Two fingers had been hacked off and his upper arm was criss-crossed with scars.

"This is the price of defiance--of trying to run away," he said, his eyes beseeching. He held up a torn gas mask that had no air canister. "We have one. We draw straws for it. We know if the British and American soldiers leave as they did before, and Saddam survives, he will gas the town." To make sure we understood, he drew his finger swiftly across his throat.

The Times of London describes a horrific scene after a slave revolt:

Iraqi conscripts shot their own officers in the chest yesterday to avoid a fruitless fight over the oil terminals at al-Faw. British soldiers from 40 Commando's Charlie Company found a bunker full of the dead officers, with spent shells from an AK47 rifle around them.

Stuck between the US Seals and the Royal Marines, whom they did not want to fight, and a regime that would kill them if they refused, it was the conscripts' only way out.

And another Guardian report, from Baghdad, notes that civilians have been largely untouched the shocking and awesome bombardment of the Iraqi capital: "So long as the rest of Baghdad remains almost unscathed, ordinary Iraqis appear relatively buoyant, as they reach for the possibility that maybe this war will be less punishing than they had feared."

Meanwhile, some of those "human shields" came to their senses after arriving in Iraq. United Press International has one such report:

A group of American anti-war demonstrators who came to Iraq with Japanese human shield volunteers made it across the border today with 14 hours of uncensored video, all shot without Iraqi government minders present. Kenneth Joseph, a young American pastor with the Assyrian Church of the East, told UPI the trip "had shocked me back to reality." Some of the Iraqis he interviewed on camera "told me they would commit suicide if American bombing didn't start. They were willing to see their homes demolished to gain their freedom from Saddam's bloody tyranny. They convinced me that Saddam was a monster the likes of which the world had not seen since Stalin and Hitler. He and his sons are sick sadists. Their tales of slow torture and killing made me ill, such as people put in a huge shredder for plastic products, feet first so they could hear their screams as bodies got chewed up from foot to head."

The Telegraph has a first-person account from one Daniel Pepper, an American resident of London, who says he "was a naive fool to be a human shield for Saddam":

I was shocked when I first met a pro-war Iraqi in Baghdad--a taxi driver taking me back to my hotel late at night. I explained that I was American and said, as we shields always did, "Bush bad, war bad, Iraq good." He looked at me with an expression of incredulity.

As he realised I was serious, he slowed down and started to speak in broken English about the evils of Saddam's regime. Until then I had only heard the President spoken of with respect, but now this guy was telling me how all of Iraq's oil money went into Saddam's pocket and that if you opposed him politically he would kill your whole family.

It scared the hell out of me. First I was thinking that maybe it was the secret police trying to trick me but later I got the impression that he wanted me to help him escape. I felt so bad. I told him: "Listen, I am just a schmuck from the United States, I am not with the UN, I'm not with the CIA--I just can't help you."
--------------------------------------------

I guess we can all learn, if the educational system is right. Let's just say that these people did. It's obvious by their statements.

By the way. Their videos will be put out for all to see. Of course, if you want, you don't have to watch. It might be better that way, if you intend to back the stand you do agains the war.

Wolf

Wolf,

How many hijackers were there? (19)

How many were from Iraq? All? Most? Some? None? (none)

How many were from Saudi Arabia? 15, with the other 4 coming from Egypt.
None of them were from Iraq.

Where's bin Laden from? Saudi Arabia.

Where did the funding for 9-11 come from? bin Laden and money from Princes in the
House of Saud, funneled through European accounts. You know, the accounts that
we froze after 9-11.

So far, no Iraqi connection. But there sure as hell is a Saudi connection. Why the hell
aren't we bombing them? Oh, that's right, they cozy up with the Carlysle groub, and
Big Daddy Bush. Hell, even Daddy Bush thinks his son is wrong, or did you miss that
one too?

Do you know the differences in Muslim sects? I guess you know that Saddam is Ba'ath,
and bin Laden is an Islamist fundamentalist who despises Saddam (as does the rest of
the Arab world) and considers him an infidel. Even the White House has admitted that
there's no connection between the two. Saddam is a scumbag who, among other things,
gassed Kurds in his country...thanks to the weapons that the US sold him during the Reagan
administration...but he has no connection to 9-11. Instead, we are playing right into the hands
of bin Laden...the guy who attacked us...and removing the regime he despises most. We
are also being one big giant recruiting office for Al Queda, as enraged Muslims have already
been called to Jihad last Monday. But I'm sure you knew all this already.

Explain why Wolfowitz, Perle, Libby, Rusfeld and Cheney, among others, developed the
Project For A New American Century back in 1997. 1997, when they specifically used the
term "axis of evil" referring to, in order, Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. This attack was in the works
for 6 years. Explain why these bastions of Americanism said that, in order to sway public opinion
in favor of an attack, we would need, quote, "something like a new Pearl Harbor". This attack
on Iraq has nothing to do with 9-11, but dupes like you, who don't know facts, are content to
believe that. Explain why, right now, North Korea and Iran are scrambling to develop nukes.
It's because they know they're next on the list. Look for yourself, and follow the pnac link:
http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/opinion/0902/29bookman.html

I won't even mention the oil connection, since I'm sure you know all about Brown & Root, and
Bechtel, and Halliburton. Yeah, Halliburton, who did business with Iraq in the 90s even with
our sanctions. By the way, what happened to the Anthrax situation? How about Enron?
Harken energy? Cheney's energy hearings that the GAO decided to drop their investigation
on? Sorry, I'm sure you know of all this. How about ABB and Rumsfeld?

Ho-hum.. now people are quoting entire texts in their postings. We can't have this. I'm sorry. Maybe this thread has reached its end.

Saludos, MadridMan

LW,

You might want to get a grip on yourself, the "reports" you're quoting aren't exactly mainstream, and mostly heresay. You did miss one. Didn't Nostradamus predict that Rumsfeld and Bush would declare war on Iraq, Iran, then N. Korea, in that order?

No matter what, both Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden are coming down, and so are their government, and organization.

As for whether or not Hussein supports terrorism, it's obvious he embraces it, and the words come out of his own mouth, but you choose to ignore them.

You might want to read the entire thread, and a few other threads we've had on this subject. Your offerings aren't really different than anyone else who sees spooks in everything.

Wolf

NYRed, Wolf, Booklady and others who don't vomit the Socialist's line about our current war, I'm behind you. How admirable is the leadership of Aznar, Blair and the other heads of state that support our effort.
As I've stated before, if free people really wanted to protest, protest despotism and human rights violations. And then perhaps you wouldn't appear so insincere.
For those who question President Bush's ethics, at least, compared to our last leader, he has them.

So now we're tossing around the word Socialist as if that simple rhetorical wave of the hand made the anti-invasion arguments vanish? How quaint. On top of that, we're to believe that anyone who buys this "socialist propaganda" has a "weak mind"?

Now, let's see. I guess I can call you a "Right Winger" and a "Warmonger." Oh look -- poof! -- I no longer have to think about your line of reasoning: everything becomes about facile labels.

Honestly, you'd think grown-ups could do better than this sort of argument-by-name-calling. If you want to convince people of your position, present documentable facts and leave it at that.

!!!
My dear Carmen,
It was so kind of you to remark that my work at the U.N. must be thatof a janitor; thank-you but no, there are not enough janitors in the entire world to clean up the mess that is the U.N.!!!
(by the by, do I detect a sneering condescension for the working class in that inquiry? What are you a descendant of the Hapsburg Dynasty)
Dear dear Carmen, your arguments against this totally justified war and the United States smack of classical Marxist Agitprop. I find this of great interest, since as a child I was fascinated with Archeology, and Marxism is nothing more than a philosophical and political fossil !!!Let's look.
Marxism seemed like a cool thing about a hundred years ago, when it was new and had never been tried. But largely due to totalitarian regimes espousing Marxist Ideology. The 20th Century was the bloodiest and most brutal century in human history.Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot and their lesser Communist puppets murdered more people in political executions than all the crusades, inquisitions, pogroms, and holy wars in the previous 2,000 years. Every nation that adopted Marxism became a brutal Fascistic state without exception. Marxist regimes are responsible for more crimes against humanity than any other type of political or religio-political system.
Why is this so? The basic weakness in Marxist thought is that it is based upon a flawed Anthropology: a totally wrong understanding of human nature. Therefore it is doomed from the start to be non-humane.
Marxism is based in the Hegellian dialectic (Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis)which is supposed to guide the progress og human history. According to Marx, Capitalism is the the last stage in human economic development before the revolution which will usher in the dictatorship of the Proletariat. People will of their own free will realize that instead of owning private property they could have had a " ClassLess Society"(Like the option to have a V-8). Of course class struggle must go on first between the workers and the rich capitalist who manipulate the means of production. Therefore Marxists interpret every historical event into simplistic economic interests- E.G. "NO BLOOD FOR OIL" REFRAIN. ( Are ya with me so far?)
Marx himself never was a member of the working class. He fled from Germany and lived in England sponging off the wealth of Frederich Engels. The vision of Capitalism he saw in Victorian England was the height of the abuses of the Industrial Revolution. That was his only understanding of Capitalism, one without Labor Unions(which he hated), Workers Comp, 8 hour days, Safety Precautions, Health Insurance, Paid Vacations, etc that we have today.
Pardon my minor digression, dear Carmen; it's amazing what thoughts occur to one while pushing a mop and scrubbing a toilet.
Now you aske me, what has Marxism to do with Militant Islam and Saddam Hussein? Directly Nothing, Except,,,the Marxists see militant Islam as a tool to support in their undying hatred of the U.S.A. Marxist do not care about Human Rights. They do not care about World Peace. They do not care about Human Suffering; They are totally Devoid of COMPASSION.
One final note, my dear Carmen, before I leave to clean the bathroom stalls:if we are to have honest and intellectual discussion about the war in IRAQ, and the role of the U.S in the world, let's abandon all the Marxist terminology and double think and phony concerns for peace and the Iraqi children. Let's get ride of the hate-America-smash-the-state silliness. Let's renounce the unspeakable immoral and sub-intelligent stuff about the U.S. derserving 9-11 and the American P.O.W.'s being killers. Such drivel is beneath contempt.
The faxts of history show for all its faults the U.S.A. has done more to promote human rights, protect individual freedoms, feed the hungry(Funny how Americans send WHEAT to their enemies, while Marxists starve their oppents to death like Stalin in the Ukraine and the famines in Cambodiaand Ethiopia?)and promote self-government among nations(Just how did our former enemies: JAPAN and Germany become prosperous democracies?)If we are imperialists, we are not very good at it!!!
HAVE BUCKET, MUST TRAVEL, GOTTA MAKE THESE FLOORS SHINE
NEW YORK RED

I am more of a listener than a talker, so pardon my soliloquy.
Human beings evolved from animals, in fact we are animals. Therefore, we still have their traits. We are territorial and we protect our own. This could be proven time and time again, by the wars that have been fought.
Over the centuries, through enlightenment, our lives have become easier. We stopped living hand to mouth and started to settle down, our technology evolved, we created the concept, division of work. This allowed us to think conceptually about life.
Initially, for centuries we had a feudal system. One dictator that controlled and owned everything. The major flaw is the contentment of the society is based on the mental stability of the leader. If the person was benevolent, the society would be utopian. If the person was malevolent, the society would be Dante-like. People started to think, there must be a better way.
Government started to evolve, from Dictatorship, to Democracies, to Socialism and to Communism. What parallels this evolution is using land as a point of reference to idealism as the point of reference. The problem with this is idealism is conceptual not tangible, there are no borders, there are no fronts.
People are still animals. They are greedy and competitive. They always want to be the best winners. They want the biggest group. Some will use any tool to get it. This is why war is so gruesome.
In this time and age, war is different. We now fight war with the most destructive weapons about intangible ideas because we are still very animalistic.
War is not good vs. evil. War is guilty vs. innocent. War is to protect the innocent. They are the real casualties. The innocent are entities that are there by timing or accident, the humans, the other animals and the plant life. Remember without plants and animals we cannot survive. Millions of innocents get killed in wars.
The difference between good and evil is a point of view. The other group is the evil ones. Therefore, in the world there is only good. There are different religions and different types of governments. Even under the same groups there are different sects with different points of views. The best advise I know is not to hate them but try to respect their point of view.
Now all these sentences make me sound antiwar. I am and I am not against war. No war is a just war. When people get killed, they are dead. You just do not only affect the dead person, but also his/her family and friends. There is a ripple effect. Now if bystanders get killed then I say go to war. If they invade go to war. Protect the innocent.
Well thank you for reading my opinion.

P.S.
To defend my friend, what is wrong with being a janitor? Do not forget that Albert Einstein was a patent clerk in Switzerland, when he thought up his theories.

To quote the Elephant Man: "I am not an animal, I am a human being!"

Although some human tendencies may have much in common with animals, and I may agree with much that has been said, we definitely did not evolve from animals. "Your great-grandfather may be a monkey, but not mine." :p

Boy has this thread deviated from its original intended purpose!

(I'm guilty, too, your honor!)

Nate, although I am aetheistic, I get on my knees and thank the world that people are greedy and competitive. What else do you think makes the U.S. so powerful? It certainly isn't the people that run our government. It's the people (greedy animals) who care about themselves and have the freedom to do so. How grateful I am to these greedy animals that provide the best of everything; the best bread, the best bridges, the best roads, the best buildings, etc. Because of my fellow greedy, competitive animals, I live in this capitalistic utopia.

NewYorkRed post made me think of an article , Lee Harris in Policy Review.
I include a short quote, and link to the article.

--Those who, speaking in Marx's name, try to defend the fantasy ideology embodied in 9-11 are betraying everything that Marx represented. They are replacing his hard-nosed insistence on realism with a self-indulgent flight into sheer fantasy, just as they are abandoning his strenuous commitment to pursuit of a higher stage of social organization in order to glorify the feudal regimes that the world has long since condemned to Marx's own celebrated trash bin of history.

America-bashing has sadly come to be “the opium of the intellectual,” to use the phrase Raymond Aron borrowed from Marx in order to characterize those who followed the latter into the twentieth century. And like opium it produces vivid and fantastic dreams.

http://www.policyreview.org/dec02/harris.html

Nate, Red,

I'd gladly clean the floors with you, and toilets as well. What makes the statement against Red even more pitiful is the fact that the three of you actually do clean up the messes that uncaring governments leave behind, amongst their people. I guess the reality of that never sinks in with some people, because they are too deeply rooted in their own thoughts, and ways to find grievance with anyone whose ideals resemble democracy, and the rights of humans to live their lives without fear.

Like was stated earlier, I'll take the greed of democracy anytime, because in the end, in a country like the U.S., we pay more out in taxes, and give more to help people throughout the world than those who preach against our society would ever care to share.

Lots of commas in here, so if anyone wants to attack the statement on that basis, be my guest.

Wolf

Ayn Rand, anyone?

I agree with Ayn Rand about the statements she makes regarding capitalism. Capitalism is certainly not perfect, but its the best system man has invented yet, where an individual has the freedom to thrive. Yes, I have lived in a communist/marxist/socialist society, so I know what I am talking about.

Red,Wolf, count me in in the janitorial staff.

The problem with buzzwords like "capitalism" and "socialism" is that most western countries are a combination of the two.

Britain, for example, has socialized certain public-welfare functions, but also has a free-market economy with production largely in the hands of private companies rather than under the control of the government.

So I think it's more productive to debate specific points of policy than to get caught up in misleading and reductive labels, particularly when they're bandied about as an easy excuse to not respond intelligently to the points someone else raised.

El viajero,
I believe that folks should express themselves as best they can, if we are to have any type of discussion.

Words like democracy, capitalism, free-market, communisim, socialism, marxism are not buzzwords, they are words, and they have meanings. What one may want to explore is the way folks define these words. That's the work of philosophy!

As a Spaniard I would like to say in this MM site that there are lots of people in Spain who support our President Aznar . I am really feed up of these leftish protestors who, making profit of the slogan “no a la guerra”, have invaded our streets, destroyed the urban furniture and attact the PP sites , PP politicians and boicot their meeetings.

I wonder why these leftists spaniards don't protest against our close relative and dictator Fidel Castro in Cuba, who has never respected human rights for so long.

I think we are now suffering in Spain an “anti sistema movement”, in order to throw out the PP party from government, unfortunately supported by the socialist party and its paper El País . They don't care about war or iraqui people. They are against americans, democracy and our western way of live. Yesterday they assaulted a McDonald and the ground floor of El Corte Inglés in Barcelona. Pacifists!!??

You must know that thanks to the well economic policies of the PP in the last 7 years, spaniards have money, employement and the economy is needed for foreign inmigrants as labor workers. Perhaps socialists in Spain cannot stand that the government of José María Aznar has achieved very good economics results and they find any conflict to break the government (a few months ago it was the Prestige in Galicia)

I expect this war ends soon, and the average people and families of Iraq can have a better life under a democratic or a better government.

Yes Booklady, words do have definitions. That's very Ayn Randish of you. The reason I use these words isn't to name call, but rather to try to understand how anyone could prefer a sadistic despot over the leader of the free world. The only way I can even begin to understand it is to identify it with socialism.
And besides, what's so offensive about calling someone with socialist ideas a socialist? I'm not offended at all about being labelled as a conservative. Rather proud of it and all.
Pass the mop Wolf and NYRed. I'm not afraid to get these hands dirty.

Thank you, Gazpacho. I am honored. I agree there is absolutely nothing wrong in called a marxist a marxist. Your question: is very similar to Lonoma's comment: and I would add my previous comment to New Yor Red: It seems obvious that there are those in the movement that are using the peace movement as a pretext to criticize the United States. Because if they trully cared for the pain that the Iraqui people, and to some extent the Cuban people have undergone, tyrants like Saddam and Fidel would have been routed long ago.

All this discussion has been very interesting to read and admittedly I see more pro-war points than I ever saw before - which is difficult for me. However, I've been anti-war since the beginning and I still remain the same. Here's some thoughts I have for those of you who are pro-war...

Saddam is a terror and I realize that he has been a ruthless threat to his people and to many people in the world. However, our motivations for this war are not what Bush claims them to be. Reports of him pounding on the desk and exclaiming "god this feels good" right before a war briefing definitely creates a cause for concern. This is just not sane human behavior...

The objectives for this war have been stated as wmd, pre-emption, liberation of the Iraqi people, and regime change.

On WMD, the behavior of the administration at the U.N. was questionable. Any time objective and measurable criteria for weapons elimination in Iraq was set forth as part of a resolution, it was ignored and nixed by the U.S.

One of the justifications for this war was "pre-emption." That is, Iraq is not an immediate threat, but a potential threat in the future. While a seemingly noble cause, that is a flawed form of logic. If we applied that same standard to other countries, we would be attacking at least half the world.

And one more point to think about. Signs don't currently point to a large "welcome" on the streets of Iraq. While certainly one could say that the people of Iraq are still operating under the rule of Hussein and his cronies and therefore are not speaking honestly, I do wonder if we are truly welcome. Time will tell on this one...

Regime change is indeed another noble cause considering who we are talking about - on the surface, anyway. But there are no signs of a people desparately crying out for help. In fact, they seem to be rebelling against us. Certainly life under his regime is oppressive and certainly it limits their ability to speak out, but in the end there have been no recent reports of mass killings and genocidal moves. Not since the Gulf War. This is not the desparate situation we have been led to believe it is.

Some of my worst predictions about this situation appear to be surfacing - Syria and Iran are exhibiting questionable behavior. If the rest of my predictions ring true, this is only the beginning. I do hope I'm wrong.

One more thought: enemies. This is just my own personal estimate, but I think it's safe to say that for every one person that is killed by an American bomb, we have gained 20 enemies. This is a number that represents the family and close friends of those who died - and probably a very conservative number at that (especially in public places that are inadvertantly bombed where many witnesses are present). That means that in this first week of the war where an estimated 350 Iraqi civilians died, we have created 7,000 more enemies - all of our own doing in a part of the world where we're not favored to begin with. This, of course, does not count countless others who see this on T.V. in Iraq or in other countries. If the war goes on for mere 8 weeks - using my conservative estimates - we will have created 56,000 enemies total. While *we* may see this as a collateral loss, the families of those who died will never be able to see this as such. Would you?

For those who think we're cleaning up other people's messes, let's not forget who created this mess - way back in the Iran/Iraq war. Let's not forget who funded Osama & camp. It's utterly rediculous to say we are cleaning up other countries messes...we are cleaning up our OWN mess and doing a very poor job at that.

Finally, remember that Bush & camp have not ruled out the use of nuclear weapons. While I certainly hope this not a serious threat and was mentioned in hopes of thwarting the enemy, the one decent thing I can say about Bush is the man speaks his mind. How do the pro-war people feel about this - should we use them, is this justifiable? How will the rest of the world react to an unprecendented usage of nuclear weapons?

I don't see the connection. Socialism is an economic system. What has that to do with saying the president of the United States should honor international accords signed by his predecessors, and should be honest about the reasons for this war?

My post was mostly in response to Wolf's use of the phrase "socialist progaganda." Yes, some Americans do advocate varying degrees of socialism, but their "propaganda" is not widely available to the masses except in discussions of healthcare. The million or so Americans who marched last week to protest Bush's war were not there out of a profound belief in domestic economic reform. It's far more likely they felt it was wrong to bomb people who never did anything to us.

I suspect Wolf didn't really mean Socialist: from context, it seems he was using it as a generic buzzword for "un-American," as in anyone who thinks that citizens in a democracy should speak out against a dishonest (or, at best, unwise) president.

Yes, it's possible to support this particular war from an ends-justify-the-means standpoint. However, democratic countries founded on the rule of law aren't supposed to embrace this kind of Old West vigilantism. What about the next war? Bush is clearly willing to lie and cheat to justify taking over any country whose leader he finds morally objectionable, regardless of whether it violates the U.S.'s contractual agreements and whether or not it will rally extremists to join anti-American movements. Here's hoping for a viable Democratic candidate in 2004. (Or a viable Republican with a different world view than George Junior's.)

Good point el viajero! Every war is easy to support from an "ends justify the means" standpoint. And why? Because when one uses that approach, they are basing "the ends" on a fallacy - i.e., their relative predictions on a situation when in fact the true "ends" could be something completely different than what they expect.

This is a slippery slope these "ends justify the means" people are walking (or slipping) on...where decisions are not made on the basis of facts but instead on the basis of PREDICTIONS.

Like you said - who is next? Who does Bush want next?

And another question concerning Bush's "foundation" for this war...

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/World/iraq_rebuilding_contract030322.html

thijs,

Stop and think for a moment. If the U.S. went to war, there had to be a plan to rebuild Iraq made in advance. Waiting until after the battles were over to decide where to start would be totally stupid. Now, assuming the U.S. was wise enough to have a plan for rebuilding, which obviously they were - why in hell would we put American money up and offer it out as contracts to anyone other than Americans? What's your idea? See if the French or Germans want to bid on them? Even before the hostilities start? Just stating that it was a "good old boy" deal is grasping at straws.

What's ironic is that both the German and French governments have already "voiced their concerns" that they won't get "their fair share of contracts" in the rebuilding of Iraq. They never cease to amaze me with their stupidity.

As for the end justifies the means - really now. There's pages of text in here indicating our reasons for believing what we do. Don't jump on this phrase and ride it, it's not worthy of a response.

Wolf

The inclusion of the vice president's company on the short list of bidders doesn't smell the tiniest bit fishy?

el viajero,

From what I've seen, the anti-war group thinks everything "smells fishy." But then again, those of us who support the Iraqi issue think the comments you people make not only smell fishy, but lack substance.

So, if Halliburton isn't the right company to put out the oil well fires, and make repairs, who do you suggest? Jock Chirac and his court jesters?

If Halliburton gets the job of putting out well fires, and work in re-establishing the oil fields, they deserve it. They're the ones who went in and did it in Kuwait. By the way, the Kuwaiti government hired them "during" the Gulf War. Their reasoning was simple enough. They announced that there wasn't anyone who had a better reputation, or could do the job better.

If your intent is to show collusion as to why the war started, you've really lost it.

Wolf

Here's something worth reading. It may shed a little light on the "attitudes" & "prejudices" that some people associated with reporters.

Personally I couldn't agree more with Cavuto. He's covered the bases quite well, IMHO.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,82504,00.html

Wolf (Applauding Cavuto, and people like him.)

Just out of curiosity, how many of you discuss this topic in other online forums?

#1 Dick Cheney never owned Halliburton so it wasnt his company #2 the contract is worth about 7 million dollars? Do ya think the US would throw themselves into war and spend billions of dollars just so a billion dollar oil company can make a few million dollars? How asinine is that?

Thanks Wolf,
I really liked the article. I have had encounters with professors who were so ashamed of being Americans, that they practically apologized for being one. I told one of them in the heat of an argument about the moral superiority of socialist/marxist systems, that if he liked living in a socialist/marxist society so much, why didn't he give up his Mercedes, his condo on the beach, and his cushy State pension, and move to Cuba. Fidel will welcome him with open arms, and he would live up to his moral convictions and hold his head up high as he waits in line for his monthly ration of beef bones!

Bush' war is illegal. The UN are supposed to create international agrements and lead legality. The reason US&allies pretend to have, to bomb Iraq is that Sadam doesn't follow UN Resolution 1441 but then, they also break UN will because they know they won't have enough pro-war votes. Nice example of democracy, when you know you can't win legally, break the rules and go on your own. France, Germany and Russia could use their right to veto but there weren't alone, there were lots of other countries against this war.

Violence generates more violence. Bush is a christian who names God in a lot of his discourses, but follows the “An eye for an eye” philosophy. How many enemies the US and allies are gaining because of their aggression policy? Why are there 1st and 2nd class civilian deads? We could show some empathy for the iraqi people, who are dying as I write this. Yesterday at least 65 dead and 100 wounded in a fruit and vegetables market, the second bombing in a market in two days. No water and power supply in Basora, people are beginning to die from dehydratation. Is this the price we want to pay to get Sadam? I don't agree with the “greedy” leaders of our world, the “war business” is just disgusting.

Recent surveys say up to 91% Spanish population are against war. Isn't it a very high percentage to jugde us all as radical leftists? Sure, anti-system groups are represented when more than a million people demonstrate in Madrid against war but they're a minority. Yes, Spanish left is anti-war, catholic Spain (a lot of right wingers in Spain) is supposed to hear and follow the Pope (anti-war too). Anyway, some FoxNews anchors make Franco's followers look like extreme leftists.

Wolf: I think you're missing the point of the article on ABC I included. The point was that in addition to the changing motives and unclear objectives, Bush-friendly contractors are being roped in to make a killing - all under tight wraps of "confidential" proceedings.

And yes - Cheney did not own Halliburton - but he was CEO. Undoubtedly he's still got tight business contacts there. Certainly the U.S. has a plan to rebuild Iraq - but is it for the benefit of the Iraqi people - or our administration? THAT is the point of that article.

This is not a matter of being paranoid about this administration - this is matter of analyzing what facts are out there and taking them ALL into consideration - the "big picture" if you will. I do think it smells fishy (honestly, the jury is still out - you bring up a good point), but unlike you, I do tend to question government. That does not make me a socialist, it does not make me a communist, it does not make me an anarchist - IT MAKES ME AN AMERICAN. Did you forget the definition? If we didn't have articles like the one above, no unjustice would ever be uncovered and no one would ever question events like this. It's people who oppress the media and people who oppress me who are the real America-haters because they (you?) oppress those of us who dare to question motive - you'd prefer we shut up and enjoy the show. If THAT isn't anti-American and anti-freedom, I don't know what is...

Finally, all this German/French hatred is pure and simple fascism. God forbid those countries have their own opinions - and you know what - I know you think they are against us for their own financial interest. But I see it this way - THEY ARE MERELY LISTENING TO THE WISHES OF THEIR PEOPLE! Their people do not agree with us. Why should they react against their people's wishes? Our people didn't agree with our government until a day or two before our war started (which is a whole topic of war psychology in itself). Who is really free?

How dare you try and point fingers at France and Germany's true democracy! You, my fellow "American," are the traitor you claim people like me to be.

Shame on you!

MadridMan: Why do you ask where else we discuss this? Just because we're probably going to blow up your server's disk space?!? :-)

For me, this is practice...I am a busy bee in the real world...so I don't have time to get terribly involved with the anti-war movement...it's a nice outlet.

Thanks for being such a good host!

we all know why the russians, and the chinese are against this war. They don't want to get caught with their hands in the cookie jar. Let's see, China...supplies silkworm missilies to Iraq. Russia...supplies missile jamming systems in Iraq, we'll soon see what cookies are in the hands of France, and Germany. Stay tuned...

Shame on you, thijs! Badly done, it certainly reduces the versimilitude of your arguments, now I really cannot take you seriously!

Wolf is a member of long standing on this board, and most of us respect and admire him for his views, the rest respect him because he has the ability to see others' view points and engages in fair play during these discussions. This is not the first, and I hope not the last where members have disagreed but, for the most part we try to respect each other.

Booklady: I too respect everyone's opinion. I also expect that history will ultimately be the ultimate judge of who's right and who's wrong. Heck - I'll bet we find that boths sides had good and bad points! And WE (I mean that as pro and anti-war people in general) do. But do remember that judging foreign affairs should involve those people - not just our opinion and not just conservative media sources. Last I checked, we don't rule the world. Yet, if Bush has his way.

But let's not forget that

1. The amount of time he has been on this board makes no difference to the context of this discussion.
2. He started it! :-) Well he did...he wouldn't even address the foundations of my argument..."Don't jump on this phrase and ride it, it's not worthy of a response." Also assummed I unthoughtful about the situation..."Waiting until after the battles were over to decide where to start would be totally stupid." I hear terms of "peace-niks" and the like thrown around - should I just quit questioning and be a servent to your movement?

Booklady - I hear no arguments to my points only a dismissal of even considering them. What have we come to? I was hoping to get more good practice...help me out here. (and again - this is ALL in fun and in good spirit of debate - NOT meant to be confrontational)

Wolf: If I offended you, I do apologize - but do think about the premise of my points. I do believe them. In the end, I mean no disrespect to anyone on this board...I only want people to think about their actions and beliefs as well as the foundations that create them.

and mencey: just for the record, the U.S. has its hands in the cookie jar too. We CREATED Saddam's power, it was during the Iraq-Iran war (when was that - the 70s?)

"War begun by Iraq with Iran shortly after the 1979 Iranian Revolution. Iraq's aggression stemmed from a desire for control of an oil-rich Iranian border territory and control of both sides of the Shatt al-Arab, and fear of the effects of the Shiite victory in Iran on Iraq's Shiite minority. Iraq was backed by Saudi Arabia, the U.S., and the Soviet Union, Iran by Syria and Libya. Some attacks were made on third-party oil tankers in the Persian Gulf. After early gains (1980-82), Iraq lost ground and announced itself ready to negotiate peace, but Iran refused. Stalemated fighting continued until 1988, when Iran agreed to a cease-fire. After Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, it agreed to Iran's settlement terms. The war was devastatingly destructive on both sides. See also S. Hussein, R. Khomeini."

Thijs,

You want us to take you seriously after you write this emotional response: Really? Are you a teenager perhaps?
An emotionally mature person knows that if they want to participate in a reasoned argument where reasonable people participate, the debaters do not use VITRIOLIC language.

Then you write and wonder: How can we take you seriously, much less answer your concerns when you respond so immaturely?

Further, on this board not all of our concerns are answered. We live in a free country and we respond to what we want to respond, not what you want us to respond. And unless you are a nice person, like others on this thread ( See El Viajero and Wolf comments to each other, very mature responses, both equally reasoned people)you may not find many people responding to your posts!

But, I am glad you apologized to Wolf!

I think we should stop this thread, people are getting too upset. I am TOTALLY against the war though but I still like to read Wolf's posts (I could live without the FoxNews/William Safire quotes though!). What do you say MM?

Just trying to get the last word in, but I doubt my success. I admire all the sources that the anti-war crowd brings to this forum. But even if my attention-span wasn't so short I would not follow-up and read these sources since I consider 99% of the press way to biased to the left.
I'll never be able to understand the phrase "legal war"/"illegal war". Name me a war that has anything to do with legality. This was is a result of national security. It has nothing to do with the U.N. and I wish we had nothing to do with them either. They have shown their true colors and this isn't the first time they have been shown ineffectual. I question the sanity and even more importantly the morality of the people that formed it in the first place.
And to I wish we would get down to the business of war while were at it and protect American lives, not Iraqi lives. I hate to think of woman and children being killed, but more will be killed by that sadistic b___ if this war drags on.
For those few Spaniard who feel it necessary to criticize the U.S., well go ahead. I remember a fairer time when I could cut through Retiro and any other park walking to and fro through Madrid. Now there is just one way in and the same way our of any park. Things can only get worse if we don't try to do anything about terrorism right now.

jlramos, your idea of stopping/locking this thread has been on my mind for the last few days. How 'bout we get out all our comments this weekend and I'll shut it down Sunday night when I go to bed. No doubt another will pop up soon but let's resist the temptation, please.

Booklady:

Quotes like the following have been taken from previous conversations (I have left out names for obvious reasons)...

"It's leaders like him that are gaining respect from nations of the world who refuse to accept being subjected to the atrocities of terrorism, and despots, and from "peace-niks" whose concerns have never been for the rights of humans, just their own cozy little worlds."

"When I read that "millions of people" are coming out in American cities to protest against the war, I begin to ask myself what the person who has written an article is smoking, or what kind of mushrooms they put on their steak."

This is laced with, as you so eloquently put it, VITRIOLIC language.

We all know this is a passionate issue and we all should respect that. If we accept that, we should also expect that emotions will run high. As seen above, both sides are guilty. I have admitted my guilt. Now please admit to the double-standard you are applying. You claim you want an open, honest, and fair debate, but then invalidate my arguments based on irrelevant and personal attacks on me and my character by calling me a teenager (in an obviously dergatory manner). Now it's shame on you!
:p

Just so you know, I will no longer respond to this part of the conversation - if you wish to attack me as a human being, then do so. I SURRENDER. My points and concerns, like those of everyone else on this board, concern the war and only the war. Not double-standards, not right-wing rhetoric, not distractions from the subject matter of interest here.

MadridMan: thanks for being such a kind host. Sorry if passions heated up too much.

To all: Let's remember that we all share the hope that we will see a quick resolution to this matter with the least amount of life lost. I think we can all agree that regardless of how we feel we got here, what caused it, or how it will ultimately be resolved, we all want to live a peaceful and free life.

Let's not forget what we have in common.

thijs,

My reference to the "millions taking to the streets" wasn't reference to what you said, but reference to what you indicated was written by a journalist. I still ask that question, because there has not been one demonstration that was a million people in the U.S. When a journalist offers an opinion, they should be honest, not "take liberties" with facts. Obviously he didn't have time for truth, because it didn't fit too well into his agenda.

I never referred to you as being a Communist. If you look at my response it was in reference to a post that happened at just the same time as yours.

As for my "blind obedience" to the administration, rest assured, as I have indicated in a previous post, I will be at the head of the list of people campaigning against Bush. But, for now, as a Vietnam vet, who went through this hell before, and nobody stood up to help us, I don't intend to allow an overly vocal group of people who'd force their will on us by "Out-shouting us," win. Your views got their way thirty years ago, but my friend, it's not going to happen again, as long as there enough of us around who refuse to allow our soldiers to be brow beaten like someone did it to us.

You questioned my being an American. I never questioned you as being one. I may totally disagree with what you say, but I understand that it's a right we all have in the U.S. - to disagree.

It disturbs me when I see young American soldiers in Iraq asking reporters if they are going to come back home to face the hostility, and rebuff by their fellow Americans that we saw with Nam. I lived through it, and I won't sit back and allow it to happen to these young people, whose only crime is serving their nation honorably.

I'm not easily offended, so don't worry about it. Neither do I carry a grudge. Tomorrow we may be on the same page on another issue, of just as great of importance, and you cannot leave yesterday's disagreement guide you in making today's decision. That's the work of fools, who have little or no regard for facts. I certainly don't believe you're that type of person.

MadridMan,

You certainly have every right in the world to end this thread. Yes, it does get vitriolic at times, and yes, we do carry our feelings on our sleeves on a lot of issues. I guess that's what brings us together in the first place. We carry that same passion for Spain.

What makes this site one of the places we will post our opinions readily is the fact that it isn't over-run by children saying things like.... "Iraq rules!" "U.S. Marines, kick ass!" It's adult conversation, and even if we disagree, we usually are pretty good at avoiding direct insults. Yes, at times we drift, but a few well stated words by others usually brings us back on track.

You're also right that another thread will begin soon enough, and it will start all over again. Since you've been open minded on allowing us to post our views, nobody amongst us would think for a moment that you are censoring us.

The only problem with new threads, which end up on the same topic, is that they run their course carrying the same information all over again, until they reach where the last one was, and then go beyond. Issues, like the ones we've been discussing here, are of major importance, and they don't go away. New threads will rise.

In either case, thanks for allowing us to offer our views out here, in an adult manner. It's nice to have a place like this, where we can do it, and hopefully still be friends.

Wolf

Of course, Wolf! Even though we fight a lot, it does not mean we are getting a divorce. I think De Villepin or Chirac said that this week. Peace!

MadridMan,

It certainly has been a long term tradition for members of this board to have heated and passionate discussions on all types of topics. I know that you must have a list of these!

However, we continue to post because for the most part we enjoy being part of MadridMan's Message Board! The part we enjoy most is the commaraderie among the members. Over time we have in many cases bonded with each other, even though if we meet on the street we may not know what we look like.

We each have values and strong beliefs that we are willing to defend. As just happened. I do not think, I was upset until my friend was maligned. And, if I have hurt thisj feelings in my response, then please accept my apology, thisj. There are bigger issues that we need to discuss. This war!

I hope you will let us continue to discuss the issues.

Why shut this down? I am enjoying the view points of everyone here. I have my opinions and I enjoy seeing what other people from across the globe have to say about this current situation. I also find it educational. Last time I checked this was a non-Spain discussion area. I understand you are the moderator, but we aren't challenging each other to meet behind the bleachers nor are we using profane language or denegrating to petty insults. Please allow this to continue.

Unfortunatley I do not have a vacation to Madrid or Spain in the works. Therefore I do lose interest in the typical hotel and restaurant posts. This one has my interest. Is there really a need to censor? If there is a practical concern I apologize, but otherwise, c'mon, we don't need to start accusing MM of being a dictator.

Okay. Okay. Fight on. Just keep your heads about you.

Anyone else notice that it's taking longer and longer to get the POST A REPLY screen the longer this thread gets? I wonder if it's "taxing" the server. Hmmm.. Last thing we'd want would be to crash and lose all this great information.

Hmmm.. I think it's time to backup the message board. I'm taking it down for the next hour to do this.

So go on with the discussion. Just be smart. Be mature. And please be mindful of others' opinions. Thank you.

Saludos, Don MadridMan

I was wondering why the board was shut down.....

thijs,

Thank you from the bottom of my heart for your comments on this thread. I agree with you, and I am amazed at the hypersensitivity of some of the posters.
Let's pray for peace, for the president, the soldiers and for the Iraqi people. History will reveal who was right.

Wolf I was too young when our soldiers came home from Vietnam to remember it. Let me say thank you for your contributions during that terrible confromtation. I sincerely pray that, no matter what one's thoughts on this current war, that our brave military personnel do not have to face that same shameful behaviour when they come home.

I get upset when someone characterises me as "pro-war". No one is pro-war. But some of us recognise that talking in the UN is not going to resolve the issue. Saddam Hussein is a terrorist. Whether or not he has direct links to Al Queda does not matter, he openly and proudly supports suicide bombers in the Isreali-Palestinian conflict - paying their families $25,000 for their "martyrdom". Sick!

Saddam also has proven that he lied to the UN consistently and for over 12 years by lobbing Scuds into Kuwait. So much for the arguement that the inspections were working and that Saddam was complying. He lied on several occasions that he had no Scuds. yeah right

I also find it interesting that all the posters I've seen (many in my office) put up by the union organisers of the anti-war protests (CGT in particular) are advertising the protests as against the war, capitalism and globalisation. If that isn't mixing messages! I think a lot of the protesters are out there simply to protest against the fact that the US is strong enough to do what it believes is right.

I find it especially amusing to see these posters put up by workers at my company, a large global American financial services firm. If we aren't a symbol of capitalism and globalisation, I don't know what is. If you are against these two ideas, fine, but don't be a hypocrite and continue to accept a paycheque and then bite the hand that feeds you. Seems like petty jealousy to me.

I will agree that many of the protesters are there to protest only against the war and not capitalism and globalisation. For those, I respect your right to state your opinion. But please don't forget that we can enjoy that freedom because we have people willing to fight to protect our rights.

We should keep our posts short in order to make them easy to read, and not to overload the server Thanks MM for letting the thread continue. The only way people understand each other point of view is talking (or posting in this case ).

As for the argument of "...but USA created Iraq's regime" then spaniards should be ashamed for helping in the creation of the USA? Different times people. With the USSR pressing perhaps was the correct strategy... We can't judge nowadays issues with the mental frame of 30 years ago and viceversus.

Fernando

awwww -- GROUP HUG!!!

:-)

One thought to Wolf: I think you have concerns about the anti-war movement not supporting our troops. Understandable, considering your experience in Vietnam. I too thank you for your service - you were especially brave to remain a soldier in an unpopular war and it's unfortunate you suffered undue consequences afterward. It is dedication like yours that makes the world go round. However, keep this in mind: I really doubt we'll see a repeat of what happened in Vietnam. I think everyone learned that lesson. My viewpoint is that our troops lives should be cherished as our own. I do not believe this war is worthy of ANY American lives (and no Iraqi lives either). I am actually fighting for our soldier's freedoms. I want the soldiers to live their lives as they intended - not as consequences of an unjustifiable war that could have continued consequences in the world for decades (and maybe centuries?) to come.

As for media - Wolf - please run out and watch some left-leaning media! Fox news has been so friendly to the administration and at least when I've watched, I've never seen them question anything the admin. says! I find watching both right and left gives me some interesting perspective.

Say - no one has addressed the big nuclear question.

What do those of you who support the war think of this?

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20030131-27320419.htm

I know this is "worst-case scenario," but the question begs to be asked. I have to say that the use of nukes would probably bring the world together - against us. Considering world opinion, I don't think anyone would consider this a "defensive" move - even if WMDs are used against us.

There is another argument that amuses me: "This war is illegal because it is not backed by the UN". It is implicitly backed by 1441 resolution, though not explicitly.

For me it is clear how the UN is unable to manage the international frame following the fall of the URSS, and in particular this conflict. It has no sense for me that a global institution like UN yet has first and second class countries, ones with a permanent representation and veto right, and the rest with a temporal representation and without veto.

In this conflict these characteristics of UN have played against a clear global resolution in the fight against terrorism, and those countries, like Iraq, that use and stock irresponsibly mass destruction weapons. Therefore, I don't consider a UN resolution necessary to make this war.

Fernando

thijs,

Let's face reality. If the Iraqi high command unleashed a biological and chemical attack against the coalition forces, and it was taking a heavy toll in deaths, why on earth would we have to sit back and not react? The article may allude to us being willing to use nuclear force, but it says it isn't saying they will use force, just not ruling it out, under certain circumstances.

As soon as you can guarantee that Hussein's henchmen won't use civilians as shields, won't use chemical or biological warfare tactics, and won't use illegal acts of aggression during war time, like disguising themselves as civilians, faking surrenders, and using it as a ploy to murder soldiers that have been instructed to help the people, not kill them, you can bring this up as a valid point. Until then, it's not even worth discussion.

The problem with this whole "anti-war" campaign that is being brought up is that it's looking for positions to blame the coalition for everything, accusing them of everything, and conveniently ignoring the plight of the Iraqi people, and the atrocities that are being committed in the name of Saddam Hussein.

I'm sorry! You have to see the whole scope of what is happening in Iraq, not look at the issues with a totally biased point of view. You can't accept what one press offering says, or rely on one reporter to give you a synopsis of what to believe. You have to take the whole thing, digest it, then make a valued decision based on the reality of all events... not just a few.

What disturbs me about the point of view you represent is that anti-war people don't really care about how many coalition soldiers are killed, just as long as we leave Iraq without victory. The fact is, the movement is doing more to condemn soldiers than Saddam Hussein had dreamed possible. He uses the anti-war protests here as a propaganda tool, to urge his forces on, telling them that the vast majority of Americans are against the war, and we will pull out, as soon as our "death toll" gets high enough.

There was a time that this was considered treason. In fact, in Iraq, if you spoke out against Hussein you wouldn't get a trial, you'd be executed in the middle of a street, to send a message to anyone else who would speak out.

If this is what you wish to support, that's up to you, but to me, it isn't the answer. Knuckling under to tyrants and maggots like Hussein does nothing more than give them license to continue their assault against mankind.

Making matters worse, the time comes when these tyrants become strong enough, and have enough allies, that you get another WWI or WWII. Then people die by the millions. People who never would have died, had someone stopped the tyrants before they became strong enough to hold the world hostage.

I keep hearing how the "majority" of the people in the U.S. were against our involvement in Nam. That's not true. The vocal part of our society was against it, and those who supported the government were too timid to speak out. In the end, the "anti-war" enthusiasts never affected anything except a few local elections in places like Berkeley. The only places they had much real effect was where there were thousands of college students with too damned much time on their hands, living off the government, and telling everyone else what fools they were.

I can't respect that, and never will.

Look at all sides of an issue. Not just those that feed your personal beliefs. That's a rather narrow point of view in my opinion.

As for my involvement in Nam, I came back alive. There are over 58,000 names on a wall in DC of those that didn't come back. Some were friends, others relatives of some of us on this board. They are the ones that respect should be given to. Then, add today's soldier to those that deserve respect. Don't condemn them by letting Hussein or anyone else see that there's a lack of unity in our nation. Let them know that we are united in our stand. That our resolve is real, and won't go away.

Wolf

As terrible as this subject is it has been very interesting for me to read all the different opinions. I truly believe that we are learning more about this war by reading what other people in other countries think of this. Many people from the different parts of the world come to this site. Viva la difference. This can make us proud of being free, Viva la internet and this site. It does not matter if I agree or disagree, each statement allows me think, maybe to change my mind or maybe make me believe even stronger. Yes this is a site about Madrid about Spain, but then our world has changed and it is because of this site we can educate ourselfes in learning how others think. And that makes this so good.
May we all be free to travel anywhere anytime soon again.

I guess my distrust in Bush has made me wonder if we would use nukes in lesser circumstances. I gave Bush the benefit of the doubt about the U.N. thing. I tried to tell myself he wasn't going to go through with this - that he was bluffing so that Saddam would listen up and fess up to weapons he may/may not have. But with the pounding-of-the-fist incident...I'm afraid he's not playing the game I was hoping he was playing. He's lost his mind. So not only are we changing the rationale for war, but we are changing the rationale for nukes. I find this quite sad. I still say nukes are for defense and the most dire circumstances. Not even to be discussed otherwise...to even say that we would consider them has undoubtedly alienated more of the world. And understandably so. What if Russia had said such a thing when battling Chechnya? How would we have felt about that?

As for Iraq disguising troops as citizens. Let's not forget what factions we have in that area of the world. They're not all friendly to the U.S. to begin with - not withstanding the fact that we left them high and dry 12 years ago. This goes back to my statement about media - some media are reporting that civilians are fighting back of their own accord and are legitimate citizens. Of course, Fox says it's all military dressed as civilians. Again - I think the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle - perhaps even both things are occuring. While sad, it's terribly naive to think that everyone in Iraq will welcome us. And you are only setting yourself up for disappointment (unless of course you continue watching Fox and only Fox for the rest of your life).

Concerning the anti-war campaign - those are some very broad stereotypes and assumptions you're riding on! I don't blame the U.S. for everything in the world - only the tyrants it creates, funds, and then decides is are no longer worthy of our support therefore we take 'em down with war. The other thing I blame the U.S. for is it's hasty and unethical push for war with nothing more than a "token" effort to include the rest of the world. If it wasn't for Powell, this never would have touched the U.N. As far as our soldiers and the anti-war movement not caring for them - see my earlier post on this topic - I think it's quite clear that you want to believe what you want to believe and refuse to consider what I say on this matter. Don't play victim.

As for the anti-war movement providing propoganda to Iraq, it's a two way street and just because the war has started does not make it right. It is still unjustified and unnecessary. Period. The U.S. has the tools to silence Iraqi media and they chose not to make that their first targets which is clearly poor planning on the part of our military. This is yet another example of this administration's amazing ability to screw things up. Why wasn't our "shock and awe" technology used to silence them immediately? Furthermore, the propaganda they report, while it's regrettably being used for the wrong reasons, it is the truth and we might as well face up to that. There are dissenters in this country and they have that right as part of this country under our constitution.

Again you do not understand that the anti-war movement does not support Saddam Hussein - you are blinded by your conservative leanings my friend. It is all about a rush to war that was not necessary. What would it have hurt to give this another 6 months or even 1 year?!? Even if the U.N. stayed in Iraq forever and no American lives were sacrificed, I would have been happy if some progress was made - the U.N. inspections undoubtedly distracted Iraq from obtaining weapons. He was contained - and I know conservatives hate that word, but we're still doing it in N. Korea, so why should this be different? As far as his evils, I hate to say that Saddam is Iraq's problem, but the potential hornet's nest we could unleash in the Middle East was never worth it. And again - if we apply this same justification in Iraq to the rest of the world, the U.S. will be in a state of war for eternity. Is that what you want? Where do we draw the line? Pakistan could be a threat - especially if their dictator government is overthrown. Somolia was a threat - why not them again? What about Libya? What about Syria? What about Iran? What about N. Korea? What about half of Africa? What about China?

The U.N. proved it's usefullness in the Gulf War - *that* is when it prevented another WWII. To compare the Iraq of today, a country with little power and not a state that supports it, of being capable of starting a WWII is not just illogical but based on untethered fear. What is a reasonable fear is that the U.S. has started the next WW. With mounting tensions in the middle east and a government asleep at the wheel here, this potential is far more likely than Saddam Hussein ever having had the ability to invade other countries. So I ask a question: What has changed since the Gulf War? Our closest friends and allies? Or the U.S.? It's quite clear - the latter.

And 1441 - ah yes, 1441. That resolution was worded so vaguely so everyone would get on board. There were reasons that France, Germany, etc. did not put specifics in the resolution. They didn't want the rush to war that the U.S. did. The U.S. got it's way by passing something that would "loosely" give it the right to go to war - a sad excuse for diplomacy - why bother?!?

thijs,

Please don't refer to my stand on the issue as "conservative learning." I'm actually more like you than you'd imagine. My leanings are towards a socialized society that offers protection for the young, old, and those who cannot afford necessities like health care. In fact, I am in favor of socialized medicine to a point in the U.S. I believe in the rights of people, and also believe that corporate America has gotten way too strong, and dictates too much in government.

As far as Bush and his cabinet, the only one that I really have had any respect for in the past, or now is Colin Powell. I'm definitely not a conservative. I'm a member of what could be called a "backlash group," that will no longer tolerate a minority of people dictating what our government will do.

I don't trust Bush any further than you do. In fact, I don't trust politicians in general. To me, term limits, no pac money, no lobbying and "$10,000" a plate fund-raisers should be tolerated. Anyone who spends more than 12 years in the Senate, or 8 years in the House of Representatives has become so engrained in the political crap that it disturbs me.

I believe Bush was hoping that the UN would have enough guts to "force" Saddam Hussein to capitulate, without there being war. France, Germany, and Russia, forced the issue, by their own greed. Had they signed on board, Hussein would have knuckled under to world pressure, disclosed what he obligated himself to, following the Gulf War, and we would have seen the al-Qaeda operations in the North of Iraq removed. If you're looking for a scape-goat, as to why we are at war, look no further than those three "great nations," whose only reason for supporting the man were pure greed.

You don't take the ability to, or will to use, weapons of mass destruction, when the opponent has shown a propensity for having used them, even against his own people. That wouldn't make sense. The threat has to remain there, so the enemy thinks twice about doing it. Rest assured, Hussein would have used WMD already if we had said we wouldn't use them, under any circumstances.

In a state of war, as exists in Iraq, the rules of engagement say that the combatants will be in uniform. Anyone else who fights, in civilian clothes, is considered a guerilla or engaged in espionage, and the country that captures them has the right to stand them against the wall, and execute them. We aren't doing that, despite the fact that Hussein's "faithful" are not only using this as a tool of war, but engaging it's usage in such a manner as to endanger civilians. It is against every convention of war, and only a despot, and people who don't care about human life would stoop to such levels of depravity. If that's the way Fundamentalist Muslims conduct war, I'm afraid I see no reason that they should be shown quarter.

It's easy to judge the past. Why did the U.S. support Hussein in the beginning? It was an era where it was the Soviet Union against the West, and both sides were backing opposition to the other. It's not an issue worth discussion, since neither side really did the right things, but at the time, it seemed like the only viable options. Neither side would allow the other to "rule the world." Since that era has passed, we have to police the crap we caused... on both sides.

The anti-war movement does not care about people. Just saying we should pull out of Iraq is condemnation of millions. You can try to justify it any way you want, but those who have lived under a tyrant would disagree with you. It's time for the world community to rid the surface of the earth of these beasts.

As far as pointing at other nations as "future targets," let's just say one thing. If they harbor terrorists, allow them to operate at will against our friendly nations, and support their cause, I see no reason they should be protected from the wrath of the free world. If that's a message that there may be more nations under the gun, so be it.

Whether or not Res. 1441 was a watered down version or not doesn't matter. What does matter is that Hussein not only violated the accord, he flaunted it in the face of the UN, and nobody had the guts except our coalition, to do one damned thing about it. The UN has totally lost it's focus, and no longer has a reason to exist.

Wolf

Good! That is the spirit! Short messages

Thinking in loud voice, I find interesting how people can decide (myself included) in less than one minute if this war is necessary or not.

It seems that in my country (Spain) everyone has become a high strategy analyst stating how wrong (in the majority of the cases) or right this war is... To take a decision one must have a truthful information, based on processed amount of data, consider all the facts, the situation and the possible outcomes of the different possible decisions you can take.

We should all be more humble. We don't have veridic and complete data, can't wisely analyze it, can't take into consideration all the facts (for we don't know all of them), can't imagine the different possible elections, and can't forsee the probable outcomes. Therefore, in my opinion, we should delegate our decision rights. Can anyone imagine someone better suited and informed to judge the situation than the presidents of our countries? Not only that, but they have the legitimacy that a democratic election gave them.

I wan't my president to take that decision for me.

Fernando

It's not as clear-cut as that, which becomes obvious every time reporters interview a bewildered American field commander (or whatever the correct term is) from the present war. I think these guys were told they could expect civilians cheering in the streets as U.S. troops approached, like something out of a World War II newsreel. Instead, they're being shot at, and they seem genuinely surprised, perplexed and disappointed.

el viajero,

I don't believe our military figured that the people would come out in throngs to greet them. I do believe they knew that the Shiites in the South, and the Kurds, in the North, would eventually support what we're doing, to gain their own freedom. Of course there's optimism on our part, and always will be. But that was guarded optimism, since it was well known that the UN abandoned these same people during the Gulf War, when they had the Hussein regime under pressure, and could have taken him out.

Had the UN allowed the coalition to finish the job, these people would have been lining the streets in support, as coalition forces moved by, since they had taken up arms against Hussein.

But, once burned, because of the self-righteous attitude of the UN members who were using the withdrawal at that time to gain a foothold in Iraqi sales, we withdrew. A terribly stupid thing to have done, and we can thank the UN for it.

The stories as to what happened to the Shiites after we withdrew should more than tell you why they aren't overly ready to accept us as liberators today.

But, let's look at certain aspects of the news. The ability of coalition planes to identify exactly which targets should be hit throoughout the country. It's obvious that there are Iraqis stepping forward and helping us, even though they and their families would be slaughtered by Saddam's faithful. There is absolutely no way we would be able to gather the intelligence we're getting on targets without their help. Consider that, and you might find the people are really thankful we are there.

Are we disappointed that the people aren't reacting totally in favor of us? Of course. We can always hope it would be there, and when it doesn't happen, there has to be a bit of disappointment. But don't mix disappointment with it being something we had expected, military plans aren't based on specifics that are like that.

You might also want to ask the thousands of Kurdish troops who are helping the small contingent of U.S. paratroopers in the north, to contain, and help drive back the Iraqi forces there, as well as their deployment in the attacks against the terrorists cells operating freely under Iraqi military protection.

Wolf

When Saddam and his henchmen are toppled, there will still be some fighting, but by and large, the Iraqi people will see their new world is one of opportunity, and escape from tyrany. That's when the healing will really begin.

I don't know what interviews you're watching, or what you consider as being "bewildered," but I do see American Commanders avoiding giving information that would be helpful to the enemy. I think you're seeing the disgust they have over the questions asked, more than bewilderment. You'd think these reporters would have more common sense than to step into the face of a field commander and say; "And tell me General Halftrack, do the attacks by Iraqi soldiers in civilian clothes, surrounded by human shields disturb you, and have you changed your tactics about handling these situations in the future?"

Those are question asked by idiots, and I'm afraid there are too many of them who have license to attend briefings, and push a mic in front of a person.

As for Peter Arnett being canned by MSNBC, and NBC, I realize it may be "censorship." Yet, what he did say was giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Still, I am not certain that he should have been fired, because I've always considered him somewhat neutral, just like I did back in the Gulf War. He's a solid reporter, and even if he has started to feel compassion for the Iraqi military, it's akin to the Stockholm Syndrom in some respects, because he's seen the results it holds for people. Anyway, it was only his opinion, that our attacks weren't breaking the will of the Iraqi military.

On December the 30th, 2001, thirty American bombs hit the village of Niazi Kala, Afghanistan, and slay some one hundred locals. That was just one of the glorious feats of American arms during the epic war of Afghanistan. It was worth the pain: eventually, the war brought to that country for the first time in its history, a president who is, in the same time, an employee from the oil company Unocal.
Now pals, you thought you would never see anything as exciting, didn`t you? Wrong! Just check the last two weeks: a bus full of Syrians is hit by an American missile (not only they missed the aim, they missed the COUNTRY they were supposed to fight). Then those sixty terrorists (men, women, children) blasted in one hit, in the market of Baghdad (the market of Baghdad, just like in 1001 Nights – it`s so exciting!!!). And now, the bus in Nayef, where seven wogs, all females and cubs, were defeated by allied troops in a short and glorious battle. This time it was nothing as impersonal as a bomb,or a missile; this time it was the old, good “easy trigger” amusement against an unarmed target. I bet the soldiers enjoyed an exciting experience. I bet shooting real bullets at real children is much better than any video game.
Now, there is a thing I don`t understand. Why did the allied army put the blame at first on those wicked Saddam thugs? I admire the Saxon idea of “fair play” but, well, if you have earned glory and deserve admiration, just enjoy it, don`t need to offer it to your enemy. Imagine! American troops aren`t being able to even conquer Bassora, but they were able to grab seven women and children, and transform them into some sort of Iraki giant pizza. That`s what I call bravery.
Has Bush said anything about honouring them with the Congress medal?
Heil Bush! SIEG HEIL!!!!

Cristobo,
Aren't you making proclamations without supporting them with facts? While U.S. troops may have been at fault, I do not think that has been fully established. It seems there are conflicting reports regarding whose bomb hit the market in Baghdad. Of course the Iraqi regime is going to say it was a U.S. bomb while the U.S. says it was an Iraqi missle that fell off course. Regarding the van, from what I read, it appears that the soldiers acted in self defense. However, I would prefer to wait for further details especially before I start comparing our President to Hitler. Don't forget that it was those unfortunate civilian's own leaders who warned of future suicide attacks.

If it is in your interest to rid the world of Hitler-esque leaders, maybe you are right, the U.S. should pull out of Iraq immediately. Allow the Saddam regime to re-acquire power. Allow the Iraqi citizens to experience, again, the peaceful and compassionate nature of Hussein. Or do you have a better solution?...

Ed,

Cristobo rarely offers anything that resembles facts, just "anti-American" rants. Communists don't have to offer solutions, they just have to blame everyone else for the ills of the world. Today we're Nazis, a few months ago we were Fascists. Go figure!

Apparently they haven't found out the Soviet Union folded under the same rhetoric.

Wolf

When in 1939 France and UK decided to declare war on Germany they knew they were choosing between two terrible decisions: Doing nothing, and continue to see how Germany seized one free country after another, and how minorities were going to be harrased, or making a horrible and bloody war, in which civilians of every country involved were going to die.

When in 2002 US decided to invade Afghanistan, and when in 2003 the Coalition forces decided to invade Iraq, I think that nobody could think this was to be a war without inocent victims (is there any war like that?). We all had to choose between two terrible decisions: Let talibans continue their genocide and supporting Al-Qaeda, let Iraq continue to irresponsibly use and stock massive destruction weapons, and let two terrible dictatorships continue to kill thousands of their citizens, or make a terrible war in which inocent people was going to die.

It is as simple and as terrible as it seems, a pure economy of lives. We must choose between the better of two terrible decisions. For me that decision is war.

Fernando

Fernando
The decission to start the war in Afghanistan had nothing to do with the welfare of Afghans, nor fighting terrorism, nor any honourable reason. War started for certain reasons, like the Caspian sea pipeline, the growing strategic importance of Central Asia, the ban of opium crops (the only ban that Taliban were not allowed to do) and so on.
Let`s say it again, no war in history has started for ethical reasons, but economical and political ones.
I enclose you a couple of interesting links:
http://www.idleworm.com
This used to be quite a funny site, but lately it has been busy collecting all the war reports that TV channels are systematically censoring.
http://http://www.fair.org/
Media watch. A good site if you want to know quite accurately the scope of censorship today.
By the way, bad news, two good sites, www.yellowtimes.org and Al-Jazeera.net have been recently attacked by American pro-war zealots. I hope these brave people manage to mend both sites!

Carmenn, I agree with you, these wars are not started only to depose tyrants for the good of their citizens. No country would risk its soldiers, its money and its public opinion for it. But as a secondary target and a consequence of the war, those tyranical regimes are being deposed.

The reasons for the war are much graver. In the case of Afghanistan, as I have stated, to cut off support to Al-Qaeda, in the case of Iraq, probably due to the stock and use of chemical weapons.

I think that the oil argument is pure demagogery (though I don't deny it may be a reason to start the war). What do you prefer: A tyrant who use the incomes of the oil to build palaces, buy weapons while his people starves, or the oil production managed by the USA, an ally of Spain, with the oil incomes used to better the population situation?

Remember: Iraq has almost the greatest oil production, but iraqis are not living as well as their neighbours (Kuwait, Saudi Arabia) nor they were living as well before the blockade.

Fernando

aidance: Just checking in...I think that the phrase "history will reveal who was right" should be restated. Correctly read, it should say "history will be written by whoever wins the war". Might makes right?

As for Wolf, I'm with you 100%. I was a kid during Vietnam, but am a historian and find it scandalous and abhorrent to know that Americans spat upon you and your comrades upon your return.

It's really easy to sit back and watch the war on TV and second-guess those involved. Opinions are like a-------, everyone has one, and everyone thinks everyone else's stinks. We've got to put that aside.

We're going through our studies of WWII right now, and as I look at some of my mother's first-hand accounts, I find it hard to imagine a "peace-nik" during that time having a snowball's chance in hell of organizing a protest against war.

Obviously this is a different war, but there are too many similarities to ignore...ruthless dictator, appeasement attempts, chemical weapons, etc. The main difference here is that it is a war of pre-emption, not reaction.

Alright, I've babbled long enough...my apologies.
Hey, Don MadridMan, when will you be going to bed on Sunday?

Wolf - again I am disappointed with the comment:

"The anti-war movement does not care about people."

You really like using that one but it's a terribly inaccurate assumption.

Are you so jaded that you think all we want to do is defy our leadership and cause problems for the Bush administration? I guess I'm lost as to what you think the movement is really about. Again let me say - it is ALL about people. Innocent American civilians, American troops (45 so far...although it seems these numbers are always low-balled during the actual war), and Iraqi civilians (of which an estimated 4,000 have now died).

Again - I can't speak for everyone, but I can say that to me - anti-war opinions are ALL about people. The damage done by this war to the Iraqi people is damage that would have taken Hussein 3 or 4 years to do himself. And certainly so much could have changed between the time the war started and 3 or 4 years from now - including international support for overriding his regime which would have made this war easier on everyone. If Hussein knew the entire world - or even 70% of it - was against him, there would have been less of a fight (assumption, of course). By acting unilaterrally, we undermined the legitimacy of the act. Additionally, in the end, acting unilaterally may end up costing us our freedom - we may be living in another Israel shortly - marred by cyclical violence and terrorism. Time will tell, but this is the fear a lot of people have these days.

Bush's ignorance of popular opinion doesn't deserve silence and collusion - that would tell Bush it's okay to wage war whenever he see's fit regardless of his people's opinion. I know Bush has access to information we do not, but too much of it has been proven false - undermining his credibility. I don't view elections as a formality - I view them as representation. A leader's responsibility to accurately represent his people should not end after being sworn-in. For that reason, it's important that the protests continue - send the message to the President (not the soldiers) that it is NOT okay to ignore the people's wishes. It is contrary to what the U.S. is all about.

And these comparisons to Hitler...*sigh*...I just don't see the correlation. Hussein was not amassing enough power to ever compare to Hitler - hasn't even made threats to another country for 12 years. It's just not the same thing...unless you're paranoid.

PS - I'm SO thankful you see Bush's faults! We DO agree on that.

I am hoping someone can help me with this issue. I see time and time again, on TV and on web sites, Iraqi citizens giving US troops the thumbs up sign (as indicated by my message icon). I am also aware that in different cultures, societies and countries hand gestures mean different things. When I see an Iraqi giving a US soldier the thumbs up are they happy to see them or insulting them?

thijs,

Well, one of the poster boys for "peace" has kind of shown his ass. Assistant Professor Nicholas De Genova, of Columbia University.

He called for a million Mogadishus. The deaths of American soldiers. He apparently wants to see the bodies of our soldiers dragged through the streets of Iraq, to prove his point. Instead of trying to resolve this issue, he took his stupidity to the next level, by calling for a defeat like Vietnam in the school's newspaper.

The problem is, there are way too many organizers, and members of your so called "peace movement" that could care less about American or Iraqi lives, or the future of the world. Their only agenda is their extremist views, and we've allowed these people to create cocoons of self-righteous hypocrisy in the very foundation of our nation. Education.

I received an e-mail from a student at one University and he told this story. Their Political Science Professor took a classroom poll. He asked how many people supported what's happening in Iraq. Eighty percent of the students raised their hands, supporting the troops, and our cause.

For the next three days, the Professor force fed his "peace" and "reasoning" into these students as to why the U.S. was wrong, and why we should be severely beaten in Iraq. Then he took another poll. He had those who supported us in Iraq raise their hands. The percentage went up to over 90%. He was so incensed by it that he stormed out of the room, and did not come back for the rest of the period. The following day he resumed classes, and has treated the students like they were "the enemy" since. In fact, they have petitioned the Dean to intervene, because they are confident he will take his ire out on them, as students, in their grades.

So thank you for your opinions. Your statement that it would "take Hussein 3 or 4 years to inflict as much harm on the Iraqis as we are during this war" should be a real comfort to everyone. I imagine it would tell a Kurdish or Shiite mother that her children suffering from malnutrition, and dying, doesn't matter, because there'd be peace. I know she'd be thankful for your benevolence. I'm certain that the loved ones who have soldiers in Iraq right now would invite you in for dinner, while you expounded the virtues of a Genova, and tell them how the ones they love are being put further in harms way because the "anti-war" movement here in the U.S. is used as propaganda for the Iraqi regime to convince their people we are losing the war. I know they'd offer you a second dessert.

So... it would take Saddam 3-4 years to cause this much damage to his people? That's acceptable? What about the 3-4 years, or the 10-20 years after that? Apparently that doesn't matter.....

Sorry! It does matter. It matters to me, and a lot of us who support our nation's effort in this time of strife. Your movement should be damned thankful we aren't really Nazis, or you sure as hell wouldn't be getting on your soap boxes, and offering opinions that were contradictory to our belief.

You might take a look at the smiling faces, and the mothers who are getting medical attention for their children, for the first time in years. You might remember that the malnutrition the doctors with our forces are seeing didn't happen in the last few weeks. It's something that's been there for a long time. Of course that doesn't matter... 3 to 4 years, right?

Wolf

Ed,

According to a source I have, that can't be divulged, he was told by a reporter of Al Jazeera, that he's been covering issues in southern Iraq for years. That the smiles on the faces of women and children, and the fact that they are being fed even more decently with the limited supplies they already have, is something he's never seen before.

"Of course," he added, "this is off the record, because I cannot report this, or even allude to it or I will be assassinated along with my family."

I'd say the "thumbs up" is a good sign. Especially when I see those broad smiles on the faces of kids who need food, and hope for a future.

Wolf

Yeah that Hitler analogy always gets me.. Two different situations by far, but... as I go to these demostrations (sinse they end up at the end of my street) I see over and over the Aznar=Franco and Bush=Hitler... My girlfriend now states americans the murderers a little too much lately.. but I blow that off when she backs it up with most of the spanish facts like we invaded Kuwait in 91 and they did not want us there... god.. I watch the spanish tv here seldom.. I prefer BBC or washington post for most of my news... The spanish tv is a little different than american for sure on its horrific pictures. The media is doin more damage than good for sure in this war. Yes, it does aid Saddam and turns the rest of the world against the facts. Ask the average person around here who the kurds are? or how many people saddam killed? etc etc.. no answer, just America supplied the weapons, America dropped the bomb in WWII... I dont get it.. I do think this war will esculate into somethin worse than imagined but at the same tyme I think it will prevent an even worse scenario.. Hearts and minds... hmmm... Facts and figures... Lies and Truth... Our past polocies have hurt us. The fact that we are the only super power and coca cola and mc donalds are in the plaza square seams oh so bad... We fight for our freedom where others fight in order to stay alive... to avoid death by percecution...
Some of my family are comin to Spain in two weeks.. They are worried about the travel (the question which started this thread.) Well, we wont be in Madrid but for two daze... I live in Murcia down south where the demonstrations arent so violent but are occurrin everynite... and I dont see any anti american things around me (just banners sayin we are the murderers). Besides that people are always as always friendly.. Its more like what was stated before... pissed off at Aznar.. I don't know what to think in that fact... 91% oppose the war in spain.. hmmm... Fernando at least respects the man... I think I lean towards the theory of once you vote someone into office, you are votin for them to make qualified decisions.. Not the fact of voting for every single question... Aznar stood up in front of overwhelming opposition... Prost.
War good... War bad? One thing is for sure.. War is sad for all who suffer from injustice but with hope and determination things can change for our upper level primative state of existince..

Well..enuff ramblin.. for a good read check this link out.. It is the closest thing to the truth for the reason for this war I have found..
THE PATH TO WAR

Enjoy..

An interesting quote:
"Of course common people don`t want war, but after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine what politics will be followed and it is always an easy matter to pull the people. No matter if they have a chance to speak or not, you can always drive the people to do whatever their leaders want. It is easy. All you have to do is tell them that they are being attacked and denounce peace activists for their lack of patriotism and because they are exposing the country to peril"
Hermann Goering, in the Nuremberg trials (1945)
Sounds familiar, uh?
All I mean is, you can`t understand the reason of a war through the excuses that their starters provide. The excuses and the real reasons are totally different things. You can`t start a war "to bring liberty to an opressed people" just like you can`t make a chair with bread: bread is not intended to work as furniture, and wars do not work to bring liberty, peace, safety or any other "clean" thing: they are only a tool to enhance the power of a certain nation.

Three cheers for the US! God´s speed! EU, UN, and NATO - step aside!

Wolf, wolf, wolf. You comparing me to Nicholas De Genova of Columbia is like me comparing you to Bush (whom you claim to dislike in many manners). Why do you insist on making such generalizations and assumptions? Quite insulting, really.

Have you heard ME want American soldiers to die? Have you heard ME call for a defeat like Vietnam? Are there crazies out there who do advocate such stupidity? Sure...but that's true of every side of this war. I'm beginning to expect nothing but smear campaigns from you. Instead of asking...you put me on the defensive. Think about it...if I did the same to you it would go something like this...

War supporters (or pro-war) don't care about freedom or Iraqi civilians. They just want to bomb the Iraqi people into submission so that they willingly give up their oil to the almighty American corporation. War supporters only driver is money and oil and profits and greed and lust and material things. They have no soul.

Do those arguments have any validity? Maybe to the extreme right wing, but I know they don't represent everyone who supports this war! There are unique and different reasons for the same positions some times.

And I'm glad 80% of the people in this country support this war - it gives those of you who support this mess some comfort and reassurance. And you do need it. Especially if what determines if this war is right or wrong comes down to public poll numbers instead of moral or ethical numbers. If it is all about numbers and not about "the right thing," then war U.S. war supporters really need the public-poll "moral" support since 80% of the *world* does not support this war.

As for a Kurdish or Shiite mother suffering from a continued Hussein reign...the same analogy can be said for the 400 civilians that have died from our bombs so far. I suppose telling them they were collateral damage is much more comforting than letting them at least have a chance at a peaceful and full life. Do you think they will understand that anymore than a continued Hussein reign? Imagine if your mother died from a foreign bomb because another country was trying to "liberate" us. Do you think you could rationalize that?

And you might remember the angry Iraqi mobs being shown on T.V. forcing our troops to retreat. There are two sides to the people of Iraq and I'm not confident anyone really considered whether we were welcome in the first place. I sure hope we ARE welcome because otherwise we will be in for another Vietnam. But I guess we never bothered to really find out what the Iraqi people wanted, right? Did we? Was there ever any cries for help? No, instead of researching that one, we'll find out after the fact. Another shining example of American foreign policy genius.

Cristobo - excellent and thought-provoking!

QUITEFRANKLYsfs:
"Ask the average person around here who the kurds are? or how many people saddam killed? etc etc.. no answer"
Well, here you are a couple of answers.
The kurds are an Indo-European ethnic group which dwells Iran, Irak, Turkey and (partially) Syria. They have been heavily opressed and killed in all these countries for many years. Do you know what does that mean?
Turkey, a member of NATO, and one of the closest American allies in the area, has driven a true GENOCIDE on Kurds (including gassings). And no one cares, no "preentive strike" against Turkey.
Now the invaders are looking for support on Kurdish local warlords (should we suppose that these leaders are better than Saddam? Why?) just like they leaned on the Kosovo guerrilla (which only one year before was regarded as a "terrorist group"). In Kosovo, the American invasion lead to the ethnic cleaning of the Serbian minority. Good!
The massacre of Halabja (when "Saddam gassed his own people") was only one more episode in a terrible war, the Iran-Irak one. Now it is said that IRANIS did it. Interesting...
How many people Saddam killed? That is the wrong question. Saddam was only one more of the people involved. Kissinger, for example, said "let`s hope this war (Iran-Irak) lasts as much as possible, and be as devastating and bloody as we desire". Rumsfeld went to Irak in 1983 and negociated the sell of weapons to the Iraki regime.
See what I mean? Everybody is guilty.
In any case, I am afraid Saddam didn`t kill as many people as they have died during the last twelve years of blockade and bombings. The child mortality rate multiplied THREE TIMES in that time, some 700 000 children died.
Irak, in 1982, was a developed country, with European-like child mortality rates, no illiteracy, free education (including university) and so on...they achieved all this by nationalizing the oil. This was totally unacceptable for the West, of course. The worst crime of Saddam it was to give Irak the chance to become an Arab world power, just like they were in the tenth century. Unacceptable.
You have asked if we knew who the Kurds are. Now let me ask you, have you ever heard of CHRISTIANS? They are a religious minority, heavily opressed in all those "friendly Arab regimes" like Saudi Arabia. In Pakistan they are simply slaying Christians systematically.
When will the Christian right in America start to whine for their brothers in religion, just like they do for Kurds? Mmm...I am afraid they don`t give a damn.
And well...where are those chemical weapons? When will the Irakis start to use them against the invasion? Where are those famous "factories" hidden under sand bags? (God, what a stupid tale). Maybe this war was started for NOTHING, after all.

"Preentive war is an Adolf Hitler invention, honestly I wouldn`t take seriously anyone who ever proposed such a thing" Dwight Eisenhower, 1953 (from the Falsano reply to the American ambassador in Uruguay, http://www.diariolarepublica.com/2003/3marzo/especiales/separata_20030330.htm )
Very flattered, thijs. I liked your posts too.

Latest news: seven more civilians (three of them being children) killed in a checkpoint.

thijs,

I didn't say you were the same as Genova, I said that the man is the poster boy for your movement. I also indicated that there's "too many like him" involved in your movement, and they seem to be the driving force within, not the real people who would rally, and peacefully speak out against the war. If you decide that's an indictment of what you believe, it isn't my choosing - it's your own. I never said it. If you are against people like Genova why don't you speak out? I have spoken out as to my desire to see Bush replaced in the next election. I don't hide that fact. Where is your outrage for a statement like Genova made?

But, on the issue of the 3/4 years of death at the hands of Hussein's henchmen, you did make that statement. You indicated it would take him that long to kill as many people as would die as collateral damage in this war. But the question isn't just the time frame of the war, or even the 3/4 year window you imposed. The problem is beyond that, with Saddam, and eventually his son Udey, who may be worse than his father. It goes not only to the deaths of people inside Iraq, but the support of terrorism, and it's repercussions as well. How many would die because of our failure to act now?

It's easy to sit in an ivory tower of self-righteousness when it comes to war, and say how evil it is. It's easy to wash your hands of the matters dealing with the deaths of thousands at the hands of a dictator, and say "it isn't our business." It's easy, and it's fashionable, in pseudo-intellectual circles, because there isn't any concern for the reality of human life, it's just rhetoric, and as long as the parade of deaths doesn't touch home, it's someone else's problem.

On 9-11, the truth of what is happening around the world came crashing into the lives of America. It was easy for us to turn a deaf ear to the suffering and pain that surrounded us in the world. We'd just send money, and hope it would all go away, or at least it wouldn't be visited on us, as a people. Our little world, where we lived safely in a cocoon, came crashing down around our ears, and it's something that we now share with the world. We have no choice but to be part of the resolve, not adding to the problems, like Russia, France, Germany, and Syria.

Your statement about the "angry crowd" miffed me. The people were concerned that the U.S. might attack Saddam's men in the Ali Mosque. When they were assured that wouldn't happen, the problem was resolved. They are concerned about their history, and the roots of their religion, yet you turn it into a political statement against the U.S. Obviously you fail to recognize the difference, because it wouldn't be in your best interests. Your statement should have told the entire truth, not just a propagandized version which you threw out, to make a point. The fact is, the Shia want the Saddam men out of there as badly as we do. But, since there are those who would make the whole issue political, they will probably end up blowing the Mosque up, and go up in their own destruction. Of course, if that happens, people on your side of the issue will blame it on the U.S., because it fits your political needs.

Wolf

Cristobo,

So Bush is like Hitler? Amazing deduction. Of course your information comes from the extremist of left wing organizers once again. Then the attack against America by saying we "haven't done anything in Turkey," where the Kurds are mistreated. My question is this? What have you, or anyone else in your left wing movement done for them, except agitate the condition, and cause greater loss of life? Arming them, and teaching them how to act as terrorists as your movement has, certainly doesn't speak well for your point of view. It shows me that your perspective is that they can "win" by by terrorist tactics.

It's sad that you can't see the fact that nobody has done anything for the Kurds, and even now, as they are being freed in Iraq, you can't recognize the reality that they could well become an active participant in the new Iraqi government if they choose to do so.

It will also mean that millions of Iraqi Kurds who have found some refuge in other nations will be able to return home, and pursue a fruitful life if they so desire.

I will repeat something I've said to you before. Read something other than far left wing/communist sources, and try to understand that there's more than a communist point of view in the world. We've already seen the Soviet Union fall under it's own weight of corruption, and inability to deliver anything that remotely resembled the freedoms that they indicated would be there for the people, by following communist theology. The only thing that keeps any nation with communists in control is by keeping the people ignorant, and under a constant threat of reprisal by the government, should they oppose the views of the communist leaders.

As for your statement about innocents killed at a check point, you really haven't got a clue as to what happened... or conveniently could care less... about the circumstances. It's really amazing just how closed minded your information is, and how quickly you swallow the propaganda that conveniently leaves out the truth. It might be time for you to take a dose of reality. Your sources aren't tainted, they are for the most part nothing more than propaganda. It's difficult for me to believe that someone in university doesn't have the ability to see the truth.

Wolf

Wolf:
It is not such an "amazing" deduction. If you read the link I provide, from Mr. Fasano (it is in Spanish) you will find a detailed explanation on the matter. And it is not me who wrote it, surprisingly.
I don`t have the answers, and I have never claimed to have them. I don`t know how to solve the Kurdish question, or the bloody puzzle that the Middle East is today, as a whole. Maybe Irak will become just one more peaceful protectorate, from now on. Maybe we are now watching the birth of a new West Bank. Who knows...
All I say is, I can`t accept that the US state department tries to fool us all. They have not invaded Irak to liberate anyone, their only reasons are economical, political and geostrategical. Period.
I don`t know exactly what "organization" that I belong has ever supported terrorism (????). But I will tell you a couple of things on Communism.
You don`t know a word about communists, since you have always lived in a country where Communism didn`t find fertile soil (good for you). I do, Communists in my country have played an important role from 1936 on. I do know what kind of garbage they are, while you can only tell me what have you read about them. I have good reasons to hate and contempt them. OK?
You know, I also have watched "Die Hard" a couple of times, I know widely those cliches about leftist, snobbish, anti-American Europeans. An amusing movie, but a stupid bunch of stereotypes. If you insist on including me into those categories, so might I say that you must be a preacher from one of those ultra-rightist American little churches, who pray to start WWIII and so bring the Second Coming at once. Would you like being labelled like that? It can be funny.
I have had one week to learn what happened the last time American troops shot kids in another checkpoint. And it stinks, just as I imagined. All I know, this time, is that they shot seven people, three of them being children. Nothing can justify that. How has Fox News explained it?(I figure that must be a reliable source for you, unlike the partisan propaganda-makers that provide me with false information)
American forces are an occupation army and are behaving just like occupation armies do.
And you haven`t answered, just one week ago you were boasting about the "chemical weapons factory" that the American army had discovered.
What happened with mass destruction weapons anyway? My sources are so biased that they have not reported one jot about any finding on that, sorry...
"the ability to see the truth"? How can you claim to have the monopoly on TRUTH? Maybe you are an actual preacher, after all...

Wolf, you're a patient man. I myself am so right that I think Rush is a liberal. I can't see replacing our current president. After that last administration I would have voted for Adolph Hitler himself if he ran against Gore.
I myself have done my time in the military, however, I've never put myself in harm's way as did you veterans of Vietnam.
I myself joined in the fray because I couldn't let the nonsense of these anti-war postings on this site. But you have faithfully stood up to every frontal assault against you. I salute you and know as well as you do that in the end, the anti-war liberals will have so much egg on their face and a heapin' helping of crow.
Even this morning piles of Iraqi bodies killed by atrocities of Saddam's regime are being discovered. Where is your outrage thijs? Tell me how evil we are you other anti-war posters...Carmenm.

Gazpacho
Do you remember the mass graves in Timisoara, 1989? Sure not: they were a FABRICATION to divert world public opinion from the atrocities of the invasion of Panama. Now they have been totally forgotten.
Now that their popularity is falling down, the invaders have found new proofs of Iraki atrocities. Well, maybe they are real, maybe not. In any case, today it is too early to say anything for certain. The first casualty of war is truth, they say...
And Gazpacho, when a private shoots seven civilians to death without provocation he is EVIL, no matter what are the crimes of the other side.
"I would have voted for Adolph Hitler himself if he ran against Gore."
You would love Hitler, he was another war veteran. And a brave one. And he enjoyed invading unarmed countries, too...

Even if we support this war, specific isolated errors or even crimes may occur.

There is no excuse for killing an unarmed family. Those soldiers should be courted and jailed if found guilty.

We live in democracies, if we use the force of the state, we must adhere to the same laws and principles we are trying to defend. Otherwise we are nothing but state criminals.

In any case, I think that the use media and anti-war movements do of these isolated incidents is nothing but demagoguery. A position for or against this terrible war shouldn't be based on a particular incident, but on a more broad vision of the conflict.

Fernando

Cristobo,

Ah! You've watched "Diehard," the movie, so that's your reason for being anti-America, pro-communist, etc..... Do you know what the word "fiction" is? It's kind of like the information you keep reading... Not true.

I don't claim to have a corner on the market when it comes to truth. In fact I'm concerned about getting at the truth. That's why I don't wrap myself in a blanket of ideological beliefs that suit my personal conviction, like you do. You don't even bother to seek out varying opinions, or reports on issues. You just accept whatever is said by the Commissar, or offered up as fact. God forbid you should check any other sources...

As for your comment about mass graves in Timisoara, what's your point? Are you saying the butcher of Romania was treated unfairly? That it was an "American" uprising? I suppose you are saying that, after all Mr. C. was a communist, wasn't he, so he couldn't have done anything wrong.

I won't even get into the Romanian issue.... anyone who has studied world politics knows they were ruled by a tyrant, not a super nice guy like you allude.

Wolf

Cristobo? Iraq an unarmed country? C'mon.

Gazpacho:
Irak is simply unarmed, and this is becoming increasingly obvious as this "war" (rather, unilateral attack) unfolds. If they had ANYTHING worth the name of an arm, they wouldn`t resort to pathetical things like suicide bombers. You know, I have heard nothing about any Iraqi war plane since the war began. Not a word. Amazing...
Wolf:
I ENJOYED "Diehard", I think Willis is cool, really. All I mean is, since I have been reading your anti-German posts, and all that stuff about European stupid reds who don`t feel any gratitude for America, well, I can`t help thinking that YOU believed the movie was something related to real life. And it just isn`t. I read also P.J.O`Rourke, and I laughed a lot, I think he is great; but his prejudices remind me a lot of you, too.
I am afraid I don`t understand you. You believe I am biased? You see, it was a journalist from the Washington Post who said TEN people had been shot in the checkpoint, instead of seven. And it was him who said that the civilians had not been waved prior to the shooting. I don`t think the Washington Post is exactly the Pravda, but well, neither I thought Bush might be ever defined as a "liberal"...
It will surprise you, but I am not exactly a Ceaucescu fan. My meetings in the Ba`az party don`t let me time to visit his grave and salute my Romanian comrades. Bad luck...All I meant was, if Timisoara was a sham, and the tale about incubators in Kuwait City hospital was another sham, then hey, maybe American army is not a reliable source...
I am not a communist, Wolf. The world is full of shades between black and white, and if you don`t support Bush, you don`t need to be neither a red, nor an Iraqi torturer.
I am an Asturian nationalist, and would love to see the end of European nation-states, and a united Europe of the peoples. I believe in free enterprise, and oppose any kind of centralized economy. Is that OK, or will you ask me for my baptism certificate?
And yes, I am both Cristobo Carrin and Carmenm, although the profile along with the first nick is the one which provides the accurate data: I chose a new identity just because things had grown too "hot" with the first one, and I wanted a break: but I have understood it was a mistake.

wolf,

You clearly indicated that Genova was a poster boy for "your" (meaning mine) movement. That is a clear and direct link to me and my belief system. Therefore, you *did* implicate me as a believer in Genova's comments. The people I know who disagree with this war (including myself) do not believe in such nonsense and have never expressed thoughts like those Genova expressed. And that's why it doesn't outrage me when he says crap like that - Genova is one extreme and then you have extremists on the other side - both of which are equally disgusting and revolting (yes, that would be you gazpacho).

As we've all discussed, no one believes Saddam is a good guy. No one wants to see him "win." And I feel like this discussion is becoming a broken record - you say Al-Qaida supporters, we say "no proof." You say WMD, we say "no proof." This is really all of our problem - we stand at different sides because of what we believe constitutes proof. War supporters appear to be a bit naive - believing what they are fed by the administration even when it is proven as fallacy by the world order. When the the U.N. stamps "fallacy" on our "papers" then suddenly the U.N. becomes "irrelevant" and old allies become "old Europe." War supporters believe in "blank checks" for the administration, anti-war people believe that is a dangerous precedent to set considering human history.

There is plenty of sufferring in the world and yet we count oppressive regimes in places like Cameroon as part of our "coalition" to "liberate." Isn't that a little bit contradictory? Some of these countries even have to remain confidential...why, because they need our aid but don't want revolution at home. How sad is that?

And of course the Mosque incident has political ties. They don't *trust* us near their mosques because they remain unconvinced of our intent. The whole game of politics includes getting your message across...and we cannot be welcomed as liberators if we are not trusted - this is again a matter of politics and the U.S.'s failure to convince anyone but itself of it's purpose and goals. We are living in a vacuum.

And Cristobo brought up a good point about Turkey - both Kurdish populations are oppressed and yet we claim to be "liberating" one population and not the other? Where is the justice here? Where is our good deed in Turkey? Or is it that we can only "liberate" from foes we can fight? And yes - so far Iraq appears to be "unarmed." Look at how much of a threat they were to us - here we are three weeks into this thing and it appears (I say this tongue-in-cheek) to be almost over. Gee - good thing we got them in check. They were really going to terrorize us!

As for someone saying anti-war people will have "egg" on their faces after this is over. That's just sad. That just shows that some war supporters cannot fathom the idea of static and humanistic viewpoints and morals. Such a lack of understanding for ethics and morality makes me wonder just how much longer such a dysfunctional society can continue to function at all.

Cristobo, Carmenn, or whichever "personna" has taken over at this moment ,

It was pretty obvious the posts were made by the same person, or two people who were allied, but that doesn't matter. It's what you post that rankles me. If you took the time to make honest appraisals, and offer up conflicting points of view on issues, to show why your philosophy was valid, you'd see that your offerings have been totally lopsided in intent. That's not acceptable when it comes to subjects that have such far reaching effects as what's happening in Iraq. There's more to the issue than just a blatant point of view which offers up one side of the issue.

Apparently you haven't read where I am not a Bush supporter, and apparently you aren't aware that I am Roman Catholic, not a member of a clergy. Just a Catholic, nothing more. As you can see, I'm also opposed to the Pope's statement that war is bad.. not that I think war is bad... but sometimes born out of necessity.

One of my closest friends is an Iranian exile. A man who has lived without being able to go back to his homeland, because he's Kurdish. When it comes to my knowledge about the Kurds, I don't read a propaganda source of information, I follow my instincts on the internet, go to the library and pull out scores of writings, and talk to people who are in the Kurdish community, to formulate my opinions. It beats the hell out of offering up some left wing propaganda like you do.

As for the situation in Romania, I might add I spend quite a bit of time each summer discussing the issues related to Romania with a Romanian/American who owns a small family restaurant, who I see at least three times a week. We sit for an hour or two each time I stop in, and discuss the "old Romania" and that which exists now, and is part of the coalition in Iraq. The only reason he doesn't move back to Romania is because he's now an American citizen, and he feels this is his home. By the way, he has first hand knowledge of the situation you referred to, and the question of whether or not there were "mass graves." The story he tells, of those days in his country, tell the story of a proud people, who eventually overthrew their communist keepers. You believe what you want, once again, I'll opt for someone who lived there, and through it.

Within the past week, I sat down, in private, with several Iraqis living here in the U.S. Although they have mixed emotions about the fact the coalition is in Iraq, they all have one thing in common. When it's over, they are happy in the knowledge they can return home, and begin a new life. They also indicated something else. We cannot expect the Muslim world to accept what's happening now, because of the strong ties of religion which is a secondary binder to their worldy borders. But they all alluded to one thing we should all remember. Islamic groups have always been at war with each other. The only thing that ever really brings them together is when there is someone from outside their world that attacks one of them. Within months, after Iraq is freed, they will be back to their "in-fighting," where fundamentalists will fight Sunnis, and both will fight Shi'ites because each one believes they are better than the other.

Believe what you want, but take some time to meet people who are directly affected by the happenings in Iraq. Don't keep preaching from the far left, without taking time to offer a resolution that will work for all parties concerned.

Wolf

thijs,

I'm sorry. Genova is one of yours, not one of mine, and since he represents "academia" and the pseudo-intellectual left, what more can I say? If Columbia University wasn't accepting what he said, why in hell does he even have a job at this juncture? It's time for people like him to be weeded out of institutions of higher learning. Their sentiments are way too radical to be passed on as "the gospel" in classrooms. If you're looking for a parallel, you could compare it to the Muslim Fundamentalist schools where they teach hatred for the west.

Of course the Iraqis don't trust us. Would you? We pulled out of Iraq during the Gulf War, after the rose up to fight against the Baath party. Of course we pulled out because the UN said it had to be done. If you're looking for a scape goat for what happened, you might want to look at that "no longer viable" group of people who didn't give a damn what would happen to the Shia. Don't "conveniently" place this on the shoulders of the U.S. because it feeds your views. That's hypocrisy.

The issue with the Kurds has been constant war since not long after WWI, when Kurdistan was put to rest. If you're looking for a scape goat there, look at the world powers, not the U.S., and blame them for what's happening. If the Kurds find at one nation where they are part of the system, that may help. At least this is the first step towards allowing them to surface again as someone who has a home, instead of "outsiders" no matter where they live.

Isn't it quite a reach though, on your part, to bring up the Kurdish issue as a reason we shouldn't be in Iraq?

One thing I will say. I do enjoy your posts. At least there's thought that goes into them, unlike someone else's which I expect to see flowered up with Che Guevera poems soon......

Wolf

Wolf, I agree with you that there is a need to find a solution for all parties involved, but just look at the discussion in this forum and you will realize it is virtually impossible to do so. We dont have to agree, we are not going to change our minds just because somebody has great argumentative skills and offer us the best insight on the issue or has anybody offered a solution and I have missed it!

As I said in a posting in another thread, I am far from being an expert in international politics, so sometimes I get lost with all the information you all provide and I admit you all have great argumentative skills. Congratulations!

From what I have read so far my views are very similar to those expressed by Thijs, that is why I have to say I dont agree with this at all:

this is not about who is with whom, it is about people's ideas and not about team work. The only thing that guy Genova, Thijs and I may have in common is that we oppose the war. From what I read about Genova in your postings, this is the only thing I have in common with him, aside from belonging to academia, but I dont feel in any way that he is one of 'ours', opposing the war is not a club membership such as it is not being for the war. I refuse to make myself responsible for other people's thoughts, so dont make me responsible for this guy's thinking because it is not fair and I think it is taking a generalization too far. I think we should all understand that people think differently and we should look at things in a flexible way not in a black and white scheme. I refuse to hear anybody say that just because I support peace and some other person in Columbia who says a lot of crazy stuff does as well, he is my responsibility, I DONT THINK SO! It is a very simplistic view I am afraid. I dont feel represented by Genova, despite being for peace and belonging to the academic community.

Does freedom of speech ring a bell here? I guess anybody can have whatever ideas they have, as twisted as this case is, living in democracies allow us freedom of speech, which does not insure that it will always be wise and sensible, so as a downside of freedom of speech we have people saying twisted things, nobody said the world is a perfect place! But, should we fire somebody bc of his ideas just because they do not agree with those from the establishment? is that legal? I believe it to be against the constitution at least in Spain.By the way, I AM NOT supporting Genova, just thinking out loud. How do freedom of speech and being fired because you are too radical co-exist? I wish somebody could explain that to me.

One could argue that he may influence his students in a bad way, but we should also give his students the credit to discern what is important and what may be the professor just talking nonsense. We are talking about people who are intellectually mature an therefore have an ability to question anything they are told in the classroom, at least mine do and speak their minds when they do nto agree with something, of course they are never going to be punished for thinking differently.

I would also like to add that I have seen reflected in this post a dangerous trend that I have seen reflected in the media in general. It is this black and white scheme of things: you are with us or against us and I dont believe it represents most people. I am against the war, but I am not against Americans, I hate Americans to die in Iraq as much as I hate Iraquis to die and I personally feel much closer to Americans for many reasons that to Iraquis, but I doubt this is a question of 'I want my enemy to die'. I hate the thought of people dying unnecessarily and I am and have always been pro-American and I dont have a problem in defining myself as that, but at the same time I dont have a problem saying that I dont agree with what is going on at the moment. Does it mean I love and respect my American friends any less? Does it mean that I dont like the USA as a country and I am thankful for the opportunities I have been given there (I dont live there or ever have but have been there frequently in different status)? NO, it does not mean that, I dont have to agree with everything, but it does not make me evil or Geneva-like.

As for the first hand experience in these things, I think it is always very valuable and it offers you a unique perspective but we also have to understand that our friends may not represent the majority of the population. In fact, all my American friends disagree with the war...mmmm...I suspect I have found myself in the middle of the pseudo-intellectual left!!!!!

Mr. Carrin writes: That is very dishonest of you Mr. Carrin. I am very saddened, because I enjoyed your beautiful Asturias posts, and the webpage. Are you Asturian , or was that a story too? How can I believe you now, if you come up with a new personna to back your arguments, that's very sad tht you lack so much confidence in yourself! For all I know, you may just be playing with us. You may be a member of the counterpunch.org group and not spanish at all!

I am curious, why did you create a woman's personna, why not a man? That was a mistake. You know, I always knew that Carmenn was not a woman and I told one of the members too, because of the way she expressed herself, too masculine.

Booklady:
If you check my posts you will find I expressed the same points of view under both nicks were exactly the same. I have been honest all the time.
But I thought the discussions were getting personal, and I just wanted to expose my views somehow detaching them from myself. If I had anything twisted in mind, I wouldn`t have confessed, don`t you think?
Anyway, I have realised it was not a good idea, things got to the same point in just a dozen of new posts...
Why a woman? I thought it would be harder to relate both nicks.

Hey, Wolf, have a look at this:
from http://www.idleworm.com/index.shtml
This Condon is "one of yours", isn`t he? And he works in the media, therefore he represents pro-war journalists...along with you, Wolf as you said.
It is interesting that you disliked being labelled as some TV Preacher, claiming for the new Israel (US) to save the world and prepare the Second Coming. How come? You are a Christian, after all, ain`t you? Then, if you can insist on my being a Communist, why can`t I infer your ultra-protestant denomination?
I have thoroughly read your posts, and I think you have said the invasion will provoke a civil war in Iraq. And yet you are pro-it? Please explain...
If you want to bring it to the personal field, well...
My granny`s brother was a priest, in Uvieu, in 1934, when the socialist miners took the city. They hung him.
And an uncle of mine was in Cuba when Castro arrived...let`s say he had to move to Tampa and convinced me not to read El Che`s poems.
See? We all have an interesting background.
And I have a classmate from Guinea Ecuatorial, and the tales he tells me about African politics, and the influence of Western powers there, don`t differ much from the reports I read in "communist propaganda leaflets".
But I wonder why should I meet exiled fellows from any country before I can express an opinion on their country. The Iraqui emigrants from Jordania that have been returning home, these latter days, in order to resist the invasion, maybe wouldn`t agree your acquaintances.
You want me to consider "other sides", while you have not accepted one only thing that I have said all this time. I often have provided you facts, Wolf, that you simply have refused to respond. And yet you dare to tell me that I am "one-sided"?
And don`t think my opinions on this issue are expressed in a light manner. I have reflected on this. I regard it as important.

Mr. Carrin writes,
No sir, you have not been honest with me. You have been Mr. Carrin, the nice Asturian man that writes lovely stories about Asturias. Carmenm never wrote about Asturias.

Also, I believe that many people write under your name because when you are carmenn you write differently using differnet syntax!

I am very disappointed in you Mr. Carrin. There's no need to take on other personas, I am a woman, I have the courage of my convictions, I have taken quite a licking from both men and women on this board, many agree with me, and many disagree, that's ok, that's life, but I don't become Bookman to back up my arguments when no one else will.
That's not honest.

Jonsoniana,

The purpose of academics is to teach the truth, and when there are issues that can be interpreted both ways, produce a program where students see both sides of the issue. If I read you correctly, you're telling me that it's okay for a Professor to teach from one side of an issue because it's within his rights? Sorry! It isn't. If you take on the mantle of a teacher, you should act like one, not use it as a forum to teach your own ideological points of view. When a teacher begins to believe they are a demagogue, it's time for them to be removed from the system.

As for Genova's statements, in a time of war, his remarks might be interpreted as treason. In regards to the idiot "on air" personality, his statement is totally without justification. He should be fired from his job as well. You do not incite people to violence.

So your friends all agree with you? That's nice. So what is that supposed to tell me? That you're right, because you're all bright? My guess is they are all involved in academia. I can put up a group of academics that would say the complete opposite of what you are saying... so it's a dead heat.

Wolf

Cristobo,

You have never presented one fact on this board.

You labeled me as something specific, I indicated who I was, to show you how far off you were. I'm actually a liberal who knows right from wrong, and can make an honest evaluation based on facts, and will accept realities, not wrap myself in a cocoon of far left wing rhetoric.

Conversation with you has become boring. You have never offered any proposals that are of value, just anti-American, and anti-capitalist sentiments. No substance, and no foundation for anything that remotely resembles truth.

By the way... which of Che Guevera's poems is your favorite? Or maybe it's the way he handled torture for Castro that appeals to you more?

Wolf

Thanks!

Bookie,

I guess we're too busy trying to deal with reality. Some people love their dream worlds. I owe you a cafe con leche.

Go figure!

Wolf

thijs,

I admit it. I don't understand the phrase "static and humanistic viewpoints and morals." But I do understant "disgusting and revolting." No problem. I don't express or evaluate views based on their popularity. I base my views solely by their rationality. Yes, that would be extremism from your point of view.
Booklady. Do you think Ms. Rand would be proud of me?

Indeed, Gazpacho, I believe Ms. Rand would applaud you!

I don't want to give any lessons (I'm the less indicated person in this board since I've taken part in some of the hotest debates...) but in my humble opinion, it adds nothing to the debate if we start to label each other leftist, rightist, or whatever.

So what if any of us is leftist or righist, catholic or protestant? We all live in democratic countries were we should be able to state our opinions whatever the party we vote (unless any of us does apology of a crime), whatever the religion we have.

Just my thoughts... and excuse me, I repeat I'm perhaps the least indicated person in the board.

Fernando

Wolf,

As a teacher I believe the purpose of my teaching is to teach my students to think by themselves by giving them the skills to do so. I am not a teacher that presents one side of the story, in fact I am teaching things I dont agree with just because they are mainstream and I believe my students should have an overall picture. But my teaching methods are not a topic for this thread. Even though I must say that teaching the so called Truth in some fields it is quite hard because it is hard to determine what truth is, most people claim to have it, and it is usually different. Academic work today is impregnated with ideology when it should be intellectually honest.

The fact that my friends agree with me means nothing, just that they agree with me. I mentioned this fact so as to say that some Americans do not agree with the war in the same way that you do. You all are Americans and the fact that you think differently may illustrate the point that depending who you are talking to, you will get a different story. Just so that you know, I think that I never claimed to be bright and assume that I am more right than anybody just because I am in academia. These people I told you about are not all academics and very far from being pseudo-intellectuals.

Jonsoniana

Fernando,

I have read your previous threads and have found them interesting and extremely thoughtful.
I have no problem being named an extremist (right, after all there is no left extremist...ha.ha). I think the only person that would be outraged by being labelled thusly is one who is not intellectually honest about his views.
Thanks for all your thoughtful post that have shown that some people from other countries can understand our position. We don't always do the correct things here in the U.S. I think that the kidnapping of Noriega was pretty high-handed of us. We sure wouldn't want another country invading us and removing our leader. But how could we respect a president here who wasn't interested in our sovereignty and security?
I have been to Spain lately and was really disappointed in the changes to the city because of security measures. What was once a fairly open place has really been buttoned down though I doubt that anyone unfamiliar with Madrid in the late seventies would realize how much. Perhaps the U.S. can't put the genie back in the bottle, but this current administration is doing their best from keeping it from getting any worse.

Fascinating article in the New York Times about what is occurring, or, rather not occurring at college and university campuses. If you wish to read the entire article here is the LINK in keeping with our host, MM, wishes, I am only sharing the first few paragraphs:

Also, at Columbia University, the The Columbia Daily Spectator the student newspaper , a random recent poll of 172 students showed the following (once again I am sharing only a few paragraphs, click above for the full story):
Matthew Continetti an undergraduate at Columbia University., writes a guest editorial at National Review Online about the Nicholas DeGenova affair at Columbia University: I have read the information provided on this thread about this last case on DeGenova. Frankly, DeGenova's comments are beyond the scope of academic freedom. The beginning of the concept of academic freedom , started with the Galileo Affair, where the Catholic church, literally silenced a scientist from sharing his scientific findings with other scientists (it had to do with Galileo's treatise about Mars, of all things, and that the earth was not the center of the universe!) Since then this tradition has allowed academicians to provide theories and knowledge that may be seen as controversial to some entities. In the past century, academic freedom, kept professors from being fired for having different political positions than the mass culture.

However, in the case of DeGenova, he was not in his anthropology class, his political position was not threatened, so I fail to see this as an academic freedom issue.

The next question is is it an individual's freedom of speech to say to a group of people, including members of the media, that "He also wished that U.S. troops encounter "a million Mogadishus" during the course of the war against Saddam Hussein's regime."

The dichotomy of this statement baffles me. This was a university teach-in, and for the most part the participants promoted the peace movement, which logically and rationally should be the antithesis of what DeGennaro wished on our servicemen. No wonder that half the students at Columbia, which as was noted above, is a bastion of liberal education, are pro-war.

DeGenaro acted in every way opposite of what we professors and instructors have strived to be, rational and objective. His actions add fuel to those who call those of us in academia: "Ivory Tower Idiots"

What should he do? He should do the decent thing, apologize to the university, to the students, and to the nation, in particular to those brave soldiers that died in Mogadishu, and to the parents of those soldiers that have died in this war. That's what a decent person would do. Then he should resign.

What will the university do? Hard to say. However, recently the president of a notable university here in Florida resigned because he said a racial slur about a member of the Board of Regents. He was given a choice resign or get fired. Academic freedom and freedom of speech carry with them the equal burden of common sense and responsibility, even in academia.

Booklady,

Exactly the point I've been trying to make, about our "educators." They have absolutely no right trying to instill their values, or their perceptions, on students. Their function is to teach history, and the concepts of government, based on all sides of an issue, not on their own point of view. I'm afraid that isn't happening, when the old 60s radicals who were taught by the theorists of the 60s are now emerging in front of classes.

The outcry we're beginning to hear from students, and those who support our institutions of learning has to grow. We have to take these people to task, and make them face up to their responsibility, or be thrown out on their ears. It's not their place to "formulate the opinons" of young minds, and no matter what their political views are, they are stealing from the students with their lack of concern for truth.

The idea that a Professor can stand back and call it "censorship" when they are brought to task for what they're doing is absurd. It's censorship when they refuse to divulge the whole truth, and allow the students to choose their personal course of belief from all the facts. These educators, who scream that their rights are violated, are no different than the Muslim Clerics who take young people in, and turn them into tomorrow's assassins, and terrorists. They are creating their own "nest of radicals" in their own way.

It's time we take back what belongs to us. The educational system. It isn't their personal "playground" for bending minds.

Wolf

Booklady,

You're certainly bring a breath of fresh air to this dialog. Perhaps there's hope for our youth yet. After all "hope springs eternal." In lieu of this, Wolf, maybe our educators aren't doing too bad of a job training our youth if they are so capable of discerning the truth.
In an earlier post you urged our educators to teach students the truth. I know this was just a slip, since an obviously reasoning person such as yourself realizes that no one can teach truth. All our educators can do is provide the tools for their students to discern the truth.
I can only hope that one day they will realize the fallacy of the last vestiges of socialist thinking here in the U.S., perhaps abandoning the welfare-state and making us even freer than the rest of the world is.
Please don't take this last statement as a personal affront. I know in your previous postings that you consider yourself a liberal and for socialization of services for some Americans. You express your ideas much more thoughtfully than I will ever be able to and I admire this ability. But please consider how well our capitalistic system has provided for the unfortunate members of our society as opposed to how other less capitalistic governments provide them to their own citizenry. And then please consider that it is in persuit of basic needs that we have such a strong and productive country.

You are kidding, right?

Nope. I'd rather be poor (although that will never happen) in the U.S. than wealthy elsewhere.

gazpacho,

You're right, it was a poor choice of words. What I was referring to was that all sides of an issue must be presented through factual information that is available related to the issue. Glossing over specifics of an issue because they don't agree with a person's own POV isn't acceptable.

I appreciate your mentioning this point. I didn't intend to make it sound like there could only be one POV.

Wolf

Gazpacho:
Now, please, let`s give up kidding. Do you mean what you say?
Have you ever heard about public healthcare in, say, Holland? Do you know what kind of opportunities do minorities and poor people have in Scandinavian countries, Finland, Iceland and all that?
Have you ever heard how WEALTHY, THRIVING AND CULTIVATED Singapore is?
Did you tune on your TV set in 1992, during the L.A. riots? or later, when Cincinatty was set ablaze? Or later, in Seattle...? forget it
It is great to love one`s country. But being realistic is ok, too. America has its own problems, that`s all.
And nope, I know THIS is not paradise, either. But I would never try to convince anyone that I live in Wonderland...

Carmenm writes: I have news for you, querida, according to Mr. Carrin, you are a fictional character, you don't exist, he invented you! So maybe you do live in Wonderland.

Mr. Carrin, for the sake of the other posters who have not read this thread and found out about your little game, don't you think you should use your own name, to avoid confusion?

Carmenm or whoever,

Never been to Wonderland. Made it to Disneyworld last year though. I have been to other countries more than a few times. From what I can tell, here on earth, where us humans belong, the U.S. is as close as a person can come.
Perfect, no. But I am a mere tradesman and I have a lifestyle here most people in other countries could only envy. Sure, I work myself to death, but here, you see, it's worth it.
It's true that most of us in the U.S. are forced to labor for the necessities of life, but that's what makes us a productive and competitive people. I've seen a lot of the rest of the world and have enough friends in other countries. Oh yes, the U.S. is good about having a selection of people from other countries. If you could only talk to them about why they're here. And they'd all agree, if you can't make it in the U.S., you can't survive anywhere.
As for riots and other dissatified member in the U.S, that's their choice. Unfortunately there is a myth here, developed by the welfare-state undoubtably, that there exist a shortcut to a good life here in the U.S. Perhaps "Wonderland" even.
I love your country and I am familiar with much of it's history. I know that the communist in Austuria took one hell of a beating even before 1936 by Franco's troops. At times I even dream about living in Spain. But I have enough friends in Spain and am familiar enough with their lives to know better. Also, my last trip to Spain showed me the seemier side of the justice system there.
To end this rambling, I know you're just as proud of your country as I am mine, and well you should be. But giving away the necessities of life just because a person exist is not an American idea.

If I am not mistaken, carmenm and Cristobo Carrin are the same person who changed his name in order to avoid whatever personal component that may be involved in the discussions, anybody can tell things sometimes get personal. I personally cannot care less since the views were exactly the same and I could tell it was the same person. A different story would be that he had created a nick to support his views, so I dont think it is fair to say that Carmenm lives in a different world from Cristobo or always remind him of the change in nicks! Other attitudes are more reprobable and nobody seems to care!

Gazpacho, it is great to be proud of your country, but easy to talk from the position of somebody with economic security. You live in a great country with great things, but things are not perfect, neither in the US or in Spain or anywhere. Just take the time to look out of your window to poor neighborhoods, homeless people and not so poor people trying to get a proper treatment for their illnesses bc their expensive medical insurances do not cover anything!

I cannot remember how many times I have heard the statement: 'nobody wants to be poor anywhere, but much less in America'. I have heard it mainly from europeans and not because we are anti-american or believe that we are better, that would be childish reasoning, but because maybe our systems are more concerned about welfare and social needs, but we are also aware that our systems are not perfect and that we do not manage to cater for the needs of all.

Jonsoniana,

I have enjoyed your posts, although in many cases, I have not shared your point of view, nevertheless, I enjoy them because it allowed me to see your point of view and that is important, you have honestly stated your convictions, and I respect that.

In the above post you state: That is precisely what his action accomplished, he created Carmenm to support his views. I see that as dishonest and disingenuous. Carmenm does not exist as separate individual as we are led to believe because of the different user profile. He asserts he is Cristobo Carrin not Carmenm. Do you think it honest for me to create an alternative personna to win my arguments, to convince others, and to insult others, as the character carmenm did to NewYorkRed in a different thread, just to win my arguments? Frankly it lacks all semblance of versimilitude.

I respectfully disagree with you, it does matter.

If it does not matter, then we can all do whatever it takes to win our argument, even if it means making up several phony personnas to annoy and give credence where none exists.

Booklady,

Reading your posting I realize I did not explain things clearly enough, sorry. Obviously, Carmen and Cristobo had the same idas, so in that sense carmen supports Cristobo, no doubt about that, what I meant to say is that, as far as I can remember and if I am wrong I am happy to admit my mistake, they do not make reference to each other and they dont praise each other, so Cristobo did not create a fan club, so to speak.

If you ask me, I would not do it, but when people admit what they do, we should give them some credit, don't we all make mistakes? Should we be judged constantly by them? He explained his reasons and seeing the tone of some discussions one cannot help feeling that they sometimes get personal, so I take his word for his reasons to do so. he could have said nothing or denied what he had done and we could suspect it, but never know for sure. I just say it is not that big of an issue bc I trust his word on why he did it and value that he has admitted it, that's all. I am not his advocate, but I feel that he has been systematically criticized and discredited, every single thing...he normally provides evidence for what he says. This is not a battle for truth, we all say what we think and give our reasons, we are not going to change our minds and sometimes the debate gets too heated and almost personal. Sometimes people lose perspective and become sort of rude, most people have made some 'unfortunate' comments. Lets not make Cristobo guilty of everything.

As I say, I am not his advocate and was just giving my opinion on the issue. As we see here on a daily basis, we all take things in different ways.

gazpacho, I forgot to say somethin in my last posting, one of the things I have always liked about the USA is that I believe it is the place where I think hard work pays off the most and it is rewarded, but in life one is never safe from adverse circumnstances and it is good to know that we can always count on some help, but honestly, I doubt anybody likes to live on welfare, it surely does not provide you with a good life! Welfare and social security is not there to take there of lazy people, even though one cannot help that some people take advantge from the system...things are hardy ever perfect!

Jonsoniana,

Funny you should mention looking out my window, especially since we are within one week of tax time here in the U.S. I look out my window, see my neighbors houses. I look at my income tax form, both my federal and state, and see the rather large percentage I am required to give our government to pay for homeless and poor people who cannot afford health insurance. Then I realize all my neighbors must be burdened similarly. And yet...to no great surprise...there are still poor people and people who cannot afford health care. What is wrong?!?!?
If all were taken away from me and I was penniless tomorrow, I know that in a month's time I could provide for my family. I have the opportunity to do that here. I have not had an idle life waiting for people to give me things. I have knocked on doors of people who require my labor. I have not been afraid to get my hands dirty. I've cleaned toilets, washed dishes and raked leaves at times to earn a living. And while I did this I learned. I took every opportunity to educate myself so that now I know enough to make a good living.
Economic security? Don't know of any. But if there was such a thing it would be opportunity, and that's what the U.S. is about.

Please see post below.
Thank you

Jonsoniana,
Perhaps you did not understand my point of view. You write: "Lets not make Cristobo guilty of everything." I am not. I reminded him that since he admitted who he was that he should stop using the other fictional character. Only those of us that participated on this thread know that Mr. Carrin is Carmenm. If he continues to use both names he perpetuates his fiction, and then you and I by acquiescing become part of the dishonesty. I will not continue to be part of that farce.

Yes, I will continue to respond to his posts, regardless of whether we hold the same point of view or not.

No, I will not respond to a fictional character, and hope that this was a mistake on Mr. Carrin's part, and he will stop using his alter ego.

You say that the Carmenm character did not give credence to Mr. Carrin. I respectfully disagree with you. He did so tacitly and by implication of the argument. Carmenm was an ally character.
Let's say that, right now, I make up a character and have that character take Mr. Carrin to task as well. While that persona did not mention my name directly, we are still in collusion, in a dishonest collusion being played on candid people like ourselves who hold our beliefs dear, particularly in this thread. If we all break the rules of civil discourse, then what is the use of discussing these serious topics?

I may be the only voice on this thread that feels this way, and that is ok with me, I have the courage of my convictions, I do not need a patsy to fight my battles.

p.s. For an example of my point go to the other Iraq War thread, look at Carmenm post on 2-20-2003,5:12p.m., then see Mr. Carrín's defense of the content of Carmenm's post 2-25-2003 8:03.

Jonsoniana,

I believe Booklady's response was clear enough. It's obvious that carmenm/carrin was using the two names to post as if an ally to his/herself.

I'm not going to belabor this point because it no longer matters. Whether Carrin or carmenm, we long since have found that the posts were akin to watching "Baghdad Bob" on TV, as he describes how the Coalition forces aren't even near Baghdad yet.

Wolf

Booklady:
Yes, you are right, it was a mistake. I just logged as Carmenm to check a private message which was sent to that nick. That`s all!
I think you were along with us during the thread about WWII, when the Dresden issue started. Do you remember what point was reached? I just thought then 'perhaps it was my fault, let`s start again'. I enjoy debates, but I hate when things grow personal. It is great to exchange views with cultivated people who think opposed to me, but I don`t need to participate in an awkward exchange of more-or-less-polite insults. If I liked that, I would see "Cronicas Marcianas" (the Spanish version of Jerry Springer) instead of logging MM. And things had reached THAT point. Now that time has passed, I sincerely believe that not only me is to blame for that.
And madam, no matter what my nick was, the things I told you about Asturias were totally true! I am happy you found them interesting...

Wolf
It is ‘obvious’ that I changed my nick, mainly, to give you another chance. That is all. But you can`t tell ‘the enemy’ and one fellow who simply happens to think different. Even more, in the former debate, the WWII one, I just gave up reading your replies, I was growing stressed and thought ‘it is stupid to have a bad time for such a silly reason’. I like debates, but not SO much.
You know what? I dislike Gazpacho`s ideas much more than yours. But I prefer his post than yours, he is just not so agressive (not so far, at least).
TAKE IT EASY!!!

Cristobo/carmenm... whatever name you want to use....

Your postings have sparked some of us to react, and if that wasn't what you anticipated, you should have been less vocal in your anti-U.S. sentiments/pro Communist statements from the beginning.

I must admit I don't enjoy your posts very much either. Your positions are as practical as "Baghdad Bob's."

Wolf (Who certainly won't lose any sleep over the fact you don't like my posts. )

My my this thread has moved in a such a way like Watergate. Tsk, Tsk, Dear Carmen or what ever your name is ? But then I would expect a slight of hand. Hmm, talk about a double face!! LOL
Dear BookLady, Wolf and all, as I leave for Madrid to join our "friends" for a more personal touch of this discussion here, my only wish is that I would have like to have met the Janus face of CarmenM, for my own reasons. The janitorial staff will be low, but knowing my peers here I believe all will go well especially with the Bucket Patrol!
My next post will be from Madrid admist all that is happening. Good Luck to you all and to those I will accompany on my envoy overseas.
Ciao until Friday!!!!!!

Wow - looks like I missed a lot. How ya'll doin?

Jonsoniana: thanks for your earlier posting. It appears you are one of the few that appeal to both sides. I was shocked and dismayed to see Booklady liked your postings after my run-ins with her!!! But Booklady - since Jonsoniana identifies with me, you kinda like me too! Via 2 degrees of separation - I think you owe me a kiss!

Pucker up!

As for the topic matter at hand...wolf I owe you some rebuttal. I've been out of the loop for a few...so forgive me...

Quote: "people like (Genova) should be weeded out of insitutions of higher learning." That was disappointing. The logic you use here is "he doesn't agree, so get rid of him." I know he is radical, but get over it - what do you think he's doing - brainwashing everyone? If you're in college, you had better have the ability to see right from wrong and logical from illogical and think for yourself.

Quote: "Don't "conveniently" place this on the shoulders of the U.S. because it feeds your views." Ugh...I don't blame the U.S. for past failures because it's convenient. Our past failure is a fact, not a hypocrisy and not a matter of convenience. Furthermore, what I really *do* blame is the current U.S. administration policy failures for our current situation. Does that mean the U.S. is a terrible, awful country? Absolutely not, but we're not angels, either. Especially in this particular situation.

Cristobo,

:o Even I'm growing weary of this thread and I love discourse. I can't imagine why you don't enjoy my ideas. But chin up, not too many Americans profess these ideas either. But I believe that deep down a lot feel how successful our system is here in the U.S. However, for fashion reasons, certainty and values are repugnant and disgusting. And that's at the core of the Anti-President Bush movement.
Prior to our current President we had a leader with his finger in the air testing which way the winds blow. When I went to Europe in 1999, he was very well liked by Europeans. Understandable now. I remember telling an English couple that I wish you could keep him. But I wouldn't really wish that on you. I think you have a darn good leader, but I fear that the Socialists will win the next election. But if Spain prefers Socialism that's it's own business. I just think that the freedom and individual rights that only capitalism nuture would benefit everyone.

Well gazpacho - finally there is something we agree on. This is a great country and I don't doubt that - we have been at the forefront of so much. However, I don't agree with your Clinton comments...the fashionable thing to do these days is slam Clinton but he did a lot of great things for this country. And I hope to see Hilary as our President soon! (*duck*) I get the feeling there is so much hatred of her because she's a powerful woman.

And Bush is not a leader. He is a manipulator.

Gazpacho, remember...European socialism is not REALLY socialism.

jlramos,

Too true. Nationalist Socialism and the U.S.S.R. from 1930 until 1990 is the true manifestation of socialism. And of course, no one wants that kind of a government. But the people that support socialism sell it as a means to provide services for the less fortunate in their society, an altruistic goal. If these supporters of socialism are not willing themselves to hold a gun up to the head of those who don't support there way of thinking, they are perfectly willing to elect others who will use force to make sure everyone adheres to working for the good of the proletariat.
A little evil, is still evil.

thijs,

Whether or not a person is a radical doesn't matter as long as they teach from a neutral perspective, offering facts as the diet. When their personal agenda and beliefs are imposed as facts, they are no longer teaching, they are feeding propaganda to the students. Propaganda that they choose to offer.

You comment that people should be "wise enough" to understand the facts. Is that your belief when it comes to Fundamentalist Muslims who specifically teach young men with the intent on turning them into assassins and terrorists? They offer propaganda, and a twisted version of the Koran, knowing full well what the results will be.

You can rail against what I said, and suggest it's infringement on rights, but I still believe, like most people, that what is offered in the classroom should be free of bias. I repeat. Anyone who cannot, or will not teach from an unbiased position has no business standing in front of a class, teaching. Especially when the taxpayers are the ones who are paying their salaries, and we demand bias be removed from schools.

What puzzles me most is that so many of the people who take the stand that you've indicated are the same ones who would take a teacher to task for bringing up God in a classroom, saying it's wrong to do so. They say God must be thrown out, but personal agenda protected by "rights." Isn't there something wrong with that picture?

You suggest the present administration is to blame for the problems in Iraq, etc.... I'm afraid we can go back for decades and indict every administration for their failings. As we all know, they have been more than considerable, regardless of which party they represent. As for the planning associated with 9-11, that started long before the election that put Bush in office, so I don't think that argument is relevant.

Wasn't it Admiral Yamamoto who said, after the attack against Pearl Harbor, "I fear that we've done no more than awaken a sleeping giant."?

Regardless of who held sway in the White House, or in the legislature, I would support what's happening today. It's not an "internal political issue" in the U.S., as some would like to make us believe. As far as Hussein is concerned, we put the SOB in business, now it's time for us to close his little shop of horrors.

Hypocrisy, as defined by Merriam-Webster:

a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion

It seems to fit the position established by too many left wing activists on the issue of Iraq.

Wolf

Now I'm watching on TV how the citizens of Bagdag are welcoming american troops and starting to harass every symbol of the dictatorship. Some of them say "Thanks Mr. Bush", "we are americans too" and "No Saddam".

My feelings are that europeans have lost another oportunity to be at the the head of the circumstances. France and Germany, and in my particular country, almost every social group in Spain, have acted so cowardly that I feel shame.

Hiding the head, letting terrorists and dictators do what they want, has proved bloody for us with ETA, and would prove as wrong with international business.

This war is our business, we should have been shoulder to shoulder with USA, and instead we have protest like never before.

Fernando

Gazpacho:
Well, I just don`t agree with you, let`s say you point north and I point south, or viceversa. But I do respect your views, and I understand them.
There are many conservative American thinkers that I like. Have you ever checked http://www.fredoneverything.net ? I love that man, though I often don`t agree him. I think you will like some of his columns.
I think here in Europe we have grown maybe too "soft". I think American conservatives are right when they say we are feeble and have lost our convictions. Good is good, and wrong is still wrong, I guess, which is hard to remember when you hear some "ultra-progressive" speeches here, about topics like "let`s give rapists a chance" or "child abuse is just one more sexual option". And I positively HATE minorities whining speeches.
I can`t talk about Mr.Clinton`s internal politics, but I think his foreign policy was more or less the same than that of Bush. I can`t find any major difference. The key point is, he managed to make military interventions seem more "acceptable" for European progressives.
Ne`er mind about Spanish "socialism". Socialism died some sixty years ago.
And yes, here in Asturias we had quite enough red revolution and war to be fed up for the next 1000 years. It is one part of our history that no one talks about. No memorials, no speeches, no "1934 revolution day"; nothing. All my life I heard my elders say "Son, you and your generation, never start another one".
Fernando
If the Irakis had won the war, today you would be seeing crowds of happy citizens greeting their leader: that`s how human nature works.
Did you see TV yesterday? The Americans didn`t know European journalists were staying at "Palestine" hotel. What a surprise, uh? One more mistake in a long row of mistakes...It is funny they killed in the same day one Al-Jazeera journalist. What a coincidence...

Cristobo,

Where in the world do you get your information from? You really have to get your head out of your .....

Your quote:

Quote:

Did you see TV yesterday? The Americans didn`t know European journalists were staying at "Palestine" hotel. What a surprise, uh? One more mistake in a long row of mistakes...It is funny they killed in the same day one Al-Jazeera journalist. What a coincidence...

Either you are totally misinformed or once again, you've twisted the facts related to this issue. The U.S. military was very much aware of the journalists being there, and said they were. They indicated that they took fire from somewhere in the hotel, and retaliated. The situation is under investigation. Please take the time to report facts, and not lies.

You indicated that Socialism died in Spain 60 years ago. I find that interesting. I can only believe you mean "communism" as a force died 60 years ago since the Socialists of present day Spain aren't all that unlike the U.S. Democrats that are fairly far left on the political scale.

You're right that there would have been celebrations in the streets of Baghdad today had Saddam's minions won. They would have been "ordered" by his death squads, and anyone who didn't participate would pay the price.

I hope you saw the pictures of the gates of the prison opened, where children (yes, little children) were released to their parents who waited outside. Children who had been arrested and placed in prison over the last five years, because as youngsters not even in their teens, refused to pick up arms and fight for Hussein's empire.

I feel terrible about the situation related to the Palestine Hotel. It's sad when anyone dies, and I feel even worse when a journalist dies, since I've had the opportunity of meeting quite a few. The vast majority are good men and women, intent on bringing the news to people. Some have their own agenda, or follow that which is prescribed by their governments, but for the most part, they are good people.

Those that died will be remembered in our prayers, and our hearts, because they were there, attempting to bring the facts to the people of the world.

Spain can be proud of President Aznar. Even though we may not have seen troops actively involved in the major campaigns of the Iraqi war, he stood by the side of the UK and U.S. in a job that had to be done. Even though the majority of Spaniards may not have agreed with the reasoning we were there, Mr. Aznar recognized it as essential. In time, as people are judged in history, Mr. Aznar will be judged by what he did. I believe it's then, that the people of Spain will not only exhonerate him, they will look at him as having been a man of courage and conviction.

I know he will be revered in the minds of many Americans, like myself. He truly represents the fire, and will of a leader. He's gained my lasting respect.

Wolf

Wolf,

Anybody that has seen Antena 3 news throughout the afternoon in Spanish tv yesterday heard reported that the person in charge of informing about military operations of the American Army reported that they did not know that journalist were in the Palestine hotel. Antena 3 is one of the main tv channels in Spanish tv and they have not been specially critical against the war, so Cristobo did not have go go too far to find that information or look for it in some obscure Antiamerican left wing site...I heard the journalist report twice and in the same way I did other people may have done it and other channels may have broadcast it.

I agree with you that education (college or otherwise) should be free from bias and all positions presented so that students can make up their minds, have their own opinion and learn to form it through the tools, we educators give them. At the same time ducators are allowed to express their opinion and justify their options. I have been dealing with something in my class lately that I absolutely do not agree with, but I have presented all sides of the issue and finally once I presented it, explained my opinion, my reasons to think the way I do and my students did the same. Some agreed with me, others didn't, but as long as their argument was justified, I was fine with it, in the same way my opinion was respected because I gave reasons from it. I can handle somebody who does not agree with me in the same way my students can do so, in the end we are supposed to be civil and intelligent adults.

As I mentioned in another post, the problem is that ideology has gotten so much into academia that we have come to see academics making defences of different ideologies rather than intellectually honest and scientific work. This does not have to do with politics, but I wonder why hardly anybody in academia speaks out loud against extreme feminists in academia, I am surprised we dont see a huge crowd of males, white in particular, raging against them...many academics despise them in private but would not dare to do so in public...I guess we criticize radicalism when it is convenient and politically correct...

Thijs,

It is great to find somebody who thinks of college students as beings who can talk aand think for themselves, it is the trend to treat them like babies and I believe it is not the case.

I can only give my opinion as somebody from outside the US, but agree with you that Clinton did good things for the US and the change in the administration has brought some changes into the country, even noticeable by a foreigner who travels there every few months. these days, I have heard some of my American friends who are republicans say that never thought they could miss Clinton!!! At the same time, I am surprised because I know so many people who think the way you do there, but it is not that we have seen them represented in this forum...why do you think it is that people who are against the war do not speak their minds? Is it a general trend or has it happened in this forum by chance?

Gazpacho,

Believe me, I hate paying taxes as much as you do, especially when my salary is ridiculous, but I guess it is necessary. When I talked about unexpected life circumstances, I did not mean the loss of a job, that would be harder to fix in Spain, not so much in your country and in that you are very fortunate. I meant, what if all of a sudden someone gets a disabling illness and this person can hardly get out of bed to go to work and the insurance does not cover the proper treatment? I am not making anything up or being dramatic, I have more then one case like this in my circle of friends.That is the type of cases from which solutions should be found...I understand your frustration about your taxes being paid and still things not working, that calls for a change in the system because it obviously does not work.

I dont want you to think I was calling for all of us paying for those who do not want to work or those who benefit from the system when they should not do so. I have been educated to work hard and I value it greatly, but at the same time I am sensitive to social matters. Believe me, despite being for a reform of welfare system and a coverage of basic needs, I am no radical and not everybody is like that, I am not a communist and do not justify violence, it is never a good way.

lastly...Booklady, I checked Cristobo's posts that you told me about. I dont interpret it the way you do. They both deal with the same source, in the first one he presents it and in the second he justifies it mas 'MY source', to me it is thet he made a mistake in using his nick, if he was trying to legitimize the first post, the would have written 'the source'. That is how I see it, just my interpretation....

Cristobo, even if Saddam had won, the difference between the joy of that moment, and the joy they are showing now, is that now noone is forcing them to show that happiness, don't you think?

During Franco's dictatorship the demonstrations for the regime were quite frequent. Five years after his death, you couldn't see but a very small group (perhaps a dozen thousands) of their supporters. Is the way dictatorships work...

As for the two spanish journalists dead yesterday and on monday I feel it at heart. It is very sad. I wonder what the heck was thinking the soldier who shot over the journalists' hotel.

I think that an investigation should be done to clarify the death. When the force is used in a legitimate way, it must be done following the laws, in a way that every possible casualty is avoided.

Watching the images I can't think of a reasonable argument to shoot at the hotel, but investigation will say.

Fernando

Jonsoniana,

I agree with your assessment when it comes to how a teacher expresses themselves. After delivering the facts for the students to work with, and the sources they can find additional information, there is no reason that they can't state their personal view, as long as it's tempered with good judgement. That doesn't always happen, and when the rule you established isn't followed, the educator is not playing by the rules, and should be removed. They are allowing their personal agenda to get in the way of the reason they are present in the classroom in the first place.

I totally agree with your statement; "the problem is that ideology has gotten so much into academia that we have come to see academics making defences of different ideologies rather than intellectually honest and scientific work."

As for the issue of radical feminist women in academia, I believe that our society has practiced discrimination against women for so long in business and industry, that rational people may very well have reached a point where they understand why some women lash out at the status quo, whether it's in academia, or the private sector. Also, I think that those of us outside the field of academics believe that policing it's own problems should be the job of academics. Also, as you indicated, the problem about being politically correct.

Right or wrong, I believe that's the view from outside academia.

Even though we may be poles apart on some issues, we may not be as far apart on others as you may think.

Also, thank you for pointing out what was said on Spanish TV. Let me guess..... the comment they offered wasn't recorded.... "A reliable source." That does seem to be the way it works. Had they listened to the briefing they would have known that we've always known that the hotel was inhabited by journalists. How could we not know it, when over half the pictures broadcast back to the U.S. have been from that location.

But then again, Baghdad Bob kept saying the coalition wasn't anywhere near Baghdad until he had to get his sorry ass out of town, because he was looking down the barrel of a cannon on an Abrams tank - He didn't even bother to say; "Oops! My mistake!"

Wolf

Fernando,
I too was greatly touched when I saw the television program showing the Iraquis gleefully destroying the remnants of Saddams power. I cried thinking how much I would love the people of Cuba to be free from our own monster! Nevertheless, I am very happy for the people of Iraq, and pray they will prosper in peace.

I agree with you 100%. Now thanks to the coalition forces,Bush, Blair and Aznar the people of Iraq have gained a universal right: FREEDOM!

Why did you say you are ashamed? You have nothing to be ashamed of, you stood for your convictions with great courage while others ridiculed and criticized you on this very thread. Other Spaniards may feel shame, but not you, you acted authentically. For whatever it is worth, you have my admiration.

Chirac, Shroeder and their cohorts in the U.N. would still have let these people live in fear under the ruthlessness of a monster. Their cupidity and stupidity have led them from being builders of a free world to being LOSERS! Thanks to Chirac, the U.N. is marginalized.

The peace movement...as I said before, they had no counter policy, no solution to the problem. Most were America bashing, particularly Bush bashing. If the coalition had listened to them, the people of Iraq would still be under Saddam Hussein's thumb, with no universal rights. I repect those that had strong religious convictions, but I cannot agree with them.

God bless the Coalition troops, and to those that sacrificed their lives in this effort. I am saddened by the many deaths among the reporters too. We owe them a lot. I am particularly saddened by the poor reporters that died in the hotel. But most, I am sad for the Iraquis that died. God bless the Iraqui people. May they continue to live in freedom, now that their oppressors are no more.

Jonsoniana,
No problem. Let's agree to disagree as in the custom among academicians with differing opinions, shall we?

thjs,
Sorry, I don't kiss strange men.

Sr. Carrín,
Thank you. You have no idea how much I have enjoyed your posts on Asturias. I hope you will continue to share these with us.
Respectfully,
Carmen

Booklady:
I`m happy that you are happy. But it is dangerous to prompt me to talk about my homeland! Eventually, as we say here, "I will bore the rocks". Indeed, I have written a 260 pages essay about Asturian myths (maybe this was not the thread to talk about it but well, I am quite proud of it and want everyone to know).
Jonsoniana:
Thank you for your support. I was beginning to wonder if I was seeing things!!!
Today, in the news from "La 2" (public TV, that is, government-controlled media), they said International Amnesty and some "media associations" claim the bombing over "Palestine Hotel" was a crime of war.
Fernando,
I don`t know if you ever saw the recordings about the wake for Franco`s corpe, in 1975. Some 300 000 people paraded before the coffin to greet him for the last time. They all did it willingly. And I am sure many people in Irak sincerely support(ed) Saddam Hussein. Only very clumsy dictators like Somoza manage to lose ALL the support from their subjects.
Today on the news I saw a couple of American troopers covering one of Saddam`s statues with an American flag, as an insult. Then people complained, so they withdrew it and put an Iraki flag instead. Well...it was a nice gesture. I mean it. There is one thing I like in Americans most: they are noble people. And yeah, I agree peace activists (including me) don`t have quite any idea about how to attain world peace.
But Bush and the hawks don`t fool me: they are doing all this for MONEY. They have invaded, and bombed, and murdered, and deceived, just for the profit. That`s all I say...

Cristobo,

There is no way American business interests will recoup the losses we had in fighting the war in Iraq, or for the investments we will make, to bring them back on their feet, with a democratic government. Also, those of us here in the U.S. will be watching the scenario play out very closely, to insure this doesn't become a "venture for profit" for a select few. Even the majority of us who supported the effort in Iraq won't stand for it. Too many brave young people have died for a cause, and we won't let their memory be tainted by what follows.

It's sad that France, Germany, and Russia have taken the stance they have, because they have pretty well caused the collapse of the UN. It's no longer a viable force, and the "in-fighting" that would occur if these three nations were involved in rebuilding Iraq would make the project grind to a halt. At this point, they may as well offer their facilities in NYC for sale, because they have no future in the world. Even the N. Koreans, Chinese, and Iranians have indicated that their ability to be a broker for peace is totally gone.

I give the UK a lot of credit for trying to do the right thing by the UN, from a world point of view, but the posturing by the French, Germans, and Russians continues, and there's no way we, as Americans, will allow their sorry arses into Iraq to do anything beyond humanitarian aid. They've sealed their own fate, and I hope the new alliances that come throughout the world will be stronger, and afford more protection for the righteous people of the world, and take despots to task for their actions.

As for the firing on the Palestine hotel, there is an investigation on-going. If our military sees there was a violation of the Geneva accords, rest assured, we won't try to hide it. At this point there's a lot of conflicting information about what happened, and according to some sources, the actual firing on the hotel may not have been by Americans, but Fedayeen, with the intent of creating another incident. Even though I feel that's not a fact, it's a possibility. Before we "jump on the bandwagon" to hang some American GIs for something they did, a full investigation must be completed. Then, when the facts are on the table, we can determine what actually happened.

Wolf

Cristobo,

Maybe you see Americans making mistakes because we are one country, along with our coalition friends, to do something about situations. The only people I've ever met who don't make mistakes are people who do nothing. We hear in the news over here that the journalist in the hotel were asked to get out of Bagdad three weeks ago. What part of 'out' didn't they understand?

Booklady,
As a rule I don't like to discuss religion or politics. It's a good way to lose friends. However, given today's events, I first want to commend you, Wolf, NEWYORKRED, and Fernando for your convictions concerning Iraq and answering the spurious and stupid socialist bleating that is being passed off as truth. Thank you all.
Secondly, I am pleased that you are a reader and/or fan of Ayn Rand. I didn't think there were many of us left. So, thank you for your objectivism.
Shalom, y'all

Jonsoniana,
Your average "non-radical" anti-war citizens don't speak out much in the US because it is considered anti-American, and even more importantly, dangerous to our troops. Patriotism has become synonymous with a pro-war stance. I think it's possible to support our armed forces but still feel we shouldn't have gone over there against the objections of so many important allies. World opinion does matter, and the opinion that the UN is irrelevant, France and Germany are irrelevant, European citizens' opinions are irrelevant, is offensive to many of us. And yes, we are patriotic Americans. Last night was the first night I heard an American on TV seriously question the wisdom of our actions in Iraq--I believe it was considered safe to do so since we at that point were clearly toppling Sadam's regime. I apologize for not remembering the person's name, but one memorable quote was that the US had "punched a hole into a giant hornet's nest." Let's see what happens in the power vacuum.

A very interesting column is Joe Klein's Time magazine piece April 14th. It seems to me to be a very fair assessment of our current foreign policy and its worldwide effect. http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101030414/cklein.html

The jubilation of Iraqis seen today is quite moving, and gratifying. But don't be surprised if the hatred of Americans is just as strong--can we really be trusted? And who can we trust in Iraq? Do you really think that thousands of years of tribal and religious in-fighting will be erased now that Sadam is gone? More likely we will see the break-up of Iraq into continually warring factions. There will be resentment no matter what America does. The question will be whether the middle east is better off for us having punched into the hornet's nest. Let's hope that no matter how many casualties we have taken, how many innocent civilians we have killed, how many limbs we've blown off of children, that the Iraqis decide that it was worth it. America's opinion isn't the only one that matters.

Wolf,

Totally disagree with you on the teaching thing - especially at the college level. It is impossible to not show some bias in teaching. The history of our country is one great example. In elementary school, I was taught about the "cowboys and indians" and of course the cowboys were *always* the good guys. That certainly was some bias. Now, I do think elementary school should be as factual as possible...but once you get to a certain point in mental development (hopefully around college), it's good to see all the boundaries out there that exist (or lack thereof)...from the fanatical to the middle. Nothing wrong with that...it encourages different and critical schools of thought. But I understand the right's refusal to even consider such a nasty, terrible concept!

As for Islamic fundamentalists and their teachings - there was a great article on that matter in last weekend's Wall Street Journal. But this type of fanaticism is very different from public schools - so you lost me on the point you were trying to make there. Often, the fundamentalists are taught fundamentalist views from a very early age - programmed, if you will. Last I checked, that doesn't happen in America!?! Well...maybe Bob Jones University here...should we shut that down? It's quite extreme and fundamentalist.

And it's quite contradictory of you to say we're wrong for bringing bias to the classroom and then blindly impose your religious bias on everyone else. Religion is not a bad thing but belongs in the homes and churches of it's members, not forced down other people's throats. The word God implies a single, Christian diety. So I don't want to see statements about faith in God in public places. Faith is a beautiful thing (fundamentalists excluded), but having such "public proclamations" does not acknowledge other faiths - and faith, as we all know, is one of the most passionate issues on this planet. Let everyone practice and enjoy their faith without negative pressure for their beliefs.

My argument about the current administration doesn't blame them for everything (although we appear to be heading in that direction). My argument blames them for a failure to faithfully pursue diplomacy via the U.N. before taking this action. THAT is what I blame the administration for.

And your definition of hypocrisy fits the Bush administration perfectly. Here N. Korea has been *begging* us to confront them and we haven't. Why? Is it because Iraq was a much easier target and victory? Our efforts to "send a message" to other countries is questionable. N. Korea sees *more* need to have nukes now - because of an aggressive U.S. policy. So did we accomplish that objective? I'll bet they'll pay twice as much and work twice as hard to get more nukes now. Three cheers for brilliant foreign policy (sarcasm, of course)!!! Hmmm....(so sorry...I'm on fire today, listened to some conservative show today that really irked me...they claim to be fact-based but they spent so much time name calling and citing zero facts - and yet they claim *liberals* to be the name-callers! Where was that definition of hypocrisy again?!?)

On the journalist-killing issue...see this article and consider an eyewitness account - or does that count as evidence anymore?

http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=395412

Oh that's right, it's not on Fox or Rush. Don't believe it.

Jonsonia, not many people are speaking against this war for several reasons. First, the right in America has seen a great insurgence since Bush came to be - a once silent minority has suddenly found a voice and they don't know how to shut up (yet). Second, I think a lot of people are afraid - with the Patriot Act and Patriot Act II, there is a perceived crackdown on civil liberties - be it true or false. Finally, since two days before the war, public opinion has indeed shifted here. Most Americans agree with this war - and numbers have increased as success became apparent. The "fair-weather" supporter - that is, those who support it so long as it is going good - has turned this war into a very popular action stateside.

In closing - I am *so* glad to see the pictures we saw today. At least we are welcome by some. As usual though, the media clipped out some of the Iraqi's protesting against our presence (saw 'em live, but they disappeared from the evening news). Once again the right-wing censorship movement is running in high gear. Regardless, hopefully the rest of the world will take the good out of this situation...but I do share aidance's concerns...

Booklady: I'm so heart-broken!

This will be news to my rabbi. I must inform her at once!

It's hard to know what Americans think of this war. As you know, there's a strong belief among many Americans that it's okay to criticize a war before and after it occurs, but not during. I'd hold off on evaluating public opinion till after this thing is over and more people feel comfortable telling pollsters what they really think.

A lot will depend on whether any evidence of weapons of mass destruction turns up in Iraq. If there's nothing there, American credibility will be severely damaged (more than it already has been by the 2000 elections and Bush's apparent violation of the U.N. charter and other international accords signed -- and often coauthored -- by the U.S.).

Gazpacho wrote,

"After that last administration I would have voted for Adolph Hitler himself if he ran against Gore."

WOW.

The one thing that's clearly coming across for me upon reading the posts in this thread from the start is:
WE ARE ABSOLUTELY NOT GETTING THE SAME INFORMATION IN THE STATES THAN IN EUROPE*.

Gazpacho, all the US government has been saying about the “Palestine hotel” is contradictory; at one point they said it had been a “mistake”; and yes, they have stated that they had informed the journalists 48 hours prior to the attack that the hotel was considered a possible war target. Well then, why none of the about 100 journalists that stay there had gotten that piece of news, and they all claim that's a blatant lie? Or you consider them so stupid that you actually believe they were told to leave two weeks in advance but they all decided to stay to risk their lives?

Fernando, I also feel shame, but for the exact opposite reasons.
Out of five million people, the estimate population of Iraq's capital city, several hundreds were demonstrating their "pro-Bush" sentiments yesterday; I guess the ones that feel what's going on in their country is really a fraud, were probably at what's left of their homes crying and feeling just a little humiliated, in other words, we couldn't see them.
I so fear what's to come, Sadam has not been eliminated yet, so I guess we'll continue to see absurdities such as the bombing of a restaurant because Sadam is supposedly dining there….right! All that accomplishes is the killing of innocent civilians. Talk about "matar mosquitos a cañonazos' and "entrar como un elefante en una cacharreria'.
But I always try to look on the bright side, and keep saying to myself that out of this madness, comes, at least, something positive, the embargo, or blockage, as I think you call it, that's hurt so many Iraqi people's lives is finished. **

Hasn't anyone read Mr. Blix's latest statements?

Pim, (crossing her fingers so that she doesn't get misinterpreted again.)

*I say Europe and not Spain, since I've been following the TV news in SkyNews.

**Oops! Sorry about these comments, I forgot I'm anti-war so that means I do not care about the people really, for a second.
.

Some people (Fernando, Wolf) have claimed for an investigation on the Palestine hotel events.
Well, stop worrying about that. Mr. Trillo says the Spanish government trusts the official version from US army officers, so they won`t ask for a further investigation on the matter. My source? The cover from EL Pais today.
I guess I should feel shame, but thank Lord I am an anti-Spanish Asturian separatist and don`t feel represented by Aznar (ha, ha...)
I wonder how much Bush has offered Aznar so that he accepts to play such a humiliating, gruesome role. If Aznar is not a traitor, then this word has no meaning at all...
Today Tele5 offered a brief report about the Iraki opposition. The leader that is supported by the Pentagon is a certain Iraki bank manager who left the country FORTY years ago (I wonder if he still can speak the language) and then got involved in a financial scandal in Jordania. Bush and Co. apparently enjoy that sort of people, remember Enron. As to reconstruction, some American company managers have been offered a good chance to make big money, in Irak. Some of them being good friends of Cheney. Dick must be a nice guy, a one who appreciates the worth of friendship *sigh* Carry on that way, Dick!
There are economists who say world economy needs a war from time to time, or else it will collapse into crisis; WWII saved us from the 29 crack. So I guess everything is OK now...
Even better, the Iraki government had bought, short before the crisis, some 10 billion euros. Now the new brave free Iraki government will learn again the value of good, old dollars. Sheer gratitude.
See why European rulers opposed the war? See why Bush hates Saddam so much? Everything has a rational explanation...
I am currently reading a book about Algerian terrorism. It is fascinating:
-Western powers (mainly France) know what is going on in that country...and don`t care at all.
-Terror is run by fundamentalists, but ALSO by the government
-Some 150 000 people have been murdered there, in the last ten years; just two hundred km. away from Europe!!!
When will we invade Algeria? The regime is "killing their own people", aren`t they?
When will those damned 'experts' on the media mention that 'terror' is run mainly by the secret services from governments?
When will "war against terror" stop being just a slogan to justify invasions, and when will the true roots of terror begin to be researched?

By the way, what will come next? See at
http://www.theonion.com/onion3913/bush_sizes_up_spain.html

Pim,

I'll go with the second reason the journalists decided to stay.

Here's an independent media take on the toppling of the statue of Saddam yesterday (photos, very little text--a quick read!)--make of it what you will, but clearly we in the U.S. don't always get the whole story (be sure to scroll down to do your own comparison of the faces in the pictures that appear below the one of the plaza):

http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/04/1598451.php

Taravb,

I just checked out the news source you suggested. This may have "independent" on their title, but that is as far as it goes. They are not independent, if by independent you mean complete disassociation with taking sides on the pro/con war movements in particular, or free from bias in general. However, they may be independent in other ways, perhaps what they mean is that their funding comes from independent sources?

A cursory look can tell you that this is a pro-peace site, so it is as biased as a pro-war site.

Nevertheless, the question of fair and unbiased reporting: I do not believe any of us in the planet have seen this yet. News has been slanted in all directions, and has served all interests.
News agencies, on both sides of the Atlantic, seem to suffer with the dilemma.

I have found that we as informed citizens need to triangulate news information, if possible, to have a better idea of motives, and the ideas and positions of all parties involved. Research expert positions, then research the expert for bias in their positions. You have to go with your best judgement after that.

You're right, Booklady...they use "independent" not to mean "unbiased" but to mean "not dependent on media conglomerate funding." They clearly have an agenda in posting the photo I linked above...

I watched the breathless coverage of the statue-toppling effort on CNN yesterday, and got tears in my eyes at the thought of all of these thousands of oppressed people hacking at the symbols of an evil regime. Paula Zahn and Christiane Amanpour (and some reporters on the scene) made it sound like this was an impromptu gathering of regular Iraqis, not a staged media event.

So I see the photo I linked to (http://docs.indymedia.org/twiki/bin/view/Global/ImcAllies) as an important balance to that. I was (personally!) swayed into feeling that regular Iraqi civilians were rising up with passion against Saddam (and I felt a strong emotional reaction, which media researchers will tell you is a way to make you more gullible--this is why "cliffhangers," references to sex, and big humorous moments happen right before commercials!).

Those spontaneous displays against the regime may have happened in places, but THIS particular (highly-publicized--don't you think the photo of Saddam tilted over the statue base will appear in MANY newspapers and magazines?) instance was not all it was made out to be on CNN.

Yes, Taravb, I noticed today on several local papers down here that they used this photo. Its very similar to the statue of Lenin when the Soviet Union disbanded. It will be used as a symbol.

I noticed the absence of women on both this photograph and on the occassion where Saddam was walking around the bombed area. Is this a cultural phenomena? Women don't congregate with the men on political rallies type of events? I'll have to look it up.

Thanks Booklady

As for the particular incident in which a spanish journalist was killed, my opinion watching the news is that it was unjustified. If the tanker was a spanish soldier he would be by now jailed for incompetence and for killing someone without any reason. I don't agree how the spanish government has handled this incident.

Anyway, reading the opinions of Cristobo and Pim, I can see what the spaniards think of all this conflict.

For me is just incredible how the people care for this war that much, including demonstrations in front of the US Embassy in Madrid, and then allow France to be in three wars in Africa, in which they have 30,000 soldiers, and in which 3 million people had died; or forgeting any of the 35 wars currently causing thousands of deaths. My explanation to this fact is that the media and the oposition has managed to capitalize a stupid and unreasonable antiamericanism, in order to have some more votes.

How can a country be governed when almost every party says that the governmet must do what the polls say. There is no long-time vision, no place for unpopular decisions, no state sense.

We have a real problem, a structural and social problem, and it is that the majority of the spaniards are working against their own country. I'm sure that if this continues we will face an implosion, perhaps even a second civil war.

For me it is very disgusting to see how my countrymen are acting, even justifying violence against a political party (PP).

The real democracy happens when you can express your opinion in public freely. Please (spaniards) answer me this question: Can I express myself for this war without being called a "facha", "fascist" or assasin????

I won't give a euro for this country and its citizens. The day I feel this is not a true democracy evermore I will fly away to any other country with a real democracy, and not only a democracy for certain part of the population.

Fernando

thjis,

You may disagree with me on the rights of college level teachers if you want. That's your right. But the fundamental elements of teaching tells me that a teacher is not supposed to plant the seeds of a specific point of view in the minds of people by stating they advocate it. I refuse to accept academia's stance that they are allowed to be judge and jury on any issue related to humanity. That includes God, and whether or not he/she exists. If you can impose your values in a classroom, mainstream America has the same right. It isn't a domain you own, it's one we own as a society, and as a professor, or teacher at any level, your job is to create a thirst for knowledge, not pass judgment. Passing off errors from the past, like the teaching of American history, which also must be corrected to reflect the truth is not acceptable as an excuse for being able to promote your own agenda. It's rediculous to say that it was done before so it's acceptable now. It should never have been done, and it must be corrected in all areas of education.

You mentioned "programming" by Fundamentalist Muslims. When a professor insists that the students turn in papers that support their point of view, or they look at the response that disagrees - as critically as they do - and respond by failing students, they are imposing their values on the student and that's intolerable in our society. Of course, agreeing with the professor, and following their "instructions" like "good little soldiers" gives fantastic results. Go to the head of the class.

UN diplomacy. You'd advocate that? Have we been misinformed about something? I suggest you point out what the UN has done effectively for the last twenty-five years. Name one issue where they didn't argue over the situation based on their political ideology and/or their own gains? The UN has lost focus, and in my opinion, should no longer exist. I felt this way long before the issue of Afghanistan, as I watched them push their agenda for "restraint" as one nation after another fell in step with terrorism and genocide, for political reasons. That's not acceptable. I've watched as one war lord after another in Africa has gone on a rampage killing people from another tribe, and the UN sits back and "debates the issue," without any concern for the people being systematically killed in what's obviously genocide. I've watched as dictators and less than honorable governments have held their hand out for more money to build opulent surroundings for their ruling class, by withholding their votes on critical issues associated with the well being of the people of the world. I should accept this?

No my friend. The last straw was Saddam Hussein thumbing his nose at the world, because the UN lacked the guts to respond against him when he failed to deliver on sanctions. He'd become the poster boy for every nation that would defy them, and they sat back, and let it happen. Allowing a cancer like him to grow did nothing more than create more hotbeds of nations where terrorists could be trained, supported, and unleashed on the world, because nobody could do anything about it, since the UN was impotent.

You might want to read NEWYORKRED's postings a little closer. She's seen it all because she works with an organization that is trying to save lives, not barter them away like chips on a crap table. She's seen the pain, the hurt, and the lack of help people get from the UN, while fat cats sit back and enjoy the proceeds from the UN's offerings. Maybe it's time for a "sabbatical." How about taking a field trip? Spend a year or two with the people in the front lines of the tragedy of people, then come back, and tell us what your ideas are for the future. Offering these views up from an ivory tower of self-righteous indignation isn't acceptable.

I take umbrage with your characterization that I am a Rush Limbaugh fan. He's so far right, and totally out of the loop of reality the same as far left theorists are. I was also deeply upset by the Fox news "Told you so!" crap offered as well. These people do not represent mainstream beliefs in America, and if you think they do, your views are as radically far left, as theirs are radically far right. I also take umbrage with your comment that our numbers reflect a high number of "fair weather supporters." The polls tell me you're all wet on that one as well. Of course it works nice for you if you want to "take a shot at us," without having any facts to back it up. The polls have only drifted up slightly, and your alluding to all of these new advocates as being fair weather supporters is hypocritical at best.

Please! Enjoy your view from the ivory tower. Support the UN. Feel free to advocate a POV in your classes. Speak out all you want against us, and our beliefs. But remember one thing. The only reason those rights are guaranteed are because Americans have shed their blood to insure that right has been maintained for you.

Apparently you've conveniently forgotten that the people of Iraq didn't have that right under the butcher. Of course, as long as it didn't directly effect the orderly life of academia, and the UN was always there as a "buffer of truth ." You haven't had to face these realities.

I’m afraid you’ve missed some very important statements made by people out here. NEWYORKRED is not speaking from an ivory tower like you are. Red has been there, and works in the trenches of human despair every day in the field. But what she says doesn’t matter to you. When Booklady speaks about the persecution she’s seen within her own family from a dictatorial government, you conveniently ignore it. When those of us who have been in the hell of war, you act like we didn’t see what we did, it was all an illusion. If I remember correctly, that’s the same statement that Baghdad Bob offered us when the U.S. Army took over the area of Hussein's palaces and Baghdad’s airport. It was all an illusion. We weren’t there.

It’s funny. I would have sworn I saw American soldiers there. So when are you sitting down with Bob and talking about illusions again? You seem to be on the same page.

Wolf

Tara,

Just one question. How many people did you see demonstrating against Saddam Hussein in Iraqi cities prior to coalition forces taking control?

Isn't it ironic that they feel free enough to do this now, where Iraqis would have been murdered had they demonstrated against Hussein prior to coalition forces taking control?

Doesn't that tell you that there's something wrong with that issue?

Wolf

Fernando,

Please don't endict all Spaniards by what is happening in the streets. Even though we may disagree with their point of view, it's fantastic that they can express them. It wasn't all that long ago, that a demonstration against Franco would have led to a lot different reaction from the government.

A lot of what is happening in Spain is not unlike the demonstrations against the war we find here in the U.S. There are some people who have deep rooted convictions against war, but those that are most vocal, and the biggest problem are those who have their own agenda, and they almost always take the forefront in these arguments. For them, the demonstration has nothing to do with a fundamental belief that war is wrong, but because they have a political agenda that says "dispose of the government," for their own reasons. They also have money behind them, and that feeds their mission.

As for the press, just like in the U.S., they jump on the side which seems to offer the most support, and will sell more copy, or increase the viewing and listening audiences. It's business to them, and nothing more.

As for the polls, they are based on perceptions from media. They really don't matter that much.

As for the incident at the Palestine Hotel, I hope it is resolved properly. I'm not privy to what has transpired in the investigation, but know it is still going on, and until there is a definite answer as to what really happened, I will reserve my opinion. Rest assured, if it was an intentional act against the media housed there, I will ask that charges be lodged as well. We cannot allow this to be an issue that splits our beliefs because there are those who are trying to use it as a wedge to seperate the coalition.

You can be proud of being a Spaniard. You can also be proud of your stance on this issue. Do not let hecklers and mob action sway you from your beliefs. Democracy is too much of a treasure to throw away to mob violence.

Wolf

Hear,Hear,Wolf, as ever the MM Board true Statesman.

Following the sub-topic of how the news was represented, or not represented, I found this article that to me is fascinating, its about the Arab press. These folks, may or may not be a representative sample, but its refreshing to hear people awakening that perhaps there is another side to every issue:

The article came from Yahoo! News! click link for entire article

Cristobo,

I reread and remembered from page 6 of this thread that you called Iraq an unarmed country. Why didn't the Iraqis overthrow their own government if it is an unarmed country? It sure seems that us American's sure found a lot of these 'unarms'.

PIM seriously,

If I thought that these journalist were obstructing this war in a way that could have caused an American soldier casualty...I can only say this. There is not one American journalist's life, let alone foreign journalist's, more important than the life of one American soldier. I can understand it if a Spanish person, like I believe you are, can't understand this. American soldier's are our brothers, sisters, sons and daughters who protect are freedom and security. But if an American feels this way, he is spitting on our troops just like the stories about the troops arriving from Viet Nam.
Wolf, when I hear American posters trying to second guess our troops then I owe you my deepest, sincere, humble and genuine apology. I always thought the stories about Americans spitting on their own troops was a bit of an exageration. How could an American do this? Now, sadly, I see that I'm quite probably wrong. And I'm ashamed that I just can't get any more outraged about this concept than I am.

Gazpacho, with all due respect, I can't see how a cameraman in a 15th floor can be a threat to a tanker in a M2-Bradley with a 18mm cannon.

American troops must protect their own lives, but they must also avoid any civilian casualties. You can't just shoot everyone without a good reason.

It is not as the other spanish journalist killed. In that case was an iraqi missile that killed him and two american soldiers. Ok, he knew where he was and what he was doing. You can't expect a dictatorship to respect anyone, but we should expect the troops of a democracy to make a responsible use of force. That is what makes us different from them.

You know I'm for this war, but it must be conducted in a strictly way, otherwise our troops would be nothing but criminals, and our governments nothing but state criminals.

Just my point of view...

Fernando

Those in the left first complained that there were no shouts of joy,or jubilation etc. Then when we finally saw the joy, the jubilation, now they are saying that it's not enough people being joyous and jubilant. Then there are others that beleive the whole thing is a conspiracy, that it never occurred that it was a set up for those of us too gullible to believe what we saw.

Folks, stop being in denial, it did happen as it only could happen given the conditions. And I was happy for them.

Fernando,

You're right, a cameraman is no threat to U.S. troops. But journalists staying in a battle zone changes the rules of engagement, especially when one side is so desperate, that they will use these journalists as a human shield. I think these journalist are just as rabid for a story as the anti-war crowd says that President Bush was ready for war.

When an American soldier tells you to clear a battlefield, he might not have time to tell you twice.

I know these people are dedicated to their work, but so am I, and when I see lightning, common sense dictates to come off of a telephone pole.

A "cameraman" with binoculars and a walkie-talkie connection to his buddies in the bush certainly can be a threat to an armored vehicle, Fernando. Given the documented dispicable acts of Hussein's 'fedayeen', would it be a suprise if he was using the hotel as an observation post or was purposefully attempting to draw U.S. fire to the place?

I don't think an American M1A1 tank from less than a half-mile range hit the fifteenth floor of the Palestine Hotel, killing those journalists. The damage would have been much more sever.

Gazpacho
Did you have a look at the death toll? I am afraid it was not an even fight... What is your idea of "fair play"?
The Irakis had no planes, no navy, hardly any missile, no biological war equipment, no night-vision glasses, and hardly any of their outdated war tanks survived the bombings to meet the American tanks (which smashed them).
Sort of surprising, since we had been told that Irak was a threat to world peace.
Maybe the civilians simply didn`t want to start a rebellion. Or well, the security forces just needed machine guns and a bit of discipline to keep people under control...
Powell and Co. Have been telling us that they had EVIDENCE that Irakis were keeping mass destruction weapons. But apparently the Irakis were reluctant to use those almighty weapons even to prevent an invasion. And if the Americans knew where the Irakis had hidden the weapons...then why can`t they find them? So far, all they have uncovered is worth only to kill grasshoppers.
The Iraki army has fought courageously to stop an invasion under an overwhelming inferiority. Some units have fought, in these days, TO THE LAST MAN. If a western country, if any American unit had ever given such an admirable example of patriotism, how many movies would have been filmed on the matter? Instead, the news (like in Spanish Antena 3) labelled Iraki resistance to be "ferocious", like if talking about beasts. Not "stubborn", let alone "courageous"; just "ferocious". That is sheer racism, in my opinion.
All this matter reminds me of French invasion in 1808. The French claimed to be "liberating" us from a tyrant. And indeed nothing good can be said about Ferdinand the VII, maybe the worst king EVER. But yet, people noticed that the reasons of the invaders were not totally innocent...

Cristobo,

Of course you're right. We tore them up. But as the saying goes "don't bring a knife to a gun fight". True enough they didn't have the military might of the U.S. and coalition forces but I for one am happy about that. I know they're not heavily armed, but I can't accept that they are unarmed. Do you really think I would feel better if equal amounts of Americans were killed. Oh boy! When the U.S. goes to war, I don't want a fair fight, I want victory.

I think the lesson here is that after the Kuwaiti war instead of making a peace treaty between the U.S. and the Iraqis, we went through the morally bankrupt U.N. I strongly wish we would tend to our own business and not try and drag the rest of the world along with us like a dead albatross around our neck.
This war is being fought for U.S. security. I don't even believe we are doing this for the sake of the Iraqis. If these sorry bunch of people couldn't overthrow that straw tiger of a dictator I see on the news, they aren't very courageous. I don't know or care if they ever find the dreaded weapons of mass destruction. Is good enough for me that there are Al Queda training camps in the north.
Yes I've read about the humiliating scene between Napolean, Carlos IV?, and Ferdinand VII. This brought the 100,000 sons of St. Louis into Spain. A very bad time for your noble country. I enjoy the history of your country very much, and the politics from the 1930's is an essential study for anyone who enjoys politics as much as myself.

Hi, Gazpacho --

Again, where is the evidence that the U.S. was in danger from Iraq?

I hope you never become a district attorney. "Let's execute the suspect now. We can investigate later. Wait... never mind the investigation. I just know he's guilty."

I've been following a good chunk of the war coverage in both liberal and conservative media, and I somehow missed this report, though folks on this board keep alluding to it. Can anyone point me to an article about this in any reputable news source?

Booklady wrote:
What happened was, as always, a combination of reactions. Some Iraqis -- a lot of them -- were jubilant. Certainly the Kurds have much to celebrate. Some Iraqis -- a lot of them -- fought to the death (and continue to do so) to get the U.S. out. These are the much-vaunted "pockets of resistance," a term which even the pro-Bush journalists on Fox News Network assure us is a gross understatement.

Some of the Iraqis you've seen celebrating on your TV screen are cheering for the defeat of Saddam Hussein, whom they considered hopelessly secular and westernized. Don't mistake their actions for pro-American or pro-democratic jubilation.

So let's not overstate the situation either way. There are, IIRC, millions of people in Iraq, and any reductive statement that "the Iraqis are thrilled" or "the Iraqis want Saddam back" is misleadingly simplistic.

The New York Times , April 11, 2003 has an Op/editorial by Eason Jordan, who is chief news executive at CNN.

Eason Jordan admits that he knew of the horrors occurring in Bagdhad,yet did not report these. He recounts one of these: This is very disturbing for a variety of reasons.
Isn't the press supposed to report the facts?
I wonder, had CNN, which is the bastion of news for the American Left, reported these news stories, would they have been so vehement in their response against the war in Iraq?
Just how prevalent is this type of media self-censorship? I suspect more of this goes on than we would like. Critical thinkers must search all over to arrive at facts.

This selectivity of reporting that Eason Jordandescribes has certainly lost CNN its moral high ground as being the bastion for presenting unbiased reporting. The "business" of being in Iraq was more important than reporting what was truly going on. No wonder there are so many confused people about the media coverage, as we have heard voiced on this thread.

El Viajero,
I think that whatever their motivations, after what Eason Jordan describes, I believe the jubilation we saw was genuine. But I guess that the majority is probably hiding out for a couple of weeks before they share their true feelings. Although, after living through the HELL of Saddam, I doubt that these folks will say much for a long time.

---
Did anyone out there notice the lack of women in the crowd? I am curious as to why? In the West, women are usually in the forefront, I wonder if it is cultural. Does anyone know?

El Viajero:
I think the report about training camps for Al-Qaeda in the North were shown by Colin Powell in his UN speech. Am I wrong?
In any case, the next day it was widely known that the north was out of Saddam´s control since 1992: that part of the country was constantly watched and bombed by American planes, and the Kurds were mostly independent there.
Gazpacho: definitively I like you, I like your being so sincere and your lack of self-righteousness in a thread where each one wants to show "how pure my feelings on this matter are". However I still don`t agree you. And yes, Carlos IV and Fernando VII are fascinating fellows. I wonder how is it possible that such a stupid, evil and coward man ever existed!!! That`s the mistery over Fernando VII.
Booklady: yeah, it is an entangled matter to find out what can you believe, or when are you being fooled. As to those horrible stories about Saddam`s tortures...do you think the situation will improve now, as long as human rights are concerned, in Irak and the Middle East? Some have pointed at the risk of an Islamic revolution in Irak. That`s bad news, I think.

Booklady wrote:

It's a basic principle of television that whenever you point the cameras at something, you're pointing them away from something else. You can't cover everything. Certainly, CNN has reported on atrocities carried out by the Hussein regime, if not the specific incidents you mention.

Probably. The president and his press secretary were going on TV on a regular basis saying things that didn't ring true, and changing their justifications for this invasion on a weekly basis. It's hard not to at least question what's going on.

Besides, I don't consider CNN particularly leftist. When I think of lefty television, I think of things like Free Speech TV and certain independent viewer-supported stations with a strong socialist bent. If anything, CNN speaks to the liberal part of American centrism, just as Fox News represents the conservative part of American centrism. There's an awful lot to the left of CNN and to the right of Fox News.

I watched that entire presentation and a repeat of it, and I don't remember him saying that. Here's the problem: the existence of those training camps is common knowledge, and yet no one seems to know how they know it. The self-defense argument for the invasion rests on a lot of common knowledge that no one seems able or willing to corroborate.

When Wolf (I think it was Wolf) first mentioned this, I searched every major news site I could think of on the word "Qaeda" and found nothing about such training sites. Then Wolf obliged me by posting a link to a report from Human Rights Watch that he said showed evidence of links between Hussein and Al Qaeda. That's all well and good, except that if you read the report, it says the exact opposite: that as far as they can tell, there is no convincing evidence to support that allegation. So all I'm asking for here is attribution. We just mounted the largest non-nuclear air assault in history with the claim that it was done to protect America from an armed threat. From the start, I've been asking where the evidence is. And consistently, people point me to things that don't prove what they claim they do.

Yes, I'm glad to see Saddam Hussein out of power, but -- again -- a country founded on the rule of law must not use an ends-justifies-the-means vigilante approach to world politics. For one thing, making other countries hate us is bad for national security. For another thing, it's just plain arrogant and wrong.

Besides, will the Iraqi people be better off under their next ruler? When the U.S. engages in foreign government-building, we have an annoying tendency to put into power people like -- well, like Saddam Hussein, for instance.

There are many things the U.S. does extremely well, and of which we can be justifiably proud. Stabilizing foreign governments is not one of them. We have a long history of backing leaders not because they will be good for the people over whom we place them, but because they hate our military enemies or will grant favorable terms to American corporations. That's not a matter of propaganda: our record speaks for itself. Granted, the mistakes of past administrations are not George W.'s fault, but our track record on this sort of thing is appalling. I'd like to believe that this time will be different.

el viajero,

My apologies. I thought people have been following the links between al-Qaeda, Hussein, and the group in northern Iraq. Apparently not, or they would have known this.

Here's a link that will show the ties as they exist. Members of the group are actually the ones who have tied them all together, after being arrested.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/3/18/74151.shtml

I hope this resolves any questions you may have on the issue. Apparently your investigation failed to uncover this. There's dozens of sites out there that show the link. In fact, there are Jordanian and Iranian linked sites that indicate the ties as well.

Wolf

El Viajero writes:
But, this was not a cameraman,or a reporter, this was a CNN policy maker. He decides what is told, how it is told, and who is told the news. He was a witness to the particular savagery that he recounts in the New York Times article. News agencies are not political entities, we, the public expect different standards from them.

El Viajero writes:
I disagree. They are fairly ensconced in the flaming liberal left. At least my "flaming liberal" friends in academia are always quoting CNN as the bastion of unbiased truth. There are definitely more leftist and more rightist news agencies than CNN and Fox, respectively.

Booklady,

And to think... just 24 hours ago left wing people were telling everyone how CNN was right on the money, or even a little "too conservative."

As you and I both knew, from our past experiences, the truth is never broadcast from a dictatorial state, even by what should be considered unbiased journalists. The only stories that leave their domain are those that don't tell the truth about what's happening behind the cameras.

Now... let's talk about Al Jazeera, and the rest of the broadcast teams that have been in Baghdad over the last few weeks. A show of hands please! How many of you believe you've been getting the whole truth from that side?

Wolf

El Viajero,

Just a few more sources so you can put the pieces together, and realize the tie between al-Qaeda, Hussein, and the Ansar al-Islam is real.

How about an Iraqi source? Their own admission.
http://www.iraqinews.com/org_ansar_al-islam.shtml

Let's move on to another source. Arabic News.
http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/020914/2002091410.html

Now let's move on to another source. In this one, we have the King of Jordan indicating that al-Qaeda operatives are in fact seeking refuge, and are part of this organization.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=5571

If that's not enough, start researching Intellnet... lots of information, including German source information that shows the links..
http://www.intellnet.org/news/?type=category&value=Ansar%20al-Islam

Another source that may interest you...
http://www.efreedomnews.com/News%20Archive/Iraq/SaddamKurdistan.htm

Maybe a German information service? You can translate it...
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,233777,00.html

Then there's links featured by the Islamic Council here in the U.S., well worth reading.
http://www.islamicsupremecouncil.org/country_reports/Iraq/

I could go on with this, because I've read over three hundred different sources of information that relate to the issue, and the ties between Hussein, al-Qaeda, and these terrorists is so obvious that anyone who uses one iota of common sense will see it exists.

Enjoy reading over the weekend. Lots of information to sift over before you offer an "off the cuff" response.

Wolf

Wolf --

Thanks for the information links. I'll look at them tonight.

Booklady --

It's one of the weird quirks of American political discourse that we think of liberals as "the left" and mainstream Republicans as "the right". As an Argentinian coworker of mine once said, in other countries the elected officials represent a range of political parties that hold widely divergent views on public policy, where in the U.S. we mostly see two slightly divergent flavors of the same centrist party.

If liberals are flaming leftists, what are communists and social revolutionaries (no, I'm not necessarily conflating the two)? If mainline Republicans are right-wingers, what are -- well, take your pick based on how you define the right wing: Pat Robertson theocrats or the Christian Coalition any number of militia groups? The true left and true right both want to change the fundamental organization of American society, whereas we run-of-the-mill liberals and conservatives want to affect social policy from within the existing structure. If you'd said that CNN worked from a liberal understanding of the world, I wouldn't have challenged it, but you said "left," which wasn't consistent with what I've seen on CNN.

As for "unbiased" news coverage, there's no such thing. Because an editor cannot include stories on every single thing that happens in the world, there's a gatekeeping process built into news reporting. Editors include what they consider relevant, and obviously that's going to be based on reality as they understand it. "Politics" in the broad sense of the word will creep into that, since almost every aspect of life is political in some sense. An editor who believes that the world ecology is on the brink of collapse will choose different stories than someone who believes the environment is resilient enough to take whatever we throw at it. Bias affects every aspect of reporting, right down to whether the on-screen caption text for war coverage reads "War in Iraq" or "Operation Iraqi Freedom." That's why relying on any one news source -- or even any one country's news sources -- gives a very incomplete picture. The best broadcast reporters and interviewers -- Dan Rather, Ted Koppel, and any number of people at the BBC whose names I don't recall -- make sure that multiple views make it to the air and insist on careful fact checking. This last is what I most want from a journalist: a care not to report something until it has been checked and double-checked. Rather has been particularly admirable on that count, sometimes holding back single-sourced major stories till a day or two after other networks have put them out, waiting for corroboration.

Booklady,

I couldn't agree with you more. CNN withholding information about Iraq's atrocities and then insinuating that our president was an out of control maniac. Go figure. CNN not leftist, that's a good one.

El viajero,

I stick by my remarks. I don't care if they don't find weapons of mass destructions. And, it is these left centralist, like supposedly the last administration was suppose to represent, that disturbs me the most. Can anyone who supports our last president tell me what it is he supposedly contributed to our country? I can think of one thing only, and that is really what he didn't/couldn't do.

Cristobo,

I really enjoy your postings too, but I agree, we'll never see eye to eye. I wish there was a history forum on this bulletin board, because I enjoy the history of Spain so much. And I would like to compare notes with a Spaniard.

El viajero,

I just read this. Dan Rather an ardent fact checker? Without an agenda? Old Dan Blabber?

El Viajero,

You write:
Perhaps we see things in an inconsistent manner. Let's take the coverage of Cuba for example. I consider the Cuba news agency Granma point of view to be from the communist/marxist point of view.

I consider the New York Times a liberal newspaper, I consider CNN Liberal Left.
Let me share an example of how they cover the same news story.

In covering the recent horrors in Cuba, look closely to see the adjectives that the CNN news story uses. Look at the particular terms used to the hijackers: Then take a look at the same news story reported by the New York Times once again look closely at terms used to describe the hijackers:

Draw your own conclusions. I maintain that CNN's slant is the "flaming" liberal left.

el viajero,

So sorry - you are correct in your assesment of my statement about what the word "God" implies...still, you get my point that it does not consider those who may be Buddhist, who may be Muslim, or otherwise...it does not include them in a public showing of faith.

As for public opinion...I disagree with you there. The shift has been a steady, constant one...now the American public has been polled on whether or not this war was right - *regardless* of finding WMD. They say 'yes.' Which was not the case before the war. So - you see there is indeed an element of "fair weather" showing of support for this war. So...the shift was a big one.

Wolf,

On teaching - my point is that bias will always be a part of education. Is it ideal to remove bias? That is what we are debating. I did not use history lessons as an excuse - but as an example. It happens. Period. And should it? All I can tell you that a conservative college professor of mine made me think more critically than ever before due to his right-leanings. It made me UNDERSTAND the other side. Is the purpose of teaching to simply remember and regurgitate facts - or UNDERSTAND their significance? By seeing and understanding bias, one learns a great deal of understanding.

U.N.: Here's how I view the mission of the U.N. A communication channel to discuss matters of the world in the interest of peace. Period. Is debate and argument a part of communication? Absolutely...that is how we come to understand eachother. So I see no wrong in the U.N.'s role of facilitating discussion/debate/arguments. So, while you may not be able to point out a war that the U.N. has successfully waged - it appears you're using the wrong criteria for judging it's effectiveness. War is not the definition of it's role. As for significant roles it HAS played (non-war), see their web site. 191 conflicts were averted according to their Web site (and even if that is slanted info...surely some of those can be proven by independent sources as successfully averted - even 1/3 of those they claim were averted, it's still worth it my mind). Anyone who see's war as the U.N.'s measure of success will surely be disappointed.

And by the way, I hear you speak of (in so many words) a "U.N. Agenda." Don't forget the U.N. consists of representatives of countries. They only represent the opinion of their country (or government...). So when you say "U.N. Agenda" I say "World Agenda."

Your "ivory tower" rant is a two-way street. You should have gone to live in central Baghdad with your family while the worst of this war was waged - risked the fact that your mother could be bombed in a market or other "missed targets" and tell me if this war is worth it.

And by the way - just how has this war protected our rights? What threat was there to our freedoms from a weak regime that has nearly been toppled in three weeks? I fail to see this...and no one has addressed it despite queries from other people.

I have never said the Iraqi regime was a pleasant rule of law to live under. What I did say was that I didn't agree that the potential consequences it could create - both in and outside Iraq. My interest was about the least amount of human suffering. It's a fair, but predictive argument considering that this war was justified on *predicted* threat - not real threat (pre-emptive = prediction).

As for the rest of your last posting - once again it's back to name-calling and a clear absence of facts - more name-calling, more "Baghdad Bobs" and more "traitor" innuendos pointed in my direction for offering up a different point of view. And what would be funny if it weren't so sad and desparate, is your attempt to discredit me for ignoring people's experiences in brutal dictatorships. Have I done that? No. Did I express joy over our welcome in Baghdad? Yes. Like most people, I only want the best from this situation - even if I'm wrong (which I have yet to be convinced of...and again history will determine that years from now). It's a shame you took offense at the Rush remark...it appears you share his distorted form of "logic."

I know you are but what am I - that is what you and I are doing - quite futile and pointless and contrary to the facilitation and understanding of arguments of all sides of this issue. Blah! Boring!

(but on a lighter note, thank you for those media links...I will explore them because there are slants on all sides of this - and as mentioned earlier, I *do* try to stay balanced in all this madness by exploring every media outlet possible)

thijs,

I hope you don't take my statement as meaning you aren't American if you don't believe what I do, because nothing could be further from the truth. Like anyone else, I do get a little heated when I read things that disturb me. Just because our beliefs are so far apart shouldn't drive a wedge between us. You might say I've become very defensive of the issues related to the U.S. role in the world over the last thirty years, after coming home to my country and being called a traitor because I fought in Nam.

Instead of sitting back, doing drugs, becoming an alcoholic, and wasting my life away because of those issues, I became involved, and it's carried me into a different role in life. I have not been sitting on the sidelines, as some people on our board are very much aware. I won't go into the details, but let's just say I'm more inclined towards finding peaceful settlements for issues than starting a war to resolve them, and have devoted endless hours for that cause. But, at the same time, I realize there's a time when words fail, and action is the only recourse. Such it was with Iraq.

You're absolutely right about the UN avoiding nearly 200 wars. But in a lot of cases, the price of human life, and the degredation of societies of people was the price that was paid. As people who care about others, we cannot sit on the sidelines and watch genocide happening, and say we will negotiate a peace between parties, while one is systematically killing the other by the thousands, and telling the UN they are more than willing to negotiate a settlement with their enemies, when we know that the blood bath will continue, until they are through savaging their fellow man. If that's peace, I'll take war, because the loss of life is much less over the long haul.

Please understand, I not only believe in researching the internet, I usually have six to eight books written by authors from all across the political spectrum checked out of a major library at all times, because I thirst for information related to issues. Usually, within a week, I'm back for another half dozen or so, because I try to find what has caused the mindset people have.

At this time, one of my biggest concerns is that the Arab/Islamic world will do everything they can to undermine the establishment of a democratic government in Iraq. Not because it isn't the right thing to have, but because it undermines their own nations, which really don't often resemble democracy.

I wonder how the UN would handle rebuilding. Since Russia, France, and Germany were totally against us, I think they'd turn everything into a political issue and fight against any plans the US might have. Therefore, I feel we should choose to leave the UN out of the loop when it comes to the building of the nation's infrastructure. I don't like having it that way, but I sure don't want to see those nations create chaos, then conveniently blame it on the US, and anyone who's followed this issue knows that's exactly what will happen.

Rush Limbaugh? I can't stand the guy, and his right wing rhetoric scares the hell out of me. He has too many followers in my book. He doesn't speak for those of us who support the American/Iraqi issue, he speaks for the radical right.

How has Iraq threatened our rights? We have the fundamental right of feeling safe from harm. When terrorists are funded, and harbored by a regime, they are free to lash out against people at a time of their choosing. Such was the case of 9-11. The terrorists deprived thousands of the right to live a happy life. Any nation that would harbor these people is an enemy of the US. If we do not react with force, we'll have these people snipping at us forever, and the number of incidents won't decrease, they'll rise significantly. If you look back over the last two decades, the terrorists have become more emboldened by the lack of substantial reaction by the US, to take them down, as they hid in foreign nations. That's unacceptable.

Peace!

Wolf

Muchas gracias MM for letting this thread going on, and thank you for all opinions, specially to Wolf.

Yes, Wolf, I am very proud of our President Aznar, as many Spaniards are too. I think Mr. Aznar should have better reported the Spanish public opinion his reasons in order to give arguments to citizens, like Mr. Blair has been doing in Britain.

Unfortunately the media in Spain is a calamity, too biased. All tvs and most papers and radios are in favor of Saddam. Sometimes I have thought that demonstrators at streets don't care about this war. They are against it because the Americans are involved and Aznar's right government is running well the country.

Fernando, keep calm about a second civil war. Just go out into streets of Sevilla or Madrid and you will see that all bars are full of people, people are everywhere living, buying having fun, families paying their mortgages,.... and they are not going to put aside their “cervecita and tapas” just to fight each other (¿!!) Everyone has his dayly problems in our comfortable society.

Now, that the war is almost over, the world is a bit safer than before thanks to the Americans. I expect tyrants and terrorist in the world have understood the message.

People should know that the US is not only the country of “yankee imperialism”, Coca Cola and McDonalds. It is also the paradigma of democracy, individual liberties, estado de derecho, free trade and prosperity, sexual and religious freedom, independence of politic versus religion, equality between man and woman,.......And due to these principles the US has progressed and its the world reference in medicine, engineering, literature, economy and arts.

Just to finish, why are Vaclav Havel and Adam Michnik (from Solidarnosc, Poland) in favor of Bush? They have lived under totalitariam regimes and fought for democracy in their countries. So they know at first hand what living under such oppressive system is.

Saludos.

As far as I can tell, yes. In fact, he often qualifies things that field reporters state, carefully pointing out when the network has only one source for a piece of information, as opposed to corroborated facts. He does this regardless of whether the information in question would favor a liberal or conservative political view, so yes -- he's a stickler for responsible reporting.

As I just said, there's no such thing as a reporter without an agenda. What's your standard for responsible journalism? The bombastic posturing of Bill O'Reilly?

Okay, I see you're more into the Rush Limbaugh school of childish name calling. Wow... what a convincing and substantive way to make a point.

I don't see what's particularly liberal about the CNN piece. Unless I'm missing some context on the story, it's a slam at Castro, and the use of the word "gang" is arguably anti immigrant. It could just as easily have come from a conservative-leaning news source.

I am getting so tired with this thread!!!! Everybody has an agenda or a chip on their shoulder. The "hawks" in particular. It's not helping. Let's talk about something we all like. Quevedo...or Mahou...or Almodovar?

jlramos,

Now there you go! You are right on the money and I was waiting for someone to call me out on it. I admit that I have made some outrageous remarks on this thread but I did so only after reading outrageous remarks by the anti-war crowd.

I've tried but just can't understand people who lean toward the left. I know that their thinking is as good as mine but I'll never understand them.

And to all posters who point out that the U.S. doesn't always do the right thing, you too are also right. We help people come to power that are absolutely miserable human beings, not to mention electing some presidents here who are horrible, oh, sorry. Still, we assume a leadership role in the world and take on responsibility for a lot of things. Particularly the democratization of the world. Will there ever be peace in this world if there are tyrants?

And by the way, just about any beer is good as long as you're not in England where they serve it warm and toast cold....Barbaric!

gazpacho,
So glad you admit you've made some outrageous comments on this board: "I would have voted for Adolf Hitler himself if he ran against Gore." !?! Quite offensive,really. I just hope we don't come to find out that you and not quite 50% of Americans actually did just that.

Hi Gazpacho,

Speaking of Dan Rather, there is a book out now by former CBS journalist, Bernard Goldberg, titled BIAS: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distorts the News. He agrees with you that Rather is a liberal. In a special NewsMax NewsMaker Forum , he cites that when It was obvious to me during the Clinton presidency that Rather was a liberal journalist.

Booklady,

Yes, I know that Dan Rather was covered in this book. I just really can't believe that anyone would consider Dan Rather an unbiased journalist.
Ayn Rand would love the discussion earlier that just because a camera can only point in one direction, and not give an entire picture of the world, that there will never be any truth in journalism. That's just the old Kantian philosophy that because no one can know everything than no one can know anything. What rubbish. In reality journalists don't exist to report truth or even search for the truth, they're there to "change the world."
It is for this reason, when the anti-war crowd decided to use the death of journalists as showing how evil war is, that I just couldn't feel too much sympathy for journalists. I do feel kind of sorry for David Bloom though.

I did my twenty years in the Air Force. At that time I was approaching forty. During my last few years in we started training with full chem gear and bullet proof vest and all the other equipment of war. The first day I tried on all the equipment I thought I was going to pass out. Your body does get use to it, but it is grueling. I don't think that the press realizes the stress and physical requirements required by modern day fighting men. I understand that David Bloom was also approaching 40 or a little over. I find it irresponsible for the networks to send people out in conditions that are obviously dangerous, just to get their headlines. This task should be delegated to the 20 to 30 crowd.

Aidance,

Well, that's not the statement I was referring to. It would have been interesting to see if Gore could come up with even more creative uses for a cigar than his boss did though.

Gazpacho wrote:
Can you name an unbiased journalist or editor? They all bring their life experiences to work with them (as we all do), and that affects their basic understanding of how the world works. How could that not inform the decisions they make?

Where did anyone say that? You seem to have an idea in your head of an ideal newscast that would include All Relevant Objective Truth, and anything short of that means "no truth in journalism." It's not an all-or-nothing deal. Journalism is carried out by flawed human beings with biases. Even the most "objective" journalists will tell you this is the case, and that a big part of the job is to be aware of one's own prejudices and reduce the degree to which they intrude into the work.

A report might be accurate as far as it goes, but how far it goes and whether a given story is covered at all is a judgement call. It has to be. There are only so many minutes in a newscast and so many pages in a periodical.

So it's best to view all accurate reporting as a tile in a mosaic: part of the truth, but never the whole truth.

El Viajero,

To quote you...
I'm only applying logic to your quote.

El viajero, I'd like to get some news that had any objective truth at all. And I certainly wouldn't listen to Dan Rather for it.

By the way, el viajero, what is a flawed human being? In what way are we flawed? A person with a bias is not a flawed human being, is he? Perhaps you have an idea of an ideal human being?

Wolf,

Now that was a good post! You are (and should be) very proud of your post-Vietnam accomplishments and are rightfully bitter about the anti-war protesters of yesteryear for your return experience.

Genocide is one of the few cases where war is a necessity. I agree with you 100% there. Certainly there is no "statute of limitations" on the crimes of genocidal activity, but as mentioned - there was successful "containment." There are other genocidal wars going on in the world...and a double-standard exists since the U.S. has paid little or no attention to them. If that were the U.S.'s true motive, since Iraq was contained, it would have gone elsewhere. As sad as it is and as much as I'd like to see such activity erased from the planet forever, I don't think war will always solve this problem. And again...was that really the U.S. motive here? And the perception was that it was not - which is what is unfortunate - but perhaps justified - considering the administrations inconsistencies leading up to this event.

While the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is a different situation, the cycle of violence that continues there illustrates where I come from. I do not define the constant threat of retailiation as freedom or peace - and I do not want the U.S. to fall into the same cyclical trap that Israel is in. I certainly don't claim to have a solution for that part of the world (everyone has tried in vain at this point), but war does not send any message to a foe with conviction except "get ready to fight." If anything, it could have the unintended affect of strengthening U.S. foe's conviction against the U.S. It's quite likely they now feel the need to fight is that much more urgent to the success of their cause. The Arab world fears the U.S. as much as the U.S. fears the Arab world. And there seems to be a lack of dialogue and understanding between peoples and governments...we need bridges of communication to work out our differences.

U.N. involvement with rebuilding is a slippery one. I see your argument - that we sacrificed and took the action so we should benefit from the rebuild. That's a "fair" assessment at face value. But consider this: the efforts to stop terrorism will never succeed if European and Arab friends do not help. It's safe to say they currently feel alienated. So from that perspective, and considering the U.N. wrangling leading up to this point, the U.S. should include them as a "good faith" and healing jesture.

Peace!

Gazpacho,
What I want to see and hear in news reports are just the objective facts, and I would like to hear these facts from as many sources as possible. I then internalize the facts and form my own personal truth, which is biased by my own cosmology, which is my own independent, rational judgement.

It seems that journalists today provide the consumer with a pre-packaged viewpoint.I see this as a postmodern dilemma. Part of the view point is that of the news agency's own agenda, and part is the particular personna and political view point of the journalist. So then when the consumer gets the news story and internalizes it, it has evolved into something else, somewhat factual, somewhat other people's cosmologies.

It's almost as though these agencies are saying to the consumer, "if you get your news from XYZ news agency and from Mr. Smart journalist, you have Truth, with a capital T. You won't have to think, we will do that for you, accept our packaged newscast and you too can be like us"
Orwellian!

As el viajero pointed out, I believe, there is no such thing as Truth. The best you can reach is Popperian falsifiability. And to do that we need the verified facts, without the extra adjectives and adverbs. Plain descriptive research.

El Viajero,

You and I discussed the implications of CNN's Jordan's admission of keeping certain stories from surfacing. I just ran into an editorial by David Mills of Touchstone Magazine . You may find it interesting.

thjs,
I enjoyed reading your post. I do have a question. You state: Whom do you refer to as our our European and Arab friends ? What countries specifically?

Why do you believe that it will be a healing gesture? And in what ways can it heal the breach between these nations when some hold diametrically opposed values? How can they reach concensus?

Thank you.

Wolf,
I am beginning to agree with your view on the United Nations. I became increasingly concerned with the United Nation's more radical view of appeasement. I was particularly concerned when they kicked the United States out of the Human Rights Commission, yet left Sudan, a government that promotes slavery, not to mention Cuba, Fidel just gave a dissident a 27 year prison sentence for having in his possession Johnson's book Who moved my cheese?,not to mention Syria, and Lybia, Lybia heads the commission.

The questions for me are: Is the U.N. a significant body anymore? Or has its significance been diminished over time? Or has it deminished since the end of the Cold War?
Is it trying to accomplish more than it is possible or reasonable to accomplish? Do all countries hold the same universal values?

I believe that there is a role for this body, such as UNESCO, etc., but I'm not sure that it is a body that we can reach concensus anymore.
What do you think?

I have enjoyed reading most of the posts in this thread, (both sides) and now that it is almost run out, I thought I would add my random thoughts.

In the beginning the US was accused of doing it for money. I keep waiting for someone to comment on the financial reasons for France and Russia's position.

As a Tennessean, I would like to point out that had Gore been able to carry the state he claimed as home, Florida wouldn't have been an issue. Also, there is a reason the American consititution let's the electoral college elect the President. It's the same reason we have a Senate -- to let the less populous states have a say in our government. Works, too.

(BTW, most Tennesseans believe both Bush and Gore won their respective home states --Texas and DC)

It would help a lot if both European and US citizens made more of an effort to understand the relevant geopolitical differences. Some key issues:

Ethnic diversity
Population Density
Infrastructure diferences
Bureaucratic structures
Immigration policies
Legal foundations
History
Educational differences

The United Nations lost relevance when France said "no matter what you say, we will veto." How can there be discourse after that?

France, particularly, is trying to reinforce its destruction of the UN by demanding that it play the lead role in rebuilding Iraq. It's record in that role is dismal -- even worse than the US's. Compare Panama and Haiti. Consider Ruwanda, (or almost anywhere else in Africa), Bosnia, ...

The book Bias, by Bernard Goldberg, (a self proclaimed liberal, NY Jew) pretty well documents the liberal media bias and the reasons for it.

Anyway, both sides had good moments, but from my (biased) viewpoint, there was too much unsubstantiated America bashing, and way too much Bush bashing.

ernesto

Hi, ebatancourt,

People have been commenting on it ad nauseam.

The 2000 election wasn't determined by the Electoral Congress. It was determined by a court in the name of expediency, to get the election over with. That's not the way it's supposed to work. Judging from some of the rhetoric coming out of Africa, the 2000 American election has alarmingly weakened the cause of democracy in places where government structures are in flux. The promoters of democracy have always pointed to the U.S. as a role model. After what many outside the U.S. perceive as a "stolen" election, people are saying, "If even America can't get it right, why should we think democracy will work here?" Regardless of what did or didn't happen in the 2000 elections, that perception is doing damage.

The permanent members' right to veto is as basic to the United Nations' structure as the Electoral Congress is to the United States' structure. The founding members of the UN, including the U.S., agreed to this, just as the American states agreed to the Electoral College. The idea was that the collective voice of the UN would speak only when the permanent members were in agreement. Considering the disparate philosophies of the countries involved, it's a very wise doctrine, and one that the U.S. has taken advantage of by exercising its own veto power. It seems childish for the U.S. to cowrite the rules of the "game" and then complain any time they don't happen to work in America's favor.

el viajero,

Can you explain to me why France had taken the posture nearly a year ago, that the restrictions imposed by the UN against Iraq should be lifted, and now, since the overthrow of Hussein, become steadfast in their resolve to make sure the restrictions are kept in place? It's an ego trip, and theirs was bruised when the U.S. refused to kiss their sorry posteriors. If you're looking for "childish behavior," as you accuse the U.S. of being, you might take a look at the French first.

France is no longer a "super power." In fact, as a nation, they offer little or no significant value to the UN, EU, and NATO. Of course they haven't been of any appreciable value for over a century. They've been nothing more than a piece of real estate that keeps Spain from being an island.

Now that they no longer need the U.S. to keep their sorry arses safe, they turn on us, just like they do every other nation. If we're looking for "arrogance" in a nation, they are the poster boys of the issue.

If you take a look at the record, France is presently involved in three wars on the continent of Africa. Of course they don't get their hands dirty, they hire "mercenaries" to do the fighting. Of course I can understand that reasoning. The French are incapable of handling their own affairs.

I also wonder why a nation would go so far as to elect a President who was a member of the Vichy government so long ago. Apparently they need to cuddle up to the Germans again, because nobody loves them.

By the way. There's a town in Minnesota that used to be named French. They are changing their name to Freedom. I guess that speaks volumes about how most of us view France.

As for their being a "permanent member of the security council," that in itself makes the group a joke.

Wolf

"By the way. There's a town in Minnesota that used to be named French. They are changing their name to Freedom. I guess that speaks volumes about how most of us view France."
And your proud telling us this? Your proud of your promissed land
governeded by extremist cristians who are just as dangerous as Osama
and just as cruel as Saddam when it comes to the treatment of POWS?
Well good for you. Hope you sleep well at nigth. To the rest of America, most of you who are wonderfull imaginative people (You invented my Mac for starts) I send my love and ashure you that you will overcome this dark age of your history.
Totil. Reykjavik.Iceland.

totil,

If this is the Dark Ages here, than the rest of the world would benefit from the Dark Ages. By the way, what's the unemployment rate for Iceland?

Wolf,

I am currently reading Ayn Rand's "Philosophy: Who Needs It" which is a collection of her essays. In 1971, on page 212, Ms. Rand wrote:

"The terrible hoax of the United Nations has failed. Americans were never enthusiastic about that institution, but they gave it the benefit of the doubt for too long. The current polls, however, indicate that the majority have turned against the U.N. (better late than never)."

Parenthesis included by Ms. Rand. I only provide this quote to prove that America has a history of thinking of the U.N. as irrelevant. It is not, necessarily because they disagree with us about Iraq.

Unemployment rate. 3 % or something like that.
What is the relevance?

Come to think of unemployment in Reykjavik the only unemployed guys
I know are Spanish Universety students (funny coinsidence). This is due to a lack of temporal work here rigth now. Dont worry. We are working on it

O yea. And a pro-military English journalist guy with a drinking problem
and an Icelandic x-wife who wants him kicked out of the country for no good reason.
Maybe you have a uniform and a AK47 for him? He is a nice guy .
Maybe you could employ him and let him dig bombshelters in your backyard
or something?

Wolf wrote:

It doesn't matter why. The U.N. is a group effort. You make it sound like everyone has a moral obligation to do whatever the U.S. says, and that any lack of cooperation is suspect.

As opposed to all those "superpowers" that formed the bulk of our "coalition of the willing"?

That's what's nice about debating with some people. All you have to do is let them talk long enough and they'll spout bigoted, posturing garbage that discredits them without help from anyone else.

Gazpacho wrote:

Consider the year: some of that anti-UN sentiment surely came from people in the antiwar movement, who probably considered the UN militaristic. Now the UN is being lambasted for not wanting to blow people up. Hardly the same issue.

el viajero,

It doesn't matter why France is against lifting sanctions on Iraq? Brilliant answer. The Hussein government no longer exists, and it's time to rebuild Iraq with an eye for creating a viable democracy in the region. That doesn't matter to France, or you. Apparently neither of you are above pouting - because you didn't get your way.

France's refusal to budge on any issues dealing with Iraq will only cause more concerns for the UN, and make their involvement in the rebuilding less viable. I can't help but marvel at how there are governments, and people in the world, who would look past the mayhem that a Saddam Hussein has heaped on his own people, and accept a despot as a leader simply by saying, "War is wrong." You mention my being a "racist, and a bigot," while all the while you should be looking in your mirror and seeing who you really are.

If anyone has discredited themselves, it's you, with your posturing, and failure to respond to issues. Instead of offering facts, and details about issues, you skirt them.

You have no idea of what has transpired over the years related to terrorism, and could care less.

I suggest you start by doing a little research on terrorism, and the escalation of the war against the U.S., and Europe, that began many years ago. You'll find the truth in that research.

It wasn't that long ago in this thread that you indicated you couldn't find any online information relating to the link between al-Qaeda and the Hussein regime. In essence, you denied it existed. When I offered a multitude of links where you could begin your research you "conveniently" swept them under the rug, or weren't about to admit that the links exist because it went totally against what your point of view has been. I certainly hope your research ability is better when it comes to the classroom.

You're right about one thing. Your quote. You couldn't have described yourself better.

Wolf

Just a couple of news, these were reported several times by Spanish TV news this latter week:
-Looters have assaulted the Iraki ministry of Health. They have taken away the samples of viruses that were in storage for medical investigation (cholera, AIDS and that). The marines in the area were commanded "to stay away from the building in order to prevent any risk".
Funny, isn`t it? Now those viruses maybe are being auctioned to any psycho killer or terrorist group that wants to play with them. Is this what Bush claims to be "a war against terror"?
-The national library has been burned, then some priceless cultural treasures spoiled for ever. Also the Archaeological museum was looted; it contained lots of remains from ancient Middle East civilizations (Babylon, Ur, Ninive and all that Iraki stuff). The American troops stood around, carefully surveying the looting operation...and doing nothing.
In any case, they protected the oil pits from the very beginning. Priorities are priorities...
-The soldier who shot Palestine hotel claims no one told him that journalists were staying there. The Spanish minister for foreign affairs refuses to condemn the attack.
-The American government has started to point the companies which will make profit from "reconstruction", in a not-too-legal process where, funny enough, former secretaries of state and Pentagon advisors happen to be, in the same time, managers of the chosen companies.
And I can`t believe how can ANY foreigner dare to critizice Iceland, the oldest and most stable democracy in the world, the first Parliament on Earth, the highest quality of life according to all surveys, the best preserved Environment, and so on and on...
By the way, I think Njall`s saga and the Eddas, both Icelandic works of literature, are the BEST ever written.

El Viajero,

Please re-read my post and see if you can help me see where I said that the veto was inherently bad. I think Chirac's use of the veto threat was bad. If one has a veto, and one says "no matter what you say, I will veto" that tends to end debate.

I sort of do agree with Wolf that giving France the veto is indicative of the structural problems that the UN has. Germany is a much more meaningful economy, yet doesn't have a veto. Are we still fighting WW II? But I think the UN's problems are so great that this one doesn't bear worrying about.

Are you forgetting that a group of media organizations (I don't remember them all, but the Miami Herald was one) joined together and spent over a million dollars to finish the count? The final tally indicated that Bush's margin would have been bigger. Doesn't say much for Bush, just that voter's that couldn't follow directions voted for him, too. I won't quibble about the date that the court set. Might have been too soon. But I do believe the court had to set a date or we would still be arguing.

One of the main differences between Americans and Europeans is that a large number here have less patience for long solutions, bureaucracy, and inactivity. Before I get slammed, please understand that I could argue either way for how that impacts quality of life. But for better or worse, we tend to be an impatient people. In commerce that tends to be a good thing, in diplomacy it is occasionally a bad thing. Silicon Valley is in the US. Our president decided 11 years was too long to wait, and most Americans agree, and most Europeans disagree. Maybe we could resurrect Soloman.

I still think the thread is interesting because it highlights many of those differences. I also think we may take ourselves too seriously.

Ernesto

Hey Cristobo,

I can't understand how any foreigner can criticize the U.S. Let's not forget that totil started off by criticizing the U.S. He seems to think that we are undergoing some sort of an "American Inquisition" here. I have never heard the president here described as particularly religious. Again, in Europe, you must be seeing a different side to our country than we see here. The media over here never even shows President Bush going to church, although I'm sure he does.
All the same, I regret that I considered Iceland some sort of backwater socialist state where everyone lives off the dole and producers are taxed in a punitive way, in other words, without freedom. And, as a matter of fact, I am still surprised that it isn't. I'd heard that during the Cold War, they sympathized with the U.S.S.R., which really wasn't such a bad idea, since they are so close to it.
If someone doesn't want their country criticized, then please don't so blatantly criticize the U.S. Some Americans just don't appreciate this.

Cristobo,

What does your latest post have to do with the issue of the war in Iraq? Obviously nothing. You're using it as a "bash post" against the U.S. Why bother? We already know your stance on the issue. U.S. bad! Carrin and far left wing good!

Apparently you don't understand the fact that it's impossible for American troops - or any other troops for that matter - to spend their time protecting everything when there's still bullets flying around. The first order of business is fight the opposition. Of course you conveniently forgot that, or were hoping for more Iraqi civilian casualties, and the deaths of more coalition forces. That would have added more fuel to your POV.

Wolf

Cristobo.
Thank you for your symphaty although I do not agree with you about foreigners not having the right to critize Iceland.
A comparatively small nations as mine needs to listen and learn from foreigners.
That is educated and broad minded foreigners, not militaristic baboons.
We need to listen carefully because being small as we are we can get away with
doing stupid mistakes, like say, supporting the war in Iraq without ever having to take responsebilety for our actions. Traditionally we are a peace loving nation and therefore
many of us are disaponted in our government when it did support Bush/Blair. We should have been
neutral. Nobody here owns a real gun. Why should an American og British youth die in my name?

Gazpacho.
I am saddened by your ignorance.
The Icelandic welfare system is somewhere between US and Scandinavia.
If you ask me I prefer Scandinavia over the USA because so many of you aparantly have to crawl around on your knees and eat dirt just to survive. I prefer a state where hardworking people like me get rich eventually and people who are less furtunate get help because I pay some Taxes.
Yes I will critize USA for ever. Maybe you will have to kill me to silence me?
Be my guest. I will fall with pride and newer raise a hand against you.

totil,

Where on earth did you get the idea that we would want to silence you? You have every right in the world to have an opinion, and speak it, even if we, as individuals disagree. You also have the right to choose Scandinavian countries over the U.S. anytime you want. Rest assured, none of us intend any harm to them or you.

If you read the thrust of our argument, it isn't against people who disagree with us, but people who don't bother to discover the truth about why the U.S. attacked the Hussein regime. If Hussein's minions had attacked Iceland with terrorist attacks, and was intensifying the attacks over a period of time, you could rest assured the U.S. would be right there to help Iceland in their time of need. Even though you personally might not want that, I would imagine the vast majority of people in your fair country would more than welcome the assistance.

As for Americans eating dirt... really now? Don't you think that's a bit "over the edge?" Let's keep it on a level playing field, okay?

Wolf

Wolf,
Thank you for your clearly stated reply.
It seems to me that some of you think that critizing Bush is some kind of terrorist atack on the US. I also detected a almost threatening or at least
patronizing tone in som replies wich I find totally unexseptable. That is why I made these dramatic points.

I agree that my "eating dirt" comment was severe.
I was however appaled to see all the missery going on in your great country when I visited in 1999 and this is not the kind of society I want to see in my land.

I am afraid Hussein had nothing to do with the 11 sept atacks. Hussein was a member of an Arab-socialist party named Bath, historically the oposite of Islam extremists.

Best wishes

Totil,

As always, whatever Wolf states above is my view. Silencing people is only done under socialistic governments and is not an American idea at all. There is an American saying that my Dad taught me, "I don't always agree with the things you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." When you show your ignorance by criticizing the only semi-free country in the world, then I feel obliged to show mine about your country, that's all.
Iceland stands for peace, huh. Well good for you. I'm not for peace if it means that every two-bit terrorist in the world can affect the way I live my life. I can't and don't live my life that way.
I don't know and don't care how the Scandinavian countries choose to live. I am certainly not planning on leaving the U.S. to live in a Scandinavian cradle to grave paradise. You think that having to go to work to pay for the basic necessities of life eating dirt? I rather think that sitting around and waiting for your government to provide the necessities of life eating dirt. Don't worry though, many Americans also feel that they have to mortgage their lives to pay for the less fortunate here. And here, as elsewhere, the poor keep getting poorer.

Gazpacho
Thank you for your clearly stated reply.
Iceland does not stand for anything in particular. Our views are
just as divided as in the US.
Your dad told you beautifull things. I renember this phrase. Lincoln was it?
Sentences like that have earned your natioan the respect it deserves and should defend.

I hope no one in this forum ever meets
a terrorist and that you eventually elect a president that nurtures the respect
your nation deserves.

Now excuse me. I am falling sligthly behind schedule in my work:)

Sincerrely,
totil

Totil, my Icelandic friend,

You are way too gracious in descibing my views as clearly stated. And you are far too accurate in describing my opinions of Iceland as ignorant.
I was living in the U.S. in 1999, and despite of having a morally destitute leader at the time, our country was really doing just fine then. I am interested in what you saw that would make you think differently? There are poor people in the U.S., and homeless people. Our government through the welfare system offers them some alleviation of their misery, but more importantly, our society offers them opportunity.
There is another quaint saying here in the U.S. "The best social program that ever existed is a job." The issuance of government handouts don't restore dignity. It is only by encouraging people to "eat dirt" to improve their lives that our society can restore to them their dignity.

Gazpacho: Yoy say "There is an American saying that my Dad taught me, "I don't always agree with the things you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Unfortunately, it's not an American saying but FRENCH! It's atributed to Voltaire, an "unfaithful" french or should we say "Freedomnite"? Not everything respectable in this world comes from our own country ... we should aknowledge the good things given to us by other "evil" countries.

Totil, some of us really admire the social policies in Iceland and Scandinavian countries. Something they're the 1st in the world.

About the war, I think we'll never convince each other, even in a thousand years. We definitely don't see the same things on TV about it, we don't get the same information, we have received different education and values...

Castiza,

I have never mentioned the French in my post. But I don't believe that France is evil, or even the French government. That they don't support us in the war is thier own business and because of my belief in reality, they will suffer just consequences that will exceed whatever bad adjectives I could come up with for them.
I heard something comical the other day though. Someone said that the only reason France exists is to keep Spain from being an island. I don't agree with this, but it pretty much reflects how we feel about France.

"The gospel of the monarchical patriotism is: 'The King can do no wrong.' We have adopted it with all its servility, with an unimportant change in the wording: 'Our country, right or wrong!' We have thrown away the most valuable asset we had: the individual's right to oppose both flag and country when he believed them to be in the wrong. We have thrown it away; and with it all that was really respectable about that grotesque and laughable word, Patriotism"
Wolf, do you reckon who said the former? One of those evil European commies: a man who was called "traitor" for rejecting the invasion of Philippines, Mark Twain.
Stay awoke, un-americans and reds are hidden behind every corner...
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0413-02.htm

Cristobo,

I can see where you might think that I was a blind patriot, but I can't see why you'd apply it to Wolf. I think that since Wolf was in the Viet Nam war, he'd probably be able to tell you quite a few things wrong with this country, and for that matter, so could I. If our patriotism shows in our post, it's because the anti-war crowd's post strikes us as nothing more that America bashing and we react to that. Would you really like it if I was to bash Spain by repeating horrible moments in it's history or perhaps ridicule it's leadership or customs? Or worse yet to start making ignorant statements about Austuria? I think you know better.
No Cristobo, there are not terrorist and reds hiding in every corner, but there are flaming idiots waiting for the right rationality to hurt someone. Please be reasonable and not make irresponsible statements about our country.

Gazpacho:
No, no, it is YOU who is wrong.
I can understand your view, no matter how much I disagree. Along the debate, you have been able to admit, at times, that the other side may be partially right. You even said that the invasion of Panama was not exactly a good idea!! That means, in my opinion, that you hold your views according to rational standards, instead of prejudice. And thank God, you are not self-righteous at all.
I don`t expect to convince anyone, I don`t want the yanks to say "blame on us, woe to the US, please forgive us". That would be ridiculours. I just expect the other side to admit that my beliefs are not based upon my endless jealousy of your glory, or my [ha, ha] far-left ideas. If you check it, you will see that much hate on Europe, mainly on Germany and France, has been spilled in the thread. Not only America is being bashed...
Really, I don`t feel much proud of Spain. I think we Asturians have been linked to the history of this Castilian empire mainly because our upper class, here in Oviedo, was too lazy and too stupid to build something on their own, and therefore have spent centuries admiring anything that came from Madrid, and scorning anything from the homeland. Spain worked in the same way as the US, only that WORSE, when they had the chance. There is not the slightest moral superiority in Madrid to point at Washington.
When Spain was in the middle of their own colonial wars, in Cuba or Morocco, there wasn`t any courageous voice such as Mr. Twain`s one, to shout the awkward truth: only patriotical speeches.
There have been many leftist Spanish filmakers, all of them stuffed with political correctness; but none of them ever managed to make such a devastating film as "Paths of Glory" against any war. Nor "Apocalypse Now". I think people like Mark Twain, or Mr. Kubrick, are the real glory of America.
And of course, I spit at Izquierda Unida, PSOE and most of the "peace activists" which have been lately triying to get profit in Spain out of the war. I am sure most of them don`t even know what are they talking about.

Cristobo,

Samuel Clemens penned statements related to imperialism from about 1895 on. If you want the whole scope of what he meant, I suggest you read; To the Person Sitting in Darkness, which he penned after the U.S. became involved in the affairs of the Phillipines, during the Spanish/American war. In it, he describes the U.S. taking a page directly out of the book of European nations. We should have left the garrison of Spanish soldiers which numbered about 10,000, to the Filipinos, instead of taking action ourselves. I agree with his statement to that effect, but read the entire statement he made in the aforementioned writing. It wasn't an indictment against the U.S. anymore than it was an indictment against Europe.

Do I agree with what he wrote? Yes. But I'd also mention that was 100 years ago, and dealt with a completely different world. To dig this up as a "cause celeb" related to Iraq is a mute point. If you read his work carefully, one of the things that bothered him most is the religious implications of that era. I don't recall any of us indicating that we are on a "crusade" in Iraq.

I too am anti-Imperialist. Most of us are. Please tell me how you see the intentions of the U.S. in Iraq as being imperialistic? I'm dying to hear this one.

Wolf

Sure, if Jonathan Swift lived today, his "Gulliver" wouldn`t be such a pesimistic book :p
Many things have changed in the last one hundred years, but empires are still empires, and invasions are still invasions, just as ever. And when a country invades another, his goals are as evil and inmoral as they were one hundred years ago. I can`t understand why American imperialistic policies were wrong in the XIX century (Hawaii, Philippines, and that) while in the XXI they are aparently great.
Just as expected, big corporations are now haunting Irak like vultures around a carrion; a former general and current manager of a weapon company is now the governor of the country. And even before food supplies reach the locals, oil pits have begun to pump crude at a rate which is falling the prizes.
Don`t ask me to explain why is THIS imperialistic, Wolf: just read the former twelve screens of this thread, where the reasons are explained. If you don`t understand it yet, I can`t add a iot.
By the way, a nice overwiew on American imperialism in the XXth century:
http://www.bowlingforcolumbine.com/library/wonderful/index.php

Cristobo,

Would you rather have the altruistic U.N. rape Iraq instead of corporate America? The U.N. cronies and their buddies such as the labor party leader of the U.K. have been pillaging Iraq for years. Who would you suggest put Iraq together if not corporate America? Who would be competent? Please don't tell me the U.N. The Germans? The French? Palestine? Al Queda?
One thing I have to agree with you. America has its hands full with post-war Iraq. Even I kind of wonder if anyone had a plan on what to do after we won the war. In a way it is kind of like "winning" the Philippines. After the Spanish-American war, America didn't really know what to do with the Philippines and Cuba, precisely since we are not an imperialistic nation.

Hi all! Long time, no talk. Two pages have gone by since my last visit...but I haven't the time tonight to review them all...

Booklady - you asked the following questions:

"Whom do you refer to as our our European and Arab friends ? What countries specifically? "

"Why do you believe that it will be a healing gesture? And in what ways can it heal the breach between these nations when some hold diametrically opposed values? How can they reach concensus?"

Now I'm reading a sarcastic and jaded tone to these questions. But I'll address them anyway. In MY opinion, Germany, France, Jordan, and Russia are our friends. They reacted quickly and swiftly to shut down Al Queda after 9/11 ... but how quickly our so-called "friends" in the right wing forget. Those countries were there for us in our hour of need. Iraq was no hour of need.

And what do you mean by "diametrically opposed values?" As mentioned above, our allies share a lot of the same interests that we do.

And "how will we ever reach consensus again?" *That* is a good question. With an administration that sees the world in black and white and zero shades of gray, it will not happen.

You brought up a good point about the U.N. and the human rights commission. That is a problem area that I'm sure *everyone* can agree on. But if we refuse to participate in the U.N. I suppose we have no right to complain. Same concept as voting...if one doesn't vote, how can he/she complain? Shall we banish the U.N. to eliminate those nasty voices? Surely we see that the U.N. has averted conflict in the past...is it really time to eliminate the U.N.? Maybe they're harboring WMD in the U.N. headquarters...get 'em!

Isolationism was a great tactic that the Soviet Union and other hard-line communist countries embraced. It's also worked out brilliantly for dictators like Saddam Hussein and Pyongang (sp?). These efforts to close off the U.S. from the rest of the world are a tad hedonistic, don't you think?

Cristobo,

You're right. Empires are still empires, and at the same time, business is still business. The difference is, would you prefer the Iraqi people make decisions on their own behalf, or would you allow Hussein to remain in bed with the Russians, French, and Germans, while flaunting the sanctions that were imposed by the UN?

Your claim that the U.S. intends to make Iraq part of their "empire," is at least pre-mature. At this point, your decision is based on the fact that coalition nation companies are winning bids on rebuilding Iraq. I don't understand why they would be issued to countries that weren't in tune with the regime change, or indirectly supported the Hussein regime. You'd be hard pressed coming up with a reason that these nations should get prime contracts to do the job.

From what I gather, oil flowing out of Iraq will be sold to the highest bidders, and in tune with OPEC pricing. As for the money itself, it would be used to rebuild the Iraqi infrastructure. I see nothing wrong with that. Of course, France, Germany, and Russia have a problem with it, because Iraq owes them billions, and then there's the "under-the-table contracts" they've had with them, in violation of the UN accords, which they stand to lose billions over.

As for compliance with the UN accords, look how many nations were illegally buying oil from Hussein. Can you honestly state that members of the UN didn't know it? That these nations that were getting this illegal oil were operating within the UN accords? Shouldn't these nations be brought up on charges at the UN for violating their own sanctions?

As to my understanding what has been said during this thread, rest assured, I certainly do. I also am aware of the fact that this thread has been used by too many people as a way to bash the U.S., by throwing out statements that aren't supported by facts. You might consider the things you've offered, and tell me exactly where it is that you've indicated that the U.S. could possibly do anything right in relation to the Iraqi issue. I doubt you can, because it's been nothing but anti-U.S. rhetoric that you've posted. You might take a moment to bash the French, Germans, and Russians, for their past deeds, and might consider Syria, and a few other "well intentioned" Iraqi neighbors, who've allowed Hussein to flaunt the UN accords for over a decade. They certainly deserve at least "honorable mention," don't you think? Their illegal purchase of oil certainly fueled Hussein's belief he was safe from attack.

Wolf

thijs,

Hedonistic? The philosopy that pleasure is the principal good in life? What would that have to do with U.S. isolationism?
I think you're totally missing the point. If our association with the U.N. has taught us anything, it's that the world wants to isolate us, not the other way around.
Fortunately, or more likely by design, our strength, philosophical base, and values such as freedom and capitalism, don't make us too vulnerable to world opinion.

Oops, my apologies thijs,

This ignorant right-winger just got a hold of a better dictionary. Under another definition hedonistic means, and I paraphrase "only that which is pleasant is intrinsically good." I see the application.

Hello folks,

Thjs, thanks for your response, I hope you had a nice visit in Spain. And by the way, no, I was being sincere and not sarcastic when I asked you those questions.

Spain? Oh yea! *That's* what this message board was about!

BCN, Bilboa, Figueres, Sitges, all wonderful!

Nope. This thread is in the "Non-Spain Discussion" fora where almost anything-goes. Thanks fer nuttin' for bringing this one back from the dead-and-nearly-buried. Ugh.

I did not read all the posts and am not sure if someone has stated this before but, as good as intellectual discussion/arguing is, I really think that people should stop arguing over the war, and whether it was right nor not, or were you for it because honestly, it's over. I've been to Spain recently and I still heard people critcising tyrant/nazi Bush and Aznar because they went to war but rarely heard discussions about what we can do for Iraq now. Likewise in the States I do not hear much talk about it. I bring it up in discussion and I get pretty much the same response of 'oh yeah we have to let the U.N. form some plan or something'. Maybe I'm hanging around non-intellectuals. I also don't want to pretend that I am going to go to Iraq and help the needy. I do think though we should stop arguing about what happened and discuss what needs to happen. I don't think the thousands of destitute Iraquis without power and drinkable water are really contemplating whether the war was just or not. I think they just want to know what happens next. When we put our minds to a topic it seems like we can create endless discussion and come up with thousands of ideas. Maybe if we put as much energy into talking about what needs to be done rather than snarl at one another a truly good solution could come about for rebuilding Iraq. Whether or not our opinions will matter I can't say, but we could definately bring some positive dialogue to an already pretty bleak situation in Iraq.